17 Burst results for "Marc Joseph Stern"

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KPCC

KPCC

08:53 min | 2 d 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 | 2 d 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 | 3 d 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 | Last month

"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 What Next | Daily News and Analysis

What Next | Daily News and Analysis

09:27 min | 6 months ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on What Next | Daily News and Analysis

"Can we talk about? Why this election in Wisconsin matters because part of the reason that the governor didn't WanNa postpone the election was that there were so many things up for election wasn't just the presidential primary. We're talking about city councils seeds and may oral seats all these seats. That could have sat empty. And there's a supreme court seat too. So what are these elections about? Yes so they have more than thirty eight hundred seats on the ballots across the state and that includes nearly sixteen hundred county supervisors and officers Five hundred sixty five school district board positions. Then you've got a lot of lower court judgeships that are open and one of the issues that Iverson noted was you know we. We don't know who can exercise authority in these roles. If we don't have an election these people they're filling terms that have a limited number of years their terms are going to expire. And we don't know who can actually exercise that power anymore so that was a big reason why he didn't want to cancel the election. I think a legitimate reason and a rational reason but by far the most important race that will happen in Wisconsin on Tuesday. Is that State Supreme Court race. Why do you say that because there was constant? Supreme Court is probably the Crown Jewel of the folks effort to remake Wisconsin. I mean the cokes and their their network of donors have poured so many millions and millions of dollars into the State Supreme Court races to install very far right. Reactionary judge is on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and they have succeeded. There's currently five to two conservative majority on the court and if this election swings left and the liberal candidate wins this state Supreme Court election that will go down to a four three conservative. Majority a pretty narrow split and that leaves room for a Democrat liberal to win the next race and turn the court blue flip it create a liberal majority and then that liberal majority can start chipping away at a lot of the extreme stuff that Scott Walker and the Republican legislature have implemented over the last decade or so. So what? Is this going to look like today? I just can't imagine going to vote right now. And many Wisconsin nights cannot either so a couple of things I'll be looking at is basically. How many poll workers simply don't show up to the very few in-person polling places that remain open. I think it's GonNa be fascinating to see if places like Milwaukee and Green Bay Madison can even keep a handful of polling places running because I think a lot of people who are supposed to show up to help are going to be scared you know. They're disproportionately elderly people who work the polls in America. They don't get paid very much. They tend to be people with lots of leisure time on their hands. So old people and they're not going to want to go and face thousands of voters who kind of crush into these these voting places and try not to infect other people are going to say. I'd rather stay home so look for catastrophes on the ground and also look at the election officials who are just swimming in piles of absentee ballots marches stern. Thank you so much for joining me. Sorry I don't have better news for you a few hours after I got off the line with Marc Joseph Stern Wisconsin Governor Eve irs announced. He was suddenly postponing the state's election due to the corona virus Republicans legislature immediately appealed to the State Supreme Court and the court ruled. The election had to go on so I called Mark Back. Can you just lay out exactly what happened here? Oh my God so all right. We got off the phone. I nine hours ago but it feels like it was years ago. I was a younger man. Okay we got off. The phone and Governor Evert issued an executive order that officially postponed the election. He said I am drawing on my legal powers to protect the health and safety of Wisconsin Nights and I am going to delay the election. Cancel in person voting tomorrow and call a special session of the legislature again and ask them to reschedule the election for June. And this is a power that governor had had admitted he did not have right. Yeah he he sort of said like basically. I'm not sure if I have this power that he was sort of playing a little real politique here. I think he recognized. The state has a very conservative and hostile Supreme Court and so he had been saying like I want this to be really clear I want The legislature to change the law. So I don't have to rest on my own shaky powers and he called the legislature into session to a special emergency session to to change the date and then the legislature immediately convened in said. Screw you Tony Evers. Were doing no such thing so he just sort of decided I might as well take a wild swing and see if I can make it work. Nothing to lose right or everything to lose depending on your perspective right Really everything because what ended up happening was Just a few hours after everts issued. This order that Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a four to decision blocking the order. Reinstating Tuesday's election and without explaining its reasoning. Basically saying the show must go on so as of this exact moment there is an election. There is in person voting in Wisconsin. Not many people may be showing up but there is a Wisconsin election on April seventh. So the people who decided that the election was going to go on. They have a way. They want the election to turn out quite absolutely absolutely they have. They openly have a vested interest in this election continuing so that the pandemic suppresses democratic votes and they get to keep their treasured colleague. Dan Kelly on the bench and they have said almost as much in public statements. Okay this conversation. It will drop into people's feeds on Tuesday morning. If I'm waking up in Wisconsin what am I doing? If you're waking up in Wisconsin. I sincerely hope that you cast an absentee ballot. More than a week ago. If you have not yet voted in Wisconsin. I have no idea what to tell you because some campaigns are saying put on your your latex gloves and your face mask and go vote and douse yourself enhance. Sanitizer and other campaigns including mayors who are up for reelection are saying. Don't vote like don't risk your life in order to cast a ballot. It is depressing that we have reached this stage. But you should not risk your health and safety. In order to exercise the franchise so it's like a really difficult. Moral DILEMMA FOR WISCONSIN. I it's and I don't know what I would do. But it's just another reason kind of vivid illustration of why this election should absolutely not be happening right now. Marches of Stern covers the courts and the law for slate minutes. After we got off the phone a second time there was one more. Update this time about how. Many absentee ballots will actually be counted in Wisconsin. Today because legally every ballot has arrived by election day pandemic or no a federal judge had tried to extend that deadline give voters an extra week to send their ballots in but on. Monday evening the. Us Supreme Court struck down that decision to give you an idea of what that means the city clerk. I talked to at the top of the show Mary Beth. She told me this right now. We're looking at thirty eight thousand. Five hundred. Sixty nine absentees. The at risk of having no possibility of being returned by election day. So those thirty eight thousand ballots just wouldn't count rate and that is just in Madison during the last presidential primary in two thousand sixteen. Mary Beth says she got four late ballots. And that's the show if you WANNA call and leave us a message. Tell us how you're doing. We'd love to hear from you. Our number is two zero. Two eight two five eight. Your voicemail will strengthen our reporting you can also find me on twitter. I'm at Mary's desk. What NEXT IS PRETTY BY? Daniel Hewitt Mary Wilson Jason Leone and Mara Silvers. Thanks for listening. I'm Mary Harris. I'll talk to you tomorrow..

Wisconsin Wisconsin Supreme Court State Supreme Court Supreme Court Marc Joseph Stern legislature Mary Beth Republican legislature Daniel Hewitt Mary Wilson Jaso Iverson twitter Scott Walker Governor Evert Tony Evers Mary Harris America
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on What Next | Daily News and Analysis

What Next | Daily News and Analysis

10:49 min | 6 months ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on What Next | Daily News and Analysis

"It's Tuesday April seventh twenty twenty. And if you live in Wisconsin at least at the time we recorded this today. It's election day despite the global pandemic. That's keeping most of us at home right. It said like trying to do the impassable. It's like living a nightmare. Keep asking myself. Am I still alive or possibly be true? Could it Mary Beth whistle bail? She's one of the people trying to carry out this election. She's the city clerk in Madison. I know that you told someone that you're working like a hundred hours a week right now. Yeah how do you even work a hundred hours a week? You become very very grumpy. Mary Beth has been pulling these hours because of what started happening as the election got closer and people are town realized there are going to have to find a way to vote. It's because we were receiving so many absent. He request that it was beyond any of our capacity to process right away by law. Were supposed to have the absence. She in the mail within forty eight hours of receiving the request. So it's like A. It's like a race like you'd get a request and you got two days to get that sucker in the mail. But a couple of Fridays ago our backlog was sixteen thousand emails to process for absentee requests. So Mary Beth had her husband help out at the office. She got her teenage daughter involved. She even trained some out of work librarians to process mail in voter requests. She still couldn't meet the demand by the time. I spoke to Mary Beth on Sunday. Her focus had shifted to getting pulled locations ready. At least the ones she can keep open. She had to shut down about a third of them like the ones in nursing homes because of Kovic nineteen. She was arranging all these work. Arounds like curbside voting an elaborate system involving poll workers and face shields sliding ballots through cracked open car windows then for voters who are entering the polling place. We're asking them to stay succeed apart. We're keeping our poll workers sixteen apart but how many poll workers are going to show up at is the question. Wisconsin's primary election didn't have to be like this. The governor tried to delay it. He proposed mailing ballots to every registered voter so they could vote from home. The legislature rejected these ideas. And that's how Mary Beth got to this point working till two in the morning pressing absentee ballot requests and trying to find plastic face shields for her poll workers. Now she's just hoping those workers actually show up this morning today on the show. We're going to tell the story of how Election Day in Wisconsin got to be such a mess. It's a story about what happens when a pandemic collides with partisan politics. I'm Mary Harris. You're listening to next stick with US after talking to Mary Beth. I wanted to understand why she was still preparing vern election at all so I called up. Slates Marc Joseph Stern. He's been following the pushing pullover Wisconsin's primary when we spoke on Monday afternoon. Things seemed settled. Sort of the election was going forward but there was a dispute about how many people would be able to file absentee ballots. And what would happen if some of those ballots arrived after election day? So let's explain how we got here in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a democratic governor. But it is definitely swing state with a lot of partisan battles. So how did we get to the point where Wisconsin was even like having this election in the first place because just last month? We're talking about Ohio where I the last minute they were calling the whole thing off so I don't WanNa sound conspiratorial here but I really feel like any realistic conversation about Wisconsin and how it ended up where it is today has to begin with the coke brothers and with and I know I know. Please don't hate me. But what you have to understand is that in the arts the cokes and their allies in their strategist got together and basically decided to pick a state that would serve as the laboratory for all of their ideas and that state was Wisconsin and they needed a governor who would essentially be a puppet for all of their policies. And just do whatever the hell they sat in that puppet with Scott Walker and they needed a legislature that had a sufficiently large Republican majority that Nothing that Walker and the cokes ever proposed would get tanked and they did that by a ruthlessly gerrymandering the state after the two thousand ten census and creating this impenetrable. Gop Wall The the Democrats have not been able to cross over so even when Tony. Eva's won the The governorship in two thousand eighteen. He's a Democrat and he's a democrat. Republicans held fast to the state legislature. Right and their their numbers here were it's like X. percentage of the population voted for Democrats but the legislature. When you look at it looks a little different than not. Yeah so in. Twenty Ten Republicans. Gerrymander the hell out of the state legislature right and they basically pack the blue cities like Madison and Milwaukee. The pact voters into a few districts there and then they spread the rest around the state. So they've got this huge Gerrymander and in two thousand twelve it pays off because in two thousand twelve. Republicans only win forty eight point six percent of the statewide vote in Wisconsin so they don't even win a majority but then that vote translates into sixty out of ninety nine seats and the Wisconsin state assembly. So you've got Republicans winning less than a majority of the vote and capturing a near Super Majority of the state assembly so let's fast forward to now you've got this Democratic Governor Tony Devers. He wants to protect his citizens but at the same time knows that he has to deal with this Republican legislature. Right right and this is where the coke stuff kind of comes back in again not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but after Scott Walker lost his reelection race in two thousand eighteen to Tony Everts the legislature which remained Republican decided that it didn't really think that a democratic governor had a legitimate right to rule and began stripping powers from governor before he took office. I think the way that you put this on the show earlier was Wisconsin is governed by the dead hand of Scott Walker. Yes yes that is exactly correct. Because Republicans basically gave themselves all of the important powers of the governor ship or at least many of the important powers imposing Scott Walker's policies even though Scott Walker himself has no more power and just tweet. Sad pictures of his ham. Sandwich is so in March. Tony vers knows that. He has an election coming up on April seventh. He also knows that. The Corona virus is becoming a major problem and states. All around the country are basically shutting down. So what does he do so either as does not have power to postpone the election that is not a power he has retained and so the Republican legislature is the one holding the cards here and everts decides to try to play? Nice with the Republican legislature. He is a team player. He's a pretty pretty sweet guy and so he sort of goes hand in hand to the legislature and he says look. Why don't we make this an all male election day mostly male election where we pass them? Quick Legislation An implements quick rules. That make sure everyone can easily vote. Absentee people don't have to go to the polls and they won't risk getting the corona virus in order to cast their ballot so we asked the legislature to allow the election to really be all male and like he wanted he wanted ballot sent out to every voter with you know addressed envelopes with stamps on them. So everyone could participate but participate remotely. How did the legislature respond the legislature said in in two words? Hell No. We don't like vote by mail elections. What was their justification? So in the past some Wisconsin officials have been pretty overt about the fact that expanded access to the ballot is bad for Republicans right. You have these occasional stray quips by Republican legislators and operatives in Wisconsin where they say basically we need to suppress votes to make sure we can win but what you have them saying in court. Filings is essentially. This is no big deal. This is a pandemic. But we already had absentee voting. We already had mail in voting mail in balloting. And we don't need to change anything like we can just keep all the rules. The exact same and people can just switch to mail in voting. They want and everything will be totally fine and you could switch to mail in voting pretty late in the process right. Like if I'm Wisconsin voter I could ask for a mail in ballot like last week. I think. Yeah that's right. And if the state had the infrastructure and personnel to prepare for for that possibility then in theory all of this could have been worked out a few weeks ago and I think the state could've run a decently smooth. All male are mostly male election. What happened.

Wisconsin legislature Mary Beth Republican legislature Scott Walker Governor Tony Devers Wisconsin state assembly Madison Marc Joseph Stern Mary Harris US Gop Ohio Tony vers governorship
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

13:31 min | 7 months ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Every American should realize that they will not be able to protect themselves in court if the courts are biased and are subject to this kind of political attack. Hi and welcome back to amicus. This is leads. Podcast about the law and the rule of law and Supreme Court and the judiciary. I'm quick and I covered these things for slate magazine. There've been plenty of court-related headlines in the past few weeks while we were focusing on our election meltdown series with the president's call for two justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse themselves in all trump related. Matters 'cause he says they're biased. More abuse from the president directed at the judge and jury forewoman in the Roger Stone Trial Attorney. General William Bar hinting. He might quit if the President keeps tweeting. But I guess getting over it getting over. It is the new integrity next Wednesday. The court hears arguments in June medical. That's the abortion challenge raising the same exact issue as whole women's health decided in two thousand sixteen. We will devote the next show to covering those arguments and what comes next this week because there is just too much too happening. Sleep plus members are going to have access to a brand new segment in the second half of the show with slates own fantastic. Marc Joseph Stern where mark is going to try to round up all the big supreme court and Federal Appellate Court News. We just cannot get into the main show Mike. The Supreme Court's decision to take a Philadelphia religious freedom case next term and a second circuit ruling this week on sanctuary cities plus the courts. Five four opinion in a cross border shooting case to become asleep plus member and access that and a whole bunch more ad free bonus late content. Go TO SLATE DOT COM slash amicus plus. You're also supporting slate and all the journalism we do here. Now I want to turn to what has become a kind of foundational question when we think about the Supreme Court the Federal Courts and the rule of law. And it's a big big question that thus far we've just not really been able to answer on one side. We have the conservative legal establishment. This juggernaut. That is the federalist society and the well-funded often very secretive legal groups. That have packed. The courts with lifetime appointments for very young hardline. Judges the left's answer to that. Machinery rather more muted includes the ACS or American Constitution Society. And this week after a lengthy search. Acs announced that Russ Feingold. The former Democratic senator from Wisconsin will lead the group in its efforts to push back against what's been a sea change in the federal judiciary and what Feingold seizes fundamental threats to the independence of the Justice Department. Senator Feingold who served on the Judiciary Committee for Sixteen of his eighteen years in the Senate has among the items on his new to do list at the helm of acs the job of answering the conservative juggernaut question. He has to think about ways to counter the more than one hundred ninety new judges that have been seated including two Supreme Court justices and more than fifty. Federal Appeals Court judges. All of whom are going to shape the legal landscape for probably decades to come so no mean feat very excited to talk about it. Welcome to amicus. Senator Feingold will die. I'm thrilled to be on your show. your role in in making a understandable for the American people. The court system particularly the Supreme Court is one of the critical things that has to be done and frankly American Constitution Society Relies on this kind of communication to get. Its MESSAGE OUT. Which is that we have got to really up the fight against the attack on the rule of law so that everybody can participate in the legal process and so we can have progressive change In the legal system You are right that The conservative right has run the table on us And we have got to mount The strongest fight we've ever done To restore the rule of law and to have a fair opportunity to have progressive changes occur. So I guess we'll just stipulate and and I don't think this is a controversial proposition that you now arrive at eight. Acs kind of burdened with at least some sense that huge huge damage is done that in a really compressed amount of time we've seen a sea change in the courts and You probably read a couple of articles this week. About even the ninth circuit is changing in front of our eyes. More than a third of its active. Judges are trump judges reporting from L. A. Times suggesting that you know some of these judges are even before the paint dries on their new chambers calling to take things On bonk and trying to reverse a long standing precedent. So there's the sense that it's it's really all happening very quickly and circuits are flipping. They're going to continue to flip. And I I guess I. I wonder if sort of absent big structural reform whether it's court packing you know adding new judgeships to the Supreme Court or creating a whole bunch of new circuit court seats or term limits for sitting federal judges or jurisdiction stripping. The idea that we just take some issues away from the courts All of those things are floating around in ether as possible solutions. But I guess the question for you is isn't the damage already irreparable well. It's a very depressing development and it's a huge challenge to see Very young ideologues put on the cord intentionally To try to lock down the courts for future generations. I like to kid around it for those who have to take property long law school. There is a a rule called a rule against perpetuity. Which means you can't lock down your your your Your possessions for several generations into the future but the right in this country is trying to do that. Essentially create the dead hand of their generation to dominate our legal system for many years to come. And so we're at the bottom of the pit right now But you know it sort of reminds me. Maybe it's not the best comparison but I remember when Lyndon Johnson wanted a landslide in nineteen sixty four that Some of the magazines at the Time Time magazine said is this the end of the Republican Party in other words. There's this sort of momentary feeling that nothing's going to change but the one thing I am certain about the American people is they tend to go back and forth and although this is a very troubling time and the conservative right has taken maximum advantage of tilting our legal system. This will turn around. It may turn around this year. It may turn round and a few years but acs in all the people in the legal system. We're concerned about this after both the short term and long term strategy to reverse this problem and That that is exactly the challenge that I face Along with other leaders Who are concerned that the legal system in our institutions are under unprecedented attack. It sounds as though you're at least open to some kind of structural reforms that it's not your position that if for instance a Democrat wins the White House and Kratz gain the Senate that we necessarily go back to the filibuster rules in the blue slips and all the things the systemic disadvantages. I think The other question the harder question is are you open to at least talking about court packing. Are you open to talking about term limits or just sort of best not to talk about any and I'm not I'm not just open to it. I'm GonNa talk about it right now. but but in the context of the fact that ACS doesn't take specific positions on issues like this but it does try to play a lead role on trying to foster conversation With experts across the country. Who are looking at this issue. So look I'll be honest. I told my students here at Stanford Law School the other day that throughout most of my life I was horrified at the idea of term limits for for Supreme Court justices or packing the court. I I remember when I was lucky enough to be at Hyde Park to receive an award from the Roosevelt Dacian. That I asked him a question about court packing and the person turned to me was giving me the tour and said Senator here we referred to court reform. You know so so but you know the the right is always cited the the attempt at so called court packing Franklin Roosevelt as being some of the outrageous thing. But what if they'd done they have packed the courts they have packed the ninth circuit? They have packed. The appeals courts with right wing ideologues for the specific purpose of dominating those courts for the future so we have to go back to the founding of the country and and this does nothing to do with political party. This is something that I think is now only by not just bipartisan. I think it's non-partisan. We all know that. The founders of this nation never anticipated that people would have a very reasonable expectation of living ninety or a hundred years old and that there would be a political movement in this country based on ideology and and harsh partisanship to try to put thirty five and forty year olds on there to dominate the courts. For fifty or sixty years. This could not have been anticipated. And it can't be right and so yes I think Acs and others should have a real conversation with you know. There's brilliant academics around the country. That written pieces about you know. Should there be an eighteen year Limit on on a Supreme Court justice. Should there be As you say more justices of people seem to think that that there's always been nine justices that's not true historically The constitution allows the setting of the number of justices to be done by the Congress with the president. And so I'm not advocating any one of these things but clearly something is wrong when we have to worry about the health of elderly justices who are begged to stand the court longer than may be in the interests of their health and their family. This is this is wrong and there has to be a a solution in so I'm looking forward to having a very serious conversation with the students across the country at these over two hundred law schools with academics with lawyers and with the public at large. Do they really think of? The current system is appropriate given the realities of life and politics in the twenty first century. I so appreciate you being willing to engage on these issues because I have just been so disheartened by watching all the primary debates in the utter failure to talk about any of the issues that you're raising whether it's the politicization of the judiciary this sort of breakdown at the Justice Department structural reform in just complete silence on these issues from the candidates and sort of the reason. I wanted to talk to you about how we talk about. These issues is exactly what you just said the failure to discuss it to failure to put it into the public. Discourse doesn't make it go away it just means that when we hear the words court packing we kind of freak out and I wonder if part of the reason that none of the nominees really want to engage in conversations about how bad the changes in the judiciary have been is just because I don't know it's irreparable. The damage is done or because the solutions would be too radical for voters. And so I guess I just WanNa ask you. Maybe I'm wrong and you're wrong and this is a smart strategy to just pretend the courts don't matter and the Justice Department doesn't matter or if there's some way to kind of goose this issue so that it is front and center going into the General Election. That's a great question in the first thing. I would say Sort of indefensible candidates. Is I understand the reticence in terms of talking about this because in the past The idea of court packing or you know somehow going after the federal judiciary through the Congress has been something that the right Has talked about because of their claim that the courts were to activists for example under. Earl Warren's chief justice ship. I remember There used to be a billboards impeach. Earl Warren And so I think there's a reticence to sort of open the door To a sort of politicized way to attack the very structure of the court. Of course. You're not hearing this from the right now. Because THEY HAVE CONTROL. The problem is is. Is that this. Issue is fundamentally distorting our federal judiciary allowing previous generations to completely dominate the world and the reality of future generations and so I would say it is time for all of us to get over that reticence and to try to figure out a solution. So how do we do it? Well these debates. I think we've had enough Shouting between the candidates about you know healthcare plans and some of those issues yes the the moderator should be encouraged to ask questions about this. How do people feel about the court?.

Supreme Court Acs Senator Feingold Federal Appeals Court president Justice Department Federal Appellate Court News American Constitution Society Senate Congress Earl Warren slate magazine Federal Courts Roger Stone Sonia Sotomayor William Bar Ruth Bader Ginsburg Judiciary Committee Marc Joseph Stern L. A. Times
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Here & Now

Here & Now

05:29 min | 10 months ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Here & Now

"You reading. Do with Washington consumed by the impeachment hearings this week something else. Also on Capitol Hill went under the radar yesterday. The Senate confirmed twelve of president. Trump's judicial nominees and according to our next guest the president has now appointed nearly nearly one fifth of all district court judges and more than a quarter of all appellate judges joining us to explain. What's happening is Marc? Joseph Stern he covers courts and the law for slate. Welcome thank you so much for having me on. Yeah thanks for for being here. So can you explain why all of these judges were confirmed this this week because it has to do with the deal that the Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell reach with Democrats is that correct. That's right so majority leader. McConnell knows the Senate is going to shut down for an impeachment trial sometime soon maybe January maybe a little later and he wants to confirm many judges as possible so he has been a striking. These deals with senators across the Aisle but Democrats and Republicans to confirm packages of judges. So the way this works is you'll have a few conservative judges and if you sort of centrist judges who are acceptable to Democrats and while the Democrats probably won't vote for the conservative judges. They will allow allow McConnell to bring all of these nominations to the floor as a package effectively ensuring that all of them will be confirmed okay. So Senate Republicans don't Need Sixty devotes to get these judicial nominees through. We remember that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry. Reid deployed the so called nuclear option. Getting rid of that. Sixty vote requirement during the Obama Administration. Can you tell us more about how that rule change factors in here. Sure absolutely so. This was something Democrats Student Twenty thirty the and that has come back to haunt them in many ways because creating this now very low thresholds you only need a simple majority to begin debate and confirm judge now now that is something. Republicans have exploited in many of these judges do not have support from any Democrats early handful of Democrats. If the filibuster were still around Democrats rats could probably block them but they killed the filibuster and it remains gone so one of the big reasons why McConnell has been able to push through so many judges is because that nuclear option was reached and the only need a simple majority to get these guys throw. Give us a sense of who these judges are in terms of their backgrounds so so these judges are remarkably consistent in their backgrounds. Those ideologically and in terms of Education and club memberships and their work Many if not most of them are members of the conservative Federalist Society. A network of Conservative and Libertarian Lawyers. Most of trump's judges ages are white men. He has really gone in the other direction in terms of diversity. From where Obama went Obama's judges were very diverse. Trump's are mostly just heterosexual or sexual white men and most of them have pretty standard backgrounds. Either working in State Attorney General's offices you're not seeing public defenders as you're not seeing civil rights lawyers you're seeing white shoe law firm lawyers corporate lawyers and that kind of thing. Are there any that stick out to you. That are are controversial. Certainly so justice months. The Senate confirmed Sarah Pit Lik. Who is a very controversial figure who spent a lot of her her earlier career career opposing? Not only abortion court but also in vitro fertilization fertility treatments under the theory that embryos are human beings seeings. She believes that they should have their own constitutional rights and yet she was still confirmed. This has been the talk for quite some time that this is the strategy of the trump administration nation to take over the courts. Can you remind us how long these judges will serve. And how big of an impact. They are likely to have yes. Of course so these judges will serve for life. These are lifetime appointments unless they are impeached which I can assure you they will not be. Barring some extreme unforeseen circumstances they will be there for as long as they they wish probably through the twentieth and Twenty Sixty S. A lot of these judges are very young many in their thirties and early forties and the fact that trump has appointed more or than a quarter of all appellate judges on the federal bench. Tells you all you need to know about how his legacy will survive. The vast majority of federal cases and at the appellate level in these intermediate circuit courts of huge number of them will be decided by trump's nominees so they will effectively have the last say on the law in many cases as we mentioned that the president has appointed around a fifth of all district court judges in addition to the two Supreme Court. Justices you laid out. Is this really unusual for president accident. Absolutely this is a record pace. Nothing like this has occurred in in history. Actually the trump has appointed almost as many judges. It's less than three years as Obama did in eight years. This is just a confluence of factors here the abolition of the Filibuster for judicial nominees. The incredible pace at which the White House has been nominating. Them and Mitch McConnell's procedural genius for creating these packages getting them to the floor and getting them through. Who even on squeaker votes where it's fifty one forty nine McConnell's able to secure those those Confirmations and move onto the next one Marc Joseph Stern covers courts the law for slate..

Mitch McConnell Democrats Trump Senate Democratic Senate Majority Obama president trump Joseph Stern Washington Obama Administration White House Marc Libertarian Lawyers Federalist Society Supreme Court Reid
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

04:41 min | 1 year 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
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Slate's Double X Gabfest

Slate's Double X Gabfest

04:50 min | 2 years ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Slate's Double X Gabfest

"Holidays for lots of folks that probably means preparing to spend lots and lots of time with their families. But we hear outward have to ask what the side of gay SAS. What is family really what are its possibilities on this month? Episode. We're going to challenge the prevailing cultural expectations that exists around family by talking about shows and families though social units that many people put together out of necessity. We'll play a game to suss out if some of our favorite fictional figures. Queer family before diving into how he cobbled together own chosen families, then we'll chat with Marc Joseph stern about the legal aspects of family. What all that means for queers today before wrapping up with the gay agenda first Christina for the love of all that. His queer and seasonally layered, and holy lead us in another round of pride provocations, please. I'm going to start with a fried that I really hope no one else picked. So we're keeping this just after the midterm elections. And I want to say that I have so much pride in cherise. David's the recently elected congressmen lacked from Kansas. She is the first openly gay member of congress from Kansas. She is one of the first native American women elected to congress. The other happened to be elected the same night. She was a professional mixed martial arts fighter and has incredible muscles, which is important. Not a need to have. I would say for a member of congress. I'm not gonna hate on her for it. It's it's pretty fine. She won by more than nine points. She ousted four term incumbent Republican. Let's listen from a little clip of this ad where just to paint a picture for listeners out there. She is like a shadow boxing in a gym truth is I've had to fight my whole life. Because of who I am. Who I love and where I started. But I didn't let anything get my way. Still it's two thousand eighteen and women native Americans gay people the unemployed and underemployed fight like hell, just she's total bad ass and love to have lesbian in congress guy. That sounds amazing. She got on the show. Yeah. We should Brandon. What do you have for us? So I'm probably like a month late to this. But I recently saw absolutely loved Colette. Has anyone seen it yet? Now not. No, okay. But I remember drooling over the trail. I love the poster for it as well. Yeah. This is like fiery red and purple magenta thing with the cure nightly. But it's wash Westmoreland new film starring here nightly as the titular Colette as a French novelist. So the movie is based on a true story. And it's basically about Colette finding her voice. And so the sort of the main conflict to set into motion when Klett starts ghost writing for her husband willy played by. Dominic west, and he increasingly becomes this person. Who's just lecherous and expensive and wasteful doing? What men often do a home and just squandering a lot of what? Cl- trying to do to me what makes the movie so fabulous and interesting is the way that it deals with performance on a bunch of different levels. And so on the one hand we have collect performing for her husband when she writes, his novels clip performs fin-de-siecle Mexico Lindsey by wearing what was considered more masculine clothing time, which coincides with her relationship with Missy he's male pronouns and then also performs quite literally when she joins the sort of free love libertine theater group. And so to me it's just a movie that's deeply in very tenderly about gender sexuality both how we feel those identities. But also how we try to communicate and wear them. I really need to see it. It's so good in my partner will tell you that. I'm I don't necessarily jump at the opportunity to see period drama because I'm uncouth. I absolutely loved Colette at the end. I was just like oh my God. Like, I would give fifteen dollars see this movie. So deftly should see it Brian. What do you have for us? So I have a election themed pride as well. Although it was one that started and provocation. I don't know if y'all were on Instagram or really social media in general on election day, but a lot of our. LGBT and thirst traps, let's say or thought some people say where out here with their shirts off and what not getting out to vote..

Colette congress Marc Joseph stern Dominic west Missy Kansas drooling Christina cherise David Klett Brandon Brian Westmoreland partner Mexico Lindsey willy
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

04:57 min | 2 years ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Gurus UC Irvine Richard Hassen to talk about the difference between an Anthony Kennedy and a Brett Cavanaugh in the voting cases ahead and to review the voting rights cases that we a little bit. Alighted in the end of the term coverage. But first we turn to surprise the current term, which is actually happening, and we short shrift it a little bit this fall. As a result of the Brett Kevin on news. And so we have summoned our old friend. Marc Joseph stern who covers the courts for slate to help us go back and look under the hood of the twenty eighteen term already launched and to tell us what is coming down the pipeline as we move forward. So Mark welcome back to the podcast. Thanks much for how many back on always a pleasure to be summoned. And there's just a lot to discuss even in terms of just the most recent actions this week at the high court including voter ID's in North Dakota, which we will talk about with a recast and later and Wilbur Ross in the census, can you can you get us up to speed on what happened this past week in terms of the census case. Yeah. Absolutely. So as I think we all know, the Trump administration is eager to add a question to the twenty twenty cents about one citizenship. The Trump administration wants this census to compel everyone to say whether or not their citizens if their citizens of the United States question that has not been asked on the census since nineteen fifty and for good reason because the Commerce Department which is the federal agency that oversees the census has Ogle's of evidence that Wendy census asks a citizenship question that immigrant communities and Hispanic communities are very frightened quite often to answer the census in any capacity. They fear that the government will share the citizenship information with other agencies like ice or CB p. And so if there is a citizenship question, it could provoke an undercount meaning that immigrant communities all across the country. But especially in places like, Texas, and California and New York will not be properly tallied that would reduce those states representation in the US house of representatives. And it would also swindle them out of billions and billions of dollars a federal funds that are allocated. According to the census, so naturally a bunch of people have sued to stop. The addition of the citizenship question chief among them, the New York attorney general's office along with a coalition of other state Agee's as well as the American Civil Liberties union and a US district. Judge recently ruled that the case could move forward and specifically that the plaintiffs here could conduct depositions of both commerce secretary Wilbur Ross and the Justice department official John gore now those two men are very important to this case. Because the the case is really a challenge to the reason. Why the Trump administration wants this question on the census, right? The ACLU says that it's motivated by racial Zena, phobic animus that it was added in an arbitrary and capricious manner and Wilbur Ross says, no, no, no, I I actually am only adding it because the Justice department asked me to include it so that they could better protect minorities from vote dilution. So Wilbur Ross said that under oath before congress, and then a few months later some papers were revealed, which showed that in fact, it was Ross himself who asked the Justice department to send him that request. So the whole thing was kind of a charade the fix was in right and Ross then lied about all of this under oath before congress. The man who he was colluding with at the Justice department to sort of put forth this lie. John gore. So naturally, the ACLU wants to depose both of these men and get to the bottom of exactly why they decided to add this question if their motivations were were really pure and the district court said, Yep. You can depose them. Absolutely. This goes to the heart of your case, the second US circuit court of appeals also said, Yep. Absolutely, go ahead and depose them. But lo and behold this reaches the US supreme court, and we get a split decision on which the justices said, yes, you can depose gore. But no, you cannot depose Wilbur Ross who was really sort of the center of the case. Two justices Justice as Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas said that they would have blocked all of this discovery..

Wilbur Ross Justice department Wendy census United States John gore American Civil Liberties union New York Brett Kevin congress Marc Joseph stern Richard Hassen Commerce Department Anthony Kennedy Brett Cavanaugh North Dakota Neil Gorsuch Mark Clarence Thomas
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

Radio Free Nashville

09:39 min | 2 years ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

"This is the Tom Hartman program Christine's, my friends, patriots lovers of democracy, truth and Justice believers in peace freedom, and the American way it's anything goes Friday here on the Hartman program, although a few things I would like to share with you. I I wanna start with racism. I'm just just pure raw good old-fashioned or terrible old fashioned racism, which is a has become the centerpiece of the entire Rebublican campaign, the the racist element to the the whole Muslim fearing banning thing the racist piece to the whole immigrant bashing thing. And now the racist ads that are being run the racist behavior. That's happening all across the country. We're seeing well, I'm going to get through all these things. But I think what we have here. Right now is trickle down racism. It's coming down from Donald Trump, and and into the and and it has become. You know, I mean racism has been acceptable for the Republican party since the days of Nixon, you know, back in the sixties. But but but now it, but but it was always in code. You know, it was always. This is subtle enough that it was hard to point at it and say see now, it's just right up front. It's right out there for you to see this trickle down racism over at Harvard imposed. Here's a running list of racist attacks on candidates of color, and they just they go through the, you know. Gabby Selena's the democratic candidate for state Senate in Tennessee's thirty first district. She's an immigrant and a woman of color. So the Republican running against her. His his ads say he's from here. He's one of us, and it shows a picture of him. And I it's nice white boy and his nice, white blonde. Wife, and they're nice blond dog honest to God. The three Preston. Cool. Cool Nari democratic candidate for Texas's twenty-second again a person of Indian ancestry. But if you know an American, right, but the Republican Pete Olson, I wonder if this in liberal Indo American is a curb it Bagger at his money's coming from overseas. Right. I mean, I I'm not going to go through the whole list. It's it's it would take a half hour. There's this the Hong list of just explicitly overtly clearly racist ads. Running all across the country all of them being run by Republican candidates against Democrats. Meanwhile, in in Georgia right now, Gwinnett county is. A small piece of George. I lived in Georgia for thirteen years. Louise, and I lived there we raised our kids. They're Grenada county accounts for twelve percent of Georgia's mail in ballots, but it's one of the most diverse it is the most diverse county in the state. And it is now responsible for forty forty percent. So far of all the rejections of mail in ballots because when you send in the mail in ballot. You have to put your signature on it. And if the signature doesn't exactly match your signature in the voter rolls. Maybe it's missing a period. Maybe forgot to put to spell out your middle name or maybe on the voter rolls. It doesn't have your middle name. Or maybe it's just the first letter your middle name with or without a period. Whatever forty percent of the spoiled ballots in the state are coming out of this one county. And there's no procedure to fix this. There's no there's no appealing it. And in fact, the the the the reality is this this from this piece over at slate dot com. By Marc Joseph stern in states with strings stringent mismatch rules. A handful of election officials are frequently responsible for the vast majority of ballots voided for mismatch, and these officials routinely working counties with large minority communities. Bingo. So what do we have here racism? I mean, just just stark naked pure racism Antonia Nori for far on is asking the question. Are we going to cute with this stuff? You know, there's this story of of out of Michigan where this young man, Mark people's he lived in. He lives in Detroit. And there was a a vacant lot across the street from his house any turn it into a garden for the community. But there's some white people three white women who live in the neighborhood. And they and one of them. Deborah Nash has called the police on him dozens of times for gardening while black. And a Michigan judge yesterday tossed out. She actually filed charges against him for stalking her because he was gardening while black. And the judge not only tossed out the charges but said, the Deborah Nash the woman who called the police on Mr. people's on mart people's that she should face the same charges. Now, it's going to be up to you know, up to people's to see if he's going to, you know, call this on her and then. You know at the same time, we get these these just absolutely obscene ads. You know, I I think I have I have lost that one. I had I had an ad that I was gonna play for you. But you know, it's I apparently have closed the tab. But yeah, you've Nate you've got one this is well this isn't about race the suicide off on that one that that's Rick Scott. But there is there is this ad plane right now where it's like, basically these these. Wow. How did that happen? Street from his house. Now, we don't turn it into a garden very much for the community. Now. That's that's. Yeah. That in any case the the. They're asking the question. Golf card Gail permit. Patty, Berber Q Becky this all started with barbecue. Becky Becky, kind of the clueless white girl right barbecue, Becky cornerstone. Caroline are these names to cute? These people are racists. And if the names are too cute, then what should we be calling these largely white women who are calling police on mostly well, sometimes African American women sometimes Africa, in some cases kids. Do you have a permit for that lemonade stand? That was permit, Patty. But this this is the the the the key to the Republicans electoral strategy. I mean, this is the this is Stephen Miller on steroids. Right. Stephen Miller third grade teacher calls him, a strange dude who a glue Nikki Fisk, she taught him twenty five years ago. She says you remember that character in peanuts. The one called pig pen or the dust cloud flying around him. That was Stephen Miller at age eight I was always trying to get him to clean up his desk. He always had stuff mashed in their use a strange, dude. I remember, you take a bottle of glue, and he would pour the glue and his arm. Let it dry peel it off. And then eat it. She said he had such strange personal habits that he was isolated off by himself. All the time. This is the guy. Along with the rest of Trump who is like driving this whole thing. You got the you got the ad Nate. Yeah. Okay. Here. It is. Let's let's hear this. This is think about what's happening in Washington. Congressman French he'll and the Republicans know that this dangerous to change the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt, especially for black men, if the Democrats can do that to a wide Justice of the supreme court with no evidence. No corroboration and Oliver witnesses, including her best friend say didn't happen. What happens to our husbands fathers or sons when a white girl is on? Why Democrats will be lynching black folk again, I always told my third don't be messing around with that. If you get caught she will cooperate. I'm voting to keep congressman and the Republicans because we have to protect Amin emboli. We can't afford to let white Democrats. Take us back to bad old days of race verdicts lifeset this one a white girl screens right paid for by black Americans for the president's agenda. Not authorized by any candidate or candidates isn't a strange. I mean this. It's. I I I don't even know where to begin with that. I mean, you know, it's it's a it's a it's a Breck cabinet or grievance ad. That's been turned into into a racial issue accusing white Democrats of wanting to put black men in jail or Lynch them. Voiced by what sounds like a couple of black women? I mean, this is just like, I'm sure, you know, professional actors who got paid to say it. I b but still. What do we do with this? So anyhow, there's there's there's a lot going on. Yeah. I have a.

Democrats Stephen Miller Donald Trump Deborah Nash Michigan Georgia Tom Hartman Nate Republican party Patty Becky Becky Pete Olson Grenada county Harvard Marc Joseph stern Texas Nixon Detroit Golf Africa
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on The Nicole Sandler Show

The Nicole Sandler Show

03:39 min | 2 years ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on The Nicole Sandler Show

"By floodwaters and spilled into the Cape fear river. Duke Energy says its initial testing conducted by its in house lab indicate that the discharge into the Cape fear river quote shows a slight increase in contamination, but well, below permited regulatory limits with little to no impact on river water. Quality? Well, if do energy own internal study says everything's fine. Why worry? North Carolina environmental groups recorded gray sludge on the riverbanks and in the water and say, they're awaiting results of independent testing. Moreover, heavy metals, toxins, mercury, arsenic, all kinds of things were found in the Cape fear river downstream from this coal, ash pit. The parts per million were some three times higher than the water tested upstream of the coal ash pit into line. The Trump administration rolled back Obama era, coal, ash waste rules that would have limited the risk of these predictable spills. Although scientists say that climate change intensified, Florence is affect national TV news outlets failed to incorporate that into their hurricane coverage. According to a media matters analysis, ABC news did not mention climate at all during its Florence coverage. CBS PBS CNN and MSNBC did at times connect Florence's. Extremes with climate change, but did so less than they did during their coverage of hurricane Harvey. Last year, I have no idea what it's going to take at this point. Meanwhile, in Washington, the Trump administration pipeline and hazardous materials, Safety Administration on Monday rolled back Obama era safety rules designed to prevent explosions of trains that whole oil, the rules would have required trains carrying oil and other flammable materials to install special breaks and other safety features. But the administration said, a new analysis found the cost of the rule to the industry outweighed the benefits making America. Great. Again, I'm sorry, I'm making oil trains explode. Again, Republicans are desperately trying to ram through confirmation of DC circuit court of appeals. Judge, Brad Kavanagh, Donald Trump's scandal plagued anti environment nominee to the US supreme court before voters have their say in the crucial November midterm elections, but at stake is more than just control of congress as. It's legal reporter, Marc Joseph stern explained on a recent Brad cast. The court is currently divided for two four, and in a new session that begins on October. I is a new case that is very important to the logging mining and drilling industries. The conservative plainly want to use to sort of hobble the Environmental Protection Agency by interpreting the Endangered Species Act in a really cramped and limited way. And I think the Republican party wants their fifth man on the bench, the cast the tiebreaking vote and deliver conservative victories and all of those cases, good news. A federal appeals court has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately and force an Obama era, chemical plants safety rule that the Trump administration had tried to delay. The risk management program rule was put in place by the Obama administration after the deadly west, Texas, fertilizer explosion in two thousand thirteen men. We are so lucky that the courts are at least for now still holding the line. And finally, Cleveland, Ohio has become the latest major city in the United States to commit to one hundred percent renewable electricity by twenty fifty. They joined more than eighty US cities that have committed to get all of their electricity from renewable. Sources in Ohio that might be easier said than done, but it's a start for much more on all of.

Cape fear river Obama Trump administration Safety Administration United States Environmental Protection Agenc Florence Obama administration Duke Energy Brad Kavanagh Ohio Donald Trump Cleveland North Carolina hurricane Harvey ABC Marc Joseph stern CNN MSNBC
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on 850 WFTL

850 WFTL

09:49 min | 2 years ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on 850 WFTL

"More efficiently as Freightliner's. Number, one goal no we're talking about the news media in yesterday's show And it's getting to be it's getting. To, be interesting as everybody tries to to stake out You know their their territory if you have a lot of media go in one direction you will. Have at times people that you believe or publications that you believe You know have normally been aligned with them to move in an opposite direction You and I mentioned about you know Bill Maher. Bill Maher who was I forgot who was it that, was on with him one of the liberal senators was, talking about Alex Jones and. He went nuts about free speech, and liberals had you know he he's Bill Maher was a liberal is saying. One? Of the big problems of liberals. Is, they don't believe in free speech right and so you, occasionally have, that well this was a slight dot com and Marc Joseph stern Don Mcgann has not, turned on Trump the White House counsel the White House counsels figured out how. To? Appear transparent without giving Muller the. Information, that he needs has Don Mcgann turned on Donald Trump On Saturday the New York Times published, a, lengthy story suggesting as much ending that the White. House counsel may have reached the limits of his, loyalty to the president reporters Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt detail agains assistance to the Muller Russia probe including, thirty hours of voluntary interviews with investigators Trump they write allowed Mcgann to. Speak to Muller's team though the president may. Have not grasped the extent of his cooperation, Haberman and Schmidt's narrative is quite tantalizing not least for all of its obvious parallels. To former White House counsel John dean's testimony against Richard Nixon during Watergate a closer examination of the times piece however reveals that there is good reason to be skeptical that mcgann's testimony will help. Unseat the president is deans did Haberman and Schmidt frame Mcgann. In an extremely favorable light giving him far too much credit for transparency when it is not at all clear that his testimony will help Muller and they do it why intimating that obstruction of Justice is at the heart of Muller's probe and inaccurate assumption that boys dubious claim of mcgann's full cooperation at Trump's expense Perhaps the strongest aspect of Haberman and Schmidt story is, what it does not mention the reporters are, highlight the fact that Trump expressively permitted Mcgann to speak to Miller. A fact the president tout, touted on Twitter after the article's publication but they failed to note that in fact Mcgann is, legally obligated to give testimony is former. White House counsel, Bob Bauer notes in law fair Mcgann represents the office of the. President Trump is an employee of the United States government not a personal lawyer to, the president for that reason the courts, have already concluded, the White House counsel cannot site attorney client privilege were executive privilege to avoid testifying about a president's alleged malfeasance at Mcgann. Refused to meet with the special, counsel Muller could've, expel could have compelled, him to do so still it. Is notable that Mcgann did not even try to avoid speaking with, Muller although the law here is settled but you know the Trump administration said get Again go do it and they would have used executive. Privilege and again I don't know I mean I do think that the slight dot com article I think he's taking liberties, by by saying, that that the that the executive privilege would. Not hold it might have held because you get to the point at and. You and I've talked about this, before is that, it might have held, because The claim from the president's lawyers is the special counsel Robert Muller and his investigation is unconstitutional. Because in the special prosecutor law there has to be an identifiable crime there's never been an identify identifiable crime it you could identify a crime You believe. The president knew about it right then executive privilege at that point would not hold but I thought it was just interesting that you. Had, slate you, know throw it in a little bit of, a, different light than the, New York, Times and I just I always just think, it's? Interesting when you see, media moving just a little bit in in in in, different directions yeah it we we see this occasionally it. Has happened where well I mean we go you know the hill, is not a right leaning. Publication right this is not a, I think on some things I wouldn't. Call them centered but they have been left. On a number of things But the work that John Solomon is done at the hill with a whole Bruce or coverage and and and what he's done there. I, think it's, been really great because this gets back to, what, we've been talking about, the whole, enemy of the people discussion which basically comes, down? To the question who, are you serving with the work that you're doing opinionated, stuff great obviously you're serving one side that's a given So, categorize it and compartmentalized that as such But journalism is different because journalism actually. In its truest form serves the American public it is designed to shed light on, in part things that people, are doing wrong whether they're criminal in nature or they crossed the moral or ethical line or whatever, degree it is the role of the journalist especially with with people who serve The nation those public servants is critical but if you're not willing to. Do it and it becomes, basically part of one side's campaign It it only serves that purpose. Then market is such and and promote it as such but, I? I do like the way, that they'd he attacked and I, don't I'm not saying I agree with all of his, assumptions here right because as I said that that the one point were yet but you know there there has been authentified will crime but he does make sense says that the we mentioned. A reporters who New York Times Haberman Schmidt imply, that Muller zeroed in on obstruction as a key aspect of his. Best to Gatien but while Muller is no doubt interested in obstruction there's little indication that he considers it a priority. To the contrary the special counsel has already obtained foreign governments, and five guilty, pleas involving conduct that has nothing to do with obstruction. He seems to be working, as Wade through a criminal conspiracy a Trump associates one that may turn out to feature the President in a leading role but not have not, having nothing to, do with obstruction of Justice or collusion right You know with the. Russians but a criminal criminal conspiracy right that you see in in, in the Trump associates true in media appearances Trump's personal lawyers have sought to depict Muller as fixated on, obstruction and that's because they recognize correctly that an obstruction charge against the, president would go nowhere according to Giuliani. Muller is operating under the assumption that he cannot indict a sitting president even if Giuliani is lying about that Trump's lawyers have. A backup argument that the president does not commit obstruction when he exercises has constitutional authority even for illicit purposes they argue for instance that it should not. Matter why Trump fired up guy director James Comey because he has the power, to terminate a subordinate executive branch official things that we have have said with. That Those, arguments might farewell in our increasingly Trumpy courts there's this little there at, at well then again that if if. A Dershowitz was on it you couldn't say that would be a trouble Trump he court you being that like the ninth circuit. And and Hawaii we're those Trumpy courts while the the only point that's where again this is where he throws in the he's makes he makes good points. But then he throws in his little Jap yeah That are just those, those are political jabs right those. Aren't legal jabs or political, jabs at most and Muller could advise, congress to impeach Trump for obstruction good luck with that, in short Trump's legal advisors do not believe that. The obstruction, related inquiries can legally endanger the president it's no surprise, that began would speak with Mahler's team about the events that, lie, behind a potential obstruction charge the bigger, mystery is whether he spoke to, the special counsel about matters beyond obstruction specifically. About About collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia the actual focus of Muller's probe which of course As he stated there had been knowing and there was no indication and he can't make that there's any indication because he's criticizing the New York Times for taking liberties about what they believe Muller is looking at what you're taking liberties by believing that Mahler is actually looking. At obstruction of the Trump campaign, with the Russians So.

Robert Muller president Trump Don Mcgann President Trump special counsel Bill Maher White House New York Times Donald Trump executive Maggie Haberman Muller Russia Michael Schmidt Alex Jones Freightliner
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Slate's If Then

Slate's If Then

02:02 min | 2 years ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Slate's If Then

"Courts are hesitant to charge forth with new rules that apply to new technology the courts recognize that technology is constantly changing and shifting they themselves are frightened by it for the most part not all of them have cell phones and it seems that we have a rather aged judiciary we have a lot of septuagenarians and octogenarians on the court they aren't they aren't able to process these issues i don't wanna sound ages but they are frequently so unfamiliar with these mediums that it makes it difficult for them to understand the constitution might not be users yeah they're not users and it's hard if you don't know like i think that you saw this divide in carp enter like chief justice john roberts has a cell phone and his kids have cell phones and he doesn't want the government to be able to go in and see everywhere he's been and justice kennedy does is not a big cell phone user and just isn't as concerned about this stuff and there's there's a usual rule under fourth amendment this is not a real rural but i mean court watchers say that there's a fourth amendment rule that if you can connect your case to technology that the justices themselves us and are familiar with you have a much better chance of winning that was the case in two thousand twelve when the court ruled that the police need a warrant to stick a gps on a suspect's car right the justices all have cars they've all seen gps devices they know how that could work it's true of carpenter and i think it's true moving forward and all of these cases that are going to be dealing with everything from fourth amendment searches to freedom of speech to antitrust monopolies it is good to have a tech litter judiciary and the more tech litter tech literate a judge is typically the better sharper his or her opinion is as well marc joseph stern we really appreciate having you on the show today you know this stuff so well and speak about so eloquently thanks for joining us thanks for having me on all right one last quick break and then don't close my taps some of the best things we've seen.

john roberts justice kennedy marc joseph stern
"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Slate's If Then

Slate's If Then

03:06 min | 2 years ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on Slate's If Then

"The confidence and security you need to thrive in today's modern world with american express you don't have to go it alone because they have your back don't live life without it will now we want to shift gears and talk a little bit about one of the major political stories of the past week which the resignation of supreme court justice anthony kennedy and what implications that might have for technology and privacy so to help us make sense of that we're lucky to have with us today are sleep colleague marc joseph stern who covers courts and the law mark thanks so much for joining us thanks for having me on so before we get into the tech implications of this let me just ask what's the consensus these days on the type of justice we can expect to replace kennedy who as we all know was sort of the swing vote on the supreme court before a sort of moderate conservative sell everyone recognizes that kennedy will be replaced by a justice who is significantly more conservative than he kennedy was as you set a swing vote he swung left on some big social issues most notably marriage equality gay rights and abortion rights his successor will not and i think successor will adhere to a very different constitutional theory justice kennedy always said that the framers entrusted future generations to identify and protect new kinds of liberty and a quality whereas his successor will almost certainly be an originalist in the mold of justice neil gorsuch and his own predecessor justice antonin scalia and will attempt to adhere to the original public meaning of the constitution as ratified so we will be having even more seances with the old white dead men who wrote our founding charter sorry they have to laugh at that because markets so good with words but i want to move into some more concrete things in the past few weeks we've seen a couple of cases that really hit the tech industry pretty hard let's start out with the one that i wanna spend less time on and that is being kind of called in short the amex decision and that is about the fact that american express had kind of contractually forbidden merchants from encouraging card holders to use competitors if say american express was charging more for merchant to use american express so so if you run a bodega and it cost you a dollar fifty to run an american express card but it only cost you a dollar to run a mastercard you could not encourage your customers to use mastercard instead under american express his contract that was actually ruled to be constitutionally fine so not actually ocassional question it's a statutory question whether it violates federal anti trust laws and the court ruled in a in a five before decision written by justice clarence thomas that it did not violate antitrust because this is a two sided market the court kind of created this new category said we'll antitrust is concerned with anticompetitive behaviour creating monopolies right but when we're talking about credit cards we have a two sided market because credit.

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KFI AM 640

KFI AM 640

02:46 min | 2 years ago

"marc joseph stern" Discussed on KFI AM 640

"We move forward now this story which we mentioned yesterday and it's time to look a little closer at it we're looking at a writer and he was really worked up about it marc joseph stern who wrote for slate dot com and the headline is california is disenfranchising thousands of voters based on their handwriting and it's actually true see california is a state where if you do a mail in ballot all registered voters can choose to vote by mail if you want to you just request requested ballot fill it out sign the ballot envelope and drop it in the mail however there is a stipulation that your signature on the envelope must match the signature on your voter registration form if it does not they can throw it out and according to our writer here marc joseph stern that happened with as many as forty six thousand ballots in the two thousand sixteen election now that's a very small amount of the total number ballots cast but under the way it works in california you're not told that your signature didn't match and your mail in ballot got thrown into the trash because somebody as turn puts it who's not trained as a forensic document examiner yeah it's it's up to them to decide whether or not your signature matches what's on file you know what and and be because we have a corrupt government don't you wonder who's signatures are being tossed out because your signature gets your your ballot gets tossed out they don't notify you you'll never know that it wasn't officially counted and you'll never know why now and there's no so since you don't know you can't appeal it and you don't know if there's i mean what xavier becerra is is the one who's handling this case he's about as corrupt as the day as long as up to no good and the days are longer these days it gets more corrupted summer's approaches the as are up for an extra minute every day the aclu of northern california sued the state to prevent election officials from voiding ballots for signature mismatch and depriving voters of notice or recourse so in march a san francisco superior court judge because they sued last summer ruled in the aclu favor citing a case that it could violate voters right to do process but the reason that the writer here is worked up as.

writer california xavier becerra marc joseph stern san francisco