19 Burst results for "Katie Porter"

"katie porter" Discussed on The Times: Daily news from the L.A. Times

The Times: Daily news from the L.A. Times

02:33 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on The Times: Daily news from the L.A. Times

"Or a briefing <Speech_Female> or even <Speech_Female> to illustrate something <Speech_Music_Male> for staff <SpeakerChange> i can <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> just whip it right out. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Thank you so <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> much for this interview congresswoman <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> porter <Speech_Music_Female> <Speech_Music_Male> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Speech_Music_Male> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Music> <Advertisement> <Music> <Advertisement> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Music> <Speech_Music_Male> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and that's it for this episode <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> of the times <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> tomorrow will <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> be going to the library <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> not library <Speech_Music_Male> library seriously. <Speech_Music_Male> It's not an old <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> boring quiet place. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Libraries have produced <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> america's leading <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> authors poets <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> rising female punks. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Our show is produced by <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> shannon. Lynn steven <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> cuevas and denisa. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Our <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> executive producer is <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> abby venture. Swanson <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> our editors <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> julia turner and our <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> theme music is by andrew. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> We i'm <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> starion. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> We'll be back tomorrow <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> with all

"katie porter" Discussed on The Times: Daily news from the L.A. Times

The Times: Daily news from the L.A. Times

03:04 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on The Times: Daily news from the L.A. Times

"To invite.

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

01:30 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"President trump. Does i don't those actions are wrong. They are harm. Not republicans not democrats that are harmed our democracy so that is either of the district. That's about years of republicans and democrats and a whole lot of independence in one of the most important political things for people to understand his. You don't just win independence through moderation on healthcare or or through kind of vague viewpoints for. They're not really sure. Whether you're taking the stanford around the other you win. Independence by recognizing some of their distrust in our democracy is legitimate and by responding to it by trying to make government better and so it's not enough to just him pain and say process were democrats trust us republicans. We have to actually take action to regain mattress. that's ultimately what either party. They need to support these reforms. Because i think that's how we're going to regain the trust of the american people for the next decade or two sheets that was my conversation with representative katie porter. She represents the forty fifth congressional district in orange county california at an event put on last week by crew which stands for citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington crew has been a leading nonprofit watchdog focused on ethics accountability and getting.

katie porter last week two sheets republicans next decade President one washington democrats orange county california trump american forty fifth most political congressional district
"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

02:36 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Vendors from the very person who has conflict of interests and that is kind of sounds like its efforts. It's sounds like there's a refusal all see but it isn't really functioning on the ground. In a way to use the american people comets. So there's a lot of elements to this. And i would be remiss of course not to mention. Hr one for the people act Which we are so rich about campaign finance aspects of that to reduce the influence of dark money so much important conversation right now on voting rights the part of hr one here s about a particular interest to folks who are engaged with crew is the transparency and accountability. Safeguards that are built in day are what they are really really important and the class was part of the oslo twenty eighteen much like the post water class. Very large class was elected on reform agenda was elected not to revert government to create trump but to make government better because trump has cost to recognize. Just how important is. And i've just gonna flag self interested. Interestingly on the podcast. Senator sheldon whitehouse talk really at length and in-depth about why those disclosure and transparency provisions are getting ignored. Why they really matter. So if people are just drunken disclosure based on his conversation it might be a useful listen i was one of the dummies representative porter. Who went on the tv shows after the twenty twenty election and said actually the one issue on which there will be. Bipartisan good-faith reform. It's going to be these anti-corruption oversight measures precisely because hunter biden up because there's going be a stance that my god whatever happens. We don't want a joe biden administration to engage in what we just saw happening. I couldn't have been more wrong about that. It does not feel as though that sense of sauce for the goose sauce for the gander. Both parties have such a vested interest in all of these checking mechanism simply because both parties are well aware of that. As you said at the beginning the other side may do it. Do you of a sort of theory of the case for. Why is that. There hasn't been a kind of widespread agreement that whatever side you were on. We never want to see what happened up for the last four years happen again. You know this your great credit..

trump Senator both parties Both parties one issue sheldon whitehouse one oslo last four years twenty twenty election american joe biden twenty eighteen
"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

03:15 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"A house ethics office as it is about epoch's offices in executive branch departments. We have to make clear. The director of the office of government. Ethics has the ability to conduct investigations for example to subpoena witnesses issue civil penalties Reading to make sure. The office of government ethics is really serving as a central clearing house for ethics actions that are taken by each designated agency office on because our is arrested. We just had this debate. The yesterday hearing inspector generals or a great example this they exist as creatures both the legislative branch reporting to congress and the executive branch. They are housed within the agency. They are supposed to be overseeing So it's really really important that we have the opposite government ethics of being that central high level during house technology. I mentioned created some some of the challenges. the ability to people's expectation and need to be able to get large amounts of information for government. The sort of old days someone goes to the basement and routes around in a filing cabinet needs to stop And a great example of that is the stock act two point. Oh regina co-sponsoring wall with senator gillibrand and eaglets really to make short information that we're required to disclose out. Transactions is being done so that people can actually get that information in more real time not also to recognize that while people were focused on stocks. We now have a very large ministry of state government programs. Whether it's your subsidies for a farm. Someone owns a ppp program. Whatever it is really be display. All of our inner. As elected officials was all the ways that we interact with the federal government and the stock act When he'll do that would also make clear that you can't hide behind your spouse get high behind Your kids this all needs to be on the table. Because that's the reality of family economic unit on the making money off some transactions. There's no that Influential important for the public to assess with regard to the elected officials. I don't think i wanted is. We need to be able to get more information more quickly. About how ethics offices are doing their job. The perfect example of this is that wonderful ethics poster child who is joy postmaster general. He claims that he has recused himself. Through certain decisions bad he would have a conflict interest with because of prior corporate duty. Keeps coming to. Congress keeps telling us i recused myself but we can't seem to get in the american people can't yet publication about recused So rear not clear on what exactly. He's recused himself from on what basis however recusals being effectuation analysis as just make taking the word about.

Congress congress yesterday gillibrand american both eaglets each designated agency office act regina two point
"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

06:19 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"So now we wanted to turn to questions of money and influence and corruption government. It's one of those topics. We used to cover exhaustively back at the start of the trump era when nobody could get enough of that word emoluments but despite the hatch act violations and the self dealing and the promotions of big donors to prominent roles in the government. The entire conversation kind of faded away when joe biden took office this year. Perhaps because these problems of big money foreign money directed at inaugural events directed at campaigns. All felt like maybe it would be less urgent but evidently the urgency is as real today as it's always been this past thursday. The biden administration issued a national security. Study memorandum arguing. That corruption quote makes government less effective and quote attacks. The foundations of democratic institutions in effect biden is asking federal agencies to crack down on corruption quote as part of the core national security interests of the united states for representative katie porter. She represents the forty fifth congressional district in orange county california. This fight to get rid of foreign funds and big money interests in washington. Didn't stop with the twenty twenty election either porter and her great white board of doom has been calling out big pharma big banking big money for years now but she's also been one of the loudest voices in congress demanding ethics reform and congressional oversight as a member of the house oversight and reform committee. She's proposing all these legislative fixes that would prevent corruption and increase transparency. And she wants these fixes to be permanent. I spoke to representative porter last week. At an online event organized by crew that stands for citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington crew. As you probably know has been a leading. Nonprofit watchdog focused on ethics accountability. Getting dark money out of politics. The sound quality here is a tiny bit zoo me. But i just really wanted to share this important conversation with you. So thanks for bearing with us representative porter in is started with the proposition that there's a pair of cliches that more or less us for the past four years of the trump era. One norms aren't laws. We thought they were enforceable but they were always just soft norms. The second was that sometimes even when you have laws they cannot be enforced against people who simply believe that. The law doesn't affect them. So i started out by asking representative porter to set the table about some of the key weaknesses. She had identified in the trump era ethics and accountability systems. The area's where laws and norms utterly failed the american people. Just at the moment. We needed them most so table set for my perspective on this important question about laws norms. Two things here have really been driving factors in this work and then how about doing this work and one is that before. I keep the congress. I was a consumer protection advocate. Professor and i took this big wall of trying to help make sure her. The big banks sign a binding legal agreement promising to change their practices. Actually were doing that in real people's lives and so it always been as Doing that on the ground in some protection really interested in the gap between what we think is the wall or what the law says. And then what's really happening. And i think that dow and the recognition of that gap is real is a lot of really important. Work crew does exist. Is people think there should be a law. What that's legal they say. How can that be. But there are a lot of scouts. And there are lots of different ways to to close those gaps whether it's through straightening arms or creating enforceable happy end of my first year in congress opening emerged on the on oversight and reform and i had gone to congress wanting to financial services committee. I absolutely love serving mayor. Ut giving my work on whole big base accountable but one of the things that i very quickly saw in congress is there is sort of special interest playbook same arguments that bankers may about unintended consequences and over-regulation than you know we shouldn't waiters decide the at all of these things that some arguments i begin to hear from farm industry would get again to hear arguments. I heard trump officials about why they couldn't actually help. People were some of the same arguments. Her from officials in president obama's administration a why they couldn't help people during the foreclosure crisis mostly arguments during the dot. So i asked to join a privilege to be selected to join the committee. On oversight and reform on this is congress's name investigative body. So it's rare. We do a lot of the thinking about where are these gaps The law doesn't say it's illegal but we need to do an investigation to understand what happened and then decided to make a law to address that. And so i really really liked not respect of being able to do that. Investigatory work and say. I'm not saying this is a legal. I'm saying did you do it. And bannon opens up the debate to citizens who care about responsibility and ethics to advocate for watching h. Look i don't want to spend our time to talk all about the things. The president did To put his own personal and political interests ahead of national i think the important takeaway here is the one that your question drags out which is before president from engaged in some conduct. I think a lot of us had a sense of it. That wasn't what presents did use can't do it. That's not a fame you can't campaign rallies of the white house lawn you can't you.

joe biden congress washington last week katie porter president this year biden trump today second first year one Two things orange county california past thursday obama american united porter
"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

05:57 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"In also writing papers. Sometimes vaguely defined. I'm frightened to death of writing. Count this is one of those cases. Mark where it's clear. That doctrine has not caught up to tech and that the supreme court justices are. I think to their immense credit mindful of the fact that they don't completely understand what they might unleash on the world. Both because tech is moving so fast and because as you say the old rubrics are just so archaic that they're useless and there. Is this sense that the justices both desperately wanted to take this case because it is urgently necessary to fix this and also don't want to touch this with a ten foot pool because it is possible they're gonna make everything worse. Yes and going back to our earlier conversation. This seems like it has the potential to splinter the court really badly to wind up with no single majority opinion. But a bunch of separate concurring opinions and plurality opinions and dissenting opinions. That actually just muddy the waters even more and leave this doctrine and more of a mess than it was in when the supreme court took it up which is not what the court supposed to do but happens fairly frequently when every justice feels. It's extremely important for their idiosyncratic views to be put on paper into law. Mark we started by a protracted snarky about the announcement that there were only four cases to watch for the rest of the term. So i want to give you the opportunity to tell our listeners. Other things that they should be watching I know there are actually materially urgently important other cases What else should folks be looking out for and thinking about as the term wants to close. I think the other big one just out of the top four is the americans for prosperity case. This is a a case about a california law that requires major major donors to nonprofits people who have donated in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars to have their identities disclosed to the state attorney general that disclosure is it only goes to the state attorney general the public can access it but the state attorney general than uses the information to ensure that charities non profits are doing what they promised their donors they would do and this has been a real problem right. Charities will solicit money from often very wealthy people Get a ton of it and then use it for a bunch of stuff that was not approved by the donor that sometimes is kind of sleazy and not what the donor intended and this law was designed to ensure that the attorney general could keep charities honest but americans for prosperity this coq group that spent a lot of money. Promoting electing republicans Sued and alleged that this disclosure requirement is a violation of its first amendment rights to give a ton of money in total secrecy alleged that california's acting in bad faith. That it's like leaking this information to punish donors that this is all kind of witch hunts to target the real victims among us who are the plutocrats who just want to fund massive influence peddling dark money networks. And i think the supreme court's gonna agree with americans for prosperity and plock this law and create this new standard. That makes it almost impossible for the government to require. Disclosure is not just in the context of charities but in the election context and so much of this case is really shadowboxing over election law right because for many years. Big high dollar donors have tried to take down these disclosure requirements because they want to fund elections in secret. They don't want to have to deal with the bother the trouble of being criticized in public and it looks like the supreme court is going to say that wealthy people a first amendment right to not be criticized basically to fund any campaign any candidate and he charity. They want and not have to face any kind of public consequence because they can do so in total secrecy anonymity and i think we should just be clear that that will be a major overhaul in first amendment law and for many decades even conservative. Justices like antonin. Scalia argued that public criticism is the price you pay for civic engagement and that there's really no compelling interest in protecting people from getting criticized in public but this court is very concerned about cancel culture. They are very concerned about keeping our precious conservative snowflakes from melting under the withering. Harsh lights of transparency. And so it looks like the court is going to say that being criticized is so difficult so hard and so sad for conservatives that they don't have to face it anymore and they can just by our elections in in total anonymity mark. That's an amazing launch into our next conversation with representative katie porter about ethics reform transparency. Dark money the capture of electoral systems by money. That we can't figure out where it comes from. So thank you for the inadvertent segue. Marc joseph. Stern covers law courts justice stanford law school. Everything else for slate. he's also. I have to tell you been holding up the sky the last couple of weeks while i've been permitted to finish my book so if you enjoyed this conversation with mark who as you can tell folks Does not tell you what he really thinks. You can always get more of mark including on this show on me. Slate plus segment but mark as ever. You are a joy to talk to you. Thank you for joining us. Always a pleasure. And i'll see it. Sleep plus bonus segment time and after the break representative katie porter on ethics emoluments and accountability..

Marc joseph Scalia mark ten foot Mark hundreds of thousands of dolla Both katie porter republicans Stern both stanford law school california four cases first amendment antonin a ton of money a ton of it one of those cases last couple of weeks
"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

07:04 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Can you talk for a minute. About why the voting rights act matters. That if you're a voting rights lawyer and now you've lost pre-clearance you've lost the things that were lost in shelby county. Why it really actually matters immensely to be able to go to a court and vindicate voting rights now more than ever. Because it's all that you have left the only tool in your arsenal and you know for a long time. I think we were lucky. In preserving section five pre clearance requirements. It was it. Seemed like this country was maybe on the right track with regard to voting rights for a while there was not necessarily the kind of extreme aggressive mass disenfranchisement that you see today but that was because the pre clearance requirement existed. I think it's. It's very obvious and kind of indisputable if you look at the number of poll closures in minority communities of really draconian voter. Id laws that target. A racial minorities attacks on mail voting. All of that stuff happened after shelby county when the floodgates opened and so the only thing you have left if you're voting rights lawyer is section two and really the only thing you have left is this disparate impact test that the so-called results test because republican legislators. Don't stand on the floor of the state house. And say i hate black people and i don't want them to vote and that's why introduced this bill. They say we need election integrity. Just like you'll gorsuch. Echo neal gorsuch and say we need to prevent fraud. We may never ever have detected a scintilla of fraud in the state. But we know it's there and we need to stop it and so it's really impossible to prove racist intent. The only thing you can prove if you're a lawyer is that this law suppresses the votes of racial minorities in an extremely disproportionate way and up until now that has been enough to block a law under the voting rights act but these cases seem destined to give the supreme court and opportunity to gut that rule And make it pretty much impossible for courts to block voter suppression laws. Because they have such disparate impact on on racial minorities. Mark the last of the four cases that i wanted to talk about just. I'm sure listeners already know about it. Just because of the facts are so fun and amazing. I was listening to Adam lip tech being interviewed about the case of the cussing cheerleader. And he said it was so great he said on the daily most of the stuff i cover is glazing lee boring but this is such an amazing case. So can we talk about cheerleaders. Student speech rights Three of the lens of this is a case that actually even though the facts are amazing and interesting in everybody has an opinion on snapchat and cheerleaders Through the lens of this long history of student speech that was protected by the court in tinker and has been eroded eroded eroded in a million tiny little cuts the so every free speech lover knows tinker v d moines A nineteen sixty nine supreme court decision at the tail end of the warren court where the supreme court ruled in favor of these students in high school who were wearing black armbands to protest the vietnam war. The supreme court said the school can't punish the students. This is a public school. It is part of the government And these students have free speech rights which they do not leave behind at the schoolhouse gate. Big decision everybody seems to agree with it but it has largely fallen apart in the intervening decades for a couple of reasons. First the supreme court has just gotten pretty hostile to the free speech rights of students in part because a lot of student speech cases don't involve something sort of valiant noble like protesting the vietnam war. You know this is the reality of first amendment jurisprudence. A lot of speech. That is punished. Unconstitutionally is kind of gross or offensive. There was a student who made some sexual innuendo at school. Wide speech to the supreme court allowed to be punished. There was the student who famously held up the banner that read bong hits for jesus at a school supervised event. The supreme court said by all means punish them. There were the students who wanted to write about birth control and abortion in their school newspaper. The supreme said they can be censored so this has been a kind of slide down the slope ever since tinker way back in nineteen sixty nine and the cursing. Cheerleader case is maybe an opportunity for the supreme court to reinvigorate students speech rights. But it comes with this caveat that it's sort of a existential challenge to the very concept of free speech rights on campus because as we all know what the internet A lot of students speech occurs off campus. That was what happened here. This cheerleader brandy lovey. She she was rejected from the varsity. Cheer squad. She went with her friend to the cocoa a local convenience store and snapped picture of herself with the caption. Fuck school faulk softball. Fuck cheer fuck everything. One of her fellow students followed her on snapchat and was a narc and showed the snap to her mom who happened to be the cheerleading coach and the cheerleading coach punished brandy levy and kicked her off the team for the rest of the year and we should know that burundi levy did make our city the next year so justice for brandy but the the student brandy levy sued for her punishment and said look. I was exercising my free speech rights. You can't punish me for this. The lower court of appeals agreed. And said actually. The school can't punish students for anything. They say off campus like this is not in the world of tinker. This is just basic first amendment stuff like if brady levy wants to snapchat herself saying the f bomb. The school has no business punishing her for that. This case went to the supreme court. I think because a lot of justices are concerned with that super lazy faire attitude because they understand that speech that happens off. Campus affects. What happens on campus right. There's no longer this clear dividing line between the students and tinker crossing the schoolhouse gate into the threshold of high school. Now the speech happens on phones on computers on ipads it trickles back onto campus and has real consequences and i think steven briar said it quite honestly when he admitted during oral arguments that he is frightened to death of creating a standard here that pre-tax a sufficient amount of speech without making it impossible for school administrators to do their job because that does seem like a really hard task. And i don't envy brier and the rest for having to handle it. There are dozens of areas. That didn't used to be thought of as within the purview of the public school today in many places they are now. Add to that the internet and the internet not just listening to teachers but also doing.

steven briar brady levy vietnam war brandy levy next year snapchat ipads four cases today First One brandy section two first amendment Adam lip tech supreme court jesus Three voting rights act gorsuch
"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

06:46 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Amicus use promo code amicus mark. We started the show by saying this was a big year for the supreme court in that it stayed out of voting rights having flicked the fact that if we look at some of the early covid voting cases and the rules. That were changing. There was an appetite. I think from justices cavenaugh on alito to get involved in the twenty twenty election. The court wisely stood down but it would be a lie to say the court did not look at a really really important voting question in burn of it which and that that is also pending. And i guess we should say The court's decision to stay out of the twenty twenty election does not mean that the court is not in fact up to its neck in voting rights. Right now right. it's just teeing up for the two thousand twenty two election really and twenty twenty four so we should talk about berna vich v. Dnc this is the arizona case really kind of puts the voting rights act like on the chopping block so the voting rates. What's frightening so in twenty thirteen the supreme court gutted the centerpiece of the voting rights act. Which was the pre clearance requirement that required states with a history of racial voting discrimination To submit changes to election law to the justice department for approval to make sure that they didn't have a disparate impact on racial minorities. So that's gone. The only thing left really is section. Two which prohibits both intentional discrimination against minority voters but also Any kind of election law has the effect of Burdening minorities disproportionately so for instance. A state could pass a law. That shudders a bunch of a polling places exclusively in minority areas the minority groups who might not be able to prove that the state really wanted to keep black voters from voting. But they could say hey. This has a ninety percent impact on black people in easier. Percent impact on white people and theoretically that action could be blocked under section two. And now that test this disproportionate disparate impact. Test is on the line in berna vetch. Because the case involves to arizona voting laws that have exactly the discriminatory disproportionate impact. That i just described in my example. You have one. That notifies ballots that were cast in the wrong precinct. So this is the right church wrong pew problem where a voter accidentally goes to different precinct than the one. There are signs. They fill out a ballot. It might be the exact ballot that they would have at the correct precinct. It might have a few races. That are different. But the state just nullifies the entire thing and mysteriously precincts in minority areas tend to shift around a great deal more than precincts in white areas in arizona And people of color tend to vote out precinct more frequently in part because they're confused because their precincts are constantly being shifted in part because mysteriously there precincts tend to be further away from their homes than those of white people and that is the kind of disparate impact that should be blocked under section two of the voting rights act. But it looks like the supreme court is going to uphold it on similar story for arizona's ballot collection law. This is referred to as ballot counting by enemies of voting rights and republicans. But i repeat myself and this is a case where basically arizona for a very long time. Allowed community organizers family members other individuals to collect mail ballots from individuals from their homes and bring them to the election center to election officials. And there's no evidence that this was used for fraud in arizona ever it was actually for hispanic communities. Who don't necessarily have great access to mail ballots in the first place. Don't have reliable usps service. Thanks louis dejoy and this too has a really big benefit for minority communities so arizona republicans repeal that actually criminalized it and once again. That's the kind of thing that should be blocked. Under section two of the voting rights act because it has a massively disproportionate impact on racial minorities but once again it looks like the supreme court is going to uphold both of these laws under the theory. That states have such an overwhelming interest in preventing voter fraud. That they can do anything they want to make it. Really hard for people to vote and here we have some great neal gorsuch quote where he's sounding like donald trump on november second twenty twenty basically saying like does amazon have to wait until it's election is stolen just to put some election integrity laws into place to have to wait for fraud to occur in arizona using a practice. Now you know your honor but as this court has said any okay so it doesn't matter then you agree. It doesn't matter that they're harvesting hasn't resulted in fraud in arizona. How many states. How many elections does it need to affect of out of state for arizona can take cognizance of it in its own state. You're on what this court said. Is that when in mccutchen is that went. Legislature takes a prophylactic approach prophylactic approach. The court should be particularly diligent in scrutinizing the law and that should be jumping. The i'm just asking you know how many elections wh what would be enough in in the secretary's view. It doesn't have to happen. How many states does it have to happen. In how many elections. You're on our to be clear. Arizona already has the law. Prohibiting fraudulent valid collection market wouldn't give you a chance to pan back only because literally as we're taping this we're seeing states around the country passing unbelievably regressing voting bills again extensively under the theory that Vote fraud is rampant and the twenty twenty election was probably stolen and who among us can know what really happened there. But just in the light of what we're seeing happening around the country and i think adam serwer has a really dispiriting piece on how this really shows that the events of january six don't need to happen again because it's going to happen in state houses passing vote suppression bills..

donald trump amazon ninety percent louis dejoy neal gorsuch arizona berna vetch both two section two Two republicans twenty thirteen voting rights one first place four twenty twenty twenty the voting rights act
"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

08:55 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Are so grateful for your support so now for our first segment. Today we are going to talk to mark joseph stern. He covers the supreme court and the law justice voting so many other things for slate usually he ends the show with us in a slate plus segment. That is a lot of people. Say the best part of the show where he and i gossip about the term in the cases. But we're going to actually talk to mark. I today to try to get a handle on the four or five big big ticket cases that are coming barreling toward us in the coming weeks what to look for what to expect. Marc joseph stern welcome to the big big main show thank you so happy to be here. Exiting the the sleep plus vip room and entering the main club with all the masses. This is going to be a great time. It's like literally. It's the petting zoo. Welcome let's talk about there are i. Don't i'm not quite sure where the convention has arisen that there are quote unquote four big cases left to be decided but that seems to be the number in every piece i read so maybe we'll start with that. Question are their own four cases that everyone's watching for the rest of the term. No i think there are more than four. And i was reminded of this on thursday when the court released just one opinion for the day of 'em buren versus the united states. Which is a big case about this. Anti hacking law and i tweeted that it was not a blockbuster. Got a lot of backlash from people who have devoted their lives to the very worthy cause of interpreting this impossible statute that the supreme court narrowed in that case so every case is a blockbuster to someone but i think that probably there are like five to six really big ones laughed and we can zero in on the four that will have the most impact on people's lives and on politics in american law for the rest of our lives. Let's before we do that. One of the things that i have been moaned after years of supreme court reporting. Is that convention. And you and. I've talked about this secretly but that convention that starts with a curtain raiser in october that says these are the six big cases to watch because it always misses a bunch and certainly misses the cases. They get added after but it also kind of frames. The year. In terms of these will be the blockbusters we these will be the not blockbusters and then every turn you get a case that nobody thought was a blockbuster and was not really covered as though it mattered that turns out to be massively consequential modules for someone but for everyone it's just that there is this convention that says we do this big sort the last week of september. Yeah totally. I think that that convention mrs cases that are a little wonky olympic technical but really matter a great deal and i think the classic example of this is a systems case from a few terms ago where the supreme court just like brutally gutted. The national labor relations act and abolished workers rights to band together collectively to sue for workplace wrongs. And that was just a case that wasn't on most people's radars unless you were a labor lawyer an arbitration lawyer and It was devastating to american employees ability to defend their own rights together which had been a kind of fundamental right in american federal law. Going back to the new deal and it just barely got attention At least before the decision came down and people like ran around with our hair on fire. Just kind of what we do. And it's you know it's what we're paid to do but you know if you only start screaming about how. The building is burning down after. It's you know collapsed into rubble. It doesn't much matter. And so i think it's important to flag cases at the outset. That will have the potential to destroy really important laws or hurt a lot of people even if you have to spend a few extra minutes explaining like the statutory interpretation of why this profit katori clause does not say what new gorsuch things that says my example that i always used to make the same point is equal which was a case that we all failed to cover correctly and changed the pleading standards forever and We noticed that. Only after. And when i say blitz please not maligned the entire supreme court press corps but i do think there's a real problem in designating some cases as worthy and others less worthy. Okay having done that. We are now about to designate for cases as completely worthy of all our attention for the rest of the show so mark. Maybe let's start where i guess. We started at the beginning of the term with the affordable. Care act and a case that we're waiting waiting waiting waiting waiting to hear what's going to happen next in terms of whether the survives yet another challenge by those who would like to bring it to. It's knees so yet another. It seems like there have been hundreds at this point and in the lower courts there have been in fact but this is the third time that the us supreme court has considered just destroying the affordable care act and this may be the most frivolous daft challenge yet so as people may or may not remember the only substantive legislation congress passed under donald trump was a big tax cut bill that included a provision zeroing out the penalty for people who did not purchase health insurance so the individual mandate is still technically on the books. Says you have to buy health insurance but there is a zero dollar penalty for people who do not buy health insurance and this was done this way because of the reconciliation process with which we are also familiar now. Republicans did not hesitate to use it for a second when they wanted to cut very rich people's taxes in two thousand seventeen so a bunch of conservative lawyers and state attorneys general took the ball and ran with it after congress out the mandate and said hey now that there's no penalty this is no longer tax. It is a command. And as you remember when the supreme court upheld obamacare and twenty twelve. John roberts upheld the individual mandate because he called it a tax he said this is collecting revenue. It's a tax. It fits neatly into congress's taxing power challenges to the law. Now say well. It's not a tax anymore. It's not collecting revenue. And it's not giving you a choice. It is telling americans you have to purchase health insurance and it's just a command on its own and the theory here is well. People are presumed to want to follow the law. And even if there's no penalty for not buying health insurance it is still a command. That people will presume they must follow and as such it exceeds congress's power to regulate commerce or to collect taxes that means it's unconstitutional. And we think that it cannot be severed from the rest of the law and so the entirety of the affordable care act the exchanges. The tax credits medicaid expansion. All of this stuff that has expanded health insurance to about twenty million people. All of that has to come tumbling down with the mandate and so these challengers have asked the supreme court to a radical obamacare root and branch in effect stripping health insurance from more than twenty million people. Some of whom will assuredly die if they are denied access to medical care. Let's talk for a minute about i. Guess two questions in this question rendering me steven briar. But let's let's let's talk briefly about why it is that the court heard this at the very beginning of the term. And we're still waiting this. We've been sitting on it for a long time. And i. I would commend to folks Joan biskupic has a really good piece this week about what happens at the end of the term. What happens when the votes have been taken. We know who's writing opinions and it still takes forever. Maybe talk a little bit about why the day that they do a straw poll the supreme court and decide how this is going to be decided is not in fact the day that the action ends and then just connected to that maybe Talk a little bit about the ways. In which certainly based on oral argument does not look as though the affordable care act root and branch is going to die. Yeah good news for people who don't like mass death in america really when the supreme court. Here's a case. As far as we know we are told that the justices don't generally confer beforehand before oral arguments..

John roberts Joan biskupic donald trump mark joseph stern Marc joseph stern congress america mark two questions Republicans five today Today thursday four zero dollar first segment third time last week of september six
"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

02:59 min | 2 weeks ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"When it said the mandate was makita thing that we spent spent all that time talking about broccoli for nothing. I'm not saying this is nicole. I'm saying did you do it then. Opens up the debate to citizens care about responsibility next to advocate for watching. Hi and welcome back to amicus. This is a podcast about the courts and the law and the supreme court and the rule of law. I'm with weekend. Cover some of those things for slate. This past week has been a little calm before the storm. Ish at the high court although that's going to change in the coming days in the us senate and the house. We're wrangling about the filibuster. And the january six commission and also about ethics reform and later on in this show. We're going to hear from representative katie porter of california about the connection between corruption and ethics rules and congressional oversight and all the ways in which a failure to check basic corruption. Self interest. self dealing today really just invites a whole lot. More of the same in the future but before that back in land we find ourselves in the home stretch at the highest court in the land. We're in the last few weeks of a supreme court term. That feels like it opened a million years ago back when ruth bader ginsburg still sat on the bench. This term has seen some radical shifts at the court amy coney barrett replacing our bg a raft of religious liberty cases that were decided on almost purely partisan lines. The court is taking on some big big cases for next term. It did step back from some of the most dramatic interventions this year which is my fancy way of saying. Hey the court didn't help steal the twenty twenty election for donald trump today. We're going to kind of flip the show and we're going to go first to our check in with slates marcus of stern. He covers the supreme court for slate. Dot com mark. And i usually chat for our slate plus subscribers at the end of the show. But this week he needs to be the show. Because there's a whole host of cases that are going to be decided in the coming weeks with arguments behind us decisions right ahead of us. We just needed mark two expertly. Sherpa us through what we should be watching for what could happen and what we might miss. Slate plus members fear not are very extra special slate. Plus segment with mark is also happening at the end of the show so stick around for a conversation about the stanford law student who was almost denied his diploma after mocking the federalist society in an email mark wrote the head of that story this week if you are not asleep plus member but you wanna make sure.

donald trump ruth bader ginsburg this week this year california today first coney barrett a million years ago katie porter amy twenty twenty nicole This past week january Dot com mark mark slates marcus of stern stanford
"katie porter" Discussed on Pod Save America

Pod Save America

01:38 min | 5 months ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Pod Save America

"Been submitted. It's been made it'll get to me. I'll put a picture off. As soon as i can figure out how to get the place and get them on my van. You know with regard to the committee's. I am thrilled to be on natural resources. And to be on oversight and part of it is we lost seats in the house. So i was the most junior member on oversight could have lost my spot. So i- reallocated may committee preferences i rate them one two three And in the end there were. I think thirteen or eleven members who got waivers. I didn't i was wanted to. Who didn't i'm disappointed not to be able to serve on financial services. But there's i think one of the things this whole thing is illustrated to me is how much how confusing. And how not transparent some of these things are. The inner operations of congress are to the american people like the rules of the caucus are so complex. That people can't even understand how we get on the communities. We get on and in that being very opaque difficult to understand then. There's the potential for people to be confused and understand what happened. So i would love to be back on financial services. There may be another opportunity either on a future. Congress were later in this congress. But in the meantime i'm gonna keep working on these issues. My life working on issues of consumer protection on capitalism. I'm gonna keep working on this with. I'm on the committee are not congresswoman katie. Puerto thank you so much for talking to today thank you thanks to congresswoman katie porter for joining us today and.

thirteen Congress congress katie porter today eleven members katie one three Puerto american congresswoman
"katie porter" Discussed on Pod Save America

Pod Save America

05:48 min | 5 months ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Pod Save America

"She's the democratic congresswoman representing california's forty fifth district katie. Puerto welcome back to positive america. Thank you. It's good to see you so we have a lot to cover so today. President biden is meeting ten republicans to discuss their counter proposal of a six hundred billion dollar relief plan versus the biden plan of one point nine trillion. It's obviously Inadequates how should we be thinking about this process. What are you what are you what are your mind. Is the most likely way to get from this meeting to the most help for the most people as as possible past the democratic plan. I mean i think it's important that by meet with these senators. I think this is an important opportunity to set a tone of more collaboration more listening of more dialogue but ultimately these republicans need to be told. Because obviously they're not listening to their constituents so it's up to the rest of us to tell them that six hundred billion dollars will only cause more economic harm in this country and create a deep recession that is ultimately much harder to get out of and creates much deeper consequences and this by the way is something that's being said but economists from all different kinds of backgrounds. The only disagreement on this really is coming from a handful of politically motivated people. Who as we know. Have no problem. Running up at the learning deficit with tax cuts for their corporate donors. So do they just start with a tiny number and then back fill what they cut from. The biden plan to get there. The economists aren't calling for it There's an option for democrats to pass it through reconciliation without any republican votes what is motivating these republicans to try to kind of jam by in this way. Is it purely just to undercut the new administration. Do they genuinely have concerns about doing enough to help people in this crisis like what is actually going on here. These are some of my favorite questions. The what do you think is going on in ted cruz empty head. How would i know. Okay i'm not at ted cruz. He's not at the meeting like you're these other people. I can't say what they're thinking. Or what their motivation is. Because i'm not. I'm not there but but let me just say this. This is not the smaller package with the kinds of cuts that they're making in cloning to state and local funding including two to some of the support for working families. This is fiscally irresponsible. The fiscally pragmatic responsible thing to do here is to meet the needs of stabilizing our economy. So i just want to say it's really important that we as progressives champion this and set the record straight the point that we are putting forward the one point nine trillion dollar plan that meets the scope in need of what kobe has done to. Our economy is fiscally responsible. What these republicans are doing is is not. It is going to only deepen the recession and set our country on a path to being matt globally competitive with other nations. Who have dealt with this situation. Both covert and the economic fallout much better. So can we want to dig into every second. Because i think so so. They're obviously trying to do this. They're planning at the price tag. But you're basically saying that if we don't spend enough now the holy creates in the economy over time creates a much bigger fiscal problem than spending enough now would create exactly analyst. Offer you a couple of examples if we do. Our office recently released a report on the way that women are exiting and being squeezed out of the workforce as a result of covid nineteen plus the economic fallout. That has created if we don't find a way to for example invest in childcare invest in giving schools. Open make sure there are deeper cuts in state and local government and funding than over gonna see as more women. Stay out of the workforce for longer. What does that mean ultimately means. We're dreaming talent. Out of our workforce were making women and particularly single women women of color low income women more likely to experience financial hardship to need to borrow to go bankrupt to not be able to save for retirement. That is backwards so what we need to do here is tried to right size. The relief for the scope of the problem and the longer. This problem has gone on the fact that president trump did not deal with this. Well did not get vaccines out. Did not prioritize health and safety the fact that we've chronically under invested in public health is a great example of how this costs more in the long run so one one piece of the crisis that you've been talking about is the toll. This has taken on mental health. That there's a lot of people we. We've failed to provide mental health services to enough people long before the pandemic now as people in isolation where people who have long struggled with addiction at a alone and and without their support system what what are you trying to do to address the mental health crisis that we're in yep so one of the things that we did was passed the very end of last year as part of the covid relief. Bill a bill that we have bipartisan bill to create more accountability for insurers to follow the law now does sounds simple but big companies newsflash. Don't always follow the law. It's cheaper just to break the law and see if you get caught so the foreseeable care act. Had a provision called mental health parody meaning that mental health treatment should be treated the same way as other kinds of health treatment. Whether it's for the pd care or something else. Insurers have not been complying with us there. Anyone who's tried to make an appointment for mental health. There are no provider's network..

six hundred billion dollars today california President nine trillion two six hundred billion dollar ten one point nine trillion dollar Both america forty fifth district katie nineteen one Puerto democrats end of last year trump republican
"katie porter" Discussed on Pod Save America

Pod Save America

03:44 min | 5 months ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Pod Save America

"Obviously not all there are some deep red parts but a lot of parts of the country where it matters they will do worse than if the party is seen as the party of mitt romney and susan collins. Right like that's it sounds basic but it's true so you're right like i totally agree tommy on all the stuff about like she should be deployed formed. And it's good to think about that in congress as well as on social media. But i do think the democrats should let it be known that she is the face of the party now. The public parties the culture trump without an intervention. That will be the case. Where matt gaetz is in wyoming for some reason the campaign against liz cheney marjorie taylor. Green is is growing influence. Like i don't like liz cheney's politics by do like her position on reality in that she is tethered to it. You know what i mean. It's not just them. It's ron johnson. Senator from wisconsin. Who's using his position to elevate conspiracy theories including vaccines in attacking social distancing and masks. So yeah there's there's a real problem within that party. It's not good for democrats to have a opposition party that diseased. It's worth memory to like. Man was cheney. Liz cheney spread the most noxious toxic right wing propaganda for years. It just that was the bush. It was the bush type. Not the trump type. You know. she was a she was a. You know post nine. Eleven Right winger who attacked democrats in the most pernicious to try to undercut their patriotism and all of that we dealt with it for years she was heinous. And it's a testament how not just how far the party is moved. But how people like liz. Cheney contributed to that movement that they are responsible that they set the tone and they move the party right and they ignored the worse voices in their party for years. That put them in the situation. Yeah there's a. There's no a lot of talk about the republican civil war. There's no civil war. The reality based side is losing badly and almost done. Because they're not fighting. It's like adam. Zinger is the only one on tv. Adam zinger republican from illinois congressman. I don't agree with them on a single policy. He's the only person who has had the guts to stand up to trump them in lies in conspiracy theories for years and like odds. Are he's going to be attacked. And someone's going to try to primary because the rest of the people who know he's right. Don't have the guts to say so. I guess they rather just cling to power. He gets credit mitt. Romney gets credit in the senate and i. I don't think there's too many others i would say. I think that what. I would like to see though just about extracting costs for what they've been doing. So scott beagle is one of the people that was killed in parkland actually knew him up them and his mother called. Marjorie taylor green Basically said like. Are you willing to tell me right. Now that my my son was killed. It was a false flag and she wouldn't and she said will you come on television with me and say it. Will you apologize. You admit that parkland really happened like my son and his heroism is real. That are pain is real and she refused to do it. And as long as people like. Kevin mccarthy aren't willing to do that. I would like to see these clips. Paid for these people like we we for so long you know. Republicans are like. Oh you know the media treats us like the away team and your the home team and there's some truth to that but one of the reasons one of the ways in which benefits republicans is that the press treats republicans like mccarthy era treats them like antagonists treats them like people that can't change that don't deserve to be confronted that don't deserve to be held to the same standard that democrats are held to hold them to the standard show them the clips embarrassed them on television. Make them pay for what they're endorsing by. Not standing up to these people all right when we come back we will have love. It's interview with katie porter. They're just going to give you.

Liz cheney ron johnson katie porter Adam zinger congress liz cheney matt gaetz Romney republicans trump Republicans Cheney cheney wisconsin democrats marjorie taylor susan collins Kevin mccarthy adam illinois
"katie porter" Discussed on Pod Save America

Pod Save America

06:03 min | 5 months ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Pod Save America

"They've been saying about what they're learning is really just about establishing a baseline right. They're trying to say we're going to do our best to get the vaccines out the door and get his many people but but we do want to make sure. There is an accurate accounting of the baseline. We came in that all the talk about operation warp speed. Here's what we started from. And i imagine that there's some spin in they're right. They're gonna go hard trying to make the case that they inherited an incredible mess was which i am sure they did first of all like the variant front. I think that like there's a lot of very sensationalistic reporting and it's hard to parse what's really going on one thing that does seem clear is even as we learned some of these vaccines are less effective against some of these variants. They are still above the threshold by which we would have declared the success. Have we not heard about the incredible success of madonna advisor at whatever. It is ninety. Four ninety five percent do think it is really hard when an administration spent a year poisoning people's minds about the best way to respond to a pandemic as a society not from the government. I think that's an incredible challenge. They've inherited. I do wonder if now isn't the time especially because people are giving up on the ways in which they can help prevent community spread right at the moment which the vaccine is being rolled out. Like we've just now crossed the threshold. Where more people have the vaccine than have had the illness. We read a million than one point three now. One point five. It's rising like things are changing. Things will get better. And i do think that like i. I see them not wanting to over promise under deliver biden goes out there and says we'll get it. The people by spring in the white house is like well. We don't know about spring and johnson. johnson what. We don't know how it's going to come out. But i do think kind of like we're almost at the end of this just hanging in there. There's way too much doom and gloom bullshit. Yes strains like look. We're talking as our war terrify. Let me let me on terrified. We're talking about reducing efficacy rates on some of the against the south african street or a shot that's fifty percent effective. That's like a standard flu shot. So the bottom line is all the vaccinations that we've all that data is reducing hospitalizations and deaths to basically zero and then preventing fifty percent of the transmission. That's a miracle we should talk about it. Accordingly it's going to be a long couple of months. But i don't think that is as much to do with the new strains then variants booster shots and all this stuff. We're hearing about now than just the logistics of manufacturing in disseminating the vaccine. If we get that part right you reduce deaths you reduce infections. You stop the virus from mutating so we won't have any more of these conversations because it would stop like running rampant. Get the economy going right and then in concert with that you give people economic relief that they need to hang on through the summer like all the pieces are. There's like read the stuff. Joshua johnson is one hundred percent effective at preventing hospitalizations and death which is huge even against the south african variant right. I think when you talk to people at the biden white house. It's not just expectation setting. It's not just spin. Their concern is the already said that in march the uk variant would be the dominant strain in the country. Here it's fifty percent more transmissible. If a critical mass of people were vaccinated at that point we wouldn't have to worry as much about it right like a critical mass of people are vaccinated in a country. Israel the uk strain is all over the place. There it's still working. I think what they're concerned about is over the next six weeks eight weeks ten weeks the uk strain takes over here. It's more transmissible. We still haven't gotten the vaccinations up yet. So we will see another spike. That's what they're trying to prepare us for. Which i think you know is a is a real genuine concern again. Though it all in time you meant all comes back to we just gotta get vaccinated faster and they gotta move heaven and earth to do it. And i think biden doesn't have to go out there and be a barometer every day about whether things are good or bad or in between right like we. I think we made this mistake with obama. Sometimes it was. Yeah here's exactly the state of the economy. Every single day like the president need to be talking about that. What needs to be doing talking every day about what they're doing to fix it right and like he needs to get pissed when things don't go right and he needs to show us that he's fighting like hell and it needs to show people that he's running through a brick wall for people and keep announcing progress right like today. They announced thirty dollar rapid at home cova tests that are ninety five percent accurate that they're shipping to you know incremental progress like that is gonna be important to talk about every single debt. I think that's right. I think we're combining two things like one is the messaging around what's actually going on. That's realistic an honest. That doesn't over promise. And i think that's really important You know we can be hope. Look we're not. We're not in control of what strains emerged right. We're not. We don't know what the future holds. But here's what we know what we can do. But the other piece of it to me that i think is important. Is you know everybody's fucking sick of this and people are getting up. And so what is the best thing to tell a country that has been lied to the people who have sacrificed feel let down by all the people who haven't you have healthcare professionals who are at their end. You have a mental health crisis. You have a financial crisis all of this happening at once. And i do think that there are some space for just some lighted at. The end is in sight if we do these things because the vaccine. Yeah we need the role the vaccine out of course but like masks and social distancing still fucking work and we've abandoned them you know to large parts of the country. We've abandon them. So i think that's that's what i'm talking about is just like if you can if there's value to just signaling that that the time is short and that that if they sacrifice a little while longer because this seven week period that's the other piece of that like the next few weeks matter even more than the weeks that follow right like if we can do something for the next four to six weeks. Whatever the numbers are based on studies like a huge amount of death and a huge amount of pain is prevented if we do it right now as the vaccine is ramping up this episode pods. America is brought to you by public goods. The one stop shop for.

Joshua johnson fifty percent ninety johnson uk Israel ninety five percent seven week today two things Four ninety five percent spring march thirty dollar ten weeks south african street one zero one hundred percent one thing
$916 billion White House coronavirus relief proposal

The Young Turks

07:01 min | 6 months ago

$916 billion White House coronavirus relief proposal

"Really wanna fill you guys in on Corona virus aid before we do our interview with senator sanders. So let's get right to it. There's a new and critical update to the corona virus negotiations that are taking place between congressional lawmakers and the white house now. Yesterday it was reported that the white house was urgently asking. Gop senators to approve one time. Six hundred dollar direct checks to americans as part of the coronavirus relief bill and at that time it really did seem as though The trump administration was outflanking democrats in congress from the left But now it's abundantly clear that that's not actually what's going on. It turns out that the one time six hundred dollar check that would be sent to americans would be a trade-off or essentially getting rid of the federal unemployment aid of three hundred dollars per week. Okay that tradeoff off seems pretty ridiculous. And so nancy pelosi talked about it. A little bit today She certainly clap back but she did. Treasury secretary steve mnuchin released a statement. Are you in this speaker. Pelosi spoke today at five pm and on behalf of the president. I presented a nine hundred sixteen billion dollar proposal. This proposal includes money for state and local governments and robust liability protections for businesses schools and universities. Now pelosi wasn't buying it mostly because she had some insight that most others didn't have and she says while it is progress that leader mcconnell has signed off on a nine hundred sixteen billion dollar offer based on the bipartisan framework The president's proposal which cuts unemployment insurance by one hundred forty billion dollars compared to the framework is unacceptable. So she says it's a nonstarter. I absolutely agree with her. On that. and there are all sorts of issues in regard to the liability protections That are offered by republicans. But before i get to that and katie porter shredding republicans for it john. Why don't you jump in. yeah. I find it very difficult to comment on this because the contents of the package change so often. I mean just yesterday mitch. Mcconnell was saying that it wasn't a prerequisite at the liability protections. It'd be in there but now it is again. I i don't or maybe it is. I don't know. I honestly don't know we don't know what is in the bill until after it's passed and usually not even then usually we're not sure even at that point especially You know the amount of money that we're talking about but it is like it's it's again. It's perfect that they've come up with a financial trade off the onetime payments versus basically cutting off the unemployment aid that makes sense to people on insurance that planned to die in the next week and a half it makes financial sense to them or people who are yet on Unemployment insurance and Having wised up to the fact that the federal government is still effectively doing nothing to stop the spread of the virus. And so it's gonna get worse and more businesses are going to get shut down and so a lot of people that are currently unemployed are probably gonna end up unemployed by the end of this dark winter And this is as we'll probably talking about what senator sanders. This is shaping up to be the last thing that they'll do like we've waited almost a year and this. I am trying to search for word that allowed to us on this now. Right now Is the last thing that they're going to do. Insult to injury in every possible way. It's yeah it's just it's so so shameful especially when you put it in the context of how easily the funding for Defense for the pentagon is gonna pass probably with a veto proof. Vote in both the house which already happened and the senate which is likely to happen in the future. That's seven hundred forty billion dollars every year. The number goes up for the most part. And there's no debate about it. It's just going to happen. But i do want also talk a little bit about the liability protection or lybia liability shield which Mitch mcconnell seems to only care about like that's the only thing that he's been pretty insistent on It seemed like maybe he can bend to democrats will on it If there were some pretty significant trade offs But katie porter Did a great job in explaining why this is a horrendous. A provision in the stimulus bill she says you may have heard that democrats and republicans have agreed upon spending nine hundred billion dollars to fund yet another round of small business loans support hospitals in essential workers and helped the ten million people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own everyone at the negotiating table including senate. Republicans have agreed to a compromise except one mitch. Mcconnell is refusing to bring it to the floor unless it wipes away all cove related lawsuits filed that allege injury or death due to corporate negligence. And she goes on to say that. These lawsuits represent the worst of the worst examples of disregard for human life cases filed on behalf of nursing home patients and grocery store workers who died because the company in charge of keeping them safe prioritize cutting costs over protecting them. And i think one of the best examples to share with you guys is what is happening now with a tyson. Meat packing plant Where You know tyson facing a wrongful death lawsuit because dozens of their workers got sick and died due to their negligence. Cnn has more details on that. Let's watch according to the allegations. The plant manager of the waterloo facility organized a cash volume winner. Take all betting pool for supervisors and managers to wager. How many employees would test positive for covid. Nineteen in the end more than a thousand employees would catch the virus about a third of the nearly three thousand working at the plant on stare. Ernest ladders spoke to c. n. N.'s gary tuchman in april about his conversation with tyson's hr department. They told me I was i was i was i was safe. And they told me that Everything was okay and they told me. I have a better chance. A catching the corona virus. Going out to walmart and enticing. Come the work. you safe. The tyson employers also allegedly told their employees to ignore any symptoms. They might be suffering from contracting corona virus into just keep working. it's doesn't insane yeah no the. The era of self-regulation of plants like tyson one needs to change. Which is a whites. Good that the department of agriculture is gonna be controlled by tom. Bill sack who while he was governor by said that they should self-regulate

Senator Sanders Katie Porter Steve Mnuchin White House Mcconnell Nancy Pelosi Mitch GOP Pelosi Treasury Congress
"katie porter" Discussed on Hysteria

Hysteria

02:50 min | 7 months ago

"katie porter" Discussed on Hysteria

"May use my with my kids all the time. Rams are making day on like a plan for the day. This is where you're going. This is where you're going on. What i'm flying back and forth lists for the kids like monday. Mom leaves tuesday my garbage anthony. Our nanny manny. anthony. Obi here like you're going to have cherry. I use it for planning. But i think probably the only time. I've used it to really used to demolish anybody. I probably some or students. When i was a professor who would say that. They felt pretty demolish turning to the white word. Really whether you're in the classroom or you're in. The halls of congress is willing to say which is to illustrate a point which is to help get everyone on the same page having the same conversation to be able to get understanding or answers so it's really a tool to focus the witnesses attention to help the audience understand what's going on. That's the way the same purpose that served in the classroom. The students attention to help the class understand what was going Yeah and We really love it when you take the whiteboard out like it is. It is a real highlight for those immediately starts. Are you watching the text chain lights up between like multiple techs. My college girlfriend. Some of whom used to be republicans Me and elissa like we love it. Keep going with the white forties to a whiteboard fifty my personal and i really like really yeah. It's the same size as my para. Had turquoise blue and i have a little magnetic pen for it. So i have bigger was always have it if i'm doing something and someone's like bob's birthday at your your Dwellers birthday can be like how people feel very special that i would feel so i love that than aiding card getting away from katie porter. You can just sort of die. That's all around people on like your hauling around the weight more lighter than hauling on a paper and it's better for the environment it's very true. That's amazing representative katie porter. Thank you so much for joining us. Congratulations again on your re election. And best of luck with the coming term. Thank you so much. Hysteria is brought to you by feels. Do you experience stress or having.

katie porter Rams manny. anthony Obi congress professor bob representative
"katie porter" Discussed on It's All Political

It's All Political

08:52 min | 1 year ago

"katie porter" Discussed on It's All Political

"Welcome to it's all political. The San Francisco Chronicle's political podcast. Joe Garafolo the chronicle senior political writer and today the podcast is congresswoman Katie Porter. The First Term House member from Irvine California has become a rising star among Democrats mostly for during interrogation the hill that had become must see viral video. You see the one the other day where she convinced the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to guarantee free corona virus tests for all Americans. Those tests would have cost more than thirteen hundred dollars. People don't have insurance and Porter is an expert on oversight. We'll talk to you about that. Because that's what we need a lot of right now with more than two trillion dollars of our tax money flying out the door to fight grown of ours. She's particularly concerned about that. Five hundred billion dollars bailout. Money controlled by treasury secretary. Steve Mnuchin with very little oversight. And we've got an. It's all political. I here today. As quarter conducted her part of the interview while sitting in her minivan outside her home in Orange County. And now here's my conversation with Katie border cars Katie Porter. Welcome to. It's all political youth from your home in Irvine to me in my home in Oakland. How are you doing? I'm doing fine getting tired of my children but I think that's to be expected at this point either. Tired of me but insists. I booted my daughter out of the kitchen desk that she had and gave her a card table up in her room. So that I could have a desk from which to continue working for my constituents. I want the first thing I wanted to make clear. Is that unlike many members of Congress with all due respect to your to your fellow members of Congress your life is closer to that of of many Americans right now. You're trying to balance life. Yeah yeah well taken care of your online school. You're trying to ever see and plus you had your own. Corona virus scare a couple of weeks ago. He tested negative beer. Okay so how? How are you balancing? All that gives me a lot of appreciate bay situation gives me. I think enough of an appreciation for the fact that not everybody is in the same situation so you know my situation obviously much better than most people. I have income security My kids are old enough that they're not toddlers babies so they have some understanding of of what's going on and how to cooperate and I'm using this time to teach them to develop even more self reliance skills than they had to have with a mom in Congress so they've been doing a lot of cooking and a lot of cleaning but I think I do think about kind of what the realities are is all give you one. Good example is. I've heard some of my colleagues say that their home schooling and I. I never say that. Because they think discounts all the incredible efforts that. I see for my kids teachers every day to even make it possible for me to assist my kids with full learning. So there's no way I could come up. I'm not home schooling. I am helping my kids distance. Learn and so I try to be really cognizant of all the ways in which different people are struggling in this situation. I'm certainly not in everyone's shoes but I think may situation is different enough that I try to be really aware of the variety of situations. Families are facing right now bright. Right you're you're you're closer definitely spectrum to that All Right. Let's talk about Oversight because that is something. You are an expert in You're on the House Oversight Committee and you have a long history of oversight we're going to a couple of minutes but I think probably like you and me I I. I'm very worried about that. Two TRILLION AND FEDERAL TAXPAYER MONEY. That went out the door to people to help people and particularly that five hundred billion at the treasury secretary. Steve MNUCHIN can dish out with with very little oversight. What are your biggest concerns about oversight there and and and and what can you do about it? My biggest concern is that oversight simply won't happen and the reason I say that is because to me. Oversight is an active real time activity. It's not about looking back and saying gee three years ago we did this. And it didn't work. Oversight to me has an active engaged aspect to it. And so you know we think about the rules of inspector generals and I have a lot of respect for the work that inspector general's do but they're almost always looking backwards they're saying oops. Here's what we discovered in terms of fraud or waste third looking back almost like forensic accountants trying to unravel where things went wrong Good oversight is like good corporate governance. It's like good legislative activity. It's in real time. And it's in conversation with community and with partners and so my biggest concern is particularly with the president saying that he disregards the inspector generals and their situation. It makes that Congressional Oversight Commission all more important and we see Chuck Schumer a nominate this person but we seen speaker policy wrote minority leader McCarthy. We have one number of five number commission and he's operating alone with no staff as billions and billions going out the door in treasury zones so one member of Congress is on that committee with no staff. How are they supposed to know? Actually it's it's different. It's so those five members to be put on the commission. This is what we fought for the Carrozza so Democrats fought to get active oversight of Treasury. And and it's it's not that I think there's necessarily any ill intent behind trying to help businesses. I mean even big corporations that are also big. Corporations are big employers so many of these industries may well need help right now to keep people on payroll so Congress created a five member commission each of the four leadership Senate Majority Minority House Minority Majority. Plus one person agreed to by Nancy. Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. You can only imagine what that ven diagram looks like. And how little overlap? There might be that person that they agree on by. The way is supposed to be the chair of this commission. But here's the thing. We passed the cares hacked three weeks ago. Where is the commission? There's one member who's been appointed and that's it. And he has no stuff and the commission is supposed to issue by law. Its first report within thirty days of the Treasury setting up these lending facilities so the clock is ticking and as they always told my law students when I was a professor in classroom just because it says you have to do it. The deadline is thirty days. After doesn't mean you can't turn work in early. So ideally we would be having this commission right now. Doing oversight of what's going on with aviation industry of what's going on with this a main street of what the role of these Wall Street. Investment bankers are in advising the treasury. And why are we paying thousands of dollars millions of dollars potentially in vs to Wall Street Investment Bankers when Treasury has their own staff? That Kim should be doing this work. There's lots of questions and I have lots of questions and I have no answers. What an just also back up about the history of oversight it during times of financial crisis. You're an expert on this twenty twelve then Attorney General Kamala Harris. Asked you to be on the destined to be the California Monitor for the national mortgage settlement. That's at that time. Member for listeners. Of Five Biggest Wall Street banks promised billions of dollars. In relief to homeowners. They came up very small. You and and the the attorney general helped get eighteen billion from them when they're always promising a little bit of that would it would. Are we repeating some of those same mistakes now? Are you in? What are you seeing there? We are repeating some of those same mistakes. Although I do also see some learning and all I'll give you an example of of both. The mistake were making is that. I think were overestimate me. As elected leaders kind of the level of trust that the public has in government in times like this and so it's not enough for us to just say were. We're proud of our bill or this. We're helping we really need to show that that is a reality in people's daily lives and that means being willing to criticize their own bills to say where we came up short to show that we're willing to improve and the one thing I do think there is some learning with regard to is trying not to create programs that are so complex that faith takes years to actually get going so we're seeing this right now. With the with the stimulus payments economic impact payments. The idea is just send.

Congress Treasury Katie Porter Congressional Oversight Commis House Oversight Committee Centers for Disease Control an Steve Mnuchin San Francisco Chronicle Attorney First Term House Irvine California Joe Garafolo Orange County director Oakland writer
Trump to visit California on Saturday to meet with wildfire victims

24 Hour News

00:37 sec | 2 years ago

Trump to visit California on Saturday to meet with wildfire victims

"Quin. President Trump will visit California this weekend survey wildfire damage and meet with residents today interior secretary Ryan Zinke toward the damage from the fire that killed two people and ravaged celebrity mansions near Los Angeles yesterday. Zinke was in northern California is unfortunately likely will not be the same city, just the amount of devastation and all fires are bad. This fire is also unprecedented. And a lot of ways there's been another election decided in California Democrat, Katie porter has flipped the house seat that was held by Republican incumbent Mimi

California Ryan Zinke President Trump Katie Porter Los Angeles Secretary Quin.