19 Burst results for "Marc Joseph Stern"

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

08:02 min | 7 months ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

"We want to and you don't have to go to the post office Wanna welcome back to the program. Marc joseph stern. He is the slate staff writer. Justice writes about the justice and the courts. Here with emma vigilant mark. Thank you so much for coming today. Of course always a pleasure sam. We spoke about a lesson a week ago. I think it was and while we were talking they were the court was just about announcing two rulings which you were heavily anticipating and. I suspect that you thought they were going to be bad. And they were not great. They were yes and these. Are i mean. Genuine assaults on our democracy in a real structural way that are not acute in the sense. That people can argue that. The insurrection was assault on our democracy. This is something that is going to be durable and lasting. I think get worst. Let's start with. I don't know which one you wanna start with. Its brnovich versus the dnc or american of americans for for prosperity versus. Bonte which one i don't know which one's worse so i think if you take these cases together they stand for the proposition that the supreme court has made it easier to by-elections in secret and harder to vote in them. I think we should start with the voting case. burn vich dnc. Because americans for prosperity. It takes a little bit more explanation to sort of connect the dots bernadette which is a straightforward attack on the voting rights. Act one that. I think was widely misreported as being not so bad but at least in my view and the view of lot of voting rights experts. It is a really terrible decision that will have ramifications for years if not decades to come i. This is consistent with john. Roberts i mean what's amazing about. This is that to have a career. Where thirty forty years ago you can be telling the president united states. Hey do we need to sink this section two of the voting rights act and then forty years later to find yourself in the position of being literally one of five or six people in the world who couldn't unilaterally do it. I mean this is. This'll be a really heart warming story for john roberts. If it wasn't so horrific for the for our democracy yes that's correct so just to kind of flesh out what you noted there back in nineteen eighty two john. Roberts was a young idealistic soldier in the reagan revolution out the justice department Who was already very hostile to voting rights and one of his main issues at the justice department was fighting a an amendments to the voting rights. Act that congress was considering that would prohibit any voting restriction that results in disproportionate disenfranchisement of racial minorities. And i think it's really important to zero in on this language. Right so the fifteenth amendment off the civil war bands intentional race. Discrimination in voting. So you know. Mississippi says black people can't vote that's unconstitutional and in one thousand. Nine hundred eighty the supreme had interpreted the voting rights act to only encompass what the fifteenth amendment encompass intentional race discrimination. The problem is that today back then to very few legislators go onto the floor of the state house and say i hate black people and i don't want them to vote and that's why i'm passing this voter suppression law. Voter laws are dressed. Up in neutrality and so congress was responding to that bad decision in nineteen eighty by banning laws that also results in a disparate impact on racial minorities ability to vote. Even if you can't prove that the goal the intense the aim was to suppress minorities votes. That's what john roberts hated back in hundred eighty two in lobbied against it did ultimately passed. But as you noted forty years later. John roberts get to be gets to be one of the six people who then turns around and essentially rewrites and dismantles this really important amendment to the voting rights act which was pretty much all we had left to stand in the way of the raft of voter suppression laws passed in the wake of twenty twenty and we should say one of the things. That's a little bit ironic. 'cause we're having this massive faked debate over critical race studies right now and The concept of something can be a racist in result. Even if there is no intent never mind proving even if there's no intent there's no feeling of like i'm i'm i. I'm a racist and i don't want black people to vote or you know even if it's like i'm a racist and i don't care whether black people get the right to vote if it helps me at the long run it is. It's the result like you know. And so you're preventing people from using proxies as a way of of you know You know it's like saying i want to. We're not we're not targeting a latino people but we're only going to say people whose last name is let's say ramirez Can't vote like you know you have a fairly good notion that like a high percentage of the people that you're you're you know in that is this proxy notion to fight that. So how did they attack. The the the section to even though it was explicit in the rat re ratification in nineteen eighty two so what justice alito did in his majority opinion was created all of these new factors. The courts have to go through. When assessing a section to voting rights acts claim and the factors are designed to ensure that almost any law will be upheld And to to explain why. Let me just sort of walk you through the main points here. First of all lido says we'll if there was a law that was common in one thousand nine hundred eighty two than it's probably legal today because that's the backdrop against which congress passed this law so that's the baseline for voting to big problems. There first of all congress passed this law. Nineteen eighty two because it thought there was a lot of race discrimination in voting that was getting approved because plaintiffs couldn't prove discriminatory intent. So the idea itself totally contradicts. The history of this law. The second problem related lii is that back in nineteen eighty two early voting and absentee voting were nearly unheard of. They were severely restricted by almost every state. Almost everybody had to vote on election day Absentee voting and early voting are relatively modern inventions and widespread early voting. Absentee voting are really pretty new as of the last decade or so so what alito has done is ensure that all of these attacks on the franchise that came after twenty twenty which take the form of cuts to early voting cuts to absentee voting really drastic restrictions on when and how people can vote. Almost all of those laws will now be upheld because they weren't common in one thousand nine hundred eighty two and so according to alito. They're not the kind of thing that congress wanted to wanted to. And then you talk. Just really quickly. Can you talk about. The the appeals court or the appeal that in arizona that led alito to this decision or essentially that he ignored because i think some of that context is really important to understanding the decision. Absolutely so so. The the case specifically dealt with two laws passed by republicans in arizona. And i think. I i wanna know that even though it's important to talk about this absolutely right that their own context at the end of the day. This case is about so much more than just these two laws right but Arizona republicans passed a ban on Ballot collection by third parties which just means family members or community leaders used.

Marc joseph stern emma vigilant Bonte dnc john roberts justice department congress Roberts bernadette john alito sam supreme court reagan John roberts Mississippi united states ramirez arizona Arizona
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

06:03 min | 7 months ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

"But there's no structural. There's no structural issues that are being dealt with down the road for this. Are there well so so tobacco up the eviction marks ram is currently in place because of a cdc order that is rests on this really broad granted power by congress congress at look when there's a public health crisis the cdc can do a bunch of stuff a bunch of regulations that it couldn't normally do and one of those. The cdc has decided is to pause addictions to say. You gotta let people stay in their houses pandemic This has been extended through july thirty first by the biden administration but on wednesday the supreme court are on tuesday. The supreme court said by five to four votes That the that it could stay in place through july thirty first but it could not be extended any further and that it actually is illegal. But the court's gonna let it be wound down so it doesn't create chaos. This is something justice brad. Cavanaugh said he wrote separately to say. I'm not going to side with the other conservatives because barrett thomas alito And gorsuch would have ended immediately but brett cavenaugh comes in and says i'm not going to end it right now but i want you to know cdc that. I think this is illegal and if you try to extend it one more day. I'm going to step in and block it and if you try to revive it if the pandemic gets worse again i'm also going to block us. And that's such a weird kind of relation between the branches of government to the supreme court to act like a baby sitter and say you know cdc. I know that you're being naughty. A let you keeping naughty for a little while but if you push the limits that i'm really gonna come crashing down on I don't think that's how judging normally works so in other words were not a nation of laws were a nation of ask the moms. Yeah i think that's right. And i think cavenaugh knew he would get like good Good press from readiness. From saying i'll let the more stay in place i think he's pretty press saudi. But you know like at the end of the day. He's also telling the by administration you don't get to go any further than he already have. I'm the boss. I'm the mom which again is just like a very weird way to run a court in my view and it's also Another instance where they're saying that can congress does not have the authority to suspend I guess this private debt collection in a state of emergency of some sort. Yes so pam. Enough flirts with the idea that congress could pass like a new an entirely new statute to reauthorize an addiction moratorium in the future. But i really suspect that if congress tried to do that that the court would step in and say actually. You're delegating too much power. You're trampling on states rights. Let you do this the first time. But we're not gonna let you get away with it again really disturbing. I don't know. Should we talk about the cursing cheerleader better. But i mean this is i mean. It's fascinating because i think you know you make this point about. The public does not respond to the cases that we've just outlined that are going to have a dramatic impact on people's daily lives in ways that they can't even imagine and will probably be obscured from them. I mean nobody's. Nobody's gonna go like wait a second. I can't get this car loan because trans union. Put me on this list. And congress doesn't have the ability to restrict. That and. I'm not going to get this car loan and i'm going to spend the next three months five months six months year. Two years trying to fight this. They're not going to look back and go like oh well. It was trans union versus ramirez. Because we have it seems to me an entire body politic and i include the media in this who either are willfully ignorant about this stuff or just don't perceive the ideology that is embedded in decisions. Like this right. I mean there's so much going on here. And i think you identified some of it when you noted that like the legal elites have vested interest in not revealing to the public just how partisan just how ideological a lot of these decisions are. I also think you know as i said before like there's so much league lease here and the court does tries to make it even more confusing and incoherent. I really do think that. Sometimes the supreme court makes decisions more complicated than they need to be so that the average person who doesn't have a law degree can't pick it up and understand and i also think the media does not connect the dots from eight a. b. and does not explain to people you know you are not able to exercise this right specifically because of the supreme court decision. There's actually an analogy to climate. Change here you know how the media often doesn't say these wildfires are due to climate change. They just happen and we record on them. There's a similar thing when awful stuff happens in this country and it can be attributed to court decisions. I mean we've had mass shootings facilitated by court decisions blocking gun laws and the media is too scared to say. This is because this judge. Let this mass shooter by this gun. There's too much fear to just pin down the actual proximate cause of really bad stuff. That's going on because it's wrapped in legalese. Because it's kinda complicated and because there's a taboo against naming courts for the consequences of out decisions. Well folks can find the cheerleader stuff. There such a cheery mood right now. but marc joseph stern thank you so much for your time today. Very helpful and interesting and Scary and i hope People it it adds the people to understanding of the implications of of of of the court. It's very nice to talk to someone who actually gets it. So thank you sam. All right folks going to take a quick break. We'll be right back with more. And i should say that over the course of this morning. Those.

cdc congress supreme court biden administration barrett thomas alito gorsuch brett cavenaugh cavenaugh Cavanaugh trans union brad pam ramirez marc joseph stern sam
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Slate's Hang Up and Listen

Slate's Hang Up and Listen

06:30 min | 7 months ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Slate's Hang Up and Listen

"Legal and practical consequences could be enormous up to and including the death of the ncaa as we know it. Marc joseph stern and covers the courts and the for slate joins us now. Hey mark hi. thanks so much for having me on often with supreme court rulings you have to clear out the legal underbrush to understand what the justices are saying. Not so here. This ruling was unanimous and it includes stark and plain language that undermines the entire historical justification for college sports as a quote unquote amateur enterprise. Yes that's absolutely writes. This is a pretty easy opinion to understand. I think anyone could pick it up in sort of grasped the bottom line here. Which is that. The supreme court is highly skeptical of the sort of baseline fundamental theory. That the ncaa has used for many many decades to justify what would be any other context overt monopolistic price-fixing cartel like anti-competition control and the concurrence from brad kavanagh laid that out and much starker and firer terms. Fiery is a hardware to say. You should say that the the the the the majority opinion was written by another trump. Appointee neal gorsuch both of both of trump's male appointees were on board was just as amy coney barrett the entire court was united here and the only difference. I guess cavanaugh may have gone farther if you had the votes this time around but gorsuch still did a pretty good job of just walloping the ncaa. Every which way the cabinet concurrence was interesting to me mark because of the language that he used. I thought he did a good job in kind of putting it in terms that anyone could understand like restaurants. Can't come together to cut cooks wages on the theory that customers prefer to eat food from low-paid cook. I mean that seems like a fair and accurate analogy but based on my reading of it it seemed like he was actively inviting further and more expansive challenges to the model. Basically saying doesn't seem like it would really would stand. Scrutiny of somebody wants to come and talented reading that correctly. Yeah absolutely and let me give a little background to explain why that makes sense. What happened here. Is that a number of current and former student. Athletes challenged several different rules that the ncaa imposes on its members. One of those rules is of course not direct compensation for playing sports. Another one of the rules is a really tight cap. On education related benefits and so that could include scholarships for future academic programs like graduate school. Rotational school it could include money for laptops for tutoring that kind of thing and the lower court up held the ncaa's ban on direct compensation but prohibited the ncaa's really tight cap on educational benefits and both of those decisions flowed from the central argument. Here that the ncaa put forward. Which is that consumers of sports. Love watching unpaid people competes. And that is how. Amy putting during oral arguments. And that's exactly what the ncaa argued. Apparently consumers love amateurism. They love amateur sports huge cluster of consumers out there who draw a really bright line between amateur sports and professional sports and feel that if amateur players were allowed to be paid by their schools that the entire sport would fundamentally change and people wouldn't want to watch it anymore and the demand for college. Athletics would dry up because all of these consumers would hop and often say we cannot accept. These paid players. They're not amateurs to us anymore. So the supreme court did not actually here that. I part of the lower court's decision. The supreme court did not consider in this case whether the ban on direct compensation is lawful or not. Nobody appealed that part of the ruling that stood no matter what this case was only about those education related benefits and so here. The supreme court unanimously said. Look no one is going to think that amateur athletes are not amateur because they're getting education related benefits if only if anything. Those benefits highlight the fact that these people are students in school not professionals and the court did not address the more pressing issue of direct compensation and what brett kavanagh's doing in his concurrence is teeing that up for future case saying all right guys. I understand this particular question. Didn't make it to the court this time but we have now laid the groundwork to answer it. And i am very ready and enthusiastic and excited for that case to come to us because i really think. The reasoning of today's decision should also undermine the ncaa's ban on direct compensation to athletes this. Is i guess. Why so d- brett cavanaugh says that he's inviting another challenge. And i think that's why so. Many people that support athletes getting paid and being able to avail themselves of all the financial opportunities out there so they seemed a little bit more pessimistic about this and i wonder if that's because i mean consider that feed is. Ea started in twenty twelve. This is twenty twenty one so any challenge mark right. Wouldn't that just. I mean we're talking years in the future possibly with a completely different supreme court at that point right. It's going to take a while and any kind of antitrust case takes a while to work. Its way up to the courts in part because they're very fact sensitive disputes. And that's what counts for the kind of split decision below in this case where the judge held like a ten day trial. She amassed a ton of evidence and eventually decided. Okay well the amateurs argument can cut the mustard when it comes to direct payments but now for education related benefits so if students want to now go back build off the supreme court decision and argue. Actually the whole amateur. Argument doesn't hold water for direct payments..

brad kavanagh Marc joseph stern trump Amy brett kavanagh twenty twenty twelve gorsuch today d- brett cavanaugh both mark amy ten day trial one ncaa coney barrett neal gorsuch court twenty one
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

05:57 min | 8 months ago

"marc joseph stern" 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
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

08:55 min | 8 months ago

"marc joseph stern" 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
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KTLK 1130 AM

KTLK 1130 AM

06:59 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KTLK 1130 AM

"Way missed the Halloween one, and they're great. Pumpkin's already coming home. I watched because I had the D I know, but it wasn't on. I know it wasn't on the network something about that right now, as a P B. There's a PBS deal. So apple TV became the new home of donate of the of the Peanuts all of these specials, but they're about 25 minutes, right? I mean, they're they're They're like center said their sick little baby s theirs, And it's gonna be like an hour and a half because it's gonna be, you know, like, five minutes of peanuts and then seven minutes of if you don't eat now, right, Don't get this tote bag and coffee mug and a breakaway to the person on stage and you know, in a single stool and bad lighting. I'm talking about that very dope bag continue to bring this fine programming to you with the pledge today. Now we know the toe bag doesn't it looks like Snoopy. But it's not because we didn't get the rights yet for that, But apparently there was a dog tote bag. There was an outcry for viewers who are accustomed to annually tuning into the TV network and on Wednesday Apple about it to the backlash who I wish I could get back to those days. PBS Peter's backlash, Right Right, announcing it teamed up with PBS for AD Free Broadcasting Charlie Brown Thanksgiving. On November 22nd anything, is it? Charlie Brown Thanksgiving is that fall under walls is rules. They did do it outside. There's the scene where they're all dancing. There was some social networking. There's the scene where you know where they're all doing. The little things are they dancing in the Thanksgiving one or is that just the Christmas will think it's in both. I'm not sure it's been a while. I know Snoopy fights the folding chair in the Thanksgiving one. You could get covert from a folding chair, you know, and they don't have a turkey and everybody gets mad. So I don't think that I'm thinking about it that they are outside and they are social distancing. But I still don't think just too many people. Yeah, good. Ellison would shut down Charlie Brown Thanksgiving. That's the update on then, and then this piece here. We won't go through the whole thing because it's lengthy, but this came out last week, and it's relevant to the conversations that we're having it at the phone calls to you on old. Um Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito has warned that the pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions to individual liberty. That was that Was it a freedom of the freedom of speech is at risk of becoming a second tier constitutional, right? Yeah. He was speaking at the Federalist Society's National lawyer's convention last week. Just think of all these life events that would otherwise have be otherwise be protected by the right to freedom of speech, live speeches, conferences, lectures, meetings. Think of worship services. Churches closed on Easter Sunday synagogues, a synagogue closed for Passover and young to pour. Think about the access to the courts of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Trials in federal courts have virtually disappeared in many places, and who would imagine that the covert crisis has served. As sort of a constitutional stress test. And in doing so, it is highlighted disturbing trends that we're already present before the virus a struck There's one partner here. This is towards the end of it where he says this is the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene in the case of Nevada's draconian coronavirus measures. That explicitly targeted churches sent a message that and he said this. If you go to Nevada, you can gamble. You can drink and attend all sorts of shows. But here's what, what you can't do. If you want to worship and you're the 51st person in line. Sorry, you're out of luck. Houses of worship are limited to 50 attendees. The size of the building doesn't matter. Nor does it matter if you were a masking keep more than 6 ft away from everybody else. And it doesn't matter if the building is carefully sanitized before and after each service, the state's messages this forget about worship and head for the slot machines. Or maybe a circuit dis allay show now deciding whether to allow this disparate treatment should not have been a very tough goal. A call. Take a quick look at the Constitution and you can see the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty. What you just laid out there with the You know the incongruity of some of these restrictions that just don't make sense in people's eyes. When we see it here in Minnesota's well, our casinos are are still open. That's why You know, people ask why you why? Why won't people just go along? You're not asking much. We just want you to wear a mask and social distance And it's only for a little while and that will save lives. You know why you're getting so much pushback is because you haven't won the persuasion argument. You have not persuaded people And when you can look at these, these contradictory mandates and decisions that don't really make a whole lot of sense. That's why you get pushed back. That's why you have distrust. So if you want to get people to buy in, you can't come up with idiotic restrictions on churches like what you just described. You have to use common sense and you have to let people use their common sense. And you have to trust that some of these places are going to are going to abide by the rules. You have to give them some leeway and some trust if you've got a gigantic mega church I could hold 600 people. It's idiotic to limit them to 50. Yeah, and everybody knows that. So you see one idiotic thing And in your mind, it's like well. It's probably all idiotic them. If that doesn't make any sense, then why am I supposed to follow all these other rules? He went on to say you will not find a craps claws or a blackjack claws or a slot machine clause in your free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Nevada was unable to provide any plausible justification for treating casinos more favorably than houses of worship. And you can apply the honest money right, right, right. Just be honest, but you can apply this to what Tim Walz is doing as well on a number of different levels, he says. But the Supreme Court nevertheless deferred to the governor's judgment, which just so happened to favor the state's biggest industry. And the many voters and employees now Alito speech, of course, provoked the ire of leftists with the slates Marc Joseph Stern, calling it a grievance laden tirade against Democrats. He said, flouting his ethical obligations. Elite awaited into fierce political debates over public health during a pandemic reproductive rights, LGBT Q equality and other issues that routinely game before his court. It is wildly inappropriate for a justice. You assumed the role of Fox news commentators and unwise in light of progressives mounting doubt about the Supreme Court's legitimacy words. Words that don't really mean a whole heck of a lot of anything other than I don't like what he said. Right? I don't really like the Constitution. I really think that we could go and change. That's all the stuff that's in there because it doesn't fit into the narratives that we progressives are constantly espousing.

Supreme Court Nevada Justice Samuel Alito Apple Charlie Brown Pumpkin Federalist Society Marc Joseph Stern Tim Walz partner Peter Ellison
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

04:12 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Marc Joseph Stern about where President Trump's election related lawsuits stand in different battleground states Mark. We talked a little bit about this in the previous segment, but it feels like there isn't A lot of merit to a lot of these lawsuits. We've said some of them have already been tossed out. I mean, this is really an attempt at what the president is trying to stay in the conversation is trying to delegitimize the election. I mean, pretty much I mean, the Biden campaign is moving forward with with its transition. So what is the point of all this? So I think there are two goals here on Trump's side. The first goal is to sow doubt and distrust in the legitimacy of this election, and it's results right? Donald Trump has said pretty clearly he does not plan on conceding on and this gives him an off ramp. You can say Okay, well, I'll leave the White House on January 20th that you make me But, you know, I don't believe that I really lost this election. I think if it had been a free and fair election that I would have won and that you guys were up to some mischief that stole it from me. Not true at all. But that's pretty clearly what he plans to say. I think the second goal here is a more typical standard Republican play, which is to lay the groundwork for voter suppression laws in the future. Right over the last 20 years or so, the Republican Party has committed itself to a slate of laws that make it much more difficult to vote. Things like Draconian voter ID requirements, cuts to early voting on DH. They've done all of this in the name of preventing voter fraud, I think after this election wraps up when Trump is out of the White House, whether he's dragged Chatterley's freely. Republicans in a lot of these states are going to go back and say, Hey, we believe the president. We believe that there was fraud and in order to stop this fraud from continuing, we're going to have to crack down on voting make it Maura difficult in ways that almost always disproportionately affect racial minorities and low income people, Of course, people who do not traditionally support the Republican Party Of course, right before the election, or at least the Joe Biden won the electoral college votes needed to become president. There were a number of Supreme Court decisions about really essentially giving and leaving power in terms of the voting process in the hands of the state's mark. Do you see that changing No, not at all. And in fact, the Supreme Court's conservatives have been pretty strident in the last few months about leaving the rules of an election entirely in the hands of the state legislature, saying this is no place for the federal courts to step in on metal with the rules and some of the very far right. Conservatives have even said this is no place for state courts to step in. In fact, the state Legislature has total control over this process. If the Legislature wants to make it really difficult to vote, that is, it's constitutional. Prerogative. So with this new 6 to 3 conservative majority, I really doubt that the Supreme Court will ever strike down a voter suppression law. It seems like the states have free rein now and for the foreseeable future to make voting more difficult, and we will see the results of that over the next couple of years in the elections to come. Speaking of making voting more difficult, one of the reasons at least many people are saying that Georgia flipped for Joe Biden was because Stacey Abrams and her coalition of folks down there wanted to make voting more accessible. Are you seeing more of that? Will this inspire more movement on that front? People like Stacey Abrams? To get make the process much more accessible for voters. Absolutely. This has become a chief democratic priority, and it seems to really excite the base and Democratic voters. They loved this idea of pushing back against voter suppression, standing up for democracy with a small D right, saying This is not a partisan issue. Everyone should be able to exercise the franchise if they so choose. And so I think we will see more people like Stacey Abrams in other states that are just now turning purple saying, Hey, let's make it easier for you. Well, the vote. Let's make sure everybody has a voice in their elections and pitching that again. Not as a political question but is a way to bring America further into the 21st century and to make it more of an open democracy where everybody has to say..

President Trump Joe Biden Supreme Court Stacey Abrams president state Legislature Republican Party White House Marc Joseph Stern Republican Party Of course Mark America Georgia Maura Chatterley
GOP-led states back Trump’s legal drive to challenge election

The Takeaway

03:50 min | 1 year ago

GOP-led states back Trump’s legal drive to challenge election

"President trump has yet to concede the election but the trump campaign has already announced a number of legal challenges to the results in states like pennsylvania georgia michigan arizona nevada and north carolina. But the big question is whether these are a last ditch effort by the president to remain relevant or whether they actually have legal merit. And that's what my next guest deny are going to discuss. marc joseph. Stern is a staff writer for slate and he covers the courts and the law mark. Welcome back to the show. Thanks so much for having me back on so judges in georgia. Michigan and nevada have already dismissed lawsuits filed by the trump campaign. What were the legal grounds that judges had for dismissing those lawsuits. So most of these lawsuits are really about process. Not about substance. So the trump campaign has repeatedly argued across several states. That legal observers specifically republican legal observers. Were not allowed to witness the top relation process closely enough that they couldn't get close enough to make sure there was no funny business going on. That doesn't seem to be true. These seem to be fabricated claims designed to kind of throw a wrench in the vote in process Rather than winning any extra votes for trump and the reason judges have thrown them out is because they don't have much merits the trump campaign can say whatever it wants on twitter but when it gets into court and it's lawyers are under oath. They have to speak the truth and the truth is there just isn't any mischief going on behind the scenes in any of these states. Well let's talk a little bit about pennsylvania because they had been dealing with some legal issues even before the election started. Where does that stand now. Mark yes so. The pennsylvania case is the strongest one for the trump campaign by far so pennsylvania. Law says that all ballots have to be received by november third but the pennsylvania supreme court extended the grace period to november sixth for ballots that were mailed by election day. The trump campaign has fought that very hard and four supreme court justices have already said they would basically like to throw out those ballots so the trump campaign has been sort of reminding the supreme court. Hey we've got these late ballots. The counties are segregating gum in not including them in the vote. Count so you know. They have not contributed to joe. Biden's victory there so far but right now it doesn't look like there are nearly enough of these late arriving ballots to change the outcome of the election to make any of this litigation worth it's it's in the thousands perhaps while joe biden's is in the tens of thousands and so even if the supreme court came in and said we've got a throughout every ballot that arrived in pennsylvania after november third. It would not give trump that state and it would not change the outcome of this election. Another state that the trump campaign has its eyes on is wisconsin. They've already said that they would ask for a recount there. Where does that stand and will they be asking for a recount and any other states so it looks like there will be a recount in wisconsin. But the reality is that recounts usually only change a few hundred votes at most. If you have a super thin margin you know a few dozen. Or if you hundred votes separating the winner and the loser then recounts can be a nail biter but right now biden ahead twenty thousand votes. It doesn't look like it's going to change anything you know after jill stein paid for a recount in two thousand sixteen. Donald trump ended up getting a few more hundred votes than the initial counted found. So that will happen but it probably won't change anything. i believe. The trump campaign will seek recount in georgia as well possibly arizona and nevada though. It's too soon to tell but again as thin as those margins are we're talking in the thousands or tens of thousands not in the hundreds so they don't seem likely to change anything

Pennsylvania Marc Joseph Nevada Georgia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Supreme Court Donald Trump Stern Arizona North Carolina Michigan Twitter Biden Joe Biden Wisconsin Mark JOE Jill Stein
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KZSC 88.1 FM Santa Cruz

KZSC 88.1 FM Santa Cruz

06:40 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KZSC 88.1 FM Santa Cruz

"The short and contentious briefing in Las Vegas, The Trump campaign team refused to identify themselves. They produced the woman who said someone else voted in her name. Judges of Georgia and Michigan quickly to Smith Trump campaign lawsuits today, undercutting a campaign legal strategy to attack the integrity of the voting process. The Trump campaign won an appeals court ruling to get party and campaign observers who are processing mail in ballots and Philadelphia But that order did not affect the counting of ballots, which is proceeding in Pennsylvania. Biden's campaign attorney, Bob Bauer, called the Republican legal challenges meritless, saying their purpose is to create an opportunity for them to Send a message falsely about what's taking place in the electoral process, accusing the trump campaign of continuing continually alleging irregularity and failures of the system. And fraud without any basis. Trump campaign officials accuse Democrats of trying to steal the election, despite no evidence that anything of the sort is taking place. Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and a call with reporters this morning, said that Every night, The president goes to bed with a lead and every night, new votes are mysteriously found in a sack. Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller said additional legal action is expected and would be focused are giving campaign officials access to where ballots are being counted. The Pennsylvania and Michigan complaints largely involved access for Trump campaign observers in locations where ballots are being processed and counted. Mark does. The Stern covers the courts and the law for Slate. He spoke with that French has Brian Edwards taker today about Trump's legal strategy. Basically, the Trump campaign is seeking to stop the counting of ballots in states. Where Donald Trump is ahead and to continue the counting of ballots in states where Donald Trump is behind, But my catch up obviously contradictory stances Overall. Now the campaign has tried to narrow down its arguments in each state to have some kind of legal hook here. But the reality is that these hooks are incredibly weak. I think it's very telling that none of Trump's riel lawyers are doing this. We're seeing broody. Giuliani take the lead. This feels much more like an 11th hour. Hail Mary. Then it does a legitimate and meritorious attempt to secure some kind of Ah vote counts that complies with all of the laws of this nation. Legal strategies. Only a cz far fetched a cz the judge it lands before. Do we know anything about who's going to be making the initial rulings? Well. So far, the Trump campaign has landed in front of a Republican appointed judge in Pennsylvania, who seemed extremely skeptical of the campaign's arguments. It has landed in a couple of different state courts, where we can't necessarily determine the partisan lean of the judge, but those courts have also looked to be Very skeptical. The Nevada Supreme Court has repeatedly turned away trumps efforts to meddle with the count there, but before the election and after on DH, so I think you know, there's always a chance that a judge could say, Hey, maybe there's really something in this lawsuit. But for the most part looking at thes these cases, it seems like a pretty obvious failure on Trump's part to concoct any marginally plausible legal argument for a judge to sink his teeth into And yet there are some still potentially to be resolved legal issues from litigation that preceded the election, for instance, the fate of vote by mail ballots that are postmarked by election Day but arrived after Election Day in Pennsylvania, the states under court orders to keep them segregated so that they could be taken out of the count if the court finds that appropriate a later date. Right, So Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the two states where I should qualify what I just said, because the Trump campaign has argued that these late arriving ballot shouldn't count and several justices on the Supreme Court have signaled that they agree that they think that counting these ballots would be unconstitutional and that they stand ready to jump in and throw them out. If the Trump campaign asks, and the Trump campaign has gone back to the Supreme Court just yesterday and said Okay, now is the time. Time. Let's throw out these ballots. But what we're seeing is that most people got their ballots in on time. I think the state's did a really good job saying you've gotto put drop these in person. You can't put them in the mail. It's way too late on DSO. Those ballots are not going to be out. Come to change the outcome one way or the other. So while those are still potentially meritorious, that the Supreme Court they don't seem to have the power to do much for Trump pushback on that, at least with respect to George of the latest figures, we have their reporting their only 61,367 mail in ballots left count. Trump's margin of victory and the count so far is less than 19,000 ballots. But by the time they're done counting those, and as I understand that they're mostly In the heavily Democratic Atlanta region, so we'd expect that to narrow the gap considerably. This election could come down to a question of Ah, couple 1000 or a few 100 votes. Yes, Sorry I was talking about North Carolina, Pennsylvania. So those are the cities where, where that where there's litigation to throw out the ballots that come in after election Day, and those are both still uncalled right and seem to be pretty close. But in George, there's not any kind of controversy over these late arriving ballot. They've got all the ballots in that they are going to count. And so now it's not a matter of sitting around and waiting for more ballots to come in. It's just a matter of election officials getting through all of the ballots that they have and delivering a final tally for us. Marc Joseph Stern covers the courts and the law for Slate. You're listening to the evening news on KPFA, Berkeley KPFK Los Angeles KFC.

Donald Trump Trump Pennsylvania Smith Trump Supreme Court Nevada Supreme Court Slate George North Carolina Michigan fraud Las Vegas Bob Bauer Marc Joseph Stern Jason Miller Philadelphia Biden
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

Newsradio 700 WLW

10:17 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

"Came out about the Biden crime family. They've been coming out all week long. I tell you what. If these things are authentic, which it looks like they might be like I said one person in the email chain yesterday. I don't think we know that person is yet has verified them. There's speculation that the FBI is in possession. Of the server, and if these things are accurate It deserves media attention. It deserves investigation and People really have to know, because it's actually touching. Joe Biden now, I mean, he was mentioned in one email. The speculation is that he is quote. I believe that a big daddy or something like that they referred to him. So let's see where this goes. Don't count on the mainstream media to do it. Rudy Giuliani is up to his ears in this thing, and others are investigating it to again. You can't count on the mainstream media to do it. Hey, before we get to the calls, and I am going to get to them. I just wanted to talk about one thing just for a minute. I mentioned That passing Li in the rant. Yesterday, I guess at the conclusion of whatever they were doing the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday on the Amy Cockney Barrett hearings, Lindsey Graham was walking over to where Diane Center giant Feinstein was sitting She got up they embraced. They hugged. It was completely appropriate. Some people are off the rail, neither one of a mad mask on that kind of thing, and I watched it. I didn't watch it live, but I watched a story about it. And it gets what income e a softie If you want. It made me feel good. Finally, Finally, some collegiate Galit Isam camaraderie. Between the Democrats and Republicans, if you will. And there was quite a bit of that in the hearings to I didn't expect it again. They were still stupid. Inane questions asked. Of course, the main one being crazy Maisy Hirono asking this woman With their 77 kids and husband. Sitting behind her. If she's a rapist, you know that woman ought to be committed, I think, but anyway, there was quite a bit of collegiate ality. Well this morning through the miracle of the Internet. I'm playing around looking at this story. The left is apoplectic. About this. It's unbelievable. The publication called The Hill reported that a group called demand Justice and I'm familiar with them. They're an advocacy group that has staunchly opposed trumps effort to fill Judiciary Post with conservative nominees. They were the first to issue a statement that called for because of the hug. With Lindsey Graham. They called for Feinstein to resign from the committee. Listen to this quote. It's time for Senator Feinstein to stop down from her leader stepped down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If she won't her colleagues need to intervene. I named Brian Fallon, who's the executive director of this left wing outfit, said this And a guy named Marc Joseph Stern. I think he's a alleged journalist for the publication Slate. Listen to what he said. I mean, these people, they're out of their minds. He says. I really can't get over what a betrayal. This moment was 2000 to the thousands parentheses. Million's A progressive activists who have worked their ass is off fighting bare its nomination. Both tooth and now. Feinstein should be ashamed, and she should step down immediately. The media all because she embraced a Republican Now I'll tell you what I mean. It kind of it goes without saying You know these people on the left, You can have any collegiate ality. You can't have any bipartisanship. It's their way or the highway. You march lock step. With our leftist views or you're out of here. You know, we're going to vote you out. We're going to put pressure on the democratic senators to vote her off that committee. You know, I always thought And I've been watching this stuff for a while that liberals were so sensitive and so caring about people and they like these kind of PDS public displays of affection. I'm telling you what these people are fascists in their thinking. I mean, God help us if they ever get power. If I mean you can't hug another senator now, because you know that sends the wrong message. I don't know it just honk me often. I wanted to vent a little bit. Let me get to where the rial intelligence and knowledge is that's the callers. How about Barry? From Miamisburg. Good morning, Barry. They have gone this morning. I'm good. Instead of comparing the two Town hall this week. If compare. Why didn't you call for a couple weeks ago when President Trump It was on less Limbaugh. I mean, both had friendly interviewers. Or you know what? Trump's still gave more substance than by then. Absolutely absolutely. You know what, Barry? And I think you'd agree with us. You can say whatever you want about Donald Trump. He rubs people the wrong way. But you never. You always know what's on his mind. You always know what he's thinking. He answers press questions every time they ask him. You're absolutely right. And Joe Biden can't even tell us whether he supports packing the court or not. You're right about that. You know, President Trump might be a bleep bleep. But At least eat a bleak police that's working for us instead of against. You are so right about that, and I'm sorry. Did you like the way I censored myself? Yeah, we ought to put you on the board of Facebook and Twitter. I'm in jail right now. So that one more unbelievable. I mean, if it's not there for all the world to see, I guess it never will be. Barry. Thank you for your call. Let me talk to Scott in beautiful East Price. L Hey, Scott. Good morning. Good morning, Mike. My question surrounding the discovery of these emails from Hunter Biden's Uh, exploit. It is known that the Obama administration was aware of the fashionable activity that we're delving into here. And my question was was really about what was the what was the gimme? What was the cookie that Is that, uh, Barack Obama got out of this. You know what? I don't know. And what are you referring to? When you say that Barack Obama knew about it? I'm not saying he didn't. But I haven't seen any any evidence of that yet. Scott. What are you basing that on? When the Ukrainian investigation early on took place, there were Comments made to the Brock Obama administration around the propriety. Ah, that activity and this is just where I'm going from the media. So who knows what accuracy or what completeness. I heard that within, but it sounded a lot like the Questions were being raised. Earn the Obama administration as the weather proper. Um political etiquette was being followed and whether they Ah, sponsorship of Mr Biden to his son was appropriate. Yeah, You know what, And I appreciate the call More and more is coming out about this. And like I said, I think the big deal is faras authentication at least so far. Someone on that email chain. Said. Yep, This came to me. This is accurate. And if this thing bears out, and you know if these emails are accurate, it points a big, old dirty stick right at Joe Biden, and it's some big stuff. It's um big stuff. But again, you can't rely on the mainstream media to investigate it going to be up to the Senate. That or he could be the house, obviously, to the Senate or some some kind of crusading conservative journalists to do it. But this is serious stuff, people. There's no doubt about it. Let me talk to Mike in college Hill. What you got my It's like you're also 24 hours later, we're Hunter got a million dollars a year from the first of which was to introduce Chinese Congress in the White House to Joe Biden. Yeah, that's starting to come out and I heard that it is. Joe is also part of financial picture of it. Criminal because power teeth were seems to return money. That rivalry is also a photography aspect to this involving the photograph stars appear in the media. We're going to cover that, too. But this isn't just for parties of crime, big time, big time and I appreciate the call, and you're right about that, If true. If through their big time crimes I mean bigtime crimes because of their betrayal..

Joe Biden Hunter Biden Senator Feinstein Barack Obama Barry Senate Judiciary Committee Donald Trump Biden Obama administration ality Lindsey Graham Scott Mike President Senate FBI Rudy Giuliani Brian Fallon
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

04:42 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Back to the takeaway. I'm tan Xena Vega and I'm speaking with slates Marc Joseph Stern about Amy Cockney. Barrett's confirmation hearings. Barrett's confirmation could tip the ideological balance of the Supreme Court into a firm, conservative majority. And now many Democrats are openly discussing changing the makeup of the court itself. Mark. I want to talk a little bit about this idea that's come up a couple times that to be fair, the Democrats, including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Have really deflected on answering the question about court packing. So can you explain what that is? Yes. So the Constitution does not actually set the number of seats on the Supreme Court. It's been nine for about 150 years, but it has been I throughout all of history as few as six and as many as 10 seats. So actually, Congress is the one that gets to decide how many seats there are on the Supreme Court. And if Congress wants to add seeds, then it's allowed Teo that pretty much everybody agrees. Those are the rules. So court packing simply means Congress passing a bill signed by the president. That odd seats to the Supreme Court and in this instance is we're talking about it today, it would be an effort to dilute the influence of conservative justices. Like Amy Cockney Barrett if she's confirmed by adding liberal justices who will be able to out vote her now let's be clear. I mean, the Republicans have honed in on the Supreme Court. Ah for decades now, as they're really strategy in terms of remaking on having more conservatives on the court, and they've been very successful in that President Trump has done that in lower courts in particular. So the fight for the seats in the Supreme Court has been Ah, difficult one, particularly after the nomination of Merrick, Garland and and the GOP sort of stepping in to prevent that nomination from moving forward, And I give that background because it feels like there is a lot of criticism that the Democrats may want to pack the courts if you will, But don't they have no other choice? I mean, hasn't gotten to the point where politically, this is just a really nasty fight. Yes, that's what a lot of Democrats are. Concluding. These is for a long time court Packing was kind of a third rail of politics. FDR infamously tried and failed to do it in the thirties. But I think the Democratic Party's looking out of a little differently these days because the choices here are not very good for them. I mean, they can, either. Try to expand the courts, you know, try to get their caucus together. If they win big in November and add seats, or they can suffer for decades under an extremely conservative court, and and let's be clear if Amy Cockney Barrett is confirmed the Supreme Court will be way more conservative than it has been for decades. Probably not since the early 19 thirties. This would be A really radical change in the makeup of the court, and that's in the makeup of really America and the laws that are allowed to exist here on DH. So I think that a lot of Democrats are saying, Look, if our only other option is having the boots of the Supreme Court stomping on our face for decades, we've got to take core expansion seriously because it's the only thing that will allow our democracy to survive. And, you know, we're hearing from Joe Biden specifically has said, and I'm quoting here. That I've already spoken on. I'm not a fan of court packing, but I don't want to get off on that whole issue. I want to keep focused. Why is Joe Biden sort of toeing the line here when it comes to the court? I mean, given everything that we just talked about? Well, Biden says he wants to focus on the fight at hand. And I believe him. I think he really doesn't want to distract from this Barrett confirmation battle by by changing the entire conversation about you know what he thinks of court packing, right? The goal for Democrats right now is to throw everything into the fight against Barrett, right, Leave it all on the fields. Leave all the blood and teeth on the floor is Elizabeth Warren used to say and really make it clear that they staunchly opposed this nominee that they view the whole thing is illegitimate. But that's probably going to fail. Republicans hold the Senate Republicans seemed to have the votes. And so what I think Democrats want to do is really work up a lot of productive anger and rage among the Democratic base. And then if Barrett is confirmed, have the conversation about court expansion later after the election when it's less of a political hot potato when Democrats know whether they've won or knocked, so I think Mine's obviously being evasive and elusive here, but he's doing it for a pretty smart strategic reasons. He wants everybody to be focusing on Barrett. Not the hypothetical possibility of Democrats retaliation If Barrett is confirmed

Supreme Court Amy Cockney Barrett Congress Joe Biden president Democrats Mark There Amy Cockney Marc Joseph Stern Democratic Party Vega Kamala Harris FDR Elizabeth Warren Senate GOP America Teo Trump
Biden says he's "not a fan" of Supreme Court packing

The Takeaway

04:42 min | 1 year ago

Biden says he's "not a fan" of Supreme Court packing

"Back to the takeaway. I'm tan Xena Vega and I'm speaking with slates Marc Joseph Stern about Amy Cockney. Barrett's confirmation hearings. Barrett's confirmation could tip the ideological balance of the Supreme Court into a firm, conservative majority. And now many Democrats are openly discussing changing the makeup of the court itself. Mark. I want to talk a little bit about this idea that's come up a couple times that to be fair, the Democrats, including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Have really deflected on answering the question about court packing. So can you explain what that is? Yes. So the Constitution does not actually set the number of seats on the Supreme Court. It's been nine for about 150 years, but it has been I throughout all of history as few as six and as many as 10 seats. So actually, Congress is the one that gets to decide how many seats there are on the Supreme Court. And if Congress wants to add seeds, then it's allowed Teo that pretty much everybody agrees. Those are the rules. So court packing simply means Congress passing a bill signed by the president. That odd seats to the Supreme Court and in this instance is we're talking about it today, it would be an effort to dilute the influence of conservative justices. Like Amy Cockney Barrett if she's confirmed by adding liberal justices who will be able to out vote her now let's be clear. I mean, the Republicans have honed in on the Supreme Court. Ah for decades now, as they're really strategy in terms of remaking on having more conservatives on the court, and they've been very successful in that President Trump has done that in lower courts in particular. So the fight for the seats in the Supreme Court has been Ah, difficult one, particularly after the nomination of Merrick, Garland and and the GOP sort of stepping in to prevent that nomination from moving forward, And I give that background because it feels like there is a lot of criticism that the Democrats may want to pack the courts if you will, But don't they have no other choice? I mean, hasn't gotten to the point where politically, this is just a really nasty fight. Yes, that's what a lot of Democrats are. Concluding. These is for a long time court Packing was kind of a third rail of politics. FDR infamously tried and failed to do it in the thirties. But I think the Democratic Party's looking out of a little differently these days because the choices here are not very good for them. I mean, they can, either. Try to expand the courts, you know, try to get their caucus together. If they win big in November and add seats, or they can suffer for decades under an extremely conservative court, and and let's be clear if Amy Cockney Barrett is confirmed the Supreme Court will be way more conservative than it has been for decades. Probably not since the early 19 thirties. This would be A really radical change in the makeup of the court, and that's in the makeup of really America and the laws that are allowed to exist here on DH. So I think that a lot of Democrats are saying, Look, if our only other option is having the boots of the Supreme Court stomping on our face for decades, we've got to take core expansion seriously because it's the only thing that will allow our democracy to survive. And, you know, we're hearing from Joe Biden specifically has said, and I'm quoting here. That I've already spoken on. I'm not a fan of court packing, but I don't want to get off on that whole issue. I want to keep focused. Why is Joe Biden sort of toeing the line here when it comes to the court? I mean, given everything that we just talked about? Well, Biden says he wants to focus on the fight at hand. And I believe him. I think he really doesn't want to distract from this Barrett confirmation battle by by changing the entire conversation about you know what he thinks of court packing, right? The goal for Democrats right now is to throw everything into the fight against Barrett, right, Leave it all on the fields. Leave all the blood and teeth on the floor is Elizabeth Warren used to say and really make it clear that they staunchly opposed this nominee that they view the whole thing is illegitimate. But that's probably going to fail. Republicans hold the Senate Republicans seemed to have the votes. And so what I think Democrats want to do is really work up a lot of productive anger and rage among the Democratic base. And then if Barrett is confirmed, have the conversation about court expansion later after the election when it's less of a political hot potato when Democrats know whether they've won or knocked, so I think Mine's obviously being evasive and elusive here, but he's doing it for a pretty smart strategic reasons. He wants everybody to be focusing on Barrett. Not the hypothetical possibility of Democrats retaliation If Barrett is confirmed

Supreme Court Amy Cockney Barrett Joe Biden Amy Cockney Congress Marc Joseph Stern President Trump TEO Democratic Party Senate FDR Kamala Harris Mark Elizabeth Warren GOP Donald Trump America Merrick Garland
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

04:42 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Welcome back to the takeaway. I'm tan Xena Vega On Monday, Judge Amy Cockney. Barrett was sworn in for a week of Senate hearings to consider her nomination to the Supreme Court. In her opening statement, Barrett clarified with her approach on the bench might be Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. The courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. If the 48 year old Barrett is confirmed, she will be the sixth conservative justice on the court. She could tell the courts ideological balance for decades to come, and that's left Democrats scrambling to figure out how to respond. Now I'm going to bring in Marc Joseph Stern, who covers courts and the law for Slate, Mark, Welcome to the takeaway. Thanks so much for having me on so in the lead up to this week, Democrats appeared almost divided on howto handle barrettes nomination. Have they decided on a single approach right now? Well, they seem to have really zeroed in on the possibility that Barrett will vote to overturn the affordable care act. That surprises me. Because, as you noted, she really poses a threat to progressive jurisprudence overall for decades to come, right. I mean, she could be on this court for many years. Swatting down women's rights LGBT Q quality all of this stuff. But on Monday, Democrats really said, Let's talk about the A on this big case that asks the Supreme Court to overturn the and every single senator on the Democratic side really drill down on this possibility and said, Look, this confirmation. It's it's being rushed. It's kind of a sham, but most importantly, it could result in the revocation of health insurance for 23 million Americans. That was their approach. They showed a lot of discipline. I guess we'll see if it works now. For those of us who remember the brick Havenaar hearings. Those were extraordinarily I guess the word would be dynamic, but some people would say he did. They were very emotional. At times, there was some yelling at times are Democrats having to recalibrate their approach on DH there? A couple of reasons for that? I wonder, you know if they think the appetite that the American public has for that type of Confrontation is not very high right now given Ah, you know where we are as a country, but I'm not sure what What do we expect you We expect attentions to run as high as they did with Brett Kavanaugh. No, absolutely not, in part because, of course, the nominee has not been accused of sexual assault, but also because Democrats don't seem to have a strong appetite for theatrics. This time around. Democrats have to be really careful in how they handled this. Barrett is a seemingly, you know, smart, capable, very charming person. All of her character. Witnesses have attested to how she's Ah, lovely professor and a good friend. They want to make sure that she can't frame herself as some kind of victim or even martyr, And this is something that the Republicans have really seized on. They're trying to accuse Democrats of anti Catholic bias of sexism of treating Barrett like she's a terrible human or that she's you know, it's got to be a bigot because she's a Catholic, and Democrats are really tiptoeing around that being very careful to talk more about ideas than the actual person sitting in front of them. And that's going to be tricky Mark because the actual person is the person who is going to take potentially if she's confirm, who's going to take this seat, and what I found interesting was how Barrett echoed a lot of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and sort of, you know, calling her and mentioning her in a way that I think is very interesting for women in particular. Is she trying to connect with women in a specific way? They're even women who might be AH, more progressive. Yeah, I think so. I think Barrett and the White House and Republican senators are trying to frame this is a really big moment for American women to say, Look, this is a historic nomination. She's only the fifth woman who's ever sat on the Supreme Court. If she's confirmed, she's someone who every woman should be proud of, even if they don't share her views. Andi. I think to some degree, they may be succeeding with the American public. I mean, at least on day one, you know, Barrett delivered her opening statements. She really stayed on the abstract level of Hey, look at me. I'm this you know, very successful woman who has a big family who's lived a wonderful life and now I'm going to take my career to the next level, and that's something everyone should be able to celebrate whether they agree with me or not. Going to have to take.

Barrett Supreme Court Judge Amy Cockney Ruth Bader Ginsberg Marc Joseph Stern Brett Kavanaugh Senate the brick Havenaar assault Slate senator professor White House Mark
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on The Takeaway

The Takeaway

07:54 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on The Takeaway

"The court I mean given everything that we just talked about we'll biden says he wants to focus on the fight at hand and I believe him I think he really doesn't want to distract from this. Barrett confirmation battle by changing the entire conversation about you know what he thinks of court pack. The goal for Democrats right now is to throw everything into the fight against Barrett. Right leave at all on the fields leave all the blood and teeth on the floor. Is Elizabeth Warren who's to say and really make it clear that they? Opposed this nominee that they view. The whole thing is illegitimate, but that's probably going to fail Republicans hold the Senate. Republicans. Seem to have the votes and so what I think Democrats want to do is really work up a lot of productive anger and rage among the democratic base, and then if Barrett is confirmed, have the conversation about cort expansion later after the election when it's less of a political hot potato when Democrats know whether they've won or knocked so I I think Biden's. Invasive. Elusive here but he's doing it for pretty smart strategic reasons. He wants everybody to be focusing on Barrett not the hypothetical possibility of Democrats retaliation. If Barrett has confirmed mark, there's another proposal that's being batted about, and that is term limits and basically saying how many justices each president can appoint, what would that accomplish how would that work and how viable is that? So the current plan is to do that through just. A federal law right rather than amending the constitution because everybody knows constitutional amendments are basically impossible. The idea here is that a justice would serve for eighteen years and then after eighteen years, they would be designated a senior justice which means that they wouldn't be serving regularly. Okay. But if one of the regular justices had recused or suddenly died or retired that this senior justice could fill in. Okay. So there would be nine justices. All of the time and every president would be able to appoint two new justices per term But if there was a sudden vacancy or if somebody had to accuse one of the senior justices would step in there's a lot of questions about the constitutionality of this plan because the Constitution doesn't say anything about senior justices. This is all kind of improvisation to fill in the gaps in our article three and I think. That there's a strong fear that if Congress tries to impose limits before expanding the supreme. Court that the current court would strike it down because it does not strictly comply with what the Constitution seems to set out for the supreme. Court are any of these proposals mark viable or are they just a list of you know a wishlist for progressive? Democrats. Well, what's ironic here I think is that the most viable option also Seems to be the most radical one, right. So in addition to term limits, there's these other ideas pete. Buddha. Judge has this plan where you'd have five Republican justices, five Democrats, and then data point five independent judges or you'd have a fifteen member court that stuff is all really untested untried. There's not a clear constitutional path for it but expanding the court that's pretty easy like all Congress has to do is pass. A bill and have the president sign it and boom. You've added seats to that court and so I, think there's still a sense of on a lot of Americans that that's crossing the Rubicon that that's going too far. But that is the one option that is absolutely on the table and that really cannot be fought in court once it's done, it's done and so I think that Democrats need to they need to absorb the. Loss of the Baruch confirmation presuming it happens, and then they need to wrap their heads around the fact that as wild as it may seem as radical as it may appear to some people. Court expansion is the one option that will obviously work Marc Joseph Stern is a staff writer for slate covering courts and the law mark. Thanks so much for joining me always a pleasure support. The takeaway comes from nation builder software for. Leaders whether you're advocating for your community, supporting a campaign, running a nonprofit or even running for office. There are people out there fired up to help you nation-building can help you inspire them to take action. He puts your website crm communications and fundraising tools all in one place. So you can focus on your 'cause Gordon nation builder com slash PR EX, start a fourteen day free trial, and get an additional month of service free. On eleventh two, thousand, one, the world changed, but there were warning signs, but it's always easy hindsight to say it's a big mistake I'm Jim O'Grady on a reporter in the WNYC newsroom and I'll be revisiting the evidence to understand why we didn't see it coming. I certainly told his best. It's a coming back blind spot the road to nine eleven a new podcast series from history and WNYC studios. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks. This year, the United States has witnessed an uprising for racial justice and people are demanding change in how we think and talk about this nation's history the Metropolitan Museum of art in New York, city has made a notable higher in this time. Patricia mark when Norby has become the first full time curator of native American art for the met and she says, her role means acknowledging the reality of how some of this art came to be in the hands of museum curator's to begin with for some community members looking at the work. Of their ancestors can be very comforting and soothing, but it can also be very emotional to see items that were taken from their communities are sold from their communities during a very difficult time. I spoke with Patricia Norby about the role of native American art in understanding our country's history and its future, and she told me that many museums are still learning how to engage with this art. I think it's taken awhile for mainstream museums to fully grasp the understanding that we can't just present native American and indigenous art according strictly to. Aesthetics. So right now, we're at a pivotal point within mainstream museums where we're beginning to present. Native and indigenous art according to native perspectives and also native histories which are equally important to to the art because the artist South connects indigenous communities to their stories of a region to their homelands and also chew tribal sovereignty and so museums are just now catching up. To this idea that they have to take a more holistic approach. Tribal museums had already been practicing this for very long time presenting their art and culture according to their own histories and mainstream museums have been. Doing this differently either heavily focusing on the aesthetics or aesthetics alone or taking more didactic approach kind of an Indians one one. type of exhibit, and that's what you see for instance, with the National Museum of the American Indian. Patricia what type of native art do you think has been missing and you're you're answering that in some ways I'm wondering how will that begin to show up in how you're going to be curate the collection at the Met Part of the overall conversation between historical and contemporary native American digits art has been missing. So we're not getting the full picture. So there's this really wonderful conversation that happens when.

Barrett president Biden Congress Patricia mark Elizabeth Warren Metropolitan Museum of art Patricia Norby Senate National Museum Marc Joseph Stern WNYC studios United States Baruch New York WNYC Jim O'Grady staff writer reporter
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KPCC

KPCC

08:53 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KPCC

"Surrounding the court one that it's actually supposed to be about politics. Or that at some point in our history, it was a political. Another misconception about scotus that I myself had was that it was always made up of nine justices. I talked with Marc Joseph Stern. He covers SCOTUS over It's late, and he said, That's just one of many things that we've kind of gotten wrong in our recent discussion of the court. So there has been some chatter. Well, not just chatter. A lot of conversation that for the left to fix this should trump get a conservative justice confirmed dims and response in their eyes need to add one or more justices to the Supreme Court. Gotta be real with you, man. I did not know until this week that it wasn't always nine, and that you could just like Adam, if you want to. Yeah, Absolutely. So, the Supreme Court originally had six justices. There is nothing in the Constitution that sets the number at nine that the Constitution doesn't set a number at all. And so Congress has kind of messed around with how many justices should be on the court. It has been as few as six. Like I said, and as many as 10 and the reason Why there were 10 justices is actually politics. Basically, during the Civil war, there were way too many pro slavery Southerners on Confederate sympathizers on the Supreme Court. And so Congress just went ahead and added 1/10 seat so that Lincoln could appoint somebody loyal to the union to dilute the votes of those southerners. And it worked. I mean, like, court expansion does work after the Civil War ended. We all know, of course, Lincoln was Fascinated. He was replaced with Andrew Johnson, who was a utterly racist buffoon. Guess what Congress did. It took seats off the Supreme Court. It's attracted three justices from the Supreme Court so that Andrew Johnson could not make any appointments. Andrew Johnson leaves office. Ulysses S. Grant fills the White House and guess what happens then? Congress adds those seats back. It brings the number back to nine, and it has stayed at nine ever since. Okay, but it has not stayed at nine because the Constitution says so. It has stayed at nine because Congress has said so, and all Hummers has to do to change. That number is pass a law by majority vote signed by the president that says we are adding seats. That's it. No one seriously doubts the constitutionality of that. How So We know that it's lawful for Democrats to expand the court should they have the numbers after the election. Is it popular? You know, FDR tried to expand the court when he was president and Democratic and Republican lawmakers opposed it. The public hated this idea. What do we know about what Americans think about a potential expansion of the Supreme Court? Yeah, So, I mean, it's obviously true that FDR tried and failed to expand the court and that it was super unpopular, and historians have debated the reason for that failure for a really long time. I think the consensus is that one huge error FDR made was concealing his real goal. Okay, he didn't come out and say we need to add justice is because the current court is destroying the new deal and destroying all federal laws that help poor people. He pretended like the justices. We're too old and that they were basically senile and that he had to sort of save them from themselves by adding Mohr and it rested on some very stupid lies. If we try to expand the court today, if Democrats come out and say we need to add seats, they've got to do it honestly, and they've gotta explain squarely to the American people what the threat is and why they feel an obligation to counter act. It. I do not know how well that will pole. I can tell you right now that a sizable majority of Americans, including many Republicans, and independents, do not think that Trump should be able to fill Justice Ginsburg seat right, So we already have a huge portion of the country, saying the next president, or whoever wins in November should fill the seats. I think a lot of those people are going to be radicalized. If Trump fills the seat anyway, and they're going to say this is illegitimate. The Democrats need to do something as a kind of tit for tat just to restore some kind of balance on the court. The preliminary polling on court packing shows that it is not yet in favor. It does not yet have the favor of a majority of Americans like we just have. To be honest, it is not yet the most popular idea in the country. But I think that this Sentiment is changing every day, and I think it's moving very quickly toward court expansion you're listening to. It's been a minute from NPR. I'm Sam Sanders talking with Marc Joseph Stern. He covers the Supreme Court. It's late. I'm not sure how the best word this question. It's perhaps a more philosophical rumination, but I find myself As allegedly, you know, stone faced hard nosed journalist. When I'm thinking about the court and reading these stories, I am fallen into this mythology. That the court should be above politics, and it is somehow more sacred than the rest of of D. C and that it is veneer. It's it's extra special and like above the fray and for whatever reason that that number 99 justices Feels sacred as well. Why do you think I feel this way? And do you think Americans still have this strange belief in the What's the best word for it? The sacred nature of the court? Yeah, Americans by and large do seem to have that belief. And if you look at how the court was polling in its most recent term, ah, pretty big majority of Americans that they approved of the court and that they viewed it is basically above politics. Um, I think there are a couple of reasons for that. First. I think that the median justice for a long time has been kind of centre right and has generally given both sides enough victories to make them feel satisfied. So there's just been this kind of balance that for a casual observer makes the court feel fair minded and nonpartisan. I also think that there's just the trappings of the court, the big marble palace that they work in the beautiful red velvet curtain. The robes that they go on Kornafel down. They are wizards right. These people are wizards. They're wizards among men, and they do a really good job presenting themselves as wizards who do not engage in partisan squabbling. And, you know, people laughed a lot about the notorious flush, right. We all heard a toilet. Flush when the Supreme Court shifted Tio arguments over the phone. I don't think that John Roberts laughed at that at all. I think John Roberts probably saw that as a pretty serious threat to the board's public image, because we're not supposed to think about the justices. Bowel movements, Okay, we are not so No. One since Friended him snitched on the other ones. There's a loyalty among that band. Oh, absolutely, absolutely. And we would like We're not even supposed to consider the possibility that the Supreme Court justices poop. Okay, that is just, you know, I really do believe that when we turn on the TV and see senators screaming at each other, and then we tune into oral arguments and listen to fairly reasonable and dispassionate debate. We see a real difference, and we think these senators air driven by politics and these judges are driven by something else. They're doing something different from politics that we have decided to call law, you know, But when I hear you saying in other parts of the interview Is that the Supreme Court has kind of always been political. Yes, absolutely in the various, and, you know, I don't think that any fair minded observer of the court can debate that. I think what we could say is that there are instances in which the Supreme Court has risen above politics. I'm thinking of the decision forcing Nixon to hand over the White House tapes right where you do see justice is shed. Their partisan allegiance is, but I think that in super high profile cases that is the exception and not the norm, and if you go back to pretty much the very beginning, A lot of these early Supreme Court cases involved petty partisan squabbles. Between presidents and Congress or members of the executive branch and the Supreme Court kind of intervened and just decided that the outcome would be the one that they preferred not just his judges but as partisans,.

Supreme Court Congress president Marc Joseph Stern White House SCOTUS Lincoln FDR Adam Andrew Johnson Justice Ginsburg Trump Ulysses S. Grant Sam Sanders John Roberts Mohr Nixon NPR
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

08:48 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Surrounding the court. One that it's actually supposed to be above politics or that at some point in our history, it was a political and another misconception about scotus that I myself had Was that it was always made up of nine justices. I talked with Marc Joseph Stern. He covers SCOTUS over It's late, and he said, That's just one of many things that we've kind of gotten wrong in our recent discussion of the court. So there has been some chatter. Well, not just chatter. A lot of conversation that for the left to fix this should Trump get a conservative justice confirmed. Dims and response in their eyes need to add one or more justices to the Supreme Court. Got to be real with you, man. I did not know until this week that it wasn't always nine, and that you could just like Adam, if you want to. Yeah, Absolutely. So, the Supreme Court originally had six justices. There is nothing in the Constitution that sets the number at nine. The Constitution doesn't set a number at all. And so Congress has kind of messed around with how many justices should be on the court. It has been as fewest six. Like I said, and as many as 10 and the reason why there were 10 justices is actually politics. Basically, during the civil war, there were way too many pro slavery Southerners on Confederate sympathizers on the Supreme Court. And so Congress just went ahead and added 1/10 seat. So that Lincoln could appoint somebody loyal to the union to dilute the votes of those southerners, and it worked. I mean, like, court expansion does work. After the Civil War ended. We all know, of course, Lincoln was assassinated. He was replaced with Andrew Johnson, who was a utterly racist buffoon. Guess what Congress did. It took seats off the Supreme Court. It's attracted three justices from the Supreme Court so that Andrew Johnson could not make any appointments. Andrew Johnson leaves office. Ulysses S. Grant fills the White House and guess what happens then? Congress adds those seats back. It brings the number back to nine, and it has stayed at nine ever since. Okay, but it has not stayed at nine because the Constitution says so. It has stayed at nine because Congress has said so, and all huggers has to do to change. That number is pass a law by majority vote signed by the president that says we are adding seats. That's it. No one seriously doubts the constitutionality of that. So We know that it's lawful for Democrats to expand the court should they have the numbers after the election. Is it popular? You know, FDR tried to expand the court when he was president and Democratic and Republican lawmakers opposed it. The public hated this idea. What do we know about what Americans think about potential expansion of the Supreme Court? Yeah, So, I mean, it's obviously true that FDR tried and failed to expand the court and that it was super unpopular, and historians have debated the reason for that failure for a really long time. I think the consensus is that one Huge error FDR made was concealing his real goal. Okay, he didn't come out and say we need to add justice is because the current court is destroying the new deal and destroying all federal laws that help poor people. He pretended like the justices were too old and that they were basically senile and that he had to sort of save them from themselves by adding Mohr and it rested on some very stupid lies. If we try to expand the court today, if Democrats come out and say we need to add seats, they've got to do it honestly, and they've gotta explain squarely to the American people. What the threat is and why they feel an obligation to counteracted. I do not know how well that will pole. I can tell you right now that a sizable majority of Americans, including many Republicans and independents, Do not think that Trump should be able to fill Justice Ginsburg seat right, So we already have a huge portion of the country, saying the next president, or whoever wins in November should fill the seats. I think a lot of those people are going to be radicalized. If Trump fills the seat anyway, and they're going to say this is illegitimate. The Democrats need to do something as a kind of tit for tat just to restore some kind of balance on the court. The preliminary polling on court Packing shows that it is not yet in favor. It does not yet have the favor of a majority of Americans like we just have. To be honest, it is not yet the most popular idea in the country. But I think that the sentiment is changing every day, and I think it's moving very quickly toward Port expansion you're listening to. It's been a minute from NPR. I'm Sam Sanders talking with Marc Joseph Stern. He covers the Supreme Court. It's late. I'm not sure how the best word this question it's perhaps a more philosophical rumination. But I find myself As allegedly, you know, stone faced hard nosed journalist. When I'm thinking about the court and reading these stories, I am fallen into this mythology. That the court should be above politics, and it is somehow more sacred than the rest of D C and that it is veneer. It's it's extra special and like above the fray and for whatever reason that that number 99 justices Feels sacred as well. Why do you think I feel this way? And do you think Americans still have this strange belief in the What's the best word for it? The sacred nature of the court? Yeah, Americans by and large do seem to have that belief. And if you look at how the court was polling in its most recent term, ah, pretty big majority of Americans that they approved of the court and that they viewed it is basically above politics. Um, I think there are a couple of reasons for that. First. I think that the median justice for a long time has been kind of centre right and has generally given both sides enough victories to make them feel satisfied. So there's just been this kind of balance that for a casual observer makes the court feel fair minded and nonpartisan. I also think that there's just the trappings of the court, the big marble palace that they work in the beautiful road velvet curtain. The robes that they go around Kornafel down. They are wizards right. These people are wizards. They're wizards among men, and they do a really good job presenting themselves as wizards who do not engage in partisan squabbling. And, you know, people laughed a lot about the notorious flush. Right. We all heard a toilet flush when the Supreme Court shifted Tio arguments over the phone. I don't think that John Roberts laughed at that at all. I think John Roberts probably saw that as a pretty serious threat to the board's public image. Because we're not supposed to think about the justices. Bowel movements. Okay, we are not so no. One sitting Friended him snitched on the other ones. There's a loyalty among that band. Oh, absolutely, absolutely. And we would like We're not even supposed to consider the possibility that the Supreme Court justices poop. Okay, that is just, you know, I really do believe that when we turn on the TV and see senators screaming at each other, and then we tune into oral arguments and listen to fairly reasonable and dispassionate debate. We see a real difference, and we think these senators air driven by politics and these judges air driven by Something else. They're doing something different from politics that we have decided to call law. You know, But what I hear you saying in other parts of the interview Is at the Supreme Court has kind of always been political. Yes, absolutely open the very best. And, you know, I don't think that any fair minded observer of the court can debate that. I think what we could say is that there are instances in which the Supreme Court has risen above politics. I'm thinking of the decision forcing Nixon to hand over the White House tapes right where you do see justice is shed. Their partisan allegiance is, but I think that in super high profile cases that is the exception and not the norm, and if you go back to pretty much the very beginning, A lot of these early Supreme Court cases involved petty partisan squabbles. Between presidents and Congress or members of the executive branch and the Supreme Court kind of intervened and just decided that the outcome would be the one that they.

Supreme Court Congress president Marc Joseph Stern FDR Trump White House Lincoln SCOTUS Adam Andrew Johnson Justice Ginsburg Ulysses S. Grant Sam Sanders John Roberts Mohr Nixon
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

07:14 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KQED Radio

"A lot of misconceptions surrounding the court. One that it's actually supposed to be about politics or that at some point in our history, it was a political and another misconception about scotus that I myself had was that it was always made up of nine justices. I thought with Marc Joseph Stern. He covers SCOTUS over It's late, and he said, That's just one of many things that we've kind of gotten wrong in our recent discussion of the court. So there has been some chatter will not just chatter. A lot of conversation that for the left to fix this should trump Get a conservative justice confirmed. Dims and response in their eyes need to add one or more justices to the Supreme Court. Got to be real with you, man. I did not know until this week that it wasn't always nine, and that you could just like Adam, if you want to. Yeah, Absolutely. So, the Supreme Court originally had six justices. There is nothing in the Constitution that sets the number at nine. The Constitution doesn't set a number at all. And so Congress has kind of messed around with how many justices should be on the court. It has been as few as six. Like I said, and as many as 10 And the reason why there were 10 justices is actually politics. Basically, during the civil war, there were way too many pro slavery Southerners on Confederate sympathizers on the Supreme Court. And so Congress just went ahead and added 1/10 seat so that Lincoln could appoint somebody loyal to the union to dilute the votes of those southerners. And it worked. I mean, like, court expansion does work. After the Civil War ended. We all know, of course, Lincoln was assassinated. He was replaced with Andrew Johnson, who was a utterly racist buffoon. Guess what Congress did. It took seats off the Supreme Court. It's attracted three justices from the Supreme Court so that Andrew Johnson could not make any appointments. Andrew Johnson leaves office. Ulysses S. Grant fills the White House and guess what happens then? Congress adds those seats back. It brings the number back to nine and it has stayed at nine ever since. OK, but it has not stated nine because the Constitution says so. It has stayed at nine because Congress has said so, and all Hummers has to do to change. That number is pass a law by majority vote signed by the president. It says. We are adding seats. That's it. No one seriously doubts the constitutionality of that. How so? We know that it's lawful for Democrats to expand the court should they have the numbers after the election. Is it popular? You know, FDR tried to expand the court when he was president and Democratic and Republican lawmakers opposed it. The public hated this idea. What do we know about what Americans think about a potential expansion of the Supreme Court? Yeah, So, I mean, it's obviously true that FDR tried and failed to expand the court and that it was super unpopular, and historians have debated the reason for that failure for a really long time. I think the consensus is that one huge error FDR made was concealing his real goal. Okay, he didn't come out and say we need to add justice is because the current court is destroying the new deal and destroying all federal laws that help poor people. He pretended like the justices. We're too old and that they were basically senile and that he had to sort of save them from themselves by adding Mohr and it rested on some very stupid lies. If we try to expand the court today, if Democrats come out and say we need to add seats, they've got to do it honestly and they've gotta explain squarely to the American people. What the threat is and why they feel an obligation to contract it. I do not know how well that will pull. I can tell you right now that a sizable City of Americans, including many Republicans and independents do not think that Trump should be able to fill Justice Ginsburg seat right, So we already have a huge portion of the country, saying the next president, or whoever wins in November should fill the seats. I think a lot of those people are going to be radicalized. If Trump fills the seat anyway, and they're going to say this is illegitimate. The Democrats need to do something as a kind of tit for tat just to restore some kind of balance on the court. The preliminary polling on court Packing shows that it is not yet in favor. It does not yet have the favor of the majority of Americans like we just have. To be honest, it is not yet the most popular idea in the country. But I think that the sentiment is changing every day, and I think it's moving very quickly towards Port expansion you're listening to. It's been a minute from NPR. I'm Sam Sam. Just talking with Marc Joseph Stern. He covers the Supreme Court. It's late. I'm not sure how the best word this question it's perhaps a more philosophical rumination. But I find myself As allegedly, you know, stone faced hard nosed journalist. When I'm thinking about the court and reading these stories, I am fallen into this mythology. That the court should be above politics, and it is somehow more sacred than the rest of of D. C and that it is veneer. It's it's extra special and like above the fray and for whatever reason that that number 99 justices Feels sacred as well. Why do you think I feel this way? And do you think Americans still have this strange belief in the What's the best word for it? The sacred nature of the court. Yeah, Americans by and large do seem to have that belief. And if you look at how the court was polling in its most recent term, Ah, pretty big majority of Americans said they approved of the core it and that they viewed it is basically above politics. I think there are a couple of reasons for that. First I think that the median justice for a long time has been kind of center, right. And has generally given both sides enough victories to make them feel satisfied. So there's just been this kind of balance that for a casual observer makes the court feel fair minded and nonpartisan. I also think that there's just the trappings of the court, the big marble palace that they work in that beautiful road, velvet curtain. The robes that they go and they are wizards right. These people are wizards. They're wizards among men, and they do Really good job, presenting themselves as wizards who do not engage in partisan squabbling, and people laughed a lot about the notorious flush, right. We all heard a toilet flush when the Supreme Court shifted Tio arguments over the phone. I don't think that John Roberts laughed at that at all. I think John Roberts probably saw that as a pretty serious threat to the Lord's public image, because we're not supposed to think about the justices..

Supreme Court Congress president Marc Joseph Stern Andrew Johnson SCOTUS FDR Adam Trump John Roberts Lincoln Justice Ginsburg White House Ulysses S. Grant Sam Sam Mohr Port
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

03:49 min | 1 year ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"So I assume that you were braced for this Kamala Harris birther thing. Well, you know, when I first saw the piece, I have to say I felt nauseated because I knew that there was a chance I would have to respond. And I've written about this issue a great deal, And I fear that even responding to these theory is Is like giving more oxygen to the fire because it creates this illusion that there's a debate here and the debate has to have two sides. And there just isn't another side to this issue. Right. The birth or claim is a lie. Full stop. It is as easy to debunk as somebody who's as two plus two equals 10. And still, Newsweek publishes this piece, which means we're going to be talking about it. It's going to spread like wildfire across all of the conspiratorial Facebook pages that mark Soccer. Berg refuses to shut down, and it's going to become an issue. That dog's Kamala Harris, just like the Obama birth relies dog, Barack Obama. I mean at 1.25% of respondents to AH, polls said that they questioned Barack Obama's citizenship. These things may sound ridiculous, but they do gain a purchase. You know, we are so much more divided. Now. As a nation, then we were Even turning the last campaign and the one before that. I'm just wondering whether this is just meat to a base that has committed itself long ago to Ah Presidency of Donald Trump, and whether it'll just sort of bounce off people who don't support him or independence. This lie about birthright citizenship. It has implications way beyond this presidential election. There are at least 18 million Children born of immigrants in the United States right now. If Eastman were correct, which he is not, then All of those people are stateless who could be stripped of citizenship, stripped of all of their rights and privileges and violently expelled from the country That is extremely frightening. I mean, that is a white nationalist fantasy and the fact that a law professor and someone affiliated with a think tank can promote it in the pages of Newsweek suggest to me that we need to educate people. And explain that American citizenship does not rest on your parents allegiance to another country or this one. So I kind of hope that there are some people who haven't really thought about this or reasonable people who can learn from the conversation we're having now and some of the articles that have been written in response to use men This has been settled since at least 18 68 and that the next black person who runs for president or vice president is going to have their citizenship challenged on maybe we can shrink the group of people who buy into it next time around. Mark. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Marc Joseph Stern covers courts and the law for Slate. As Stern just observed. A lot is riding on how the media covers this particular falsehood against Kamala Harris. So how we doing? Eugene Scott, who writes about identity politics for the fix at The Washington Post, says that some media outlets definitely are better now it calling out racism and lies. Welcome to the show, Eugene. Thanks for having me. You've.

Kamala Harris Barack Obama Newsweek Marc Joseph Stern mark Soccer Donald Trump Eugene Scott Eastman Facebook Eugene United States Berg president professor The Washington Post vice president Slate
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

04:41 min | 3 years ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"There is a great concern that unless you have a very clear standard. You will turn many many elections in the United States over to the judges. The progressive agenda is dead on arrival because of the supreme court. So if you're talking about Medicare for all or green new deal or banning voter suppression or banning dark money and politics gerrymandering, and you don't have a plan to protect your agenda from the supreme court, then you really can't be taken seriously as a candidate. Hi, and welcome to amicus lease podcast about the supreme court and the courts and the rule of law. I'm dying Olympic, and I cover some of that for slate and this past week brought us in a smog of confusion and ambiguity them report. Kind of in fact, what we got was a four page summary of hundreds of pages of motor report from the attorney general and in the coming days weeks and almighty Rangel fest in congress will determine how much we see of the actual report, you can rest assured, we will cover what is actually in the mall report thoroughly and completely on this show. Once we know what it says, but we need not rely on summaries or spin to talk about the proceedings of the US supreme court, which is what we're going to focus on this week with dissection of the gerrymander cases heard on Tuesday coming up in a minute now later on in the show, we're going to dig into this issue of Corp pecking, something that was completely unthinkable. As a discussion topic a year ago, but with Mitch McConnell's Doug focus on high-speed confirmations for federal judges. Donald Trump has now seated about six of the federal appeals court bench. And the issue is starting to surface believe it or not early on the campaign trail democratic candidates are talking openly about what to do about Donald Trump supreme court if they capture the presidency and the Senate in twenty twenty and so we will talk with Aaron Belkin one of the architects of pack the courts, which is a newly minted effort to take very seriously, the notion of straight up court packing on the left, but first we turn to the actual supreme court as it exists today which heard arguments this past Tuesday in two important gerrymandering cases raising questions, we have discussed a lot over the years on this podcast, the issue in the cases, whether they could ever be an unconstitutional, political gerrymander is one we actually thought would be resolved definitively for all time last term. It was not. I'm not going to bury the lead here. The pair of cases one comes out of North Carolina based on congressional maps drawn by Republicans the other out of Maryland based on congressional maps drawn by Democrats. This case may turn on Brett cavenaugh, and I'm not even going to bury the bombshell brick Kevin seems maybe to possibly be inclined to vote with the liberals. What slates Marc Joseph stern was in court for oral arguments, and he joins us now. Mark welcome back. Thank you so much for having me back on my right, Mark. It feels a little like gerrymandering groundhog day where we're going to talk about political gerrymanders yet again you, and I is that are we just on the endless snipe hunt for the finally justiciable political gerrymander. Is there any reason to believe ever ever ever will be found at the US supreme court were absolutely doomed? This is this is the world Russian doll. I want to be Natasha Leon here. Look, we all thought as you said this would be settled by now because last term we heard the same question and everyone said we'll jus-. Justice. Anthony Kennedy is finally going to reveal whether he thinks the courts can step in and block agreed ously gerrymandered maps. But instead the court just punted on technical issue. Kick the cases back down and they percolated right backup. So here we are again spent two and a half hours in the courtroom. Watching Justice Elena Kagan do her very very best to sort of persuade an on the fence Justice Brad Kavanagh to Seidel on over and vote with the liberals to maybe put some real constitutional limitations on partisan gerrymandering. So before we get to this week went you set the table again. I know you've done this before we know that there is a world in which unconstitutional, racial gerrymander. And we know at least, theoretically how to fix them the problem with political gerrymandering Mark is question..

supreme court United States Mark Donald Trump Marc Joseph stern Elena Kagan Anthony Kennedy Mitch McConnell Medicare Olympic congress North Carolina Senate Brad Kavanagh Brett cavenaugh attorney Natasha Leon Aaron Belkin