35 Burst results for "Justice Thomas"

"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

08:29 min | 2 weeks ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. I've been talking to Ben cappleman of Dorsey and Whitney about Supreme Court arguments over the Indian child welfare law. Before the break, we were talking about the equal protection argument. And some of the conservative justices did seem concerned about the equal protection question. The subtopic related to the racial issue that was talked about the most is a particular part of ICWA that includes in the list of placement priority preferences, potential foster or adaptive parents who are members of a different tribe from the child. So that was something that the justices were very interested in because they questioned how that can be something other than a racial classification. They didn't seem to explore as much the placement preferences that are invoked much more frequently in ICWA proceedings, which are the preference for placement of the child with the child's family and with the child's tribe. The three liberal justices seem to be solid votes to uphold the law and justice Neil Gorsuch also would vote to uphold the law. That was my interpretation as well. I didn't hear anything from the three liberal justices suggesting that they would be votes to strike this down. So now, is there a 5th vote where do the other conservative justices line up? And that's a really challenging question to answer. So if we start at the really conservative end of the spectrum, justice Thomas has said in the past that he believes equity exceeds Congress's authority. Chief justice Roberts was relatively quiet, so hard to know what he's thinking about this case, but we know that he is skeptical of laws that seem to create racial classification. So that leaves us with Kavanaugh and Barrett and Alito. Just as the leader had a lot of pointed questions for proponents of the law. So I don't know that he seems like that viable 5th vote. Justice Kavanaugh and justice Barrett, of course, our new to the court since the last time it made a major ICWA decision and we don't know a lot about how they feel about Indian law issues. Focusing on both of their questions, I felt like they kept their cards somewhat close to their chest. So those are the two that I was looked to for that potential 5th vote. Cases involving child custody are notoriously difficult on every level legal and otherwise, and the lawyer for the family said that equi deprives Indian children of the best interest of the child test, which is used in custody cases. Did you see that justice is struggling with that issue? I heard that attorney make that comment and I think it was notable that that didn't seem to elicit a lot of questioning from the bench on that issue. To put that in context, the best interest of the child analysis takes into account a lot of different factors and every state on some level supplies those factors to the judges who are making these decisions. So one way that the best interest analysis was portrayed that I think is not entirely accurate is this idea that judges go into these proceedings without any criteria that they're supposed to apply and then an ICWA cases equi tells them what to do. And what I think that doesn't quite take into account is the reality that judges already have criteria that state law tells them to apply. And ICWA simply provide some additional criteria that Congress has said need to apply to certain Native American children. Could the court stop short of a sweeping ruling and just strike down the provision that seemed to concern several of the justices which you talked about which gives preferences to tribal members who don't belong to the same tribe as the child. I think that's a possible outcome, particularly based on the questioning and the interest in that provision. The thing that would be interesting about that is none of the couples involved in this case were affected by that provision. And as the attorney for the Cherokee nation pointed out, that's not a provision that is making the difference in very many ICWA cases. And so it does raise this question about even if the Supreme Court has troubled by that particular provision, is this the right case to make a ruling about whether it's constitutional. This case comes before a court that's increasingly skeptical of the government relying on racial classifications. This is the third case this term where there's an argument for a color blind application of the constitution. We had it in challenges to programs that supporters say benefit blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. Is that an uphill climb for the defenders of the law? I think that's exactly what tribes are most concerned about because a ruling in this case that ICWA is based on an impermissible racial classification would potentially open the door to the court invalidating all sorts of laws that are specific to the relationship between the federal government and Native American tribes. I think tribes would tell you that striking down eco for any reason is a bad outcome. But the especially bad outcome would be the one that begins to treat these types of statutes as based on race and not based on political affiliation. And I think the court realizes the gravity of that decision. One of the justices I think it was justice Gorsuch mentioned, if we go down this road, we're potentially invalidating all of title 25, while title 25 is most of the federal statutes that deal with Native Americans. So I get the impression that the court realizes the gravity of that type of decision and based on their focus on things like the scope of Congress's power over Native Americans to some degree the anti commandeering principle. My best guess is that if they strike down a part of this law, it will be focused on those theories and not on the race classification question. Might justice Gorsuch be able to change some minds on the conservative side. One thing that will be interesting about the final decision is the extent to which justice Gorsuch will be able to convince his conservative colleagues to either uphold the law on procedural grounds, for example, maybe the plaintiffs in this case lack standing or if there are conservative justices who really want to strike down the law whether justice Gorsuch will be able to convince them to do so on narrow grounds that will not broadly invalidate ICWA. In the oral arguments, did the justices get answers to all their questions or were many left unresolved. So one thing that we heard a lot yesterday with regard to the scope of Congress's plenary authority under the constitution to enact laws concerning Native Americans. Is several of the justices asking for a test that they could apply to determine the scope of Congress's authority in that area. And there were no good answers. And so if the court wants to use this case as a vehicle to draw some lines around congressional authority that historically has been considered very, very broad, I think they have a real challenge in finding a way to do that because they're going to have to invent

ICWA Bloomberg radio Ben cappleman Neil Gorsuch Chief justice Roberts Justice Kavanaugh justice Barrett Gorsuch Congress Supreme Court Dorsey Kavanaugh Bloomberg Whitney Alito Barrett Thomas federal government justice Gorsuch
"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:48 min | 3 weeks ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Supreme Court because it's a state court dealing with the state procedural rule. And so there is this kind of threshold issue at the U.S. Supreme Court of whether the justices can even really take a look at this because it's a state issue. And so there's this initial argument of whether we're even getting into the territory of dealing with the type of federal issue that the U.S. Supreme Court can grapple with. And so that's one of Arizona's arguments that the U.S. Supreme Court really shouldn't even be getting involved. That's part of it. Another part is according to this they procedural rule. They're saying it wasn't a significant change in law. Despite how much that might seem to fly in the face of common sense as justice Kagan was pointing out during the argument. They're saying it's not a significant change. It's just now an application of the law. And so that's what brings up this situation where Kagan is pointing out that cruise is blocked in this procedural maze, no matter in which direction he turns. It seemed like several of the conservative justices were hanging on that threshold procedural issue. For sure. And so justice Thomas first question to Neil cot who is representing Cruz was how do we get to this federal issue? So it's that threshold matter where if you buy what justice Thomas was alluding to if he has a majority that agrees with him, then it could be that the court isn't even going to delve into some of the more detail about how this procedural rule works. And so that's one issue that could be bad news for cruise if there is a majority that agrees with justice Thomas. It is question did in fact indicate that that's where the justice is heading. And we should note that in that lynch case, both justice Thomas and justice Alito were in the dissent so you can probably count them as two definite votes against Cruz here. During the arguments it seemed like you had the justices on the far left and the far right, what about the justices that might turn out to be key here, justice is Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. So they each made a couple of interesting comments that might suggest that they might be inclined to vote with cruise, although I'm not entirely sure. Justice Barrett, she raised the point of question that was almost similar to what justice Kagan was saying. Barrett didn't go so far as to call it kafkaesque, but she called the state physician kind of artificial. She said that was hair splitting. So Barrett, even if she wasn't going as far as Kagan, she was in that similar type of mold and that she was questioning at a very basic level. The position that Arizona took. So that could be a potential fourth vote if you're counting the three democratic appointees plus Barrett. I'm not totally convinced, but that could be. And then you have justice Kavanaugh, he made a comment later in the argument, which I don't think was really as strong as Barrett's against the state. The Kavanaugh noted that there wasn't other state supporting Arizona. Like you might see in some of these state cases where even if a state isn't directly at issue, it will file a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court. We sometimes see these huge coalitions of states that are supporting another state because they're worried about how this is going to impact their criminal justice system. And so there wasn't any of that in this case. And Kavanaugh sort of casually brought that up. So I didn't hear Kavanaugh as strongly against the state as Barrett and Kavanaugh. So I have found plays devil's advocate more than any other justice. So I haven't found his comments at oral argument to be super helpful in terms of finding where he'll land. And so I do think it's possible that Cruz could still win this given what Kagan is putting at the kafkaesque. Nature of it, but still at this court, I think you're facing an uphill battle when you're bringing a claim from death row, no matter what the particulars are of the case. How many of the justices were concerned that

U.S. Supreme Court Kagan justice Kagan justice Thomas Neil cot Barrett Kavanaugh justice Alito Cruz Arizona Amy Coney Barrett Brett Kavanaugh Thomas Justice Barrett lynch
"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

04:09 min | 3 weeks ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"More conservative justices their position on this issue has been clear for some time and I think that's true of justice Thomas, although as I recall, he did not ask questions during the Fisher argument, but certainly justice Alito. And even the chief justice who is more moderate in a number of areas, but in this area has been very outspoken against the consideration of race and admissions. There was a lot of discussion about students using their admission essays to talk about their experiences, for example, overcoming racism. Did the lawyer representing the challengers, students for fair admissions seemed to come around to accepting that? Towards the second argument, I think they seem to be willing to acknowledge that it might be appropriate in the context of an essay at least depending on how it was used in describing the person's experiences and what he or she might bring to a college campus. But I do think that that was one of the more interesting and important exchanges throughout the oral argument. Certainly, that's something that the chief justice seemed to be interested in nailing down that school might be able to consider an applicant's race in the context of a personal essay. Might that be sort of a middle ground for a decision here? It certainly could be a middle ground and it could leave schools with an important tool for attempting to achieve educational diversity in the makeup of their student bodies, even if the core deems that consideration of a check the box use of race on constitutional. Another area of questioning was when will affirmative action run its course. And some of the conservatives really pressed on that point, the chief justice asked the solicitor general, gretter gave us a number. Do you want to give a number? Right. No number was given. I think that was one of the more difficult parts of the argument for those defending the schools, including the government. And the conservative justices seem to expose the concern that if they were to adopt the positions of schools, they'd effectively be signing on to the indefinite use of race and even in a holistic fashion and student emissions, which they seemed uncomfortable with. Do you have any thoughts about how this decision might turn out? I think there's a lot of work left to be done on the court in terms of coming to a result in this case. And one of the more interesting aspects of the oral argument, was there wasn't a lot of discussion of overruling prior precedent, which is something that is certainly a possibility on the table here. But even if the justices reach the conclusion that the particular plans here are unconstitutional, it remains to be seen what they'll do with their prior cases. And what they might say about the use of race in different ways in order to achieve diversity among student bodies. And justices were coming at that from different perspectives on the court. I mean, certainly justice Kavanaugh's questions about the possibility of race neutral alternatives were important. And so even if it looks like an uphill battle for the defenders of the plans here, I think there's a lot that we'll have to wait for in terms of what this decision actually says. If the court does away with affirmative action by the end of this current term, it would be the second time in the space of a year that the conservative super majority jettisoned decades of precedent will that be a consideration for the conservatives and perhaps particularly for the chief. Well, certainly any time the court considers overruling precedent, it's a momentous decision for the court and the justices are well aware of that. I mean, this is an area where justice is even the chief justice has been openly critical that's prior precedent. So if it reached that conclusion, it wouldn't be out of the blue. But I think it's fair to say that all the justices are aware of the implications of overruling precedent. And I do think that there are a number of options that may be available to the court in a short of overruling all its precedents in this area. Will know by June, thanks so much, Greg. That's former U.S. listener general Gregory garr coming up what happens to diversity after affirmative action. This is Bloomberg. Not completing high school is more of a social thing than it was an academic thing. I came out in the 11th grade. Nobody was

justice Thomas gretter Alito Fisher Kavanaugh Gregory garr Greg U.S. Bloomberg
The Origin of Wokeness

Dennis Prager Podcasts

01:21 min | 3 weeks ago

The Origin of Wokeness

"That's actually one of the things I talked to justice Thomas about about how the fact that so much of these corrosive crazy woke ideas come from classrooms and conference rooms. Yeah. It really is unique to elite academic environments where you can sit and say, well, maybe gender is a construct or maybe we should upend XYZ. They think that these professionals are so rational, but it actually the professional environment fuels irrationality and fuels the antidote of common sense because all you do every day is postulate and pick things apart and make interventions. When I read a New York Times columnist, 99% of whom are woke left not just liberal, but woke. They will often, you know, on the Internet, they will have an hyperlink. Right? Where you click on it and you see. So for example, as noted, and then they will cite some study or some source. So I often click on it because I find the idea preposterous. So I'm curious, where did you get this preposterous idea? And what are you backing it up with? And invariably, it's just another left wing column or a left wing source. I know.

Thomas New York Times
"justice thomas" Discussed on WCPT 820

WCPT 820

02:02 min | Last month

"justice thomas" Discussed on WCPT 820

"Does everything that happens? We're like, is that legal? Let's test blood kershner. Is that legal? It's not legal? No, it's not. No, Lawrence tribe said, let's not minimize the plainly unlawful under 28 USC four 55 for justice Thomas to take any action at all other than recusing and passing the baton to another justice, even granting a brief administrative state showed his contempt for the law he has sworn uphold period. Thank you, Lawrence. So his wife, how do I even start? His wife is involved in overturning the implicated in this crime. Right. She is. Exactly. The exact same crying. Clarence Thomas yesterday agreed to temporarily freeze a lower court order requiring the testimony of Lindsey Graham in front of an Atlanta area, special jury that is investigating efforts to overturn the election. Thomas move is an administrative state that was most likely issued to give the Supreme Court Justices more time to consider the dispute. So I get that it might just be temporary and blah blah blah. Whatever. It's still, what did somebody say? He's adjusted this should not be on the Supreme Court. He never should have been covering for a senator that should not be in the Senate. Talk amongst yourselves. We're the bigger rude to beg of rutabaga rutabaga. We're all going to die. It's over. Always your only crowd noise. I don't understand. We're all going to do this. Joe tweets, hold on. Clarence Thomas, someone whose wife plotted to overturn the 2020 election, just blocked a Georgia grand jury subpoena seeking testimony from Lindsey Graham related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And this is just somehow okay. Are you kidding me? So we all had the same reaction to this. It's okay. I think we're getting so numbed. Daily corruption and lawbreaking that were just like, oh, well, this is, this is what the worst thing that's happened is that just the partisans, the partisanship of the courts, we just expect it now. Yeah. It's like, oh, is that a Trump appointee? Oh, is that a Trump judge? Oh, but they're just going to do, you know, they're going to break the law to help fill in the blanks. Or whoever. However, hold, please

Clarence Thomas Lawrence tribe kershner Lindsey Graham Supreme Court USC Lawrence Atlanta Thomas Senate Joe Georgia
"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:30 min | Last month

"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Court I'm sorry, one of the most common reasons the Supreme Court takes the case is because of circuit splits. And where two federal courts are in disagreement with each other and they need the Supreme Court to weigh in and resolve that dispute. The problem in this particular case is that the 9th circuit Court of Appeals opinion had its own intrinsic split. There were three judges on the panel and they wrote three different opinions that were wildly different from each other. They were not in sync with each other. So though there wasn't a circus split, there was an intra panel split. Now normally those get resolved by what's called an on bonk procedure. The federal appeals court can say we need to have more judges listen to this case so that we can figure out how to come up with a more harmonized resolution. The 9th circuit didn't do that. So because the 9th circuit opinion was so messy and the 9 circuit didn't clean it up, it created the possibility for the Supreme Court to say there's a mess here that we need to resolve. Two of the opinions also basically said, we think section two 30 is a problem. And so it created a flag for the Supreme Court to pay attention. There's a statutory problem here that needs attention. Maybe you ought to take a look. So it was a combination of the messy opinion plus what the judges said that I think attracted the Supreme Court interest. Justice clarence Thomas had already expressed an already expressed interest in indicated that he's willing to change the law if Congress isn't. Well, we have to assume that justice Thomas was in favor of Kieran this case, because he's basically begged plaintiffs to bring section two 30 cases to him, so he can find a way to try and eviscerated. So we know that justice Thomas is already coming in as an extreme section two 30 skeptic. He's literally told us when nobody asked him to. Google's chief executive officer told lawmakers last year that revoking section two 30 would mean that platforms would either over filter content or not be able to filter content at all. Do you agree with that? I do. And it's a very well-known phenomenon with online content. It's something that I call the moderator's dilemma. The idea is that if you're liable for trying and failing, then either you don't try at all so that you can't fail. So you just let everything go through, therefore you have an intervened at all or you over respond and make sure you don't fail, which is impossible, but it leads to lots of collateral damage as well. There is, of course, the third option, which Google isn't likely to do, but many other services will, which is to exit the industry and say that it's not profitable to do nothing or to be perfect and therefore we have to simply find another line of business. Let's say section two 30 is gone. What effect would that have on social media companies? It's not just social media companies. That's the entire Internet. So much of the Internet is driven by user generated content, us talking to each other. And section two 30 is the legal foundation that enables those conversations to take place without the services being liable for facilitating their enabling those conversations. So without section two 30, many of those conversations will simply stop. They won't be possible to do anymore because of the fact that the legal liability will overwhelm the benefit. Now, some of the services that are existing today are big enough and powerful enough that they will either find a way to thread the legal needle and accept whatever collateral damage comes from that or they will move towards professionally produced content. They'll stop letting users talk to each other, they'll pay some people who they trust to submit content that they will accept the legal risk for, and as a result, it becomes a lot more of the Internet being people talking to us, not us talking to each other. As I understood, this was about algorithm generated recommendations, could the court just eliminate those? In theory, one solution is that the Supreme Court could say that quote algorithmic recommendations are excluded from section two 30, but section two 30 otherwise remains attack. That would be a massive strategic loss for the Internet. And the reason why is because there's no principled way to distinguish between algorithmic recommendations and any other promotional or curatorial functions that Internet services perform. So basically saying that algorithmic recommendations are out of secretary, we say there's no way to promote or encourage readers to look at particular types of content and still stay within section two 30. That would lead to an Internet that looks a lot more like Google Drive or Dropbox. The services could only provide dumb storage lockers and a URL that the users go out and promote and that would be the only thing that would be covered by section two 30. Everything else will be gone and I don't think we want an Internet full of Google drives. Besides justice Thomas are there other justices who have expressed displeasure with section two 30 and might be willing to tamper with it? You know, it's a little hard to read the judges nowadays because every speech related question is intrinsically linked with the culture wars that have royal the Supreme Court. So it's unclear whether or not judges who in the past have stood for less government and intervention into private activity still stand for that or judges

Supreme Court federal appeals court justice Thomas Thomas Court of Appeals Google Kieran Congress Dropbox
"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:08 min | 2 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"A hurricane again is threatening to carve a new path of destruction through South Carolina today when it roars ashore north of Charleston. Forecasters say the storm will drive a surge of water into the city of three to 6 feet. North Carolina governor Roy Cooper is urging residents to take the storm seriously. Our state emergency operations center has been activated and staffed with people across state government, nonprofits, and the private sector. Making sure that we have the resources to help our communities if they need it. Meanwhile, Florida copes with the aftermath of Ian, Florida governor Ron DeSantis. First responders are doing targeted searches, just going home by home, checking to see if people are okay and then responding to specific reports if they're missing loved ones. Governor desantis says about 2 million residents are still without power. The wife of Supreme Court Justice clarence Thomas appeared before the January 6th committee investigating the capitol riot. In the days after the 2020 election, Jenny Thomas urged the Trump White House to fight back an emailed state lawmakers asking them to help overturn the election results. The Biden administration is tweaking its college loan debt relief program the face of legal challenges. 6 Republican led states flying a case in a St. Louis federal court, questioning President Biden's authority to grant college debt relief during a time of national emergency. Arkansas is leading the suit in which Republican attorney general Leslie Rutledge contends Biden's plan puts self wrought college loan debt on the backs of millions of hardworking Americans After 7 years, Trevor Noah announced that he will step down as host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central. I never dreamed that I would be here. I sort of felt like a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I came in for a tour of what the previous show was, and then the next thing I know I was handed the keys. No word yet, I want to win. Noah's last show would be or who will replace him. 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

Ron DeSantis Governor desantis Roy Cooper Justice clarence Thomas Jenny Thomas Trump White House Biden administration Florida Charleston hurricane St. Louis federal court South Carolina President Biden North Carolina Leslie Rutledge Ian Trevor Noah Supreme Court The Daily Show on Comedy Centr
"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

04:00 min | 2 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Do you feel like you need to speak to the committee to clear your name? Thank you for being here. Did you speak with your husband and for your beliefs with the election being stolen? Thank you for your question. Look forward to answering numbers. And in they went. And now I see on the terminal here, the conservative activist, wife of justice Thomas, reiterated to the house panel, the last year's storming of the capitol, on that day her belief was that there was something wrong with the election results. She told the panel that the election was flawed. Jeannie, there were questions today about whether the committee postponed this hearing so they could include her testimony. That was shot down, but there's something to that, isn't there? Yeah, I think there is. And they'd have to have a whole other hearing with this if they didn't get it in. Yeah, they would have to, but you know, I think what startling here is we're coming close to the first Monday in October when the Supreme Court's new term comes into play. Gallup has a poll out which shows Americans trust in the court has declined dramatically a 20 point drop from two years ago. You have Ginny Thomas testifying today saying she didn't discuss these issues with her husband. Many people, whether they find it hard to believe it or not, that's what she's saying, but she also apparently reiterated her belief that the 2020 election was stolen. So we are talking about the legitimacy of and trust in a very important branch of government and, you know, the politicization of the court is real and it is very problematic, regardless of which party you are in. Out of Benny Thompson, the chair of the committee was asked if he believes that justice Thomas should recuse himself. This has been a question in Washington since this whole Ginny Thomas thing emerged. He said, quote, I think members of the Supreme Court ought to be held to the same ethical standards that other judges are held to. Should justice Thomas recuse himself? I think I don't believe. So I think to Cheney's point about the declining reputation of the court, which by the way, Joe, put it into context that the declining faith Americans have in almost every institution there is. In fact, the only things that are so relatively popular are the military, small business according to Pew Research. The military small business and at times the police. Everything else is below the cut line of confidence. Jenny really believes that there was a problem with the election. She believed that back when she believes it now, she's not alone. And which raises the bigger question, which is when are we going to do something to restore faith in the integrity of the ballot, where people believe that a winner is actually a winner, as opposed to just an excuse to say that one was stolen and suddenly the legitimacy of everyone who stands for election is being questioned. My gosh, I don't know where this is going here. Jeannie, but the calendar is sensitive. We've also got the midterm elections that could be coming depending on where this lands two weeks later. Yeah, that's right. And we are staring down at the midterm election. They're accused of thumb in the scale. Exactly. And just to follow up, I was just looking at the data that Adam's talking about in the early 1960s, 75% of Americans had trust in the government. That is down close to one out of 5, you know, depending on what you're looking now. It's a dramatic decrease in a really frightening picture of where we are today in American government. That's something. But if you heard about the hog hunting, this is spoiled, stop me dead in my tracks today. Marjorie Taylor Greene, I suppose it's not the first time Adam saw it. I can already tell. How will the new ad inviting people to enter a contest to not only go hog hunting? But go hog hunting from helicopter

Ginny Thomas Benny Thompson justice Thomas Jeannie Thomas recuse Supreme Court Pew Research Gallup Cheney Thomas Washington Jenny Joe Adam Marjorie Taylor Greene American government
Who Would Make a Great Supreme Court Advocate?

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

05:22 min | 2 months ago

Who Would Make a Great Supreme Court Advocate?

"Just because you've watched so many Supreme Court arguments, you know, so many of the justices, you know, so many of the legal people. If you had to recommend a Supreme Court advocate today, someone called you up and their company is on the line, they have to argue before the Supreme Court, who would it be? I guess it would probably be Paul Clement. You and I said the same thing. I got asked that question a couple of years ago. And I've never met Paul Clement or spoken to him, but I hit Paul Clement. Tell people why. Well, because he's just if he weren't such a nice and intelligent and good guy, I would say that he was an idiot savant of an advocate. I mean by that, I don't mean that he's an idiot. I mean that even when he was a baby advocate, he came to the Justice Department with John ashcroft for whom he had worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I think. And he was in his young 30s and Ted Olson was the solicitor general and had just won Bush versus gore for president Bush by then president Bush and ashcroft, I think, actually wanted Paul to be solicitor general and the compromise was that he would be deputy, which he was for four years, and then he became solicitor general on his own. But as Ted also would say, Paul is just an amazing advocate. And he is not a, you know, when he worked for the government, he represented the government. When he worked for the Catholic Church, he represents the Catholic Church. Do I think that is closer to an approximation of his views? Yes, I do. But he was a just a bang up advocate for the government. And so was Ted Olson. They both represented they both defended the McCain feingold law. And one in the Supreme Court, and it fell apart years later, and they represent different interests now that they're in private practice, but that didn't stop them from being the best advocates possible for their client at the time and their client at the time was the United States government. You just named two of the four of the greatest Supreme Court advocates of my generation, the other two being the now chief justice John Roberts, and the fourth being an it'll come to me. I just forgot his name. And there are four. And they were always, I get calls, and when the chief justice was in private practice at Hogan, I would say go get him. And now when I get calls, I say go get Paul Clement because Ken Starr judge Starr is no longer practicing. They work great Supreme Court advocates because they just are at ease and I bring that up because of your Walter dellinger story on page one 30 and God bless the late Walter dellinger, who is a great man in the law, with whom I disagreed often. But he mixed up the names of justices, O'Connor and Ginsburg in his first argument. That's over practicing. Nina, that's don't you think that's what it was. He was overprepared he had thought about it so much. I'm not going to mix them up. I'm not going to mix them up. I'm not going to mix them up, and he mixed them up, and they were not happy. I don't even know if it was that. First his first argument, it just was maybe the first time he faced the two of them on the court. You're right. You're right. And he said, I mean, I've done this. I've said North Carolina when my script says South Carolina, I don't know what happens. In a less than ladylike expression, it's a brain fart. Yeah. Happens to me like on a daily basis. Nina totenberg. I mean, on a daily basis, three hours of radio you're going to do it, your buddy Steve never makes a mistake inscape. And I really hate that. But I make mistakes every day. Let me go on now to what the essence of dinners with Ruth is. And I remind you of the Frank luntz role, we've got to say the title of dinners with rouge 7 times for people to remember dinners with Ruth and order dinners with Ruth. And I want to tell my Friends on the center right in the right, this book will charm you and inform you and you'll be better for having read it. I said that most recently about Evan Thomas's one, Evan is a friend, one is about justice O'Connor and as dinners with Ruth does for justice Ginsburg one did for justice O'Connor and together they do what is only very infrequently done they give you a glimpse of the real world of the Supreme Court. And you know what? So much better than I do. I know some of the justices, but not as friends. I mean, colleague, John Roberts, an old colleague, chief just a justice Thomas and Stephen Breyer sat for interviews. And justice Gorsuch had been spent time with, but I don't know them like you know them. And you are a great storyteller. And you humanize them, but especially judge justice Ginsburg. Did you intend that when you began?

Paul Clement Supreme Court Ted Olson Walter Dellinger Senate Judiciary Committee President Bush Mccain Feingold Catholic Church John Ashcroft Paul Ashcroft Justice Department John Roberts Gore Ken Starr Connor Ruth United States Government TED Nina Totenberg
Author and Attorney Mark Paoletta on First Meeting Clarence Thomas

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

02:32 min | 3 months ago

Author and Attorney Mark Paoletta on First Meeting Clarence Thomas

"Met clarence Thomas one of these fortunate episodes in 1983. I was a senior in college, I was interning in D.C. and vice president Bush was going up to campaign of all things for my uncle, who was the Republican mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut. He was a conservative. It was 5 to one Democrat registration and Bridgeport, the Democrats kept running the loser in the primary as the independent in any event. George wishes going up there, I was invited to fly up in the air force two. To go to the event. And up in Bridgeport was clarence Thomas, who was at another event, he was the eeoc chairman at the time. And my mentor was a gentleman by the name of Tom lady who became the ambassador to the Vatican under Bush 41. But he was hosting clarence Thomas. And after those two events, we met at a hotel lobby with Vassar maladie and wanted justice Thomas clarence Thomas's aides and talked for about an hour. And he was electrifying, right? He was just full of energy, full of ideas, the nicest guy, just you know him, did he just, yeah, so he made an impact on me. And that was the only time I met him at that time, but it made an impact. Flash forward to 1989. I'm in the Bush 41 White House. I'm working on judicial selection. And being young, I think it was 26, a volunteering when we were looking at clarence Thomas for the D.C. circuit. And so I offered to reach out to him and other people had talked to him informally, but this was kind of the first time the judicial selection committee and I think February of 89 met to decide, okay, what are we doing about the D.C. circuit? I reached out to justice Thomas, young aide in The White House. He's a German the EOC couldn't have been nicer. We ended up talking for an hour. I told him I wanted to get him to send me all of his speeches, articles, all that kind of stuff so we could do that due diligence, right? Long before the Internet, right? Get stuff in paper. So he sent over everything. I still have the letter. It's dated March of 89 somewhere in there. And that became or began our friendship. Where I loved reading his stuff, right? So when you talk about did I recognize yes. This guy was principal, a fighter at that time he was calling out Congress for their hypocrisy and their craziness or he had been a chairman of the EEOC. They had had something like 60 oversight hearings, right? And then you had the black leadership continually pounding clearance Thomas. And you see him standing up and not bending,

Clarence Thomas Bridgeport Tom Lady Bush D.C. Vassar Maladie Thomas Clarence Thomas Connecticut Air Force George White House Thomas Eeoc Congress
"justice thomas" Discussed on WABE 90.1 FM

WABE 90.1 FM

02:53 min | 5 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on WABE 90.1 FM

"Said, listen, we're worried about justice Thomas and we're worried about the fact that when a Supreme Court opinion is decided, it has a certain logic to it. And once that logic is in play, you can't just promise. Don't worry. We're not revisiting those other rights because abortion is unique. You can't keep a promise like that, even if you mean it when you make it. Well, the abortion case came from state law that was challenged and made its way up to the Supreme Court, so could this happen again? That is despite what justice Kavanaugh says, despite what justice Alito wrote that other states could pass certain laws, perhaps with the intention of bringing it up to the Supreme Court and then suddenly these promises are put to a test Absolutely. So what we know with a high degree of certainty is that conservative state legislatures are going to pass laws that reverse other rights in the same way that the legislatures here pass laws that violated abortion rights that then existed, and then they were rewarded when the Supreme Court overturned abortion rights, similarly they're going to pass laws that limit the right to marriage that may potentially limit contraception in certain ways. And while we wait for the Supreme Court to say, no, the rights you have, you still have. The rights of everyone are going to be in question. So we're going to enter a period potentially of significant uncertainty. Even if the Supreme Court does do the right thing in the end. And of course, there is always the possibility that in the course of doing that they won't do the right thing. They might reverse such rights, or they might limit them, or they might just rewrite the landmark cases like the obergefell case in a way that weakens the rights that were created there or that takes away some of the core, exactly. Well, professor, you have taken us to the men who ratified the constitution. You've taken us to originalism in the early 20th century. How will history look back on this Supreme Court and its rulings this year? What's just happened in the last ten days is a sea change in modern constitutional law. And here's why. Since the end of World War II, the Supreme Court has believed and said that its job is to protect vulnerable minorities against the tyranny of the majority that would want to limit their rights. It's always found a way to expand rights since then. Sometimes those were rights that liberals liked. Sometimes those are rights that conservatives liked like free speech rights for corporations for religious liberty rights for corporations or for individuals. But it's always expanded. In the Dobbs case, the Supreme Court reversed course and it took away a well established fundamental right to control women's bodies that had existed for the previous half century. In doing that, it undermined the legitimacy of the purpose of the Supreme Court what it's for, what its job is. And it starting to look at that, and they're going to say, this is a moment when the court lost a tremendous amount of public support when it lost the capacity to appear to be an even handed body that sometimes did things for conservatives and sometimes did things for liberals. And they're going to say that originalism or the theory of originalism played a huge role in that misstep that the Supreme Court took. And that is going to be very costly for the court

Supreme Court justice Thomas Kavanaugh Alito Dobbs
"justice thomas" Discussed on The Officer Tatum Show

The Officer Tatum Show

05:31 min | 5 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on The Officer Tatum Show

"And this officer would not, this offer will not last long, so you better do it now, Brendan at my pillow dot com. All right, let's continue the conversation. You know, it is these liberals in the hypocrisy and the projection and, you know, it's just like, I know a lot of you guys know people who are narcissistic. Meaning that their minds are completely wrapped in themselves. And everything they know they're doing wrong, they project it on you. They know that they're racist, they know that they ruining the country. They say you are. They know that they're knee deep in trying to perform an insurrection, but they say that you are. And I will never, ever be fooled again by Democrats. They claim that Republicans are racist men. They say the most vile things I've ever heard. I get more racial slurs thrown at me from black liberals than I have ever heard anybody get in my entire life. I haven't had a white person come in anywhere, but I have had so many black people call me the N word. It literally will make your head spin. And what side are they on? It's not conservatives, it's liberals. Let me get a couple calls in. Let's see Sheila from Maryland. Welcome to the office stadium show. Hello. Hello, Brandon. I wanted to say thank you for all that you're doing. I've been following you for over four years, I guess. And I thank God for you. I think for your conservative view, I thank you for your faith in God. And I wish you well. But my comment is, I wish a lot of the black pastors would go ahead and start standing up. Regarding this illegal immigration, that's happening in our country. I have been facing a lot of have faced a lot of injustices and I have fought alone by myself, but I'm proud of you, and I wish some kind of way that you connect with bishop Patrick William. And various other black ministers that have been speaking up. But I wish other black ministers will speak up. And also there's someone start standing up for whites. Because I learned a long time ago, not all blacks are good and not all whites are bad. And thank you very much. Sheila, thank you so much. It just made my day. I love when I hear other people come up and say the things that I actually think and it's just common very common. You know, I'm all everywhere and I'm yelling and I'm renting. Common sense in a peaceful manner. When are the pastors going to be pastors?.

Brendan Sheila bishop Patrick William Brandon Maryland
The Border Crisis Is Fueling Fentanyl Deaths

The Officer Tatum Show

01:15 min | 5 months ago

The Border Crisis Is Fueling Fentanyl Deaths

"Fitting on. Let's talk about fentanyl real quick. Some people call it fentanyl. I call it fentanyl. When I was a police officer in Tucson, we had such a huge issue with fentanyl in our state. I remember when fentanyl did not exist, and I remember shortly after maybe two years, I said, I don't know how deep I was on a job. Maybe I was 6 years into the job, 5 years into the job. Fitting all became out of control. To the point where every single drug we ever tested, we have to put on a biohack suit with gloves and a mask on. And booty's on your feet. In order to test any drug, I don't care if it's appealed, I don't care if it's marijuana because fentanyl had gotten out of control and is so potent and dangerous that if you inhale vapor from fentanyl you can die. If you touch it and get it on your skin, you could It was really that bad. Now while we're not just extremely concerned in my opinion about fentanyl, that's killing way more people than COVID can. And that's literally coming right in through our borders, unobstructed.

Tucson
What's Driving the Increase in Firearm Sales?

The Officer Tatum Show

01:15 min | 5 months ago

What's Driving the Increase in Firearm Sales?

"It says the spread of COVID-19, the novel coronavirus pandemic has changed the way normal life functions for America, compounding by the national protests over racial injustice and police brutality many black Americans have been advocating for the purchase of firearms to protect for protection amid the current political climate. Think about this for a minute. Black ownership of guns go up as Black Lives Matter. Go out and burn up cities. Isn't that interesting that they blame white people, but yet Black Lives Matter cause black people to get guns out of fear. Overall gun sales have been surging across the United States according to the. Brookings institution nearly 3 million firearms have been purchased since March when the public health crisis caused the shutdown of major cities across the United States of America to research also shows that since March 13 are 13th when Trump first declared that the viral outbreak was a national emergency firearm sales increased significantly over the next two weeks climbing as high as a 176,000 orders on March 16th alone.

United States Of America Brookings Institution Donald Trump
Why Aren't More Black People Owning Guns?

The Officer Tatum Show

01:36 min | 5 months ago

Why Aren't More Black People Owning Guns?

"I want to talk more about the restrictions of black people in this country to own guns. And that's why I don't understand why today, more black people don't have guns. You know, it's funny. Everybody goes back to slavery and Jim Crow and all this other stuff to talk about the plight of the black man, but they don't never speak about the fact that black people couldn't own guns for a very long time in this country. And now that we have an opportunity why in the world are we trying to help pass legislation to prevent us from having guns again? Do we not get the point? We can go all the way back in the south from 1640, I'm looking at this document right here. 1640 you go through places like Florida, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, all head laws, prohibiting black slaves from on the guns, obviously, and then they also prohibited free black men for only guns as well. If you keep going throughout history, you make your way through the late 1800s, you make your way past the Civil War. And they still had race based gun restrictions. In 1866, which is after the Civil War was ended, a slavery was abolished in 1865 and then an 1866 Alabama had what they called a black code of Alabama. And January 1866 prohibited blacks to own or carry firearms or other deadly weapons and prohibited any person to sell give or land firearms or ammunition of any description whatsoever to any black person.

Jim Crow Delaware Maryland Georgia Virginia Florida Alabama Civil War
Supreme Court Sides With High School Football Coach

The Officer Tatum Show

01:19 min | 5 months ago

Supreme Court Sides With High School Football Coach

"I want to talk about the coach who was praying at center field, coach Joe Kennedy. I think it's Joe Kennedy. We got a clip of it. Wrote a clip of Joe Kennedy in the ruling from the Supreme Court. Clip one. I'm going to thank God after every football game. I don't know, I'm going to have a new commitment with God because he's given me a second chance. And I'll never give up my rights and I'll never give up thanking God, but where I do it, the great thing is the court says it doesn't matter where I do it. And that's America for you. All right. Hey guys, I want to confirm, I might be slow to the news here, but just reading some of the coverage this morning, is it news that you're going back? Because I knew you intended to go back if you won the case, but I didn't know it was so quickly wrapped up in settled fact. 'cause you're living in Florida now, right? The weather's good there. You're definitely going back to Washington, the school district has signed off on it. This is a done deal. No, it's not. And that's the part that I'm just waiting for. I'm waiting for the school to either give us a call or however the lawyers negotiated. But I'm expected, you know, a phone call from somebody and we can work all those details out and hopefully I could be on that next fight to back to Bremerton and be on that field and see behind

Joe Kennedy Supreme Court Football America Florida Washington Bremerton
Death Toll Rises to More Than Four Dozen in Migrant Tragedy

The Officer Tatum Show

01:02 min | 5 months ago

Death Toll Rises to More Than Four Dozen in Migrant Tragedy

"Let me give you another scenario and a story that I think is equally as reprehensible that the mainstream media, when I say mainstream, the left leaning media, that you had over 40 people die or found dead, 40 over 40, one article detects a tribune said four dozen. Over four dozen people. Last time I checked, my math was right, that's 40 S over 48 people. Found dead in a semi truck trailer. How did this happen? They're smuggling people in our country. And they don't care about their lives. They let them suffocate and die in a tractor trailer. And it was over a hundred people in there, supposedly in half of them died. Because it's probably a 150° in that trailer in the Texas sun. With no water, no relief, they died.

Texas
Democrats' Social Causes Drive Voters to GOP

The Officer Tatum Show

00:41 sec | 5 months ago

Democrats' Social Causes Drive Voters to GOP

"According to a Fox News article, more than 1 million voters switch registration to GOP as suburbs break from Joe Biden. Are you surprised? I'm not surprised. In this article it reads more than 1 million U.S. voters have switched their party affiliation to the GOP over the past 12 months painting a grim picture for Democrats in 2020 2022 midterms. The GOP is benefiting most in the suburbs of large, medium sized cities where voters who support Joe Biden in 2020 are struggling with inflation and growing increasingly critical of Democrats and social issues.

GOP Joe Biden Fox News U.S.
Clarence Thomas: An American Hero With Michael Pack and Mark Paoletta

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

01:36 min | 5 months ago

Clarence Thomas: An American Hero With Michael Pack and Mark Paoletta

"There's a line we're going to play a moment from the confirmation hearing, but Mark, there's a line in that commercial that of the film was probably drilled into my cerebellum more than any other phrase. And when it's when justice Thomas says, I would rather die than to withdraw from this process. Yes. And there is no question that there's not a scintilla of doubt in the listener's ear that he meant that. He meant that he did not care about getting on the Supreme Court at that point. But he was not going to surrender to the facts. No, that's what I mean. He was not going to withdraw. He said, I don't run from bullies. I've never run from bullies. I'm not going to start running from bullies now. And that is just as Thomas entire life, including when he was in these in the Reagan administration. And he was getting attacked by the left, but he's also battling some folks in the Reagan administration. Justice Thomas was going to listen to people and then he was going to do what he thought was right. He's got this great line, actually. This is the kind of stuff in the book that's not in the movie because just in fact, he talks about going up to when he was the EOC chairman. They had 60 oversight hearings. At the eeoc, he had equal employment opportunity commission. Justice Thomas, it was a completely broken agency when he took it over. It was wrong by Eleanor Holmes Norton. It was a disaster, right? He comes in and he cleans it up, even The Washington Post says that he got it running, okay? That's what his job is to do, not to do these virtue signaling, you know, joke of settlements,

Reagan Administration Thomas Justice Thomas Mark Supreme Court EOC Eleanor Holmes Norton The Washington Post
This Is the Clarence Thomas We DON'T Know

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

02:21 min | 5 months ago

This Is the Clarence Thomas We DON'T Know

"Everybody to see the movie, Michael. I want everybody to read the bookmark. But share if you will a little of the klans Thomas that we don't know. The prior to the hearing, the amazing story of how he grew up, his family, the less than conservative clarence Thomas in college, share a little bit of a history of that the pre famous clans Thomas. Well, as you know, he was born in pinpoint Georgia in 1948. And it's a gullah speaking area. So his English was not his first language. His father left before he could remember, so he was raised by his mother, who then took clarence Thomas and his brother to Savannah, where he suffered dire poverty, hungry, all the time, called in the winter, brought to school, and then left and then he'd walk out and wander the streets of Savannah until his mother brought him to her father, his grandfather to raise, and that justice Thomas life round. And hard work, his grandfather said, the damn vacation is over. Two boys thought, what vacation? And it was work all the time. They went to school. They went home and they worked on the Catholic school, right? That's right. He was Catholic or very unusual thing for black men in those days, and he sent them to a parochial school. Remember, it's the segregated south. It was all black, but run by these Irish nuns that continue to give them discipline hard work, a rigorous curriculum. And he thrived, and wanted to be a priest, which a lot of people do not know. And enrolled in the seminary. Only one of two or the only black seminaries. Right. He was integrating what were formerly all white seminaries. And he would have been one of the first black priests in Savannah. But it was the late 60s, and he experienced racism there. And as you reached a peak, perhaps when he was watching Martin Luther when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and one of the seminary and says, I hope that SOB dies. And then something snapped. Something snapped, and he became a black radical, as you say, less than less than a conservative. He said, the more radical the better, describes themselves as an angry black man. And he went to holy cross where he got a full scholarship. His grandfather kicked him out of the house when he lost his vocation. And he went through this radical period. And we

Clarence Thomas Klans Thomas Savannah Thomas Life Michael Georgia Thomas Catholic School Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther
'Created Equal' Author Mark Paoletta Reacts to SCOTUS Overturning Roe

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

01:31 min | 5 months ago

'Created Equal' Author Mark Paoletta Reacts to SCOTUS Overturning Roe

"But Mark talked to us about last week. As you said, sep, a great day for the constitution. I can't stop smiling, right? It's such a wonderful, such a wonderful thing that happened, right? And there's so many on so many levels. One of them being that the left through everything at these justice is in the most despicable way possible, right? And one of the I worked on justice Thomas's confirmation back in 1991, right? And I saw it when I reviewed his speeches in an article from his time as the EEOC. He'd been through the fire and he never wilted. He never bent, right? And so to see whether you never know how a justice is going to be until they're on the court in under fire. And it's such a great day that justice Barrett justice Gorsuch justice Kavanaugh, justice Alito, and justice Thomas, did not bend, right? And that's one of the most important things coming out of this opinion. Returning it to the states where it properly belongs. And then this intimidation. And you know, when you going back to the book and the movie, justice Thomas recognized, during those confirmation hearings, all the left cared about was this decision. This is what they were going to destroy him on. So the roe V wade was the neuralgic point for the left. 100% and he goes back to it over and over. He said, they didn't care what I did with my life. They didn't care about anything I had done. They wanted this issue, and they were going to destroy me to keep this issue.

Barrett Justice Gorsuch Justice Alito Eeoc Thomas Kavanaugh Mark Justice Thomas Roe V Wade
Clinton: Justice Thomas Is a Person of 'Resentment, Grievance, Anger'

ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes

01:23 min | 5 months ago

Clinton: Justice Thomas Is a Person of 'Resentment, Grievance, Anger'

"Justice clarence Thomas. The black Supreme Court Justice now, by the way, she's not upset at Sam Alito, who wrote the opinion, right? The white guy. No, no, no, no, no, no. She's upset with the black guy. Justice Thomas has sort of floated that out there about contraceptive rights. Contraception. And about same sex marriages. But other justices have pushed back to say, no, he's really sort of on his own with that. Well, he believes that? Well, he may be on his own, but he's signaling as he often did. I went to law school with him. He's been a person of grievance for as long as I've known him. Resentment, grievance, anger. And he has signaled in the past to lower courts to state legislatures, but find cases pass laws get them up. I may not win the first, the second or the third time, but we're going to keep at it. So you're saying people pay attention to the people he is speaking to, which is the right wing very conservative judges and justices and state legislatures. And the thing that is, well, there's so many things about it that are deeply distressing. But women are going to die, Gayle, women will die. Women will die. Well, only if they're connected to

Justice Thomas Black Supreme Court Sam Alito Gayle
"justice thomas" Discussed on WTOP

WTOP

01:56 min | 5 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on WTOP

"11. A major expansion of gun rights in the United States after the Supreme Court ruled Americans can carry guns in public. The court struck down a New York gun law in a 6 to three ruling, which is expected to let more people legally carry guns on the streets of the nation's largest cities. Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes joined WTO's Mark and Deb to talk about the majority opinion issued by justice clarence Thomas Justice Thomas has been upset with his colleagues on the court ever since the court ruled in 2008 that there was an individual right to own a gun in the home for self defense purposes. He's wanted the court to expand on the other part of the Second Amendment, which says that you can bear arms and exactly what that means. And so he made it clear that bear arms means that people have a right to carry handguns outside the home for self defense purposes. Now, in the dissent, justice Breyer said it would become more difficult for state lawmakers as a result of the majority decision to take steps to limit gun violence. In what ways now will states be able to limit things without running afoul of this? Well, justice Thomas and the majority said that these firearms regulations have to be sort of rooted in history and what has historically been used to restrict gun ownership. Most states 43 of them have shall issue permits, which means that the state can permit gun ownership and carrying guns. But that you have to meet some tests. And if you meet those tests, you will get it. What was struck down today were those that said, you had to have a special need to get it. And so I think we'll see a lot more fighting over what exactly that means. And how restrictive these shall issue permits can be in putting up requirements. Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes. Burning all

Washington Post Supreme Court Robert Barnes justice clarence Thomas Justic WTO Deb Supreme Court United States Breyer New York Mark justice Thomas
Justice Thomas, Created Equal

The Officer Tatum Show

01:45 min | 5 months ago

Justice Thomas, Created Equal

"Know how do they find the film. How can they find a book called created equal, let them know what they got, Mark. Sure, Brandon, thanks. So creative equal to movie is on Amazon. It's on lots of different platforms it's on like Apple TV and all this stuff, but probably the best place to get Amazon. You can get the DVD on Amazon. If you go to manifold productions dot com, which is Michael tax company, they'll have the listing of all the platform it's available on. So the easiest place is how the Amazon.com, but it's a great movie. It's two hours long. It's just really powerful and tax plans. The book just came out this week and it's available on Amazon. It's in Barnes and nobles. It's all bookstores. And again, it's based on that movie, but it's from the 25 hours of interviews that Michael pack did with clarence Thomas. And it's really just an amazing insight into his life. Great stuff like remember the movie as a song smiling faces from the 70s. So Claire Thomas is smiling faces. People smile in your face and they want to do you harm. That's what he calls liberals the northeastern liberals who wanted to savage him and sort of act nice, but then from behind. And he says, he's thinking about that song when he was testifying and watching those liberals coming after him. So it's those sorts of things that are these great we've talked about big issues and kind of neat issues like that. The books that had impact on his life like invisible man by Ralph Ellison, native son, Richard Wright, the fountainhead by Ayn Rand. So it's just barbershop with the movie he loved because it reminded him of going to the barbershop with his grandfather. He talks about the barbershop down in Savannah 1955. And it's just a wonderful captures justice Thomas's life in a really good way.

Amazon Michael Pack Claire Thomas Brandon Clarence Thomas Mark Apple Barnes Michael Ralph Ellison Richard Wright Ayn Rand Savannah Thomas
"justice thomas" Discussed on The Officer Tatum Show

The Officer Tatum Show

07:40 min | 5 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on The Officer Tatum Show

"Else needs to know who this man is. You're listening to the outside of the show. Hold a phone. More profitable. Officer Tatum show. Ladies and gentlemen, gentlemen and ladies. Welcome back to the office of Tatum show. I'm your host Brennan Tatum. Follow me on social media at the office of Tatum. YouTube is on fire. The outside Tatum on YouTube. Continuing the conversation about clarence Thomas, one of the most amazing men ever, Mark power letter is the second half of the conversation that we were having. We were talking to Mark, Michael pack, just before this, Mark, you knew justice Thomas will, you were a part of his confirmation, and also you worked in the Bush administration. So talk to us a little bit about your insight. This is what I want the people to hear from you. People may know who clarence Thomas is, justice Thomas. Some people may not, but I want you to tell the stories that people don't know about him. What is something that people don't know about clarence Thomas that you intimately found out about him. And the reason why you were inspired to do the work of the book and also the documentary. Yeah, so what I'd say, Brandon is justice Thomas is the nicest and funniest and most kind of engaging guy you're going to meet in your life. Everyone who meets clarence Thomas. And there's hundreds of them his walks of like love him. And I'll just tell you a couple of stories. I met him in 1983, okay? Well, I was a college senior and I met him at an event and he was seeing chairman and he treated me like whatever. Like a good guy. He's listening to me and I loved meeting him for about an hour. I went into the Bush White House in 1989 and we were thinking about president Bush's team about appointing him to the D.C. circuit at the time and I reached out to him again young aide in The White House. But at the end of talking for an hour, got to know each other, he sent me all his materials. And what I read about at that time when he's right in the 80s was kind of electrifying his kicking on Congress has taken on a civil rights group. He's taken on the hypocrisy. And I loved it. Then we became friends. We went through the confirmation. I was right by his side. I was his key aide during that confirmation. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible time. But she got through it. He threw down, he called out the Senate, and called out Joe Biden. This is a high-tech lynching. And in a way, you just blew up the Senate and called him out. After he got on the court, he was pretty damaged. He was, you know, he was broken. But he was doing his work and showing up and actually moving justices towards his view. I got diagnosed with cancer a couple of months after that. And I can tell you every day either he called me or he came and visited me when I went to chemotherapy and taking me on trips, taking out to lunch, bringing me pies, calling me with a prayer. It's things like that. Day in and day out. Later on, we talked about the nuns. Michael mentioned the nuns down in Savannah. Like, these are these Irish and some Ireland. Tough as nails, but they love those kids. And they were called all sorts of terrible things. And they taught those kids, they are equal. No matter they were growing up in the segregated south, a terrible place and yet they taught that your equal, I'm going to hold you to those high standards. I'm not going to let you fall into victimhood as just as Thomas says in this book. And you're going to learn how to do your math. You're going to learn how to do English. You're going to be ready for this world. So fast forward to when he's on the Supreme Court, every Martin Luther King day. Actually, because of the federal holiday, justice Thomas and I go over south 6 in the morning, what 5, 30 in the morning, we believe from his place in outside of D.C. and we drive up I drive up to kind of fly in New Jersey where there's a retirement home where there were probably 60 to 80 nuns. Or who used to be these teachers in the south and across the country teaching in tough neighborhoods. And they're all now retired and we were going to spend the day with them. Every single year and then times more sometimes than that. And just go visit them, have lunch with them. There are a lot of them in the infirmary, the oldest one was a 108 years old. And he just never forgot what they did for him. And how they changed his life and how grateful he is. And so, you know, I don't know if you've heard this comment from justice Sotomayor the other day. How justice Thomas knows everybody in the Supreme Court building knows at all stations of the family. He knows their kids, all that kind of stuff. And what she said though was she also said something that was like, justice Thomas talks about pulling yourselves up by the bootstraps. And we disagree on that. I think people can't reach their bootstraps. Justice Thomas has never said that. What do you said is that you need to work hard and you need to be accountable. And you need to have a community that helps you. And he always points to the non. You always point to his grandfather. And so he's just a wonderful guy. He's just a wonderful guy. When my daughter was born, she was the same birthday. His birthday was yesterday, when he issued that amazing opinion on the Second Amendment June 23rd. Oh, wow. I did not miss that. Yeah. Yeah, and you know, I called him at 5 30 in the morning, when my wife had delivered our first daughter, second child. He wrote a note that day. Beautiful note, you know, those are the kinds of things he does. As justice Sotomayor said, when her father in law passed away, he was the first person in the center of flowers. He loves, he loves sports. He loves Nebraska football, right? His wife is from Nebraska. So he became just obsessed with Nebraska, all things Nebraska. His current favorite team is the women's volleyball team. And I can tell you Brandon she knows every statistic about every single one of those players, right? For their high school kind of stats on the football team, you know, everyone's 40. And he goes out there. I've been out there on some trips to them, especially love him. He's just he's just a great guy who loves life. That is awesome. It's awesome. Mark parrotta, I got 30 seconds, but I want you to come back in a second segment and talk more about the book and how people can get the book and how people can view the movie. But I think that's such incredible. It's such an incredible thing to hear some of these intimate details about clarence Thomas. And you know one day I want to meet him. That is on my bucket list. I want to meet justice Thomas and give him a hug and tell him thank you. But we're going to come back, stay over with me for the next segment, ladies and gentlemen, you were listening to and you will be continuing to listen to Mark power letter the author of the book specifically made out to are made out about justice clarence Thomas. You could unlock more cast than you realize from your home's equity with a cash out refinance today. In the last year, average home values have gone up nearly 20%, and with rocket mortgage, you could unlock thousands in less than three weeks, but you've got to act right now before rates go up. So when you're looking to unlock the cash in your home, rocket can. Call 8 three three 8 rocket today or go to rocket mortgage dot com to get started. Race command of the 1212 21 call for buster functional conditions equal has a little less than all 50 states and almost consumer access over 30 30, 800.901233 four disclosures in cost information. Brandon Tatum, the left ain't seen nothing yet. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the occupation show..

clarence Thomas Thomas Mark power Officer Tatum Brennan Tatum office of Tatum Michael pack YouTube White House Mark Tatum D.C. Senate Brandon Nebraska Bush administration Joe Biden Supreme Court president Bush justice Sotomayor
Who Is Justice Thomas?

The Officer Tatum Show

01:16 min | 5 months ago

Who Is Justice Thomas?

"Him. What is something that people don't know about clarence Thomas that you intimately found out about him. And the reason why you were inspired to do the work of the book and also the documentary. Yeah, so what I'd say, Brandon is justice Thomas is the nicest and funniest and most kind of engaging guy you're going to meet in your life. Everyone who meets clarence Thomas. And there's hundreds of them his walks of like love him. And I'll just tell you a couple of stories. I met him in 1983, okay? Well, I was a college senior and I met him at an event and he was seeing chairman and he treated me like whatever. Like a good guy. He's listening to me and I loved meeting him for about an hour. I went into the Bush White House in 1989 and we were thinking about president Bush's team about appointing him to the D.C. circuit at the time and I reached out to him again young aide in The White House. But at the end of talking for an hour, got to know each other, he sent me all his materials. And what I read about at that time when he's right in the 80s was kind of electrifying his kicking on Congress has taken on a civil rights group. He's taken on the hypocrisy. And I loved

Clarence Thomas Brandon Thomas White House President Bush Bush D.C. Congress
Supreme Court Strikes Down Gun Restrictions in New York

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:16 min | 5 months ago

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gun Restrictions in New York

"The big news yesterday, of course, Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment oddly means what it says. It's a plane reading. I was on with special report last night with Brett bear joined by the estimable Molly Hemingway and Leslie Marshall and got asked out of the box explain it and it's a 136 pages, but I did this in 53 seconds, cut number 22. You significant, this gun ruling today, the impact nationwide. Well, there are 6 other states brat that have the same sort of regime about issuing permits that New York State does, a regime that was struck down as unconstitutional under the plain language of the Second Amendment today. Justice Alito, he wrote a concurring opinion, 6 judges, 6 justices agreed and justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, but justice later said, look, what we're deciding today is very simply put. Americans have the right to go out of their house and carry their weapon in self defense. They don't have to beg a bureaucrat to get that permit. And 43 states already agree with that. The 7 states who have asked me may give you the permit regimes, their laws are unconstitutional. No one should be surprised by this. It's been ten years coming and being made explicit, but it's not a surprise.

Brett Bear Molly Hemingway Leslie Marshall Justice Alito Supreme Court Justice Thomas New York
"justice thomas" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

01:58 min | 5 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"The Supreme Court today whenever I see a decision written by clarence Thomas I take my time and I read it Because the man is brilliant And he actually believes in the constitution So by the 6 three decision today in the case called New York State rifle and pistol association Inc at all versus superintendent of New York State police Bruin So let me read you the syllabus Because I can't read all 135 pages and keep you as listeners State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license whether inside or outside the home An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside of his home may obtain an unrestricted license to quote having carry on quote a concealed pistol or revolver he can prove that quote proper cause exists That's the key phrase proper cause exists That's what's in the New York law An applicant satisfies the proper clause requirement only if he can demonstrate a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community Now that's almost impossible Petition his brain and Coke and Robert Nash or adult law abiding New York residents Who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interests and self defense The state denied both of the applications for unrestricted licenses Allegedly because Coke and Nash failed to satisfy the so called proper cause requirement Petitioners then sued responded state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications For declaratory and injunctive relief

Archibald Cox Chris Matthews Cox Elliot Richardson Senate Judiciary Committee Richardson Nixon teddy Kennedy The Daily Beast Bobby Kennedy Richard Nixon Jack Kennedy Kennedy Matthews 11th senior council Jack Bobby Justice Department Merrick Garland U.S.
Justice Thomas Publishes Opinion on 2nd Amendment Ruling

Mark Levin

01:58 min | 5 months ago

Justice Thomas Publishes Opinion on 2nd Amendment Ruling

"The Supreme Court today whenever I see a decision written by clarence Thomas I take my time and I read it Because the man is brilliant And he actually believes in the constitution So by the 6 three decision today in the case called New York State rifle and pistol association Inc at all versus superintendent of New York State police Bruin So let me read you the syllabus Because I can't read all 135 pages and keep you as listeners State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license whether inside or outside the home An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside of his home may obtain an unrestricted license to quote having carry on quote a concealed pistol or revolver he can prove that quote proper cause exists That's the key phrase proper cause exists That's what's in the New York law An applicant satisfies the proper clause requirement only if he can demonstrate a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community Now that's almost impossible Petition his brain and Coke and Robert Nash or adult law abiding New York residents Who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interests and self defense The state denied both of the applications for unrestricted licenses Allegedly because Coke and Nash failed to satisfy the so called proper cause requirement Petitioners then sued responded state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications For declaratory and injunctive relief

New York State Rifle And Pisto Clarence Thomas New York State Police New York Supreme Court Robert Nash Coke Nash
Kelly Shackelford on the SCOTUS Gun Strike Down in New York

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:49 min | 5 months ago

Kelly Shackelford on the SCOTUS Gun Strike Down in New York

"Someone who actually just won a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, we're going to ask him about that and also about this amazing victory. Kelly shackleford from the wonderful first liberty dot org Kelly, welcome back to the program. Happy to be on Charlie. Kelly, tell us about the significance of this decision today when it comes to the Second Amendment. It's huge. This has been a battle for a long time. Most people probably don't remember, but for many, many decades, we really had no decisions on the Second Amendment. And it was only in recent years that we had that, but since that, we really haven't had a lot of development of that. But one of the things that justice Thomas has been saying over and over again, even when they've not taken cases, he'll denial absurd. He'll put a comment in, which is very rare in a denial of cert, normally they just say certain I know 7, 8000 times a year. The point he's made over and over is, why are you treating this right this individual right? Differently and like it's some sort of second class constitutional right. You know, you do things to Second Amendment rights of individuals that you don't do to First Amendment rights of individuals. And this is a great example of that. I mean, think of what they're doing here, Charlie. The government is telling citizens, you have to show, give us a proper cause why you can carry a concealed firearm. You have to prove why you get the right versus like, can you imagine that if they did that with free speech? Well, you could speak, but you have to show us that you have a proper cause for what you want to say.

Kelly Shackleford Org Kelly U.S. Supreme Court Charlie Kelly Thomas
"justice thomas" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

01:58 min | 7 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"What's next How do you expect to get a fair trial then Trial ends right They're deliberating in private to justices And now you have to worry about leakers leaking out information so that interest groups can pump more money into advocating for their course after the trial's over and you can no longer defend yourself Good luck Has anybody thought this through on the left To the left is celebrating this Has anybody thought this through Again we've got left this calling for violence for chaos out there Let me tell you what's coming next year Here's another key takeaway The left will move on this front I assure you I assure you this is coming next You're going to hear ridiculous outrageous even more so than you're used to in the past right You're going to hear outrageous claims against clarence Thomas moving forward It's already trending on Twitter I took a screenshot of it from my phone This morning you already going to see it You're going to see outrageous claims made against clarence Thomas and his wife that the court is illegitimate clarence Thomas should be impeached You're seeing it now It's trending on Twitter now You're going to see renewed attacks on McConnell Listen I'm no McConnell fan Let's leave that for another day The bottom line is because I'm not here to spin your wheels either is to tell you the truth McConnell did a good job preventing the disastrous Merrick Garland from being seated on the Supreme Court The Senate has an advice and consent role Mitch McConnell the Republicans were in charge of the Senate during Obama Obama asked for advice and consent as he constitutionally has to on Garland The Senate said we advise no and we don't consent The left is never gotten over that They claim it's illegitimate false unconstitutional false They're just making it

Ukraine
"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:55 min | 8 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"War and be able to rebuild Ukraine So that's the issue Yes or no mister president whether or not he would be willing to meet with president equipment Depends on what he wants to talk about Thank you Okay last question What if you wanted to talk about negotiations Now what if you said Supreme Court I don't think Well I can't leave that hanging Just real quick Two matters on the Supreme Court While you were away there were reports about the wife of justice Thomas And text that she had with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows Should justice Thomas recuse himself from any cases involving the January 6th insurrection or former president Trump at this point I believe that the two entities Okay go ahead I'll go ahead and ask a second question No two entities Go ahead sorry One the January 6th committee and two the Justice Department That's their judgment not mine So justice Thomas recusing think he should or I said that I told you those things get into legal issues that in fact I told you I would not tell the Justice Department what position to take or not And I'm not going to instruct the Congress either And did you get any chance to watch much of the judiciary committee here He's got a chance to see any but the fact that Republicans were questioning judge Jackson on matters like former sentences related to child pornography cases or the definition of a woman as the former chairman of the judiciary committee makes sense to you This is one of the most qualified nominees ever nominated for the Supreme Court In every respect in terms of her disposition her intellectual capacity her experience in background serving on additional courts a woman who is totally thoroughly qualified totally thoroughly qualified and will be a great addition to.

Mark Meadows Thomas recuse Supreme Court Justice Department Thomas Ukraine judge Jackson White House judiciary committee Congress
"justice thomas" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

02:25 min | 8 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Travers ABC News Warsaw And closer to home as Russia's attack on Ukraine continues a Chicago school is receiving refugees from Ukraine with open arms Here's our Nick Gayle Families left Ukraine with almost nothing but there's no shortage of generosity in Ukrainian village and a cerulean president of saint Nicholas cathedral school she tells the Bruce Saint James show on WLS Yeah I mean it's not irregular that we would have one to two Ukrainian families come From Ukraine per school year And just in the last two weeks we've already had 16 students from Ukraine and role And how are the students adapting The new students have said through translation that they feel that saint Nicholas cathedral school is a happy place and they're happy to be here The school is prepared to receive up to 50 students from Ukraine Nick Gale 8 90 WLS news A senator from Oregon is calling and for Supreme Court Justice clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to the January 6th attack on the capitol After new reporting suggests they potential conflict of interest ABC's eika jochi is in Washington with more In a statement about a potential conflict of interest senator Ron wyden of Oregon said a person with an ounce of common sense could see that the bar is met here The comments come after new reporting highlighted the justice's wife's effort to overturn the 2020 election The senator not only wants justice Thomas to recuse himself from any case related to the January 6th investigation but also any potential case surrounding the 2024 election Should former president Trump run again ABC News Washington The Big Apple has gotten a little smaller according to new Census Bureau data ABC's Jim Ryan says New York's population lost is part of a wider trend away from bigger cities The pandemic has had some impact on where Americans decide to live many have been working from home miles from their offices Some a few states away Texas with its mild weather and lack of a state income tax has been a major magnet for relocation the Census Bureau says 5 of the top ten counties in terms of numeric growth are in the lone star state Jim Ryan ABC News Dallas and in Chicago 91,000 people left the city from 2020 to 2021 WLS news time one O four Quick peak at traffic.

Ukraine saint Nicholas cathedral schoo Nick Gayle Bruce Saint James ABC Nick Gale WLS news Justice clarence Thomas eika jochi Warsaw Oregon Chicago Ron wyden Washington Supreme Court Jim Ryan Thomas Apple New York
"justice thomas" Discussed on WTOP

WTOP

01:40 min | 9 months ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on WTOP

"He's worried about the efforts to make it political Justice Thomas says politics in the court undermines the institution's very credibility At an event in Utah hosted by former Republican senator orrin hatch's foundation Thomas also blasted the media for scrutinizing his wife's conservative political activity Thomas is a reliable conservative on the nation's highest court and the court is set to rule this year on several hot button political issues It's also poised to get a new member as justice Stephen Breyer is retiring Linda kenyon CBS News Ghost guns are a growing problem in the region they're made from parts brought online and untraceable The Maryland state Senate advancing a bill on the issue that will come up for a vote next week After pushback from Republicans it will delay the prohibition to possess a ghost gun to march 1st 2023 a different ban advancing in the house would ban the sale of ghost guns in June and possession in January of 2023 Some states are making it tougher to get an abortion Maryland making sure that that doesn't happen Marilyn house wants the language allowing abortions to become part of that state's constitution a separate bill will broaden access to providers If approved by the Senate voters would have the final say in November a separate bill approved by the house would increase the number of abortion providers making it possible for some nurses and physician assistants to provide abortions A lot of U.S. rideshare drivers at career crossroads because of the gas prices we're talking Uber and Lyft Uber drivers are protesting on social media over high gas prices eating into their earnings just as the ride hailing firm raised its financial outlook I fill it up pretty much every day Schumer's karate is an Uber driver in Indianapolis If.

justice Stephen Breyer Linda kenyon Justice Thomas Thomas orrin hatch Marilyn house Maryland CBS News Utah Senate house U.S. Schumer karate Indianapolis
"justice thomas" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

06:47 min | 1 year ago

"justice thomas" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"8 8 8 MRC trip They're there waiting for you 8 8 MRC trip Let me ask you a question Why don't Supreme Court Justice is resign In protest When something happens on the court that they disagree with Do you think that would be wise As an example would it be wise if the great one of the greatest justice has ever clarence Thomas were to resign If he really had a significant problem with a majority decision that sets the law of the land on matters of great import morality to him Should he resign in protest What do you think mister producer would that be wise Be kind of foolish I certainly would not encourage clarence Thomas or other justices to resign For the cause I'd want them to fight on Fight on Sam Alito Do I know a long time ago Gorsuch I mean if that were to occur I don't think there would be very useful to the nation do you folks I really don't And so I would dissuade clarence Thomas or anybody from doing such a thing if they were thinking about that Wouldn't make much sense to me Now people do what they want to do Don't get me wrong if that's what they wanted to do Then I particularly under the current politics and events going on today I don't think they would be so smart And looking at this Department of Labor proposes roll to add political directives to retirement say to this Fox News this is how they destroy us And destroy you and everything of value They use the power of every federal office division unit administration department every corner of the vast bureaucracy Not just to push their agenda but to impose their agenda they use our tax dollars they use the law they use the regulatory power they abuse it again To impose their will on us While Democrats in Congress negotiate over trillions of dollars in new spending this is actually The Wall Street Journal the Biden administration is quietly advancing its agenda through regulation Witness a little notice proposed rule last week by the Labor Department that will add new political directives to your retirement savings They're going to add political directives to your IRA 401k whatever you have directives The administration says the rule will make it easier for retirement plans to offer 401k funds focused on environmental social and governance objectives they're doing this in our corporations In fact the rule will coerce workers and businesses into supporting these American Marxist policies Do you hear me An important Trump labor rule last fall reinforce that the employee retirement income security actress requires retirement plan fiduciary to act quote solely in the interest of participants That is the interest of you so you can make you know a decent return on your investment so you have a good pension The rule prevented pension plans and asset managers from considering environmental social and governance factors they call this ESG factors like climate workforce diversity and political donations unless they had a material effect on the return and risk of investment But the Department of Labor under the American marxists and dummy the Biden DOL plans to scrap the Trump rule while putting retirement sponsors and asset managers unnoticed Listen that they have a fiduciary duty To include these left wing investment decisions their proposed rule makes clear that climate change and other ESG factors are often material And thus in many instances should be considered in the assessment of investment risk and returns This is your investment So the Democrat party in the American Marxist have taken their unhinged ideology and they've put it into your pension plan A fiduciary duty may quote often require an evaluation of the effect of climate change and or government policy changes such as electric vehicle mandates on an investment the rulemaking says retirement plan sponsors won't merely be allowed to prioritize climate and social factors and how they invest They could be soon if they don't Workers won't get any say because plans won't be required to quote solicit preferences On these issues the buying Department of Labor claims that these factors yield higher returns Asset managers like BlackRock are pushing to create ESG 401k funds in part because they can charge higher fees This black rock is run by a left wing cook who's a multi billionaire I guess he thinks he owns the world Like Zuckerberg and Soros Oh did I say Soros According to Morningstar the asset weighted average expense ratio Okay we're getting into specifics so they don't matter The Biden rule would let plan sponsors and roll workers in these political 401k funds as the default so workers could unknowingly end up paying higher fees Threatens retirement plan sponsors with legal liability If they don't support progressive shareholder resolutions such as those requiring companies to reduce CO2 emissions or disclose political donate look there needs to be endless litigation against these bastards Endless litigation They're now taking your pension investments in a 401k and IRA whatever it is that you've been investing in all these years all these decades all you want is the best return you can get You don't want your funds being pressured to support radical Marxist left wing causes They're taking your money.

clarence Thomas Sam Alito Gorsuch federal office division unit a Department of Labor Biden administration American marxists Supreme Court Labor Department Fox News American Marxist The Wall Street Journal Biden Congress Democrat party BlackRock Zuckerberg Morningstar Soros