37 Burst results for "Justice Roberts"

Fresh update on "justice roberts" discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

00:44 min | 12 hrs ago

Fresh update on "justice roberts" discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Yeah, I mean, because what happens is this giant political apparatus on the left who do, of course, have anti Christian objectives. They come after individuals who don't have the budget or sometimes the legal representation, the political knowledge to fight back on this. I mean, their business owners. They're small business owners who own their own business. It's such an evil thing that they're doing. It seems to me. Now, there might be constitutional law attorneys listening to this that say, wait a second, Liz, you're missing something. But it seems to me to be a very cut and dry case. When you have the First Amendment of the constitution that prohibits the federal government from in any way violating the free exercise of religion and then you have a state whose law prohibits the free exercise of religion in the workplace. That seems to me a very, very obvious ruling that the state is not allowed to do that because the constitution prohibits it. I know states have a lot of leverage when it comes to additional laws that they're allowed to enact on their people. They do have the right to have tighter rules in their state than the federal government is allowed to have at the federal level. But what the states are not allowed to do is they're not allowed to abridge the freedoms that are guaranteed in the constitution. Am I missing something or is this case this obvious? But here's the point, I think. When you don't have the truth on your side, you don't ask yourself, is this right or true? Because you don't care about the truth. You care about power. And so what you do, it's kind of like a criminal. A criminal looks at a bank and says, could we rob the bank? They don't say, is it wrong to get away with that? Can we get away with it? And so in places like Colorado, and this is going on in various ways all around the country and around the world. People look at a situation and they say, well, we don't care about truth. We don't care about right or wrong. We don't care about that. Well, we just care. Can we pull this off? And in places like Colorado, you can pull this. I mean, it's exactly like Putin saying we have a doddering cipher in The White House, could we maybe go into the Ukraine now? What do you say, guys? It's like, yeah, if you don't do it now, it's not going to happen. Is it right or wrong? They're asking, could I do it now? Can I get away with it? Think about what Biden did with the attempt to cancel student loan debt. He knew that was illegal. Nancy Pelosi literally said last year that the chief executive, the president of the United States, does not have the unilateral authority to just erase student loan debt. Nancy Pelosi said that, fast forward this year, right before the election, when they needed to bulk up young people voting in the midterm elections for Democrats, Biden made this promise. You vote for us. I'll give you this free stuff. They knew it wasn't going to stand, but it wasn't until after the election that the court said, oh no, you're not allowed to do that. Well, they'd already collected all of those votes. So it was a question, not of what's right or wrong, not of what's good or bad policy. But what would trick people into voting for them? That's exactly right. And so to me, the states like Colorado, they figure, we can pull this off. And it's like, okay, let them sue us. But in the meantime, we're going to have a chilling effect. We're going to try to bully people and small businesses. And that's basically what they do. But you're right. It is open and shut. All this stuff is open and shut. It's the simplest thing, but these folks don't care about what is right or true or constitutional any more than the head of China cares about, should we morally take over Taiwan or should we enslave the Uyghur? The question is, what can we get away with? Because they don't believe in truth or goodness or anything they believe in power. And that's what we're dealing with and so increasingly now we rely on folks like the heroes that the alliance defending freedom to stand up to this because unless somebody stands up to it, the Supreme Court can't rule unless you come and you go there and you argue. So this should be simple, but maybe Liz when they did not rule as broadly as they might have in the Jack Phillips case, maybe the court was not quite as conservative, maybe now, because of Kavanaugh and the whole coterie of actual constitutionalists, maybe they will rule in a way that is more helpful in the future. Yeah. If I may indulge in a little prediction here, if you look at the makeup of the supreme court, justice Roberts is a squish, but he's actually decent on religious liberty, not perfect, depends on how hot button of a topic it is. He's okay. Amy Coney Barrett, you can pretty much count on Thomas, you can pretty much count on. Pretty much Alito. He's a rock. Alito is another one for this one, though. So that's three and a half, I would say, Kavanaugh, he prefers judicial restraint. He prefers to rule in a very narrow sense. He doesn't want to be a precedent setting justice, at least if you analyze his views. He shares that a little bit with Roberts, Roberts also tries to rule in his narrow way as possible. He's just a little more politically influenced, I think. I think that this case has a good chance of securing a majority in favor of religious liberty, especially because of the masterpiece cake shop because of that narrow ruling because of the cultural backlash that ensued afterward, not that Supreme Court Justices should take that into account, but they're human and we know that they do. Like I said, if I may indulge in a prediction, I think that this could go our way and in a big way. I think it must actually, because it is so black and white, as you were saying in the beginning, it's extremely basic. And it's almost, well, it's not almost. It is shocking. That there are some people who don't get that and who are willing to play this game in places like Colorado. So I hope that it goes well. I mean, listen, we have to restore this republic. I mean, we have, you know, it's kind of like open borders. We've got all these holes that legally speaking have to be the parts of a wall have to be rebuilt because you can't live life in America if you're constantly worrying about somebody coming after you because they don't like you or like your values or whatever it is. Folks speaking of values, we're asking you to go to metaxas talk dot com and click on the CSI banner and free a slave in the southern Sudan. This is literally happening and you can do something about it and we're going to keep asking you to do what you can. We'll be right back with Liz Wheeler..

Colorado Federal Government Nancy Pelosi Biden LIZ Kavanaugh Jack Phillips Putin Alito Amy Coney Barrett Ukraine White House Supreme Court Justice Roberts United States Roberts Taiwan China Thomas
Fresh update on "justice roberts" discussed on Bloomberg Law

Bloomberg Law

01:42 min | 15 hrs ago

Fresh update on "justice roberts" discussed on Bloomberg Law

"Cornell law school professor Michael dwarf about Supreme Court oral arguments over a Colorado website designer who says she has the constitutional right not to design wedding websites for same sex couples. Why did the court take this case? At a time when there's so much criticism of the court and there is fear from LGBTQ and other advocates that they're on their way to trying to get rid of same sex marriage. I think they took it for at least two sorts of reasons. One is that the timing is somewhat accidental. This was an issue that they did want to address in 2017. They punted then and it sort of been around since then. And that was from before the court's decision overruling roe V wade and thus raising the possibility of the overruling of other cases, including obergefell against Hodges, the case recognizing the right to same sex marriage. The second reason, though, I think, is that especially the conservative justices on this court want to limit the scope of LGBTQ+ equality. At least insofar as they see it infringing on conservative religious lifestyles. There is a line in justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the obergefell case in which he says that many people oppose same sex marriage based on honorable and decent religious or philosophical principles. Now, when justice Kennedy wrote that just Alito in dissent, mocked it, is saying, well, sure, you're saying that they're entitled to have these principles. They're just not entitled to act on them, but since then, he and some of the other conservative justices have sort of taken that up as a banner to say, well, if it's decent and honorable then people should be able to opt out that wanting to oppose same sex marriage is not the same thing. It's not morally equivalent to race discrimination. And so they want to sort of carve a hole in anti discrimination law. Indeed, you might even look at just as Gorsuch, who, after all, wrote the court's opinion in the 2020 case finding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are forbidden by the federal employment anti discrimination law that having sort of established his bonus fee days as sort of not a homophobe or a transphobic. In those cases, he now wants to say, but don't worry, I'm going to give something to the other side by giving this carve out or religiously motivated expression or opposition. I've taken you agree that it was a split between the conservatives and the liberals on the court. Yeah, for the most part, the only justice who I thought was really ambivalent that is to say, who thought that there is a legitimate speech issue here, but you don't want to recognize it very broadly was justice Kagan. She seemed to think that there are hard cases on each side of the line. Some of justice Barrett's questions suggested that she would not go quite as far as some of her more conservative colleagues. But for the most part, the court was divided on ideological or political lines. Justice Sotomayor said, ruling for the web designer here would be the first time in Supreme Court history to allow a business open to the general public to refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. So how do the conservatives make a carve out that doesn't characterize this as inviting business to be exempt from civil rights laws? Well, so I mean, she's right, but only because we define that narrowly after all in the hobby lobby case and I believe it was 2013. Of course gave a carve out from statute and regulations requiring the provision of health insurance that covers contraception to religiously motivated business owners. Now, that was in the context of employment rather than public accommodations, but it's also a carve out from anti discrimination law, also based in sort of conservative religious principles. Part of the reason the court would be doing this for the first time, I think, is because it's the first time they're addressing it in this specific context, although I do think justice Sotomayor is right, harkening back to those cases from the 1960s and 70s in which they dismiss the proposed exceptions with respect to race. But I think the answer to the question of how does the court prevent people from perceiving this as them taking sides against anti discrimination law is that they can't. They can't control how their decisions are perceived. I actually would share that perception. I'm sympathetic to the position articulated by justice Sotomayor, but I think this court has shown that they're not all that attuned to or concerned about how the public perceives them. I mean, chief justice Roberts seemed more concerned about that early and his career and maybe still is, but he's lost control of this court. I know you can't get everything from these oral arguments, but what do you see as the result here? I think it's likely that three two three creative and miss Smith is the owner of the web design company will win. I think that chief justice Roberts will either write the opinion himself or try to assign it to one of his colleagues likely justice Barrett or justice Kavanaugh who he thinks will write a somewhat narrow opinion that doesn't open the door to the complete gutting of anti discrimination law, at least not initially, but exactly what distinctions they draw is hard to predict at this point. You know, depending on how they write it, this becomes a question that's going to be litigated over and over, isn't it? It's opening the door. Sure. For the most part, claims like this have lost in the lower courts, but if the web designer wins in the Supreme Court, even in a relatively narrow way, there will then be a large number of cases of this sort, posing all sorts of difficult questions, right? One will be about our florists like web designers if they're not, what about bakers, what about the difference between a bespoke website and one off the rack, right? So there are very many questions that will be left open and as Alexis de tocqueville pointed out in the early 19th century when he visited America in America, the open questions become legal questions and they're all going to be litigated. So then if this decision comes out as you expect it to. What does this mean for LGBTQ rights? It's open season on LGBTQ rights. No, I don't think so. I think it's still going to be true that the vast majority of, let's say, same sex couples looking for wedding services will find them, especially because people tend to clump geographically in places that

Michael Dwarf Roe V Wade Obergefell Justice Sotomayor Gorsuch Cornell Law School Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Justice Kennedy Hodges Alito Barrett Colorado Kennedy Kagan Justice Kavanaugh Sotomayor Miss Smith Alexis De Tocqueville America
"justice roberts" Discussed on WTOP

WTOP

01:45 min | Last month

"justice roberts" Discussed on WTOP

"A hammer in their San Francisco home has been hoarded, ordered, held without bail during a brief hearing this afternoon a lawyer for suspect David Depp entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. Stay with double DT op for more on these stories and just minutes. Other news, chief justice John Roberts has put a temporary hold. On the grind saw every single has put a temporary hold on former president Trump's tax returns to a congressional committee. Today's order gives the Supreme Court time to weigh the legal issues in mister Trump's emergency appeal to the high court without court intervention, the tax returns could have been provided by the Treasury Department and they would have been provided to the democratic controlled House ways and means committee as early as Thursday. Up ahead Ian money news here on WTO. Bell lost 80 points today, where D.C. travelers are flying to. I'm Jeff claypool. It's 6 48. Traffic and weather on the 8s once go to Dave dildine in the WTO traffic center. In Virginia, George Washington Parkway, northbound heavy and slow from the scenic overlooks past fort Marcy toward the broken down pickup before one 23, still blocking the right lane on the way. Northbound on the interloop of the beltway, slow traffic from one 23 toward the pike and the Parkway. Police were sent to an incident near the interloop and GW Parkway exit 43. Maybe on the shoulder now, cameras aren't of much help, but certainly still slow there on the interloop. Heavy on the outer loop from telegraph road to the Wilson bridge, but local and through lanes remain open there. Georgetown pike remains closed between Lee mill road and riverbend road, it's been closed all day long because of emergency utility work, a crash took out a power pole. Eastbound on route

David Depp chief justice John Roberts mister Trump House ways and means committee Ian money Jeff claypool Dave dildine WTO traffic center George Washington Parkway fort Marcy Trump San Francisco Treasury Department Supreme Court WTO D.C. Bell Virginia Georgetown pike Wilson bridge
"justice roberts" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

04:57 min | Last month

"justice roberts" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"WABC. The search is on tonight for the person who shot two cops in Newark earlier this afternoon, authorities say one officer was shot in the leg and the other was shot in the neck, but both are expected to survive it happened in the area of van vassal place and Chancellor avenue as residents watched on scary is really fair. This is crazy. Authorities say officers were trying to execute some kind of warrant when the gunman began firing a long gun most likely from an apartment window or the rooftop of a residential of a residential building, the officers were taken to university medical center at several law enforcement agencies swarmed the streets. An arrest is being made tonight after the double shooting outside leaves Eldon's home and Shirley last month. Officials say 18 year old Noah green is the first person to be charged in the shooting outside his home. Zelda and the Republican gubernatorial nominee says his twin 16 year old daughters were home at the time of the shooting after they heard gunshots and they locked themselves in the bathroom calling 9-1-1. Election day is now just 7 days away. Polls show the race between governor Hulk Hogan and Long Island congressman Lee Zelda toss up. Zelda has been getting help on the campaign trail from the likes of Florida governor Ron DeSantis and Virginia's governor Glenn youngkin. You know, you got Cathy Hogwarts got a bumping along the final term and here comes Lee's album on the outside. Former president Barack Obama is shooting a cam ain't ad for a whole Hillary Clinton hitting the campaign trail for the governor who continues to hand resolve in an abortion and guns. Don't come here today. And tell us that you got a tough on crime plan. That's just soft and squishy on guns. Polls show the races too close to call. The Supreme Court is temporarily delaying the release of former president Trump's tax returns to Congress, chief justice John Roberts today, stop the IRS from turning over years of Trump's financial records to a House committee investigating how the agency audits presidential tax returns. Exit polls tonight showing Benjamin Netanyahu is right wing party showing a razor thin lead in Israel's 5th election and possibly returning him to power, however some analysts say exit polls are often wrong. U.S. senator Chris Murphy wants the federal government to investigate the role of Saudi Arabia played in Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, the Connecticut Democrats citing national security concerns, a Saudi prince helped Musk finance the $44 billion acquisition through a parlay that makes Saudi entities the second largest shareholder in Twitter. A majority of residents in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv are without power and water following Russian air strikes. The Russian missile strike hit the capital and other cities just after 7 a.m. local time, Ukraine's prime minister said the country's air force shot down a number of the missiles and accused Russian forces of targeting critical civilian infrastructure. Jeffrey De Laurentiis deputy U.S. ambassador to the United Nations says Russia's weaponizing food after suspending the agreement allowing Ukrainian ships to safely export grain outside the country. Its actions directly impact low and middle income countries by raising global food prices and exacerbating already dire humanitarian crises and global food security. The city's mayor stated that specialists are working and get water stations back online and advised residents to stock up on water. For 77 WABC news, I'm Frank Diaz. And that's in Steve Nash park ways game three of the World Series tonight. Mike did you know live at the 77 WC sports desk? Yeah, bob Steve Nash fired a day after getting his second win of the season Nash and the nets have agreed to part ways. Nash had a 101 in 76 record as the head coach for the nets. He was the 5th highest paid coach in the league at 8 million a year. Nets expected to hire Celtics head coach in May, udoka, who is currently serving a one year suspension, Brooklyn hosting the bulls tonight. And will be World Series game three also tonight after being rained out yesterday. Affiliates and Astros will give it another go 8 O three first pitch. That series tied at one. NFL trade deadline officially in the books, a record ten trades made at the deadline, jets traded pass rusher, Jacob, Martin, and a 5th round pick to the Broncos for a fourth round pick next year, giants required today. All three local teams in hack all three local hockey teams that is in action tonight rangers host of flyers, aisles in Chicago to play the Blackhawks, Devils out west to play the Canucks. Mike deano, 77 W ABC sports. Thanks, Mike, Mark, that up next, your forecast and the Ramsey miles of weather center tonight and overnight clear low 54 Wednesday, sunny spring like high 70. Time for the stack sparrows galleries precious metals update gold 1648 60 up 3.05 silver 19.7 up 0.06 in platinum 9 51.7 up 6.27. Stack sparrows galleries

van vassal Noah green governor Hulk Hogan Zelda Lee Zelda Ron DeSantis Glenn youngkin Cathy Hogwarts WABC chief justice John Roberts senator Chris Murphy Musk Eldon university medical center Newark Jeffrey De Laurentiis Shirley Benjamin Netanyahu Long Island
"justice roberts" Discussed on WTOP

WTOP

01:43 min | Last month

"justice roberts" Discussed on WTOP

"An opponent of abortion rights are rallying around the nation. Carol Tobias at the national right to life committee thinks Democrats are making a mistake. They seem to think that abortion is their silver bullet. But Jenny Lawson had Planned Parenthood votes says access is one of the top motivating factors for voters. Priest for live's father Frank pavone says the nonprofit supports a band after 15 weeks. It's a point where most people would see it as reasonable. Allison keyes, CBS News. Chief justice John Roberts has put a temporary hold on former president Trump's tax returns, legal analyst, Lori Levinson. Now this may be just a temporary delay, but it's the temporary delay that Trump really wanted. One that takes him past the election. Meantime, the Supreme Court lifted a hold on South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham's testimony in Georgia's investigation on the 2020 election, he'll go before a grand jury in a few weeks. Elon Musk still wants verified users to pay up for those blue check marks, CBS Matt piper. Twitter had Elon Musk now says he'll offer what's called Twitter blue for $8 a month, saying besides a blue verified check mark, users will also get the ability to post long video and get half as many ads. It comes after a back and forth between he and the author Stephen King, who went viral this week by tweeting they should pay me. That exchange was after reports Musk would be charging 20 bucks monthly. Musk responded to king saying, we need to pay the bills somehow. Musk took over Twitter just a few days ago after 6 months of haggling. This is CBS News. Whether it's the news, the traffic, the weather, or your COVID-19 vaccinations. It's important to stay up to date, sponsored by Pfizer and BioNTech

Carol Tobias Jenny Lawson Allison keyes Chief justice John Roberts Lori Levinson national right to life committ Trump Elon Musk Frank pavone CBS News Matt piper Lindsey Graham Twitter South Carolina Supreme Court Georgia CBS Musk Stephen King
Chief Justice Roberts grants Trump temporary hold in dispute over tax returns

AP News Radio

00:35 sec | Last month

Chief Justice Roberts grants Trump temporary hold in dispute over tax returns

"The chief justice of the Supreme Court has put a temporary hold on the handover of former president Donald Trump's tax returns to a congressional committee The order by chief justice John Roberts gets a Supreme Court time to weigh the legal issues in Donald Trump's emergency appeal to the high court which was filed Monday without court intervention the tax returns could have been provided as early as Thursday by the Treasury Department to the democratic controlled House ways and means committee Roberts gave that committee until November 10th to respond

Donald Trump Chief Justice John Roberts Supreme Court Treasury Department Roberts House
"justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:14 min | 2 months ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Political actors because if one judge dies or leaves a court and another judge comes in and all of a sudden the law changes on you, what does that say? You know, that just doesn't seem a lot like law. If it can depend so much on which particular person is in the court, it just seems at that point, like all personal preference. If she spot on here? Well, I think most people would agree with her. And I think chief justice Roberts would agree with her in part, but I think the spectacle of having justice is sparring at each other in public when the speeches is not going to help the legitimacy of the court either. And she's not the first. I mean, judge Alito and judge Thomas has spoken at conferences and try to persuade others of the drift in the court. And the more those kinds of discussions get aired, then the other side wants to take some of that airtime and get some of that press and push back and suggest that a different vision of the court is more appropriate. So I think what justice Kagan says is spot on. I don't think most people would disagree with her. They would just disagree as to the implementation or as to the application of her comments to what the court has done today. Next term, the justices have teed up a lot of controversial cases. On affirmative action, gay rights, the power of state courts over state legislatures, so it could be just as controversial or even more than the past term. Absolutely. And there's also more cases dealing with the president's executive authority as well. And the independent state legislature doctor in case that you mentioned has incredible potential for changing sort of the fairness of federal elections across the whole country because in that case, he's looking at a doctrine that has never been articulated before and was signaled in the shadow docker case that the court wanted to hear challenges based upon the independent state legislature doctrine, which again limits the authority of state courts to tell state legislatures that they air in trying to create districts and methodologies for federal elections. So those are just examples of what's in store for us, but examples again of how the court has not all chief justice Roberts fault, but the court has signaled that it wants to hear certain type of cases. And in areas of affirmative action, chief justice Roberts has long been an opponent of performative action, so he's probably been a supporter of taking the Harvard case in the North Carolina case and in terms of the unitary executive who's logged in and supported the unitary executive. So I do believe he totally is sincere in his belief in the importance of an independent and respected judiciary. But I think he could do more to try to use whatever power and influence he has both to persuade to others on the court to go more slowly, but also that he should himself. Thanks, Hal. That's Harold grant to the Chicago Kent college of law. Coming up. Netflix is sued over its portrayal of a real person in inventing Anna. This is Bloomberg. One 40 circle is bringing together developers and entrepreneurs from around the world. Join us in San Francisco for circles converge 22 from September 27th to the 30th to shape the future of money and a digital asset ecosystem. Go to converge that circle dot com to register and learn more

judge Alito justice Roberts judge Thomas Kagan chief justice Roberts docker legislature Harold grant Chicago Kent college of law Harvard North Carolina Hal Netflix Bloomberg Anna San Francisco
Remembering Kenneth Starr on 'Life, Liberty & Levin'

Mark Levin

01:24 min | 3 months ago

Remembering Kenneth Starr on 'Life, Liberty & Levin'

"Here he was on life liberty and Levine just a few months ago cut 23 go Welcome back America our first guest really needs no introduction but I'll give him one anyway as judge Ken Starr he was a judge from the D.C. Court of Appeals He was solicitor general of the United States independent counsel one of the great legal minds in the country judge star I have a question here Have you ever seen anything like this in your life with a leak first draft with a political party encouraging protests at the homes of justices with at least early on the Department of Justice taking literally no steps to protect these justices What do you make of this No it's been one outrageous thing after another The leak itself was as chief justice Roberts said in his written statement an egregious breach we all know that And I have frankly been very disappointed that there hasn't been anonymity in the condemnation of the leak as opposed to simply ignoring it And then yes the protests outside the different homes but especially justice Alito's home is really another outrage and one that just cries out for the government to use for the federal government to use its enforcement power You identified the law It's a criminal law It's been on the books for a long time and it should be enforced It should be faithfully enforced

D.C. Court Of Appeals Ken Starr America Levine Justice Roberts Department Of Justice Alito Federal Government
"justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:31 min | 5 months ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"I think that's basically right. I would add some other philosophy on that. One is that the very fact of the leak might have affected the dynamic. There is still no good answer to the question of who leaked this and why. But one of the leading hypotheses is that it was somebody who wanted to hold the other conservatives to justice Alito's opinion and the thought was that if they leaked it, then there wouldn't be a defection. I don't know whether that's true or not. But if it is, that could be part of the explanation. I think a bigger piece of the explanation is that chief justice Roberts didn't really offer that much of an alternative. You read his opinion and he says, well, we can uphold the Mississippi ban, but we don't need to say where the line is Are we just going to get rid of viability? And we'll do something else eventually. I think for the justices who might have been amenable to some sort of compromise in the theory was that justice Kavanaugh was the most likely one. He didn't really get something that looked like a real alternative. What he got was well, let's wait and see. And I think that that was just not enough for him. I do realize that chief justice Roberts is basic orientation is towards wait and see right is not necessary to decide a question it's necessary not to decide the question he actually says that in his concurrence in the dog's case. But that's a sort of procedural posture. It's not an alternative substantive compromise. Looking at the reasoning of the majority in these 6 to three cases in the hot button issue cases. Can you describe in general the theory that the conservative majority used to come to their conclusion? Was it textualism originalism? It certainly wasn't the living constitution. Well, so first we wanted to distinguish between constitutional cases and statutory cases. So the big constitutional cases are, of course, the abortion decision brewing, the Second Amendment case, and then two of the three main religion cases, although the big ones, Kennedy against Bremerton and the main case involving the subsidies for the religious schools. I have to interrupt you, Mike, coming up will continue this conversation and find out more about the reasoning behind these decisions. This is Bloomberg. The

justice Roberts justice Kavanaugh Alito Mississippi Bremerton Kennedy Mike Bloomberg
The Chief Stands Alone: Roberts, Roe and a Divided Supreme Court

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

01:30 min | 5 months ago

The Chief Stands Alone: Roberts, Roe and a Divided Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court came out on Friday with the expected but nevertheless bombshell decision overturning roe versus wade. I mean, that was the real meaning of the decision, the immediate focus was on the Mississippi law, which essentially outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. And there was one justice as it turns out the chief justice, Roberts, who wanted to sustain role, but in a sense limited. He wanted to uphold the Mississippi law and say in effect that, yeah, you do have an abortion right. States, in other words, can't regulate abortion for the first 15 weeks, but after that, they can. And what's really interesting is that this was a kind of middle position that Robert was hoping to sell, you may say, vote to the left and to the right. Oddly enough, I both sides gone along with it. You would have had a different outcome. But neither side was interested in it. In fact, I remember when Elizabeth Prada, the solicitor general, was arguing the case. She said there's an old middle ground. She goes, look, either you uphold row and the Casey decision, Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Or the whole thing falls. And I guess the court decided let it fall. So the only guy who's trying to sustain this middle ground was, in fact, was in fact

Mississippi Wade Supreme Court Roberts Elizabeth Prada Robert Casey
Justice Alito: There Is No Constitutional Right to Abortion

The Dan Bongino Show

00:55 sec | 5 months ago

Justice Alito: There Is No Constitutional Right to Abortion

"Today in an opinion by justice Alito joined by four other members of the court it was concurred with by noted invertebrate justice Roberts who said well I wouldn't have overturned roe I would have just upheld this law He got rid of roe V wade got rid of case He said very flat out they are overruled There's no debate about that There is no constitutional right to abortion State legislatures here you go All on you This is a great day Now this is not the end of the abortion fight not by a long shot The battlefield has just changed The battlefield has changed from the federal courts where we argue about what an undue burden according to Casey On a woman's right to abortion is No no no Now it's back to the legislature back to the ballot box Where it belongs

Justice Alito Roe V Wade Roberts Casey Legislature
SCOTUS Rejects Maine's Ban on Tuition Aid to Religious Schools

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:24 min | 6 months ago

SCOTUS Rejects Maine's Ban on Tuition Aid to Religious Schools

"Let me begin with the rundown. The Supreme Court yesterday, again, again, for maybe the third time in four years. Told every single government entity in the United States, it may not discriminate against religious individuals, institutions, or programs, in particular we have repeatedly held that a state violates the free exercise clause of the constitution, when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits. That's the chief justice Roberts, writing for a 6 to three Supreme Court ordering the state of Maine that their scholarship student scholarship program for students who must lead the county. Because there is no secondary school. In far away, north Maine, way up in the Woods. There are many counties that do not allow do not have secondary schools. There aren't enough students to justify the cost of the expense, and so they just give a voucher to every high school student, the state of Maine gives every high school student in the north of Maine that the west of Maine, the tree of Maine, this one giant forest, with some people living it, they each get a voucher and they go off to prep school and go to any school they want. Except Maine said you can't go to a religious school, and the Supreme Court said, that's unconstitutional, and I've been predicting that's unconstitutional for an entire year because I teach con law. I teach at First Amendment seminar.

Maine Supreme Court North Maine Justice Roberts United States
Kathryn Kolbert: Roberts Would Not Divert Others From Overturning Roe

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:29 min | 6 months ago

Kathryn Kolbert: Roberts Would Not Divert Others From Overturning Roe

"So the argument is going to be Roberts does tend to like a middle ground. And the chief justice has indicated in the past that the pivotal issue for abortion rights may be whether a pregnant person has a pregnant person, says Politico ever the woke ever the woke publication, whether a pregnant person has sufficient I can't believe I'm reading that. Has sufficient opportunity to get an abortion, not the age of the fetus. Roberts has said, there is a point at which they've had the fair choice opportunity to choice. Why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? So in other words, Politico is reporting, and I think it's probably just a theoretical argument. But he only needs one other conservative and attorney Catherine Colbert who argued at the high court for the abortion rights side in case C three decades ago predicted on a recent podcast that she sees no way justice Roberts diverts his colleagues from their increasingly intense desire to overturn roe. Not a chance in hell. She said bluntly. Well, we'll see. I'll believe it when I see it.

Roberts Politico Catherine Colbert High Court
Caller Suspects Justice Roberts Is the Leaker

Mike Gallagher Podcast

00:44 sec | 7 months ago

Caller Suspects Justice Roberts Is the Leaker

"I'm gonna be honest. I think Robert is the leaker. Who's gonna check the investigator? Right. He's done some really crazy stuff in the past who's to say that he's not floating this out there just to get an idea and say, yeah, I'm gonna investigate myself. Well, that's what Nina totenberg. We have the Nina tomberg cut guys. That's what she said on NPR will play that for you a little bit later. Nina totenberg veteran reporter over at national public radio, she thinks it's a conservative law clerk. Who knows? But again, of course, that would be a misnomer because no one would ever describe John Roberts as a conservative.

Nina Totenberg Nina Tomberg NPR Robert John Roberts
Is Overturning Roe v Wade a Radical or Conservative Choice?

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:20 min | 7 months ago

Is Overturning Roe v Wade a Radical or Conservative Choice?

"This is Tina. Tina says, quote, Charlie, I read a column of one of my conservative Friends shared on Twitter. That was written by someone on the right apparently said overturning roe versus wade wasn't conservative. Okay, so this is a column by Brett Stevens, who used to be a really smart person and he's just become almost unreadable in recent years. And this Brett Stevens now writes for The New York Times. And Brett Stevens wrote this for The New York Times. Overturning roe is a radical, not conservative choice. Now he calls himself a conservative, he's just about the same type of conservative as Bill kristol. That should tell you everything you need to know. Dear chief justice Roberts, justice Barrett Gorsuch Kavanaugh and Thomas, as you'll no doubt agree roe versus wade was an ill judged decision one was handed down January 22nd, 1973. It continues by saying, roe versus wade diminished the standing on the court by turning it into an even more political branch of government. But a half century is a long time. America is a different place, with a most of its population born after Rowe was decided. After a decision to overturn roe, which the court seemed poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion by justice Samuel Alito, would do more to replicate gross damage than to reverse it. He says it would be a radical, not conservative choice. So Brett Stevens, who I assume is very highly educated. I would like him to tell me what is the definition of radical. It means to the root to the core. To the basis. Brett Stevens asks the question in The New York Times. What is conservative, he says? It is above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for their law and institutions established to uphold it. And especially when those changes are instigated from above with neither Democrat consent, nor broad consensus. Okay, that is not what a conservative is, okay? If there is an immoral or destructive law, a conservative has a moral obligation to try to repeal it and get rid of it quickly.

Brett Stevens Tina ROE The New York Times Barrett Gorsuch Kavanaugh Wade Roe Versus Wade Bill Kristol Justice Roberts Justice Samuel Alito Charlie Twitter Rowe Thomas America
President Biden Responds to SCOTUS Leak

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:53 min | 7 months ago

President Biden Responds to SCOTUS Leak

"Let's go to Joe Biden, cut number 5 in The White House. Change the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can't be in classrooms with other children. Is that legit under the way that the decisions are written? What are the next things that are going to be attacked? Because this mega crowd is really the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history. In recent American history. Let's just unpack that. First of all, put aside the Ku Klux Klan, put aside the Nazi sympathizers, put aside the John birch society, put aside antifa, put aside the January 6 protester, the maga kraut. In reference to the Supreme Court decision by 5 justices, three of whom were nominated by president Trump, all of whom were distinguished jurists long before president Trump came down the escalator as candidate Trump. And of course, the chief justice and clarence Thomas had been on the court for a very long time in justice Alito was a George Bush appointee as well. W Bush appointee. And I'd be sure that that HW Bush, let me George W. Bush appointee. And I'm just here to he came up after Harriet Meyers with withdrawn. So it's cheap justice Roberts than justice Alito. I'm just sure to tell you, the uniter in chief, that's just not true. This is such an over the top comment that, again, it's like the Pope saying NATO is responsible for invading Russia. Maga is the most extreme. And by the way, LGBTQ children, I understand some children so identify, I also understand that no teacher in America would ever separate them and they also understand that that would fail rational basis review. It is the reddest of herrings I have ever heard. It's the stupidest thing I've actually ever heard Joe Biden say.

President Trump Joe Biden John Birch Society Alito Hw Bush George Bush White House Harriet Meyers Clarence Thomas Supreme Court Donald Trump Bush Roberts Maga Nato Russia America
"justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

04:18 min | 7 months ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"And can not do with her own body How dare they How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future Vice president Harris called on voters to elect Democrats who support legal access to abortion meanwhile Kerry severino president of the conservative leaning judicial crisis network said the Supreme Court should respond to the league by releasing the opinion now We should just put this opinion out At this point I don't know how much editing the court wants to do anyway when you have a situation where people are going to be effectively comparing a red line version of the original and the result Severino speaking to ABC responded to chief justice Roberts saying the leak of the draft decision is a betrayal Venture capitalist JD Vance won a crowded Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seated Ohio Vance endorsed by former president Donald Trump now faces U.S. representative Tim Ryan who easily won the democratic Senate primary yesterday The November general election is to replace retiring Republican senator rob Portman Russian forces have unleashed artillery fire on towns in eastern Ukraine killing and wounding dozens of civilians and began storming the bombed out steel mill in mariupol Meanwhile the leader of the EU called on the 27 nation blocked the ban Russian oil imports European Union president Ursula von der leyen We will make sure that we phase out Russian oil in an orderly fashion So in a way that allows us and our partners to secure alternative supply routes and at the same time be very careful that we minimize the impact on the global market the EU's Ursula von der leyen rolled out their 6 package of sanctions against Moscow Live from the Bloomberg interactive broker studios This is global news 24 hours a day on air And on Bloomberg quicktake powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts more than a 120 countries Michael Barr this is Bloomberg Tom Paul Discuss Tom Brady is going to play the Seattle Seahawks at Tampa Bay Yeah we call him the Tom Brady's immune Germany really On November 13th I believe that's true Yeah We are now taking the NFL to Germany To London and Germany Did they ever go to Asia I can't remember No I don't think so but they've been in Mexico They have been to Mexico City But discuss the thinking here Bloomberg businesses sports Well we're going to take that in the National Football League One day and turn it to a W because I can see the world football league We keep going around travels the thing I want to see how this is going to turn out Let's say years down the road when I have like one gray hair in my head And I'm talking about this one here Will we see a global football league And that could happen I mean they tried it years ago Remember the world football league they tried something like that Okay Yeah The Tom Brady's are zero and three international They lost to the Patriots in O 9 I lost a Brady probably Bears 2011 Caroline Panthers I don't see the Detroit Lions here anywhere I guess they don't have a big draw This season we are going to see big crowds man At Ford field It is so mad We are going to be a problem this season I loved it They want it Is this what are they doing It's a dalliance to go international Do they really want to play like permanently international There's money There's all that money in there If you go worldwide and there's an appetite for it there's money Okay That's it I don't know Thank you In Munich Germany That's a good town Yeah sure Okay Michael birth thank you so much Bloomberg business of sports always interesting Futures it's a churn If it's been a cheering folks for two days futures up 7 eat a NASDAQ green on the screen a Bitcoin 39,000 I never quote Bitcoin There it is Alan leiner.

Ursula von der leyen Vice president Harris Kerry severino Severino JD Vance senator rob Portman mariupol Russian oil imports European U Tom Brady Senate justice Roberts Tim Ryan Michael Barr Tom Paul Germany EU Donald Trump Vance Supreme Court ABC
"justice roberts" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

01:50 min | 7 months ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

"The Supreme Court's decision in the Dobbs case was evidently not due to be released for another two months. But a leaker somewhere in the court. And by the way, this could not have come from anywhere. There are very few people who know. Not only about the courts in their deliberations and the outcome, the kind of votes stack between on the decision 5 to four, but have a copy of the decision draft itself. The draft document, in this case, written by Alito. Now, let me explain why Alito, you might think, well, why not, why not justice Roberts? Well, the way these decisions work is that if the chief justice is in the majority, he typically writes the decision. So what this means is that the 5 four majority does not include Roberts. Now I'll talk about Robertson a minute because evidently Roberts has been reported. Again, I'm amazed this information is even coming out. That Roberts actually wanted to uphold the Mississippi law. So he wanted to find that past 15 weeks Mississippi could in fact outlaw abortion, but he did not want to overturn roe versus wade flat out. He didn't want to just return the matter to the states because remember, if you return the matter to the states, the state can pass a law, heartbeat bill that makes abortion illegal after 5 weeks. So after 6 weeks. So Robert seemed to be drawing the 15 week line of demarcation and saying that beyond that, you can regulate abortion, but before that maybe he was going to argue I say maybe because none of us have seen his dissenting decision, but apparently he was not dissenting flat out. He was in partial agreement with the majority, but he was not willing to go all the

Roberts Alito Mississippi Supreme Court Dobbs wade Robertson justice Roberts Robert Politico FBI Sotomayor Texas
SCOTUS Leak: What We Learned About Chief Justice Roberts

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

01:50 min | 7 months ago

SCOTUS Leak: What We Learned About Chief Justice Roberts

"The Supreme Court's decision in the Dobbs case was evidently not due to be released for another two months. But a leaker somewhere in the court. And by the way, this could not have come from anywhere. There are very few people who know. Not only about the courts in their deliberations and the outcome, the kind of votes stack between on the decision 5 to four, but have a copy of the decision draft itself. The draft document, in this case, written by Alito. Now, let me explain why Alito, you might think, well, why not, why not justice Roberts? Well, the way these decisions work is that if the chief justice is in the majority, he typically writes the decision. So what this means is that the 5 four majority does not include Roberts. Now I'll talk about Robertson a minute because evidently Roberts has been reported. Again, I'm amazed this information is even coming out. That Roberts actually wanted to uphold the Mississippi law. So he wanted to find that past 15 weeks Mississippi could in fact outlaw abortion, but he did not want to overturn roe versus wade flat out. He didn't want to just return the matter to the states because remember, if you return the matter to the states, the state can pass a law, heartbeat bill that makes abortion illegal after 5 weeks. So after 6 weeks. So Robert seemed to be drawing the 15 week line of demarcation and saying that beyond that, you can regulate abortion, but before that maybe he was going to argue I say maybe because none of us have seen his dissenting decision, but apparently he was not dissenting flat out. He was in partial agreement with the majority, but he was not willing to go all the

Roberts Alito Dobbs Supreme Court Mississippi Robertson Wade Robert
Supreme Court Confirms Leaked Abortion Draft Is Authentic

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:33 min | 7 months ago

Supreme Court Confirms Leaked Abortion Draft Is Authentic

"Breaking now on the Mike Gallagher show, while the Supreme Court has issued a response to the report of this draft opinion, chief justice John Roberts strongly condemning the leak to the press in a brief message, the court acknowledged that the leaked document is real. So so much for my buddy Mark Davis theory that it was fake. By but noting that it is just a draft, the court has not issued a final decision on the matter. The court said, just quote, justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the court's confidential deliberative work, although the document described in yesterday's reports is authentic. It does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case. Roberts also issued a statement, he announced that he has called upon the marshal of the court to investigate the situation and find the source who leaked the document to Politico. Justice Roberts also spoke out against the notion that the leak could succeed as a political maneuver to influence the court. Roberts said to the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed the work of the court will not be affected in any

Chief Justice John Roberts Mike Gallagher Mark Davis Supreme Court Roberts Justice Roberts Politico
What Is Chief Justice John Roberts's Endgame Here?

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

02:14 min | 8 months ago

What Is Chief Justice John Roberts's Endgame Here?

"What's justice Roberts's game? I asked us because there's a new decision just out from the Supreme Court. Our side wins 5 to four, but why 5 to four? Shouldn't it be 63? It turns out that I've laid were winning a lot of these decisions 5 to four. And what that means is that justice Roberts is for whatever reason and we'll look at the reason in a moment, tilting on the liberal side almost as if to sort of balance out the scales. And this latest decision is not a very important decision on its merits, but it's just important for what it shows about the court. The court is actually making an emergency ruling here. In other words, it's operating out of what's called its emergency docket. And the issue here is whether states and we're talking mainly about democratic states. Can restrict projects, these are actually water projects under the clean water act because they claim that these projects are environmentally risky and unhelpful. So in other words, what we're dealing with here is the authority of democratic states to have their own in a de facto veto of federal projects by saying, yeah, we're not going to take that one because that one is going to create too many strip malls in California or this one is going to this hydroelectric project or this oil and gas pipeline is going to be bad for our state. So normally when there are federal laws, the states don't get to override them. And in this case, the states want to have that power. And so Republicans in those democratic states filed lawsuits. And those lawsuits were crawling their way up the courts and so they appealed to the Supreme Court to issue an emergency ruling that basically blocks these democratic states from having this kind of override. In other words, for reinstating a Trump administration rule that basically said the states do have to conform in this respect to federal law under the clean water act.

Roberts Authority Of Democratic States Supreme Court California
The Larger Significance of the NPR-Sotomayor Story

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

02:46 min | 11 months ago

The Larger Significance of the NPR-Sotomayor Story

"I'd like to talk about the larger significance of this NPR story about the Supreme Court and masking. I wasn't going to cover the story. I thought it was kind of dumb. But Debbie's like, no, people are talking about it. You should cover it, and I want to do it in a way that draws out. What's really going on here? Because you see the essence of fake news. And it started out with Nina totenberg, the kind of longtime court reporter of NPR. Saying the following, she said that according to sources at the court Sotomayor did not feel safe in proximity to people who were not masked. Nina told mug reported that justice Roberts, understanding that, quote, in some form as the other justices to mask up. And then says tort, they all did, except Gorsuch, who as it happens sits next to Sotomayor on the bench, is continued refusal to do so has meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justice weekly conference in person, joining by telephone. Now, this article was just picked up because it suggested this kind of, wow, even at the Supreme Court, you've got all this insider Garfield going on over masking. So right away, CNBC was all over at MSNBC, CNN, and then of course all the pundits began to weigh in. He has made a Hassan. Why is it that the public figures on the right who claim to be pious Christians and believers and morality and decency turn out to be awful awful people? So you got the statement and then all the speculations on top of the statement presuming, of course, the statement to be true. And then justice Roberts put out a statement basically saying I never asked the other justices to be masked, boom. And after that, this was even more unprecedented. There was a statement that came out from Sotomayor and Gorsuch. So what are my says? I never asked that gore such be masked. I never, I never made that requirement. Gorsuch said I never heard anything of this sort from the chief justice has never been any such rule. The whole story was made up. The whole story was lies. Now, the killer. Here's a Nina totenberg tweeting after all this after three statements think of the how unusual it is for three justices of the court to come out and directly dispute all of them, saying the same thing and say meeting Nina totenberg's reporting as follows. You think she'd be like eating crow, right? No. Quote, NPR stands by my reporting. In other words, the three justices are liars. Either that, or some analysts have tried to cover her by saying that in an original report, she said that the judge Roberts quote in some form as the justice system makeup as though in some form means he didn't really. He just sort of implied

Gorsuch Nina Totenberg Sotomayor Justice Roberts Supreme Court NPR Debbie Nina Garfield Cnbc Msnbc Hassan CNN Gore Roberts
Chief Justice Roberts Receives Highest Approval Rating Among Federal Leaders: Poll

Mike Gallagher Podcast

00:34 sec | 1 year ago

Chief Justice Roberts Receives Highest Approval Rating Among Federal Leaders: Poll

"Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts holds the highest approval rating of all senior leaders in the U.S. this according to a new Gallup poll that was released yesterday. More than half of Americans hold a favorable view of Roberts, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, and director, get this now. You ready? Director of the national Institutes of allergy and infectious disease, doctor Anthony Fauci. That was a surprise he Fauci is even more popular. Than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jerome Powell Supreme Court National Institutes Of Allergy Federal Reserve U.S. Roberts Anthony Fauci Fauci Joe Biden Kamala Harris
Jenna Ellis Tells Us What's on the Docket for the Supreme Court

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:35 min | 1 year ago

Jenna Ellis Tells Us What's on the Docket for the Supreme Court

"I'm talking to my friend Jenna Ellis about the news of the day. We're talking about fear mongering. We're talking about vaccine mandates. Can you give us an update since you know a lot about the Supreme Court on what lies ahead? Because it is interesting to have a majority of people that we would consider actual constitutionalists. What do you suppose will happen in the next term? Yeah, it's going to be really fascinating. The new term started October 4th and there are already a few cases on the docket that are going to be argued into November and December that are going to have huge implications on religious liberty on abortion in the United States and on the Second Amendment. They've actually taken up the first Second Amendment case since 2008. And the District of Columbia versus Heller decision. So that'll be interesting and before we get into a couple of these cases, you mentioned, you know, we actually have a majority that are constitutionalists. Well, first, I hope so. And I don't categorize justice Roberts at all. Oh, I was talking about. So we hope to make me laugh. Have at least a 5 four. But what a lot of people say is, well, you know, you're just as activist than as the Democrats. We know that's not true because wanting a conservative majority means we actually understand what the judicial branch is designed for, which is to hold accountable the two political branches and to make sure to preserve and protect our world. Look, we've gotten trapped into this kind of language. The fact of the matter is, if you are not a constitutionalist and originalist, in my mind, you're an

Jenna Ellis Supreme Court Heller District Of Columbia United States Roberts
"justice roberts" Discussed on The Al Franken Podcast

The Al Franken Podcast

04:21 min | 1 year ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on The Al Franken Podcast

"Yeah we'll be a theater okay so this capture now of on top of regulatory capture Capture just explain if you will some of the results of that and why they're crippling us. Well one of the results. I wrote a paper that backstopped all of this just not making this all up off the top my head. We looked at all the supreme court decisions that were decided. Five to four with all of the republicans on one side the winning side of the five to four and it turned out under chief justice roberts over seventy two of them which is a lot of supreme court decisions and when we looked at the seventy two of them we noticed that the five to four partisan decisions have one other feature which was there was a pretty obvious republican donor interest. That anybody with the least political sense could figure out was in fact a republican donor interest. And then the really telling fact was that of the seventy two five to four partisan republican decisions with a republican donor interest. In the case they won them seventy two zero it throw a few bones to the other side try to cover their tracks seventy two zero and then they ran up the scored at eighty after my article. Joe it's eighty two nothing route for big republican donor interest and we kinda slept through of the eighty five. Four decisions are republican sessions. Yuck eighty two eighty zapped quite a score quite a score. Yeah and some of them are big ones that everybody knows you know like shelby county. Oh boy undid the recurrence provision citizens united that let unlimited corporate money into politics There are some famous stinkers like that. But when you're up to eighty you're gotta go well past the famous stinkers and you gotta start looking at patterns. And what they're out to do and how they're doing it. And what their targets are. Why the same side always needs to win Just the pattern itself of eighty five to four partisan decisions. Eighty two zero.

chief justice roberts supreme court shelby county Joe
The Obamacare Decision by SCOTUS Shows They Are Cowards

Mark Levin

01:54 min | 1 year ago

The Obamacare Decision by SCOTUS Shows They Are Cowards

"The obamacare decision by the Supreme Court today is expected. And I'll tell you why not, for reasons so called legal analysts have to say. Because once these unconstitutional laws take hold They're almost impossible to undo. So the Supreme Court by 5 to 4 with Justice Roberts, the chief justice, flipping Wasn't 12 years ago. Turning into a tax case. He wrote The, uh, really the the law into, uh And for two forever Ville. And so no challenge will ever upset it. And Justice. Alito's dissent was brilliant. Gorsuch joined with him. We got all this head counting going on on T V. You know what? But they don't get at any of the substance, of course. This was a tax case. That's what the Supreme Court turned it into. And then when the tax issue Was repealed on the individual mandate by Congress. Suddenly, it's not a tax case anymore. Suddenly it's a standing case. So the Supreme Court turned itself three times. Now on this law, Obamacare into a pretzel. And those lawyers who really are not constitutional lawyers, but maybe their former federal prosecutors or former defense lawyers. Maybe I don't know. Former bankruptcy laws or whatever this is how they use their green eyeshades. And so that's that's not what's going on here. These justices are demonstrating over and over and over again. What a bunch of cowards there. Comey Cavanaugh really, so far disasters. Hopefully, that will change over

Supreme Court Gorsuch Justice Roberts Ville Alito Congress Comey Cavanaugh
"justice roberts" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

WCBM 680 AM

04:10 min | 1 year ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

"And last night we went a speechifying. The president of United States entered the hall. Okay and women. Every member of Congress. Must be vaccinated. Before they can show up in Congress. Every member every senator Every member of the house. You must have your vaccination. Apparently, this is not optional. So why were they prevented from having everybody there? If they've all had their vaccinations. And the chances Anybody who has had their vaccination and go on the requisite was a 2 to 4 weeks. Whatever it is Afterwards they're protected. You can't give it to them. They can't give it to you. But for theatre's sake, and that's what it was for theatre's sake. I'm sorry. Only one Supreme Court Justice. Justice Roberts, you have the seat of honor. Only 50 Republican cars, People and 50, Democrat Congress to people and 50 senators from each party. That's it. So 335 Congress, people were left out. On And one Supreme Court justice. What you telling me somehow that the lives of the senator's You're willing to put them at risk? Because you have all the senators there, But the logic is you can't have a full house because after all issue have a full house. Then what? That minuscule chance actually occurs. And somebody actually gets covert 19. Well, first of all, what the science says is If they do, it's not gonna be much. You know, they're fully facts in it. And they get covert 19. Okay, they get over 19 that I'll get over it. And that's pretty much the way it goes. But you can't be there 335 members of Congress because you ruined the theater. I mean, this is this is performance. That's what is this was like a like a really rich guys Performance theater. Joe Biden has become very, very wealthy. During his half century in government service. Yeah, I wonder how that happened. Got up there. Talk with a bunch of other people were getting very, very wealthy while in government service But of course For the hoi polloi. Not the cover of Shanti there, There's a smarty pants, guys. But for us they had to have the theater. Well, as you see, Bob. We don't have as many people in the gallery today as we usually would. Because off covert 19 and then long discussion as to exactly how many the number 50 represents. And based him. And then you have 50. People come in, and then another discussion on exactly who's wearing what As you see any global car is wearing a stunning red off it. Which is unusual because she's in Democrat and most of the other Democrat women are wearing blue. Is this a signal that any club car's considering becoming a Republican? Or was her one blue suit the cleaner and I have that debate. It was theater. And if if I were a theater critic I would say. I'm sorry. You're not going to get through. Tryouts. You're not gonna actually ever open that show because it was the most boring. Tedious speech I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through another. You Of course, after his 1st 100 days of roughly one outrage a day. We have the list. You know Gary Bauer put it together. Then you know what we're facing now is another 100 days. And another 100 days and another 100 days..

Gary Bauer Joe Biden Bob 50 senators 2 Democrat Congress 100 days 335 members each party 1st 100 days today last night 4 weeks 50 Justice 335 Republican one Shanti
NCAA has its day in Supreme Court

The Paul Finebaum Show

01:51 min | 1 year ago

NCAA has its day in Supreme Court

"We were about to check in with with rick harrow. Who is our sports business. Expert and rick great to have you back lost you a minute ago. Glad you're back. And i don't know when we've had more legal questions on a sports show but with the supreme court argument yesterday the nfl bill Making the rounds. Who better to talk to than you. Harvard law graduate for those. Who don't know rick went to law school with chief justice roberts. I believe they even were roommates at one time. And rick. thank you for joining us. Enlighten us What's give us the lowdown on what you picked up from yesterday's hearing we were both chicago bear fan. It was abysmal. It was a terrible time. Oh not not the way. We roomed in went to talk about. Nfl stuff so you know. Look the bottom line is there is much more these days than we've had before the nfl. Name image likeness ruling. The allston case will Way to decide how far the ncaa gets to govern this. And ironically when you talk to some of the big time athletic directors all over college Sports they've been trying to figure out how to govern power five as you know versus everybody else versus division two in three verses the other sports versus title nine. They're all bunch of level of financial commitment. And you gotta cover all of them the name image likeness stuff doesn't just involve the top marketable player in college football or basketball. Every year trickle down to all five hundred thousand student athletes in the ncaa men and women so it is not an easy decision. Remember the ncaa. Mark everett last year said. We're going to do it. We both knew the devil was in the details. And it's a big devil.

Rick Harrow Rick NFL Justice Roberts Supreme Court Harvard Allston Ncaa Chicago Mark Everett Basketball Football
"justice roberts" Discussed on 710 WOR

710 WOR

08:56 min | 1 year ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on 710 WOR

"Every February now for the last couple years have been impeaching. Donald Trump. It's an annual thing like the Golden Globes and the This is impeachment Week. This week, they're promising. New evidence will be presented today. Joe Bartlett. What would that new evidence be? I don't know. I think we've seen it all. No one knows what this new evidence, but that's what they're saying. New evidence will be. Uh, now they say, you know they're in trouble right away. Because that issued this statement that the argument that this is unconstitutional is a joke. All right. First of all, bottom line. This tells you everything you need to know in any impeachment. The judge is the chief justice of the Supreme Court. He presides over impeachment hearing. That's the rules. That's the way it is. That's the way it's always been every impeachment chief justice of the Supreme Court presides US. The judge. You'll notice in this one. There's no chief justice of the Supreme Court. Obviously, they asked Roberts and he said, This is a joke. It's not constitutional. This is a silly, ridiculous thing. He refused to participate in this. The fact that the Supreme Court justice chief Justice Roberts refused to get involved with this. That says it all That tells you everything so Do we know attendance starts is at noon that they start this one o'clock. Oh, good. One o'clock. Yeah. You don't want to rush this one o'clock. It's expected to go for a week. One week, maybe on until Monday of next week. They'll do I think it Z. First two days. I think it's eight hours, isn't it that they can present evidence? Both sides can present evidence. You know, they have a total of 16 each side 60 16 hours. Okay, you got it. Yeah. You have to be insane to think any normal living person is gonna watch 16 hours of evidence. 16 hours. That's when you know they got nothing. If you got some evidence, 10 minutes you can present 16 hours of evidence. There is no judge. That tells you everything. You gotta pretend to have a judge, so they've appointed one of their own. And to be fair. They picked the single biggest trump hater in the world. The extreme far left Patrick Leahy, who's been in more scandals than probably anybody, your name, this guy's been caught leaking classified information on multiple occasions. They call them leaky lady. That's his nickname. In Washington. The Trump defense has already signaled and I'm telling you Now you have 16 hours to present your case. The Democrats will go for the 16 hours and then we'll have another more that they want to get in. But they'll get this 16 hours. Trump Defense will announce they're not going to use 16 hours till to it much faster, which is perfect. This is just political theater. Totally unconstitutional. This is just a big game. In fact, I'm surprised this isn't being sponsored by under our Gatorade or Nike yourself like that. It's just a game. It's just silly. So there's no judge Toby. No witnesses. Most likely it seems that they're not going to use any witnesses because there are no witnesses to anything. You could have a OSI tell the dramatic story of how she feared for her life. In that awful French. And, of course, the other settled. Get appointed. She wasn't even in the capital. She was a block away in another building. So who will cover this? Will this be on? Obviously cable networks, But it won't be on channel 24 and seven will it? I think they're going to do it. Yeah, this is a you know, I mean, this is a serious situation here, Mark. I mean, we have to. Ah, women we have removed and we have to impeach President Trump. Yeah s o. But it's not a serious situation. There is no judge. It's not an official impeachment. Roberts is not presiding on if you were Donald Trump. What would you be worried about? What would you be afraid of? That they might remove you from office. They might review move you from office. I don't know. I mean, what's the consequence here? They claim that obviously can't impeach him and they don't have the votes. So that this is all going to fizzle out, but they claim they could still take a vote to ban him from ever running for office again. That's what really the point of all this. They know that he could come back at any time and wipe them out. Just completely wiped them out, but actually do that, unless he is impeached. Yeah, Convicted Well, now here's the thing. They're not going to get an impeachment. He won't be impeached to be acquitted The secret plan. Which they've been working on behind the scenes the way they will ban him from running for life. There's something in the 14th Amendment Section three that says, if you were ever involved having anything to do with an insurrection You cannot run for office ever again. You can't hold office here. If you were involved in an insurrection, and apparently, if they do that 14th Amendment trick. It requires a simple majority. They won't need 17 Republicans to cross over. They could get it on their own. So that's the secret plan. They'll pull that out at some point when they're losing this 14th amendment, However, it's if you're involved in an insurrection. Joe Bartlett, you're probably the most reasonable. Middle ground fair. Was that an insurrection? Or was it just trespassing? What? You no, no, The government was never in danger of being a collapsed or taken over. On been fact the same day the government went back to the regular process. It's you know, just a couple of our delay because of you know, one unfortunate event. Yeah, but insurrection is something first of all if that's insurrection. In 125 far more violent, far worst riots. Of last summer would be instructions in those cases they really did. Try to destroy police stations They did. They burned down. Police station's destroyed courthouses burned down courthouses. I mean, that's an attempt to really take over those cities. You know, when you're taking out the police and the courts, that's more of an insurrection. But what really happened here? Is you had a protest, like a lot of other protests. But in this case for whatever reason. And this should be the subject. Of the hearings. Why was there no security? Why wasn't there anyone? Uh, making sure that the building was secure. They had, like five weeks of warning about this. This protest coming. I guess it would be Pelosi, who's irresponsible. She's in charge of the Capitol police now and again there just security guards on the building so you can't expect them. Contain hundreds of thousands of protesters. But it's up to Pelosi to work with them and get what they need. Is it National Guard? Is it a massive police presence from the D? C police, But she didn't do that. That should really be the subject of hearings. Why did they do that? So I would imagine. Any protest anywhere. 100,000 people are protesting. If you didn't put a proper security, they would come inside. They would come into the building. And if you look at the video of the capital 99.9% of them are peaceful and just trespassing and they should they should be arrested. Convicted. It's terrible, but they were basically just walking around in there. There was no Attempt to burn the capital down or, you know, there's like 100 Million in art met rotunda not no damage to anything on If you look at most of the video 99.9% was very peaceful, just walking and marching to the capital. So if you had no security, they did trespass eyes that insurrection. Do you think most of them were there to literally overthrow the government? And bring it down. E don't think so. So this insurrection stuff won't work. Uh, s so if they started one. What does that mean? It goes to nine o'clock tonight. I don't know. I'm you. I'm not quite sure the schedule. I mean, it's probably going to get dragged down for a couple of days for sure. All right. I just want to say to you people if you sit there at one o'clock start watching MSNBC until 9 p.m.. You should be declared legally dead. There's something wrong with you. You really need to re examine your life if you watching eight hours a day of this fake impeachment, so he can't get convicted because they don't have the votes so they'll be no conviction. And then he'll be the first He already is the first president Peach twice, but he'll be the first president to have beaten to impeachment. And there is something nice and cool about that isn't there. And there's only been four impeachments in the history of this country. And Trump is valve in two of them. Yeah, the one thing this does, it opens up the possibility of impeaching Obama. E. If you want to follow their logic when the Republicans take control of Congress In 22..

President Trump Supreme Court Justice Roberts Trump Joe Bartlett Pelosi Golden Globes Patrick Leahy president Washington MSNBC US Obama Congress Capitol police Toby Mark official
"justice roberts" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

01:42 min | 1 year ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"You for such I want to tell you, Cavanaugh. You have released the world Wind on you right? You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions, and as Senator Paul said that they were rebuked. Uh, serious humor that majority leader was rebuked, which is not occur much by chief Justice Roberts because those remarks Sure doesn't look Senator Paul's absolutely correct on this. If if this standard is going to apply to one side in politics, it has to apply to the other and look Jordan. I actually think there's a reason that both of those types of speeches are probably protected is because we're supposed to have an atmosphere where you can engage in vigorous debate. It's vigorous debate that actually rubs the rough edges off of an idea. I mean, that's sort of the whole idea and, of course, We've advocated many times on this program for the outcome to actually be merit based on for the best ideas to rise and some time there should be a bipartisan consensus, But the way you get there, Jordan is not suppression speech. The way you get there is engaging in rigorous debate. But look, if you're going to attack it on one side, then the other side is gonna have to abide by that standard as well. And Senator Schumer. Jordan. He fell short of that standard folks were only 1800 ft people away from signing our petition to get to two or 50,000 or two or 48,200 to sign that petition. A C l j dot org's right now, this is an unconstitutional trial. We're going to get it to all those centers. We're gonna break it down by state as well. So they know the people in their state that agree. This is unconscious. Tuchel trial of a private U. S citizen is not within the jurisdiction.

Senator Paul Jordan Senator Schumer Cavanaugh Justice Roberts U. S
"justice roberts" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM

KLBJ 590AM

07:56 min | 2 years ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM

"You may have seen the clip in recent days of Joe Biden back in October on a stage with I believe George Stephanopoulos and Stephanopoulos asked that then candidate Biden will you aggressively use executive orders? And Joe Biden said No. I want consensus. I want collaboration. I want unity. That's kind of a dictatorship. When you go all in on using these executive orders, Yeah, and one of the reporters asked. Press secretary Gin sake. Jensen about this said, You know, this is what he has said about this. And here we have seen him take all of this action just a flurry of action in his first week. So what does that mean? He sends you all are saying that he has to do this to roll back the immoral things that President Trump did what this is make him a kind and benevolent dictator toe, which she answered. I believe in. You probably didn't do this on purpose. But you took that out of context with him, saying that executive orders is a dictator Move. I don't think so. You know, he That's what he said. It's the full statement. It's not cleverly edited. Well, she was implying that it was in response to just I certain policy. Not all policies were having to roll back what a previous administration did. Justin is calling from Round rock with Mark and Melinda on K. L B. J Hey, Justin. Good morning. How you doing? Hey, doing well yourself. Fine. Thank you, Justin. They love the show. Appreciate it. Thank you s O. The thought that I have with mail in voting, or the question is So obviously someone's going to sue Ty Kinh taxed in many other states are going to see when they put the law in about, um, negating state's rights for Uh, for voting. So the question is, What will the Supreme Court do? Will they take it up? Will they not take it up? How they How will they rule on it? And if and if it takes the normal course in the system, it could take years to reach the U. S. Supreme Court and by that time there may be a whole lot of packing that has been decided to go on and so it may rule in their favor. Now, I would say there is maybe a little bit of hope. I don't think John Roberts ever like Trump on D seems to rule against him fairly often. Um, but Trump's not in there anymore. So and the fact that he's not presiding over the Senate hearing and refuses to do so because he does not think it's constitutional. I'm technically putting words in this house. Um I mean, that does tell me something. Maybe we'll see. Four years of conservative John Roberts will see Well, boy, that would be something if a Supreme Court justice allowed personal feelings about a president since the guide their thinking and decisions you may be right now. Rand. Paul had an interesting comment yesterday. Justin about the Supreme Court chief Justice Roberts, He told the hill dot com that when Roberts let it be known that he would not preside over the second Trump trial in the Senate. The light bulb went off course, Senator Paul about whether or not it was constitutional. Yes, And that gave Rand Paul the idea to bring that constitutional point of order up in the Senate. And they had the test vote. And you know, only five Republicans said Yes, it would be constitutional. And then that laid it out for everyone. They don't have enough votes to remove him and Ah Ah lot of the senators are applauding Rand Paul for going on that track. They're saying we never even thought of that It never occurred to us to check and see if this trial would be constitutional. I have. Ah, I mean, I've enjoyed Rand Paul in the past, but over the last four years watching him shine has been pretty awesome. He's don't agree with them 100% politically, But overall, he's been kind of with their and Ted Cruz and a few select others has not been afraid to voice his opinion, though it's not popular, which I have greatly appreciate it. I think that should have been the first question for all of us. I was about to say it's sad that they're going. We didn't realize that was your so smart to figure it out to think of. Is it constitutional or not? Because we all questioned it. Yeah. Hey, have a great weekend. Justin. Thanks. Thank you. 51283605 90, President Biden's New top climate expert adviser is Gina McCarthy. She was on M S NBC with Joy Reid talking about what President Biden and his team have in mind for the battle against climate change how much damage was done to the planet over the last four years? It's been. It's changing the way in which we live, and we have to protect ourselves. We can all see it. It's very easy to see from the hurricanes in the forest fires, but it doesn't mean we stop there and say well, This damage happening. Let's give it up. So there's been tremendous damage inflicted. On the climate in the last four years, while Trump was president. That's when we started having hurricanes and wildfires. Well, they got worse in the last four years, and we can't give up now because it's just too much. It's too important. There's too much at stake. I mean, this is about recognizing that climate change is the existentially challenge. It is the public health challenge of our time. And right now, people are hurting so desperately from covert 19 for all the economic devastation that that's brought to us, and it's also all about Look at who's getting hurt the most. So they view this as an existential threat. They're tying in the effects of covert 19 and racism. Her premise is that human activity is damaging the climate. The second part of the premises, America is immoral and evil. It's a country full of racial injustice and they're going to tackle all of those together. We are going to build back better. We're going to invest in infrastructure that's going to grow jobs. We're gonna build a a civilian climate. Wouldn't be call its ability, climate core so that we can move and get youth youth out into our communities, making sure we're adapting and being resilient and making sure that our forests of managing trying to cut back on those forest fires we are going to invest real money and environmental justice communities. I'm sorry. Hold on. Hold on the end of that, she said. We're going to make sure those forests are managed so we can cut back on fires. Is that not what President Trump said was the problem. You're not supposed to remember that. You're not supposed to bring that up. But it's no seriously. That was the big thing. It's not climate that is making these four stars. It's about managing the forest to make sure that it's not there, and she just said that In combination with problems at PG any Pacific gas and electric problems with their systems. But you're right lack of proper management of the forests, but she almost made it sound like they are going to address that by recruiting an army of young Americans, teens and young adults to go out into the forest. And rake leaves and get that underbrush out of there..

President Trump President Biden Justin Senator Paul U. S. Supreme Court president Senate executive John Roberts George Stephanopoulos Justice Roberts Press secretary Jensen Rand climate expert Ted Cruz Ty Kinh M S NBC America
"justice roberts" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

07:56 min | 2 years ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"C s and on all your devices placed 77 w A B. C Major League Baseball a rare rare trade. Scrappy story. Boston Red Sox acquire a sharp middle relief pitcher Adam Ottavino from the New York Yankees, the Imperial Yankees. Why would these ferocious rivals deal with each other? Wolves lie down with Lamb's John Basher show all four hours available all the time on distinguished podcaster such as I John Baxter. This is the John Buster Show the Majority leader of the U. S. Senate. Mr Schumer tells us the trial of the president of the United States on one charge of incitement to insurrection will begin on February 9th. Everything else is in move and motions. So I welcome my colleagues. That is McCotter. American Greatness. Andrew McCarthy national villain line to preview What Could be ahead of us. Not the same as we saw last January, February in the impeachment trial of President Trump, this will be an impeachment trial of former President Trump and there in lies the twist upon twist upon twist And let's get to the big twist. Chief Justice Roberts will not be present. Why not? Good evening to you, Andy. Good evening, John and Fatty is well, he won't be present because the Constitution says that The chief justice of the United States must preside over an impeachment trial of the president of the United States. President Trump is no longer the president of the United States. He's the former president. So under the Constitution, there's no requirement that Chief Justice Roberts preside. I don't know, John. Well, we don't have the full story yet. I don't know if there were any feelers put out to the Supreme Court to see to take justice Chief Justice Roberts temperature on whether he wanted to do this or not, or whether they just simply realized that this wasn't the presidential Impeachment. There was no point asking him but one way or the other. The trial gets presided over by the presiding officer of the Senate, who was either the vice president of the United States where the president pro TEM Of the Senate. Now that the Democrats have taken over the president Pro TEM is Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who was a very sharp elbowed partisan Democrat and the word we got today that's leaking after the Senate is that lady? Will preside over the impeachment trial. That is Andy. What do we know about who will be putting on the president's defense? And what does that tell us about what they'll be arguing? Uh, there's a South Carolina lawyer that he is that he's hired named Butch Bowers. Former rug JAG who's well thought of in When I say Jack of Judge Advocate general, the lawyer judge in the military, he's well thought of in Republican circles, particularly in South Carolina. He's got former Or prior impeachment experience because he represented Mark Sanford, who was governor of South Carolina, who is almost impeached. Uh, in that capacity. And his main line of expertise. As I understand it is election law, which certainly suggests that the Trump defense is at least contemplating, in part. Relitigating at the or using the impeachment as a forum to broadcast some of the claims that he was making in the last two months after the election. The puzzle is what we look like. We can presume that the Senate floor will be used at some point, Andy, but with Pat Leahy, judging supervising in some fashion They're got. There's going to be the concern that it does not look like a show trial that it does not look like the Red Queen is in charge and the verdict come first and then the sentence as sentence comes first and then the verdict. So how do you imagine they will stage this? Will they use the Senate? Yeah, I think John the the issue that you raises a very important optic and it's a big political problem for the Democrats. It's not obviously a constitutional problem. You could have a full Uh, Senate floor trial with, you know, just Pat Leahy rather than John Roberts sitting in the chair, but it would look like a political show trial, so I think they'll have a powerful incentive to Exploit rule 11 of the Senate rules of impeachment, which apply basically toe all impeachments, but they're not intended for impeachment of the incumbent president of the United States and what usually happens So as not to chew up all of the Senate's time on this stuff is the matter gets referred to an ad hoc committee for impeachment trial purposes, and they conduct the trial in the committee. Aziz what happened in the full Senate in a big presidential impeachment? They do all the same things they You know, hear presentations from both sides. They take whatever testimony they think they need. Then they certify the record and distributed to the full Senate. So eventually you would have a proceeding. Much briefer one before the full Senate on the full Senate would maintain the discretion to supplement the record if it thought it needed to hear from anyone else. We're here for many other witnesses, but they would otherwise just vote on the record that's developed in the committee. And not be present. They would not. They would not listen to the witnesses in person. Is that what you're imagining? Yes, The what'll happen. John is that the transcripts of any witness testimony given to the committee would be distributed to the full Senate. The full Senate if they voted to do this. Would have the discretion to bring in any of those witnesses for purposes of hearing. More testimony is a full Senate or they could call other witnesses. Or they could supplement the record anyway. They want But I think given that Leahy would be closely coordinating, undoubtedly with the Biden White House and with Senator Schumer, who's the mind majority leader now? In the Senate. It's highly unlikely that the full Senate would second guess whatever committee Leahy either presides over or or parcels. This out to Andre will be a very short proceeding in front of the full Senate, where they would just vote and they you know they would have to vote. On conviction. That would be the first vote and if there were two thirds vote in favor of conviction, then they would move on to the question of disqualification, which based on prior Senate president in some impeachment cases is a simple majority vote, not a two thirds vote. That is Well, Andy, Let's say that things go as expected, and this fails ultimately fails. What then will happen Will it be censure? What will what will what will happen next? But I don't think the Democrats are done making Trump a central issue to unify their party. You see studies. You are much more astute on how the politics of this works than I do. But my assessment of it. I'd be interested to know what yours is, but I think that they're the incentive of Republicans to do. A censure is much higher. If that obviates the need to have An impeachment trial..

U. S. Senate president Patrick Leahy President Trump United States Chief Justice Roberts Andy John president pro TEM Senator Schumer vice president Trump John Baxter Boston Red Sox Justice Roberts Adam Ottavino South Carolina New York Yankees
"justice roberts" Discussed on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM

KIRO Radio 97.3 FM

02:48 min | 2 years ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM

"It's like a trial and there the jury and Roberts chief Justice Roberts that I won't be sitting in there. So you got think, Patrick is it lady that comes into Patrick Leahy from Vermont, whose Who is 80 years old and the longest serving Democrat in the Senate. Okay. Upside or downside. This is better for Donald Trump or worse for Donald Trump. I think it's both. I think that Yeah, for history. It's going to hurt him. But for his own ego, he probably likes to be back in the rough and tumble. That's right. He does, and he will get acquitted. And another time he can say. See this. They tried a second time They can't hurt me. You know, I'm immortal. Good for him. It's gonna be good for his political party that he's going to try to start or at least any kind of fuel and juice coming towards him. So you're playing. That's never dance. He doesn't have the discipline. I think Theo start a new party. That's the That's the consensus of the people. I've been reading that are pro Republican. They think he just doesn't have it in him. Do you think he really could start the Patriot Party when you can have enough? I know about the party, but he could have taken splinter off and cause enough problems for the Republicans. If they think there's gonna be a third party and cause some problems for the Democrats they want they want to impeach him. And have him impeached completely and found guilty in the trial is so that he can't run again because the Democrats fear Donald Trump. Yeah, That's a good question, John. I think the Republicans mainstream Republicans fear him more than the Democrats do, but Time will 24 million people, Tom, That's a lot of people vote for the guy. That's right. But after Taylor after January 6th, I wonder how many of those 74 million would still vote for him. That's a good question. Racy watching a crash Right now, This is on great away just east of the Valley of Freeway That's reported blocking drivers are going to run into a wreck in the right lane eastbound 5 12 as you approach Canyon actually, and let's make that clear that is they abandoned vehicle that's there were watching the wreck, though, on some 25. Exit ramp to Thorne Lane. The ramp is still closed off that man that backup starts in just after 5 12 and heading out that direction. Drivers heading north founder still pretty slow outside of Berkeley. There will be some slowing on South 25. As we work our way into five. The drive through downtown Seattle is eased up quite a bit. Just a slight hesitation near the West Seattle Bridge. Busy on north on I five as we get closer to Highway two and South unfold, live, leaving Bellevue. Traffic is brought to you by Subaru Puyol. A bad weather this time of year could be stressful. Unless, of course you're in your company's Subaru from Subaru queue up Super Fuel your stress free dealership. Cairo Radio. Real time traffic. I'm Tracy Taylor. Once upon a time in a convenience store, a woman asked which zero calorie drink will I like more? The cashier said. I have a thought. Coke zero Sugar always hits the spot. The taste made her heart.

Donald Trump Patriot Party Tracy Taylor Patrick Leahy Justice Roberts Subaru West Seattle Bridge Vermont Thorne Lane Senate Seattle Theo Bellevue John approach Canyon founder Cairo Radio Tom Berkeley
"justice roberts" Discussed on KOMO

KOMO

02:59 min | 2 years ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on KOMO

"Foreign and domestic At this moment in history, I can think of nothing more patriotic. And renewing our faith and the charters of freedom that our founding fathers crafted for our republic. Starting with the fundamental American principle in our declaration of independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the government. The people have spoken in this election and our only job here today. Is to do what they ask. It is not to argue Election security. That's not the place for what we are doing today. Constitution specifically reserves to the people the right to meet in the respective states and vote for the president and vice president. As a result, individual states oversee and implement the election process, not the federal government. Guard against fraud or irregularities in the voting process. The states are required to have robust election security measures. Likewise, state legislatures have the opportunity to examine evidence of voter fraud. Before they certified their electoral college votes and our courts. From district courts to the United States, Supreme Court adjudicate legal challenges and election disputes. All of those things happened after the 2020 election. Statehouses in courts across the country, took allegations of voter fraud seriously and follow the constitutional process to hear challenges to this year's elections. No state found evidence of any why'd spread voter fraud and neither did any court asked to review the state's findings in Arizona. Republican governor, Doug Ducey. Democratic Secretary of state Katie Hobbs, Republican Attorney General Mark Byrne of Itch and State Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Rubin. L all certified the results of the election on November 30th. And we know we have heard Arizona's have been voting by mail for almost 30 years, and Governor Ducey. Has expressed confidence in the states process numerous times in November, he said. We do elections well here in Arizona. The system is strong, and that's why I have bragged on it so much. He further stated. We have some of the strongest election laws in the country laws that prioritize accountability and clearly lay out our procedures for conducting Canvassing and even contesting the results. And they're right. Arizona has one of the most transparent election processes in the country with built in accountability, starting with eternal auditing. We have heard unfounded allegations that voting machines in Arizona and elsewhere somehow changed vote tallies or somehow improperly rejected.

Arizona Governor Ducey fraud Supreme Court United States State Supreme Court contesting president vice president Chief Justice Robert Rubin Mark Byrne Katie Hobbs Attorney
"justice roberts" Discussed on (EA) Eternal Affairs TRUTH Radio

(EA) Eternal Affairs TRUTH Radio

03:36 min | 2 years ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on (EA) Eternal Affairs TRUTH Radio

"Especially <Speech_Male> the <Speech_Male> funeral envelopes. <Silence> <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> Watch him <Speech_Male> very interesting. <Speech_Male> What he's going <Silence> on with <Silence> <Music> <Silence> <Silence> <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> comma <Speech_Male> harris <Speech_Male> as of today <Speech_Male> january third seed <Speech_Male> has still not <Speech_Male> yet given up her <Speech_Male> senate seat <Speech_Male> and so this is interesting <Speech_Male> because she serves <Speech_Male> in the senate right now <Speech_Male> but she's moving along <Speech_Male> as she is. The president <Speech_Male> elect <SpeakerChange> <Silence> president <Speech_Male> which means <Speech_Male> she should be. <Speech_Male> If she's confident <Speech_Male> enough that they wanted to be <Speech_Male> giving up her senate <Speech_Male> seat. She has <SpeakerChange> not yet <Silence> done that. <Silence> <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> How competent <Silence> issue in winning <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> today was the <SpeakerChange> also the <Speech_Male> vote for <Silence> the speaker of the house. <Silence> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> Ansi <Speech_Male> pelosi it was close. <Speech_Male> The nancy pelosi <Speech_Male> did win. <Silence> Once <Silence> <Speech_Male> again <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> she will <Speech_Male> be taking over <Speech_Male> control which is not <Speech_Male> a good thing <Speech_Male> <hes> although it was <Speech_Male> very close a lot of people <Speech_Male> do not want her in <Speech_Male> there at all <Speech_Male> those <SpeakerChange> folks that are <Silence> compromised <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> that she's <SpeakerChange> in. <Speech_Male> They can't really <Speech_Male> vote her out. <Speech_Male> They need to keep <Speech_Male> her in there <Speech_Male> in. So it's all relating <Speech_Male> to these folks that are <Speech_Male> bought off <Speech_Male> paid off. I <Speech_Male> don't really have a <Speech_Male> voice <Silence> in congress. <Silence> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> Today's <Speech_Male> last post <Speech_Male> is lynwood. <Speech_Male> Went after supreme <Speech_Male> court. Justice john roberts <Speech_Male> and <Speech_Male> former president <Speech_Male> barack obama today <Speech_Male> join <Speech_Male> both of them <Speech_Male> In a <Speech_Male> photograph <Silence> shaking hands <Speech_Male> his <Silence> claim was <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> how do people <Speech_Male> like this <Speech_Male> it to adopt <Speech_Male> children <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> and not be exposed <Speech_Male> that was <Silence> actual quote <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> referring <Speech_Male> to both of these men <Speech_Male> that have adopted children <Speech_Male> well according <Speech_Male> to the public <Speech_Male> rock obama <Speech_Male> in his wife. <Speech_Male> Michelle have legitimate <Speech_Male> children <Speech_Male> with natasha. <Speech_Male> And <Silence> molly <Speech_Male> we know. <Silence> That's not the case. <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> They're not legitimate <Silence> children. <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> Not <Speech_Male> there's not machel's <Speech_Male> child <Silence> <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> so <Speech_Male> that part <Speech_Male> is true. Now that's <Speech_Male> getting out there <Speech_Male> into the media <Speech_Male> into the into the mainstream <Speech_Male> as <Speech_Male> a former red pilling <Speech_Male> and <Speech_Male> lynnwood is also <Speech_Male> suspecting that john <Silence> roberts is himself <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> with his <SpeakerChange> kids being adopted <Speech_Male> now just <Speech_Male> to clarify <Speech_Male> we know <Speech_Male> that obama's <Speech_Male> children are not legitimately <Speech_Male> his <Speech_Male> who knows <Speech_Male> if they <Speech_Male> had been rented <Speech_Male> in some <Speech_Male> sort of capacity <Speech_Male> for that family <Speech_Male> to put on his public <Speech_Male> image that they've <Speech_Male> been doing <Speech_Male> the last ten years. <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> I don't <Speech_Male> know if there's actually <Silence> if they're actually been <Silence> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> adopted <Silence> officially <Speech_Male> not <Speech_Male> very interesting. That <Speech_Male> lynnwood made <Speech_Male> that claim <Silence> made that question <Speech_Male> out <Speech_Male> there and it's getting lots of hits <Speech_Male> getting lots of retweets. <Speech_Male> I believe <Speech_Male> he was trending again <Speech_Male> today <SpeakerChange> on <Silence> twitter <Silence> <Silence> interesting. <Speech_Male> You <Speech_Male> know any more about this. Please <Speech_Male> comments below. <Speech_Male> Remember to <Speech_Male> check out. Oliver articles <Speech_Male> in content <Speech_Male> at internal affairs <Speech_Male> media <Silence> dot com. <Speech_Male> And if <Speech_Male> you feel so led <Speech_Male> to do so please <Speech_Male> click the <SpeakerChange> links in the <Speech_Male> description to support <Silence> us financially. <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> We are an entirely <Speech_Male> independent media <Speech_Male> operation and end <Silence> the times ministry. <Silence> <Speech_Male> We rely on <Speech_Male> your support <Speech_Male> to continue providing <Silence> you can't <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> go <SpeakerChange> tweet. Turtle <Speech_Male> affairs media <Silence> dot com. <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> Bookmark <Speech_Male> site <Speech_Male> as well as sign up <Speech_Male> for the email newsletter <Speech_Male> in case <Speech_Male> they ever take our social <Speech_Male> media pages <Speech_Male> down also <Speech_Male> big shout <SpeakerChange> out. Thank <Silence> you to our patriots <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> those <Speech_Male> donating to the show <Speech_Male> today. We just <Speech_Male> got the received <Speech_Male> word here at internal <Speech_Male> affairs <Speech_Male> media that we

senate barack obama machel nancy pelosi pelosi john roberts natasha congress roberts john Oliver twitter patriots
"justice roberts" Discussed on (EA) Eternal Affairs TRUTH Radio

(EA) Eternal Affairs TRUTH Radio

05:37 min | 2 years ago

"justice roberts" Discussed on (EA) Eternal Affairs TRUTH Radio

"Good guy. The son of congressman raskin died speaking deaths. Tommy raskin died age twenty five. He was a graduate of amherst college was in his second year at harvard. Law school was healthy and died. Father was a congressman. Just leave that there as we've got some very strange deaths here coming up. Now chief justice. John roberts on on twitter and now this past week. His account was suspended. John roberts no. I didn't see many posts many tweets from him not much activity from him. A boy lynnwood was going after him as a target. So what i would have expected to see is john roberts. Taking his account down or disabling his account or deleting his account when i went to it myself myself it did say that the account was suspended implying twitter. Did it open. that's the case. John roberts is a deep state black hat actor much aligned with the same interest as big tech companies like twitter so. I don't think that he would be censoring him. At all. chief justice. John roberts account suspended this week very interesting. Pence made an announcement vice president. Pence says he's not interested in politics in the future. Some of suspected he's going to be stepping down now. This is interesting because of this big january sixth date coming up with this whole boating fraud information so president trump whitehat good guy vice president. Pence folks are still on the fence. I'm one of them. Is he a black hat. And was this whole time. Is he a bad guy or is he a good guy. Is he stepping down so the speculation that he may have been fired or let go and for social media purposes and for the press. He's still acting as the vice president but he really isn't. There's something going on there in. He may be stepping down which is also an indication that if trump while trump did win the election who will be the running mate or the vice president pence. Be going to jail. Will he be the one.

John roberts congressman raskin Tommy raskin twitter amherst college lynnwood john roberts Pence harvard trump
Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling

Mark and Melynda

07:08 min | 2 years ago

Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling

"A lot for being with us on this day after Thanksgiving. It was right before Thanksgiving late Wednesday. When the U. S Supreme Court The majority said, even in a pandemic You can't put away the Constitution. Now. In New York governor Cuomo says that he issued these restrictions on places of worship. Based on science. And safety. And so this is a fascinating ruling. In many regards number one. It's a big plus for religious freedom. Number two. It was just this past summer. That the Supreme Court ruled basically the opposite. In a case and there's some other cases that are being considered. I believe some cases California, New Jersey, Louisiana, So this is all about the Supreme Court blocking New York's governor from enforcing 10 and 25 person occupancy limits On religious institutions. Courts, the restrictions would violate religious freedom. And are not neutral because they single out houses of worship or especially harsh treatment. Or said there's no evidence that the organizations that brought the lawsuit have contributed to the spread of cove in 19. And this was one of those 54 decisions. With Chief Justice John Roberts. Going along with Justices Stephen Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. And in their descent. Chief justice. Roberts said he saw no need to take this action because New York had revised the designations of the affected areas. Governor Cuomo essentially Said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did rule on it and also in the sending opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this unlike religious services, Bike repair shops and liquor stores generally don't feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more. She went on to say justices of this court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials. About the environments in which a contagious virus now infecting a million Americans each week. Spreads most easily. Those are the words and the dissenting opinion from Justice. Sonia Sotomayor, your Down the majority, and this may be the new power five and this is one of the key developments out of this ruling. A new power five on the Supreme Court. Barrett Gorsuch. Thomas Alito. And Cavanaugh. Three of whom, of course, were Appointed By President Donald Trump in the Majority opinion. Justice, Gorsuch said this, he noted that Governor Cuomo had designated among others, the hardware stores acupuncturists. Liquor stores and bicycle repair shops as essential businesses. That were not subject to the most strict limits. Like these places of worship work. Gorsuch said. We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well. When we do So it Zbig deal for the Supreme Court. It's a big deal for I mean, let's face it all those evangelicals that voted for President Trump. They've got to be doing a victory lap today, right? Maybe you are a swell 51283605 90. If you'd like to be a part of the program here, you give us a call or send us a text on K. O. B. J. It is because Amy Barrett just got on the court. Right, So it's really The first significant indication Of a rightward tilt to the court. And I mentioned this and may and July Supreme Court rejected challenges. Virus related restrictions on churches in California and Nevada. At that time, the Chief Justice John Roberts, Joined the courts Democratic appointees, which of course, then included Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And those rulings they stress that state and local governments required flexibility to deal with a dangerous and evolving pandemic. So The New York Times, Right said. This is just One example of how profoundly President Trump Has transformed the Supreme Court. This New York Times P, says Justice Bharat Help the chief justice of body blow. Casting the decisive vote in a 5 to 4 ruling. On religious services in New York. And New York Times says this is most certainly a taste. Of things to come. About this 51283605 90 here on Caleb E. J. It is an interesting question, right? In the summer time. Even the Supreme Court said, Look You may not like it when these local officials are trying to close the church. But You're dealing with health and safety issue. And there are rights. Given to local officials in the event. Of health and safety issues. Well, not in this case, the governor there in New York, Andrew Cuomo. He criticized the Supreme Court. Or overturning their restrictions. He said It was Morrell Astrit Ivo of the Supreme Court than anything else. He called the ruling irrelevant. Said it would have any practical impact because restrictions Are not in place and had been dialed back well. You know, it's interesting that even in the Opinion. That was written by Sonia Sotomayor, right? When she was talking about The court plays a deadly game and second guessing the expert judgment of health official. Let's stop right there.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Gorsuch Cuomo Sonia Sotomayor New York Stephen Bryer Justice Sonia Sotomayor President Trump Barrett Gorsuch Thomas Alito Governor Cuomo Elena Kagan Zbig U. Amy Barrett California Louisiana New Jersey Cavanaugh