2 Burst results for "Kaiser Wilkie"
"kaiser wilkie" Discussed on WDRC
"We phase at three pm the Savage Nation, only on the talk of Connecticut. Why would a president go out of his way of the arrived in foreign countries thought attacking the mayor out does that add dig into his office? What do you think? I worship the Royal family. I hate the Royal family will vote for him. Yes. I pass the loyalty test. Yes, I vote for him. Yes. I vote for him. Support him all the time. The Savage Nation weekdays at three pm the talk of Connecticut. lars larson great to be with you right here on the talk of connecticut w._d._r. c. w. s. n. g. at w. m w honestly provocative talk the lars larson show welcome back to the lars larson show l. as we've already talked about the supreme court has already come down with some major decisions on some major issues including one i told you about the other night the bakery case involving sweet cakes by melissa and the klein's aaron and melissa i've involved invited collies stimson on who's a senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation to talk about what is coming next because you know the court is about to wrap current term and won't be back till october so mr stimpson welcome back and tell us what's what's still to come from the supreme court at this point Thanks for having me. We have. Question case department of commerce. Political gerrymandering case, which is the case, the American humanist American leaving Kate. The cross displayed on public property on her phone were one soldiers the flowers against Mississippi case, whether whether a prosecutor has kicking a black people off juries improperly against another supreme court. Case cases following in addition to the flowers. Delegation doctrine case, which is whether the federal sex offender registration delegation of authority to determine general violated not delegation because they applied it retroactively applied to people who registered before July thousand six and then. Not constitutional case that were watching is Kaiser Wilkie. Court. Overall this doctrine called our deference or seminal, rock, deffers. Yeah, the. Right to regulate. And that somebody challenges regulation, and that if the eighty own regulation. Manner that they have. And that. The regulation should be upheld as interpreted by the agency. So though. The sexier cases coming up about twenty twenty cases to be decided still, so we still have a lot of cases collie. Tell me this in your read the way they're deciding things right now who's voting on which we, we have a different composition for the court that we had just couple of years ago because the points being made by President Trump. How are these being decided and are you seeing some unusual patterns in who's voting which way on, on which cases, we are, you would think given the hue and cry that President Trump had had appointed lockstep conservatives Scalia that they're all gonna vote as a block on everything. And that's couldn't be further from the truth. Gorsuch, and cabin all vote not. Against the chief vote again. Split from Alito concurring. Opinions dissenting opinions. Alita. Kevin. All right. Joined the liberal bloc majority opinion. So they're not predictable in the sense of how the left portrayed as lockstep conservatives all to block what they are consistent in. Is there consistent with the values they express during their confirmation? That they look for the original meaning in the constitution for various phrases that are difficult to discern the text of the constitution and individual. They're very persuasive, and what do you agree or disagree with the opinion is relevant? They're worth reading because they're just good reading v. I like that because I want people to stick to the constitution. I know that they're going to be times where the constitution does not deliver the kind of result that I'd like, but I'd rather have a constitutional result than the results, I, I want because I want to stick to that, that bait bedrock set of principles. And I realized the only way you can do it as say, we got a set of rules, and we're gonna follow them. And if you start to break from them saying, well, you know, that's a rules, the constitution is inconvenient this time around for my side. Well then you might as well throw the constitution out altogether. If you're only going to follow it when it's convenient. Yeah. And I know you're a big separation of powers guys. You know, sort of a dry nerdy, get worthless concept. And it's nothing. It's nothing nothing that it's, it's the reason we have special relationship with the people that we do in this country. What separates us from the rest of the world they have three co equal branches of government and to your point about not let's -sarily joint the decision. Fidelity to constitution you want that is a perfect example. Gandhi, by the way, the interest disclosure, the Gundy, the person at the department of Justice in two thousand six who was delegated authority to write the rules for the registration my wife. Oh. Yeah. Feedback. The smart office. Office. But here, the issue is whether. Congress. Delegated to the attorney general, to decide whether sex offender registration requirements defenders who are predicted the act came into being the issues whether or not that delegation was appropriate because as a as a separation powers person, you know, that delegation, prohibits congress from transferring, how's it legislative power to another branch of the government. So the question here. Absolutely. They transferred their power. It was inappropriate violated. The constitution. Directed the Justice department to implement the rules to cover pre-act offenders. Deal if the government loses and they could over five hundred thousand convicted registered sex offenders, who are convicted registered before July two thousand six fall off of the national think how how, you know, you talk about his nerdy, but I tell you Kelly that is hugely consequential because I know people who check those registries, they say, gee, I've, I've at least identified the people within my neighborhood, or my community that I have that I have to arguably be concerned about, although you can't go off, and do your vigilante, Justice beacon say that guy lives down the block. My kids aren't going anywhere near or I'm going to approach him. And, you know, take with a grain of salt, I'll, I'll him and understand, you know who he is. And what is back on is. So I take that into account letting five hundred thousand people fall off is hugely, consequential right. And the question for conservatives. And if you look at all the unto the court briefs the so-called. Briefs then lined up with Gundy. One, too, but it's a lot of libertarian and other constitutional conservatives. They look the issue is not whether. Should be registered public policy. Most people with that, not everybody. But most issue is whether this violated the delegation, Dr. And they did. Constitutional standpoint. How are can't punt? The executive rant so that it violates the delegates really interesting question. We will find out tomorrow, collie pleasure to have you on the program. Thanks so much. kali stimson from the heritage foundation talking about big decisions coming down from the united states bream court tonight the twitter poll should you have to pay a fine if your child is a bully i don't think it's going to do any good so i don't really think there's a point to this but there's a proposal in wisconsin rapids wisconsin that would allow parents to be fined up to three hundred thirteen dollars if their children are bullying other people in most cases this would happen at school i would say no you shouldn't have to pay a fine of your child's bully i don't think number one at your responsibility and number two i think in many cases with teenagers the parents have lost the ability to control kids at that age tonight's twitter poll is brought to you by amac the association of mature american citizens it has the conservative values i believe in i joined in you should too at amac.us or eight to six to two thousand six back in just momo get your phone calls.
"kaiser wilkie" Discussed on Liberty Talk FM
"Their do worth or value is Corey Jackson just said, it was good to get things from a person who has been in that kind of situations perspective, but I do feel that the education that student athletes get while they're attending college is a good trade off for the time that they spend doing their student athlete duties as. Martina your thoughts. Yeah. Speaking as a college professor, I would agree with what Corey said, universities, do not spend enough time helping with career issues with athletes, and there is a quite a bit of an investment of time with the athletes. Concentrating on their athletic ability rather than scholarships. So what is the school for is that for academics? Or is it for sports? I think it comes down to that. This issue isn't leaving. I'm glad we got him on the air. Let's switch gears though, guys. There's an old saying that says the bureaucracy always wins the bureaucracy always wins, it appears true with corporations and with federal agencies. The for example. Can call mudhole the waters of the United States. And if they make rules about the mudhole, they are the arbitrator of win that law or that rule about the mudhole is broken. Even the president is not immune from agency interpretations. So the agencies themselves or these bureaucracies at the federal level create the rules without any public input without input of a court. When cases go to court, the court goes back to the agency and says, well, you have a regulation on it. Therefore, they're the arbiter and not the court and not the public Martina your take. You know, it's a concept of who regulates the regulators, and it's the regulators to regulate the regulators. So it's that's the definition of bureaucracy. And this happened to a friend of mine that owns a ranch in Colorado. They deemed out a waterhole out in the backyard as a wetlands and under the auspices of the EPA, it's ridiculous. I really feel like they operate on the that they are only accountable to themselves. And so they don't really seem to be bothered by how their actions affect the people around them. They only go by their rules, and they'll play by them when they so choose there are several cases on this which has fueled a gross explosive growth, even in the power of executive branch agencies to be the judge the jury and punishment to those who break their laws. They don't. Monitor for themselves. They're this large executive branch estate. If you will with EPA just being one example, but there's other branches of this. They have some cream control. All started kind of back in the Woodrow Wilson administration. But then rulings at the supreme court seemed to bolster up the largess of the administrative state. Now, there is a case called Kaiser Wilkie, it's a veteran's benefit case, and it involves the marine seeking retroactive benefits or his PTSD, and it hinges on the VA's interpretation of one word and the word is relevant. Whether something was relevant in applicable federal regulations is what this case hinged on in the man's petition for the supreme court review. He submitted two questions for the for the court. And the court agreed to review whether the court should rule prior overrule prior cases or not so at all got into the woods Bri. Bryson the VA interpreted for their part its own regulation in Kaiser that the documents on his P T S D were not relevant to a prior request that he had and therefore he took it all the way the supreme court now he might win. But it's all this kind of micromanaging of their own offices their own bureaucracy. And in this case he could win he could not win, but it hinges on PTSD treatments and help for this particular event. How do you look at all of that? Don't you think it's high time that the supreme court really take this case, and sort of overthrow all these back other cases and be a the. Judge over the administrative state. This was probably one was interesting cases that this room court is focused on in quite a while because this one if they ruled in favor of Kaiser could definitely shakeup foundation of how many of the executive bureaucracies function and how they operate because it.