17 Burst results for "Mary Law"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"And on Bloomberg quicktake powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries. I'm Suzanne Palmer. This is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg long. Some complicated international law issues here. What kind of docket is chief justice Roberts facing? Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is Bloomberg news Supreme Court reporter Greg store. Neil Devin's a professor at William and Mary law school. And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines. Is this essentially the 5th circuit haunting? He has presided over a so called hot bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. Welcome to a special yearend edition of Bloomberg law. Looking back at some of the biggest legal issues over the past year. I'm June Grasso. In oral arguments on challenges to affirmative action programs at the university of North Carolina and Harvard college, several conservative justices suggested it had run its course, referring to the 2003 grutter decision in which justice Sandra Day O'Connor anticipated the use of racial preferences would no longer be necessary in 25 years. Here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Amy Coney Barrett. You don't think that university of North Carolina has to stop in 25 years and at the 2028 mark. So what are you saying when you're up here in 2040? Are you still defending it? Like this is just indefinite. It's going to keep going on. I don't see how you can say that the program will ever end. Your position is that race matters because it's necessary for diversity, which is necessary for the sort of education you want. It's not going to stop mattering at some particular point. My guest is former United States solicitor general Gregory garr, a partner at Latham and Watkins. He won the landmark case of Fisher versus the University of Texas, which upheld the race conscious admissions program used by that university. Greg, looking at the legal analysis after the arguments, it seems that the almost universal conclusion was that the court is ready to throw out the consideration of race in college admissions. Did you come to that conclusion as well? I did. I mean, I think certainly based on the oral arguments, it appeared as though the challengers had the upper hand. And that's not surprising going in, but having said that, there's a lot that remains to be seen about how the court gets that result in how broadly it might go in these cases. During the arguments, there seemed to be a great focus on whether educational diversity can be achieved without the consideration of race specifically with race neutral approaches. Does that indicate that justices are on to the next step? I think that it means that they're focused very carefully on the application of strict scrutiny in this context in particular looking for narrow tailoring and the existence of race neutral alternatives. For some conservative justices it may also mean simply illustrating that universities can achieve educational diversity in other ways without explicitly considering race as part of the admissions process. So I think different justices were looking at that issue through different lenses. It seemed like the justices were deeply divided right down ideological lines. Well, generally speaking, there's a stark divide in the court in terms of how the justices look at this question of diversity and the interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and otherwise. And I think you saw that by the questioning that the justices had for the advocates. The more liberal justices obviously came at this issue from the perspective of there being a compelling interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and elsewhere and whether or not they were able to persuade their more conservative colleagues. I'm not sure, but certainly that was one of the more interesting interplays going on throughout the oral arguments and reflects the sort of stark divide that the justices have on this issue. You argued the Fisher case, of course, and the three jaws toes who dissented the chief justice and justices Thomas and Alito are still on the court where they as stark in their questions and comments about using race to achieve diversity. Yes. I thank you from the standpoint of the more conservative justices, their position on this issue has been clear for some time and I think that's true of justice Thomas, although as I recall he did not ask questions during the Fisher argument, but certainly justice Alito. And even the chief justice who is more moderate in a number of areas, but in this area has been very outspoken against the consideration of race and admissions. There was a lot of discussion about students using their admission essays to talk about their experiences, for example, overcoming racism. Did the lawyer representing the challengers, students for fair admissions seem to come around to accepting that? Towards the second argument, I think they seem to be willing to acknowledge that it might be appropriate in the context of an essay, at least depending on how it was used in describing the person's experiences and what he or she might bring to a college campus. But I do think that that was one of the more interesting and important exchanges throughout the oral argument. Certainly that's something that the chief justice seemed to be interested in nailing down that school might be able to consider an applicant's race in the context of a personal essay. Will know by June, thanks so much, Greg. That's former U.S. solicitor general Gregory garr. I've heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don't have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone. That was just as clarence Thomas, whose dissented in landmark affirmative action cases in oral arguments this week over the affirmative action programs at Harvard college and the university of North Carolina. Thomas was just one of the justices who questioned the role that diversity plays in a college education. My guest is paulette cranberry Russell, president of the national association of
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Julie Ryan This is Bloomberg law with June brusso from Bloomberg radio This week the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion overturning roe V wade used up all the oxygen around the Supreme Court little noticed was an opinion in which the justices were unanimous in deciding that Boston violated the constitution by refusing to fly a Christian civic group's flag at city hall while raising the banners of some 50 other organizations The justices rejected the city's contention that its flag raising program was a form of government speech that wasn't subject to the First Amendment something that justice Elena Kagan was unequivocal about during the oral arguments A program that basically now says and previously we welcome all comers except for the most reprehensible discriminatory speech and religious speech That's what this program is And why should we understand that to be government speech to say everything's good Except religion Joining me is First Amendment law expert Timothy zick a professor at William and Mary law school Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion and said the central question was whether the city had created a public forum for private speech Can you explain that for us Sure So when the government opens up a public space they applause or something like that for private speakers to come in and sort of diversity of views to let them communicate in that space then it's opened up essentially a forum for private speakers And that's distinguished from the government using a space or a property to communicate its own messages And that's the central dividing line in this case If the government was using the flagpole to send out its own messages then it would be government speech and it would be immune from First Amendment concerns Exactly When the government be it gets to decide what it wants to say what viewpoint it wants to express what message it wants to communicate which is quite different from when the government regulates privacy speakers It has to sort of obey the opposite role which is to say it can not discriminate based on what a private speaker wants to say what viewpoint they want to communicate Breyer set out a three factor test for deciding whether a message is government speech was that a test you've seen before Yeah those are factors that the court has relied on in previous cases So there have been several government beach cases before this one involving things like monuments that are placed in a public park or specialty license plates that they allow citizens to display on their automobiles or trademark in the case of federal trademark law and so what the court was doing here was sort of culling factors from those precedents and applying them to in this case a Boston flag poll policy So the factors that are relevant here are the history of the expression at issue have flagpoles and flags been used historically You might say by government to speak what's the public's likely perception as to who's doing the speaking through the statement going to be attributed to and then the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression and I think it's fair to say reading just as buyers are thinking that the last element there seemed to be the most prominent one Indeed he seemed to suggest that Boston had a good case with respect to the first two elements but since it hadn't really exercised any control as to what flags went on this third black hole until this case until his Christian flag was presented to it that was the problem What I'm curious about is this was a unanimous decision yet the district court and the appellate court sided with the city How did they both get it so wrong Yeah I think I get it If you look at the court's factors this is what the lower courts are looking at do There's this sort of history of flags used over time Government typically traditionally communicated messages and sentiments through flags There's no question about that And on a place like the Plaza which is right next to city hall and a third flagpole that flies a flag next to the United States flag and the state flag of Massachusetts one might attribute whatever goes in that third flag to the government Two of the three factors then again seem to point in the city's favor and the Supreme Court as I say seem to focus more heavily on the fact that there seem to be no selectivity or control that if you're really trying to communicate something one would expect that you'd want to have some say so in terms of which flags go on the third flag hole and in the 50 instances and hundreds of commemorative ceremonies that have occurred up to this point Boston had exercised any of that kind of editorial control Has the Supreme Court struggle to distinguish government speech from private speech in the past I think it struggles mightily This is a really basic principle here that government couldn't operate if it couldn't communicate its own points of view positions messages et cetera but determining what is and what isn't government speech when in fact the government is speaking as opposed to regulating private speech turns out to be a very difficult endeavor And I think that's what you see in a case like this one And in justice Alito's concurrent he tries to provide a more focused test in terms of determining when is it that the government is actually speaking Has it developed a method Has it sort of communicated that message consistently as a deputized private parties maybe to communicate it So there is an effort here in a concurrence to try and narrow down the issue something other than these three sort of amorphous factors but it's just a concurrence in the majorities that supplies these factors There's been each case on its own terms and its own back which naturally leads to what some might be as inconsistent results You mentioned justice Alito's concurrence and he seemed to be trying to re litigate the Texas case involving the confederate flag on license plates Tell us more about that case and why he has a problem with it Yeah I think justice Alito looking at the Texas specialty license plate program is founded incredible that the public would attribute to the state of Texas to sort of multitude of specialty license plates at the state had allowed And they ranged from sports teams outside of Texas being displayed on these license plates to let's all go play golf Just get the multitude of messages It just seemed to him incredible on the attribution part of it at least that the public would associate any for a lot of those messages with the state And he is as you say trying to relitigate the Texas license plate case casted as an outlier in terms of the scope of government speeds because if that's government speech then he can imagine lots of other things government does Also being characterized that way And the danger here is that the government under the guise of discriminating against private fee in private speakers will cast itself in lots of cases as the speaker to try and avoid the First Amendment content neutrality requirement So he's pushing back very hard against not just that case but I think the doctrine of government speeds and trying to cabinet in some way narrow it to its essence In another concurrence justice Gorsuch seemed to have a problem with the lemon case I think both he and justice Kavanaugh who wrote his own concurrence are concerned that what made this a controversy in the first place was a sort of misunderstanding about the place of religious speech in the public square and in public life more generally So it seems to them that Boston's officials recoiled from the idea of having any kind of Christian.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Of a draft opinion overturning roe V wade used up all the oxygen around the Supreme Court little noticed was an opinion in which the justices were unanimous in deciding that Boston violated the constitution by refusing to fly a Christian civic group's flag at city hall while raising the banners of some 50 other organizations The justices rejected the city's contention that its flag raising program was a form of government speech that wasn't subject to the First Amendment something that justice Elena kegan was unequivocal about during the oral arguments A program that basically now says and previously we welcome all comers except for the most reprehensible discriminatory speech and religious speech That's what this program is And why should we understand that to be government speech to say everything's good Accept religion Joining me is First Amendment law expert Timothy zick a professor at William and Mary law school Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion and said the central question was whether the city had created a public forum for private speech Can you explain that for us Sure So when the government opens up a public space they applaud their or something like that for private speakers to come in and sort of diversity of views to let them communicate in that space then it's opened up essentially a forum for private speakers And that's distinguished from the government using a space or a property to communicate its own messages And that's the substantial dividing line in this case If the government was using the flagpole to send out its own messages then it would be government speech and it would be immune from First Amendment concerns Exactly When the government be it gets to decide what it wants to say what viewpoint it wants to express what message it wants to communicate which is quite different from when the government regulates privacy speakers It has to sort of obey the opposite role if you could say it can not discriminate based on what a private speaker wants to say what viewpoint they want to communicate Breyer set out a three factor test for deciding whether a message is government speech was that a test you've seen before Yeah those are factors that the court has relied on in previous cases So there have been several government beach cases before this one involving things like monuments that are placed in a public park or specialty license plates that date allows citizens to display on their automobiles or trademark in the case of federal trademark law and so what the court was doing here was sort of culling factors from those precedents and applying them to in this case Boston flag pole policy So the factors that are relevant here are the history of the expression at issue have flagged poles and flags been used historically You might say by government to speak what's the public's likely perception as to who's doing the speaking who's the statement going to be attributed to and then the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression and I think it's fair to say reading just the priors of thinking that the last element there seemed to be the most prominent one Indeed he seemed to suggest that Boston had a good case with respect to the first two elements but since it hadn't really exercised any control as to what flags went on this third flagpole until this case until Christian flag was presented to it that was the problem What I'm curious about is this was a unanimous decision yet the district court and the appellate court sided with the city How did they both get it so wrong Yeah I think again if you look at the court's factors which is what the lower courts are looking at do the sort of history of flags used over time government typically traditionally of communicated messages and sentiments through flags There's no question about that And on a place like the Plaza which is right next to city hall and a third flagpole that flies a flag next to the United States flag and the state flag of Massachusetts one might attribute whatever goes on that third flag to the government Two of the three factors then again seem to point in the city's favor and the Supreme Court as I say seem to focus more heavily on the fact that there seem to be no selectivity or control that if you're really trying to communicate something one would expect that you'd want to have some say so in terms of which flags go on this third flag pole and in the 50 instances and hundreds of commemorative ceremonies that have occurred up to this point Boston had an exercise in that kind of editorial control Has the Supreme Court struggle to distinguish government speech from private speech in the past I think it struggles Michael is a really basic principle here that government couldn't operate if they couldn't communicate its own points of view position messages et cetera but determining what is and what isn't government speech when in fact the government is speaking as opposed to regulating private speech turns out to be a very difficult endeavor And I think that's what you see in a case like this one And in justice Alito's concurrence he tries to provide a more focused test in terms of determining when is it that the government is actually speaking has it developed a method as it sort of communicated that message consistently as a deputized private parties maybe to communicate it So there is an effort here in the concurrence to try and narrow down the issue Something other than these three sort of amorphous factors but it's just a concurrence in the majority that supplies these factors There's been each case on its own terms and its own back which naturally leads to what some might be as inconsistent results You mentioned justice Alito's concurrence and he seemed to be trying to relitigate the Texas case involving the confederate flag on license plates Tell us more about that case and why he has a problem with it Yeah I think justice Alito looking at the Texas specialty license plate program is founded incredible that the public would attribute to the state of Texas to sort of multitude of specialty license plates that the state had allowed And they ranged from sports teams outside of Texas being displayed on these license blades to let's all go play golf Just hit the multitude of messages It just seemed to him incredible on the attribution part of it at least that the public would associate any for a lot of those messages with the state And he is as you say trying to re litigate the Texas license plate case passed as an outlier in terms of the scope of government speed because if that's government speech then he can imagine lots of other things government does also being characterized that way And the danger here is that the government under the guise of discriminating against private fee in private speakers will cast itself in lots of cases as the speaker to try and avoid the First Amendment content neutrality requirement So he's pushing back very hard against not just that case but I think the doctrine of government speeds and trying to cabinet in some way narrow it to its essence In another concurrence justice Gorsuch seemed to have a problem with the lemon case I think both he and justice Kavanaugh who wrote his own concurrence are concerned that what made this a controversy in the first place was a sort of misunderstanding about the place of religious speech in the public square.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"An electoral practice minimizes or cancels out the voting strength of members of a racial group or language minority group When we issued that guidance I noted that discriminatory redistricting schemes are illegal Attorney general Merrick Garland explained why vote dilution is illegal under section two of the Voting Rights Act but a divided Supreme Court ignored that definition By a vote of 5 to four the court reinstated in Alabama congressional map that a panel of judges found diluted the votes of blacks in violation of section two Joining me is Rebecca green a professor and co director of the election law program at William and Mary law school I've seen a lot of headlines that say in one form or another that this is a blow to minority voting rights Do you agree and if so how much of a blow Well if you believe in the protections the Voting Rights Act is supposed to afford minority voters in redistricting cases then this is certainly a blow because the map that the state of Alabama drew is sort of textbook vote dilution In other words it packs minority voters in one district and it cracks a group of minority voters in half to dilute their strength So it's sort of textbook packing and cracking and to the extent that the court's order means that the maps will go forward with those diluted districts than that certainly will be harmful Irreparably to minority voters in the event And just go back for a moment and explain what the lower court panel which consisted of three judges one appointed by former president Clinton and two appointed by former president Trump what they found So section two cases in the division context require a three part test First the court has to examine whether or not the minority voters are sufficiently large and compact to warrant their own districts of majority minority district Then the next two parts of the test look at racially polarized voting So whether or not for example the majority voters vote against minority voters candidates of choice or whether the minority community itself is politically cohesive And on all three measures the lower court unanimously found that those tests were meaning that the legislature had diluted minority votes in properly at least in violation of section two and that's why they ordered a second minority district he drawn Chief justice John Roberts was in the forefront as the Supreme Court gutted section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby county case What does it tell you that he joined with the liberals here in support of having a new map drawn in Alabama Well chief justice Roberts has long been skeptical of Voting Rights Act section two jurisprudence But the legal or the processes set up by the Voting Rights Act in those two different sections are extremely different So you're ruling in one case and section 5 and Shelby county in 2013 and just doesn't map onto this section because the law is just very different So it's hard to sort of make connections Other than to say you know that certainly justice Robert has been skeptical of the Voting Rights Act sort of large obviously for a very long time But what's interesting about this case is that the law exists today is very clear and that's probably why you have an unanimous opinion below because like I said this is sort of a textbook violation of section two At least as far as the court has been concerned up until now There's no opinion for the majority but in a concurring opinion justice Brett Kavanaugh joined by justice Samuel Alito said that this decision was necessary because the lower court had acted too soon before coming election Do you buy that reasoning Well it's certainly a novel claim I mean the Purcell principle is it's known is this idea that federal courts shouldn't make changes right before an election because it would confuse voters and would make it difficult for the election officials to administer the election But neither of those issues are present here where we're months and months away from an election and where the Yale maps could be drawn basically with the snap of a finger So it's hard to square that argument and it certainly a very big extension of the principle to say in a month out of federal court can't mess with the state's plan And I think especially worrisome about it is maybe it's going to mean that line drawers drag their feet to pass maps because if they can get it within many months out from the primary election and maybe they can win on the Purcell principle which just is a very bad set of incentives to set up In her dissent justice Kagan fall to the majority for using what's called the shadow docket Basically emergency orders to usher in a major legal shift and justice Kavanaugh responded by saying Kagan was using catchy but worn out rhetoric Was there some tension there I think clearly there's been a lot of concern about how much activity is happening at the court in these emergency orders where there is an argument there isn't reason opinion that sort of a lot of action happening in the sort of extraordinary way where it's this emergency docket as opposed to your typical Supreme Court case And so I think there's tension between members of the court who think that that's just the order of the day and that's the top of the Supreme Court functions versus those that see an uptick in the number of these kinds of rulings and some concerns Since there's no reasoning that opportunity for argument and so forth Alabama's argument here was that it shouldn't have to elevate race over traditional redistricting criteria Does this decision indicate that the court's conservative majority may be open to weakening the role race plays in drawing voting districts I have a very short answer which is yes I don't often get unqualified answers from lawyers Tell us why you said yes What's extraordinary about this is that in 2013 when the court struck section 5 it said you know don't worry We have section two Still here to protect minority voters and then now you have the court kind of coming in and saying oh you know if states prioritize race this isn't what they've held of course because the case hasn't been heard on the merits but the implication is that if a state prioritizes minority voters protecting minority voters that they're somehow violating the constitution would effectively render section two of constitutional That is you simply can't protect minority voters under section two because doing so is somehow prioritizing race and constitutionally So it's a pretty surprising idea because for a long time the court has given Congress authority to enforce minority voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment And so this would essentially be taking away Congress's power and at least to do what it did in section two The attorney general is challenging Texas's voting maps How does this decision play in that case Well anytime that a plaintiff is challenging 2020 maps trying to assert a section two claim Barriers are going to be perking up here in terms of the probable thinking on section two compliant So I think if you're voting rights attorney hoping to use section two to challenge a map you're shaking in your boots Thanks Rebecca That's Rebecca green of William and Mary law school Coming up next the second trial over ahmaud Arbery's killing This is Bloomberg What Drivers who switch and save with progressive save over $700 on average and those savings add up Imagine what you could buy.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"That that's just the order of the day and that's how it should be important functions versus those that see an uptick in the number of these kinds of rulings and some concerns And there's no reasoning that opportunity for argument And so forth Alabama's argument here was that it shouldn't have to elevate race over traditional redistricting criteria Does this decision indicate that the court's conservative majority may be open to weakening the role race plays in drawing voting districts I have a very short answer which is yes I don't often get unqualified answers from lawyers Tell us why you said yes What's extraordinary about this is that in 2013 when the court struck section 5 it said you know don't worry We have section two still here to protect minority voters and then now you have the court kind of coming in and saying oh you know if states prioritize race this isn't what they've held of course because the case hasn't been heard on the merits But the implication is that if a state prioritizes minority voters protecting minority voters that they're somehow violating the constitution would effectively render section two of constitutional That is you simply can't protect minority voters under section two because doing so is somehow prioritizing race and constitutionally So it's a pretty surprising idea because for a long time the court has given Congress authority to enforce minority voting rights into the Fifteenth Amendment And so this would essentially be taking away Congress's power And at least to do what it did in section two The attorney general is challenging Texas's voting maps How does this decision play in that case Well anytime that a plaintiff is challenging 2020 maps trying to assert a section two claim Barriers are going to be perking up here in terms of the palpable thinking on section two compliance So I think if you're voting rights attorney hoping to use section two to challenge a map you know you're shaking in your boots Thanks Rebecca That's Rebecca green of William and Mary law school Coming up next the second trial over ahmaud Arbery's killing This is Bloomberg Burden LL you could save big when you bundle your home and auto with progressive but when we just come out and say it it feels like it falls a bit flat So we're going to tap into.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio A dispute over Alabama's congressional voting maps is the first Supreme Court test for the new districts being drawn around the country to govern the next decades elections By a vote of 5 to four the court delta blow to minority voting rights by reinstating the Alabama congressional map that creates only one district likely to elect a black representative even though the state has a 27% black population The order ensures that Alabama voters will use the original Republican drawn map in the November election What does this case port ten for section two of the Voting Rights Act which outlaws election rules that discriminate on the basis of race I've been talking to Rebecca green a professor and co director of the election law program at William and Mary law school So this is the first case for these current Supreme Court Justices to consider how to apply the Voting Rights Act to racial gerrymandering In 2019 the court said federal courts had no role to play in policing partisan gerrymandering Would you just explain the difference between the two Yes So they're very different So it's essentially the argument was that part of the gerrymandering should be unconstitutional because partisanship shouldn't be prioritized in line drawing The court was unwilling to sort of go that far even than outliers sort of extreme cases And the gerrymandering context the argument is that race shouldn't be prioritized in drawing districts But that's always been in conflict with the Voting Rights Act requirement that race be taken into account in the sense that minor is not dilute minority voters And so there's been a long time tension between those two problems In other words you have to take risks into account to comply with the Voting Rights Act But if you use race exclusively or if rates predominates is the word that's used then you're subject to a racial gerrymandering suit So there's always been this sort of balancing act that LIDAR has had to walk but they've coexisted sort of until now And it's not clear how the splash will come out In Texas the Biden administration is challenging the state's voting maps Could this affect the decision in Texas Well any time that a plaintiff is challenging 2020 map trying to assert a section two claim they're barriers are going to be perking up here in terms of of course probable thinking on section two compliant So I think if you're voting rights attorney hoping to use section two to challenge a map you're shaking in your boots Do you know where the voting rights legislation stands Is there any hope in Congress of having voting rights legislation Right now it does seem like there's very strong momentum to address the electoral count act reform But that doesn't have anything to do with redistricting reform And it seems like that's going to be harder to come by in terms of building consensus on the sides of the aisle So tell us about the electoral count act So the electoral count act is basically the dispute resolution process for counting Electoral College votes So law that was written in the 1880s and is incredibly poorly written and drafted and is causing caused a lot of trouble on January 6th in terms of for example the role of the vice president and opening Electoral College ballots And do you think there's actually bipartisan support for it Yeah there's actually pretty strong bipartisan consensus that the law should be revised to be made more clear before the 2024 election And my understanding is that there's even consensus on what the focus of those reforms should be So I think that there's progress underway And there's been some optimism among members of Congress that electoral count reform will happen I'm doubtful because somehow it always seems that support for any kind of Voting Rights Act collapses in the end I think that the electoral count act is very different And the reason why is because if members of Congress can agree on how to clarify that language everyone will be better off in the sense that as long as you have the rules worked out clearly in advance of the election before you know who that will help things can unfold at least in an orderly way And I think January 6th was sort of the poster child for why electoral count act reform was needed And I think that for that reason there's a lot of motivation at least you get these rules in place As opposed to much kind of thorn in your questions of voting access versus integrity and kind of this political warfare over election rules that's been raging for years This is sort of a much more straightforward kind of like let's figure out what the steps are to certify a presidential election and how to handle any kind of disputes that make it to Congress And that's the much more cut and dry straightforward question that I think there's bipartisan consensus that clarity will help Thanks Rebecca That's Rebecca green of William and Mary law school Coming up next jury selection in the Ahmad Arbery hate crime trial This is Bloomberg The I haven't really woken up Until I've had my McDonald's breakfast deal and I know this is true because before breakfast I put my phone in the refrigerator and couldn't find the keys that were already in my.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to professor Rebecca green of William and Mary law school about the Supreme Court reinstating an Alabama congressional map that creates only one district likely to elect a black representative even after a lower court had said federal law required a second district The 5 to four order ensures that Alabama voters will use the original Republican drawn map in the November election The case involves section two of the Voting Rights Act which outlaws election rules that discriminate on the basis of race In the past the Supreme Court has said that the law bars states from drawing voting lines in a way that dilutes the power of racial minorities The dispute is the first Supreme Court case for the new districts being drawn around the country to govern the next decades elections Rebecca before the break you were discussing some of your concerns about this decision And I think what's especially worrisome about it is maybe it's going to mean that line drawers drag their feet to pass maps because if they can get it within many months out from the primary election and maybe they can win on the Purcell principle which just is a very bad set of incentives to set up It just means that if there are maps that do violate the law either because their racial gerrymanders or because they violate what's left of section two there's just this huge incentive to drag your feet and not pass a map for as long as possible in the hopes that you can sell free pass The three other conservatives in the majority didn't join in that concurrence Does that indicate that they might have had other reasons for siding with Alabama here I can't speculate Since I didn't write anything I would want to speculate on why But I think the fact that they voted in favor of lifting the stay suggests that they think that the lower court had it wrong So now in a separate dissent just at Elena Kagan wrote for the three liberals And she said pretty spirited that this was a disservice to black alabamians who have had their electoral power diminished in violation of a law this court once knew to buttress all of democracy What was your reaction to her Opinion Well you know what's extraordinary about this is that in 2013 when the court struck section 5 it said don't worry we have section two still here to protect minority voters And then now you have the court kind of coming in and saying oh you know states if states prioritize race this isn't what they've held of course because the case hasn't been heard on the merits but the implication is that if a state prioritizes minority voters protecting minority voters that they're somehow the violating the constitution would effectively render section two of constitutional That is you simply can't protect minority voters under section two because doing so is somehow prioritizing race and constitutionally So it's a pretty I don't want to say out there but it's a pretty surprising idea because for a long time the court has been confident or given Congress authority to enforce minority voting rights in the Fifteenth Amendment And so this would essentially be taking away Congress's power at least to do what it did in section two So is this then some kind of an indication that the court's conservative majority may be open to weakening the role that race may play in drawing voting districts for federal elections I have a very short answer which is yes And just explain why Well the Voting Rights Act section two addresses vote dilution So when minority voting power is diluted so that they can elect their candidates of choice So for example a legislature looking at a group of compact group of minority voters and cutting it in half so that they're they can't represent the kind of their candidate of choice That's kind of what that's the harm that section two is trying to address And so if a court orders you to not do that and draw a district that doesn't divide that minority community in half then in order to do that what Alabama is saying is that you are prioritizing race and you can't do that without violating the constitution So effectively what the state is saying is that we can't comply with section two because that would be violating the constitution And if that's true then no more section two Justice Roberts chief justice Roberts dissented but he didn't join Kagan's descent He wrote his own and Rebecca did the chief sort of say that Supreme Court decisions regarding vote dilution claims are not that clear I mean he certainly did sort of suggest that he thinks that the jurisprudence in this area isn't coherent But I think he wasn't ready to lift the stay he was basically wanting to have that fight happen another day and not in this context Where I guess the implication is that he thinks that the plaintiffs don't have likelihood of success here Justice Kagan faulted the majority for using what's called the shadow docket to usher in a major legal shift Justice Kavanaugh said Kagan was using catchy but worn out rhetoric Did you see tension between the two justices Well I think clearly there's been a lot of concern about how much activity is happening at the court in these emergency orders where there isn't argument there isn't a reason opinion there's a lot of action happening in the sort of extraordinary way where it's this emergency docket as opposed to your typical Supreme Court case And so I think there's tension between members of the court who think that that's just the order of the day and that's how the Supreme Court functions versus those that see an uptick in the number of these kinds of rulings and some concerns and there's no reasoning that opportunity for argument and so forth So if the justices schedule this appeal in the ordinary way it does they wouldn't hear the arguments until the fall And they would issue a decision perhaps months later So that means the 2022 election will probably be conducted using the challenge map That's my assumption I think there's no way that given the court has listed this day that there's no way that an election that follows 2022 is going to go on anything other than the maps of the stay true Coming up next we'll continue this conversation about the Supreme Court's decision about Alabama's voting map And we'll talk about what impact the decision may have and what it portends for the future of the Voting Rights Act I'm Jim grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg At firehouse subs a.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Judge court I'm not a betting person but if I were I would probably think that that was that would be the outcome You know looking at all these cases in different states across the country where voting rights are being restricted or redistricting is eliminating minority constituencies It seems like it's an assault on democracy Well you know I believe very firmly that there's a huge amount of agreement in this country that all eligible voters should be able to cast a vote And I also think there's a lot of agreement that that vote should be free of fraud and to be secure So I think at a very basic level we all agree what the basic ingredients are for our democracy And then I also think that while it's certainly the case that states around the country are constricting access to the ballot in ways that make people upset and angry because they see it as politically motivated It's also the case that it remains very easy to cast a ballot relatively speaking today than ever has in the history of this country for example many states have lots of avenues for early voting and many states have more looser absentee billing policies and so forth And so I think it's easy to think that democracy is in downward spiral but I think if you kind of go back to the basics I think there's a lot of reason for people to have faith in the confidence in the process Okay Rebecca will end this segment on a hopeful note That's Rebecca green a professor and co director of the election law program at William and Mary law school Coming up next Facebook and Google face.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to professor Rebecca green of William and Mary law school about Alabama appealing to the Supreme Court After a federal court ordered the state to draw new congressional districts including a second district with a substantial number of minority voters So is the Supreme Court likely to take the case Yes there's mandatory jurisdiction for the Supreme Court in statewide redistricting cases So unlike other cases where the court can decide or not decide here is the court will take it for part of the reason that you are suggesting which is that redistricting cases are a unique type of case because elections happen and you can't delay decisions because elections have to happen So I think you can expect that the Supreme Court will weigh in one way or the other here And how much will a decision by the Supreme Court enlighten us about how it's going to look at other similar challenges and we're expecting other similar challenges aren't we in the run up to the next election Yeah there has been a couple of instances where states are kind of being very assertive about wanting to draw lines from a color blend perspective And I think what's happening there is they are wondering whether there are a majority of justices on the court who would be open to the idea that using race in redistricting violates the constitution And so I wonder whether they are taking this path because they want to test that out Is it correct to say that the Roberts court has been cutting back on voting rights I think it's correct to say that the Robert squirt has been putting pressure on section two of the Voting Rights Act For sure I'm trying to think of a voting rights case where the Roberts court in recent years expanded voting rights Well I mean you can look at redistricting cases in the last decade where the court made clear that it would require safe to comply with the Voting Rights Act So it's not like they've been inventing towards repudiating it wholesale In fact just as Thomas has been one of the only justices who take in that line very firmly and consistently that is that section two is unconstitutional So I don't think it's fair to say that there's been a drum beat by a majority of justices of the court to do away with it And if you look at the decisions over the last ten years it's courted certainly has recognized Let's turn to Pennsylvania Pennsylvania appellate court struck down a law that allows no excuse absentee voting explain why it struck down that law what its reasoning was Yeah so this is kind of an interesting set of circumstances So in 2019 the Pennsylvania legislature on the bipartisan vote passed legislation to enable no use absentee voting And the legislation itself I think it was a 180 days that you were that you could bring a challenge to it And no one brought that challenge In fact it wasn't until after the 2020 election when all of the sudden you started hearing this argument that that law was unconstitutional at least with respect to the state constitution And basically the argument is that the state constitution requires that voters vote in person And that therefore the state legislature lacked the ability to pass its absentee voting legislation because what it would have had to do is essentially first amend the state constitution But the trick is that the state constitution doesn't actually anywhere say that you have to vote in person rather it says that it's talking about how a qualified elector has to establish residency 60 days before an election in the constitution the words in the constitution are in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote And so the argument that the Republicans are making is that the offer to vote language suggests that you're offering in person to vote which is a little bit of a stretch It doesn't actually say that in the constitution but the argument anyway is that the legislator couldn't pass that law because it would first about absente voting because it was first half to amend the constitution to make it clear that you could vote remotely Judge Hanna levit wrote no excuse mail in voting makes the exercise of the franchise more convenient and has been used four times in the history of Pennsylvania Yet they went on to say you had to amend the constitution It seems odd to say that and then It is all I think it is odd because they also said they also acknowledge that there is a 180 day period to challenge the law And yet plaintiffs here waited until after an election had passed when voters relied on that law to challenge it So it's even odd to me that you would even accept this case So so far into the future But in any event even aside from that it is pretty incredible that the court so long after the legislature acted is kind of using this very vague language in the constitution to say that the legislature overstepped Some of the Republicans who voted for the law are part of the group filing this lawsuit against the law And so the 5 judge Commonwealth court split along party lines with three Republican judges agreeing with the Republican petitioners and two Democrats dissenting So the state is going to appeal to the state Supreme Court where Democrats have a majority Is the state Supreme Court likely to reverse the decision of the 5.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"From Bloomberg world Hank waters I'm Charlie how to fit Wednesday the Dow the S&P nez stack all advancing after a bullish forecast from tech giants traders scooping up some of the most battered shares during a sell off sparked by fears the Federal Reserve could accelerate the unwinding of pandemic era stimulus to combat inflation We will be getting that fed decision 43 minutes from now just over an hour we'll have the news conference for you live here on Bloomberg radio Here's where we stand S&P up 71 now that is a gain of 1.6% The Dow up 340 up by 1% as stack up 350 that is a gain of 2.6% Ten year yield 1.77% spot gold down $17 ounce down 9 tenths of 1% at 1830 ounce West Texas intermediate crude 87 28 a barrel up by 2% Brent crude trading above $90 a barrel today right now 89 89 a gain for Brent of 1.9% So again recapping fed Wednesday with the S&P up 70 up 1.6% I'm Charlie pellet That is a Bloomberg business flash Charlie thank you and thanks for being with us on balance of power Sometimes the mics just open June It's remarkable I know you have to watch that Bloomberg law host June Grasso staying with us here as we also add Neil devins to the picture on this breaking news day that's got all of us talking here Justice Steven breyer retiring Neil Devin's professor William and Mary law school and author of the company they keep how partisan divisions came to the Supreme Court Neil with that in mind the partisan division on this court will remain the same no matter what the president does right That's correct The appointment of a new justice is not going to change the ideological composition of the court in any significant way So what does that mean for the confirmation process Does that grease the skids a bit with everyone kind of understanding where we are in terms of numbers The democratic majority thing is it may be on Capitol Hill Does this get done easily It will depend a little bit on the nominee of course I think that it's an opportunity for Republicans to play nice so to speak with Democrats after Merrick Garland and all the bad blood that followed that experience So perhaps it will be a smooth confirmation process but again if the president appoints someone who the Republicans feel they can defeat and perhaps delay the process in a way that it might last until the midterm election Who knows It might be uglier than ever but I think chances are it will go more smoothly as a Republicans will want to have a reputation for playing nights as the ideological balance is not in doubt Well what levers do they have to delay at that long Is that even possible They don't have many levers of course the majority is going to run the show But at the same time there are potentially one or two Senate Democrats that depending on the nominee and what comes out of the president's mouth So to speak could slow things down but I think that's correct that chances are the leverage with the Democrats the Republicans who want to play nice not going to change physiological balance It's likely to be a fairly smooth process June grosso does this end the conversation not that we've heard a lot about it lately but it was big on the campaign a year ago The conversation about stacking the court Or does it renew it I don't think it ends the conversation at all because as you and Neil said this doesn't change the ideological balance And come June we're going to see a lot of decisions by this court I believe that come down 6 to three including an abortion rights decision Now whether that it's anticipated that the court from the questioning will cut back on abortion rights or even eliminate roe V wade So once that once that happens I think you're going to hear again a lot of talk about packing the court I don't think it's going to happen but I think you'll hear a lot of talk about it Well this motivate progressives to push for that Neil I think progressives will push as much as they can but it's a losing battle to pack the court It may be an opportunity for some of the Senate Democrats on the judiciary committee to use the confirmation processes of vehicle to air their grievances with the imbalance on the court or their grievances with what happened with Merrick Garland and try to create some forward momentum for reform but there seems to be no real energy to change the composition of the court You're not compelled by the personality side of all of this You know this is a justice known for having a sense of humor known for saying some outlandish things Some fun opinions to read Is that going to be kind of a Dave gone by on the court after this Well I think you know we saw one day gone by with the loss of justice Scalia And justice Scalia and justice breyer on the bench at time seemed like they were so much in sync and they were almost doing a comedy do or at different times They were like that bench has never been It's been a hot bench Since then but it's never been quite the same but just as briar has a profess attitude on the bench But he sometimes gives the zaniest hypotheticals I mean they're just so zany that I don't think you'll ever go to hear those again from him And I think that will be missing on the bench that and also he's been on the bench 30 years and he has such a weight of knowledge And I wonder how the change to justice Sotomayor will be leading the minority on the court the minority being the court's liberals when justice breyer retires and I wonder if there'll be any change and maybe Neal would know This better will there be any change in the dynamic with her as the leader of the minority Yeah what does this mean for justice Sotomayor Neal Well as June just noted it increases her power exponentially If it's a 6 three decision with the three progressives through Democrats on one side justice some of my or will determine who writes the dissenting opinion and that's a fairly significant power It's obviously better to be on the majority side to have power But if you're on the minority being able to figure out who expresses the views and how far to push things and try to change the discourse for future court in a future year it's an important We only have 30 seconds left just for both of you You expect a new justice in place before November yes I do but then what Neil said could happen there's always a possibility something Odds are in that favor though Neil Yes They're totally in that favor Thanks to both of you William and Mary law school professor Neil devons And of course Bloomberg law host June grosso helping us walk through the breaking news That's all for balance of power We have special coverage.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mary law" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Store Neal Devin's a professor at William and Mary law school And analysis of important legal issues cases in headline Is this essentially the 5th circuit haunting He has presided over a so called hot bench at the Supreme Court Bloomberg law with June Grasso from Bloomberg radio Welcome to a special edition of Bloomberg law I'm June grosso ahead in this hour the Supreme Court 2021 The decisions on ObamaCare gay rights voting rights student athletes and free speech and the decisions that are yet to come involving hot button issues like abortion and guns Plus the shadow docket It's the most consequential reproductive rights case in a generation and promises to be the most controversial case of the current Supreme Court term The court is considering Mississippi's ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy and cutting back or reversing roe V wade the landmark case that has guaranteed abortion rights in this country for nearly 50 years During oral arguments the conservative justices and the liberal justice is where on opposite sides of the question about the precedential value of row Here are justices Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh Will this institution survive the stench that this creates In the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts I don't see how it is possible Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress the state legislatures States Supreme courts the people being able to resolve this And they'll be different answers in Mississippi in New York Joining me for this hour are Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter Greg store and Bloomberg law Supreme Court reporter Kimberly strawbridge Robinson Welcome both of you Greg I was surprised during the oral arguments that the conservative justices talk so openly about implying the possibility of reversing row when just last June the court struck down a Louisiana law that restricted abortion rights June you weren't the only one who was surprised Really all the questions from the conservative group at least the non John Roberts conservative side of the court were suggesting that the court was indeed seriously considering overruling roe V wade and the 1992 Planned Parenthood versus Casey decision I think part of that was because the abortion right side in this case in a sense is going for broke They did not try to offer the court any sort of so called narrow way of deciding the case Any way where the court might say uphold the Mississippi 15 week ban without overturning row The abortion rights lawyers and the Biden administration were very upfront in saying if you uphold this law you are effectively overturning rope and there's really no other line you can create to replace the line that they earlier decisions headset Kimberly did it seem as if all the conservative justices were on board with that or were there some that might be outliers So for me June the three justices that I were watching going into these arguments were chief justice Roberts and justice Kavanaugh and Barrett And great release suggested it really only seemed like chief justice Roberts was trying to find this middle ground I mean when I looked at really what justices Kavanaugh and Barrett were saying it looked like they were arguments to outright overturn roe And so the clip you play talked about from justice Kavanaugh talked about if the constitution and his view doesn't speak precisely to whether or not abortion is a right guaranteed by the constitution will then shouldn't the court stay out of it and leave it up to the states And for justice barret for her part she was really looking at how roe versus wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey really balance the interests between the states interest in protecting potential life with a woman's right to choose And she suggested that the burdens on women weren't as strong as row and Casey had made them out to be At least not anymore And she pointed specifically to the safe harbor laws that allow women to turn over their children after birth And she suggested that that really alleviates some of the burdens of force parenthood And so I think from my mind coming out of those arguments they're really only one justice in the middle and I don't think that his view is really going to prevail here The court has already ruled in a case over the strictest abortion law in the country SBA the Texas abortion law It was a limited ruling where the court left that law enforce Greg is that bad news for abortion rights advocates It sure seems that way This law can not be squared with or Casey Far stricter than anything the Supreme Court has allowed previously and the fact that the court was willing to let it stay in effect And in fact let it go into effect back in September Surely says something important The challenge to the law by the providers can go forward but only in a very limited form The problem with this law which delegates enforcement power to private individuals is that structure makes it hard for a plaintiff or a court to know who it is that can be enjoying to block the law from having an effect And so the plaintiff with the help of the Justice Department basically tried to sue everybody they could to try to get that sort of an injunction and what the Supreme Court said was hey there's only a few state officials you can sue and after the ruling came out the abortion right side a conference call with reporters where they said basically this is not a way we can block the law Those that narrow path the court left open for us is not good enough to get us the kind of injunction that we need to actually block this law and let abortions broadly resume in Texas and surely the Supreme Court was aware that this is only a very narrow path And to get back to your question that can not be a good sign for the future of rowing Casey Coming up next on Bloomberg law I'll continue this conversation with Kimberly strawbridge Robinson and Greg store will discuss whether the Supreme Court will okay that carrying of handguns in public I'm June Rosso.
WTOP
"mary law" Discussed on WTOP
"35 our other big story of the evening the Supreme Court today hearing two hours of arguments on Mississippi's strict abortion law the closely watched case could change abortion rights in America Roe V wade the legalized abortion nearly 50 years ago and the court reaffirmed the decision two decades later ruling states can not ban abortions until a fetus is considered viable around 24 weeks The chords now being asked to overturn those rulings in a case about a Mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks chief justice John Roberts is among conservative members questioning the viability line Why is 15 weeks not enough time The court could simply uphold the Mississippi law and say nothing else that abortion rights supporters say that would still effectively overturn roe V wade Sonia Sotomayor and other liberal justices suggest that they create a public perception that the high court is simply a political arm Will this institution survive the stench Sagar Meghani Washington Meanwhile William and Mary law professor Neil Devon tells WTP the implications of the case extend far beyond abortion rights It will call into question what justice Kagan said which is whether the court is a political court and presidents can change doctrine through appointment And that may raise a specter of other issues involving court reform There's a commission that President Biden has approved as making recommendations governing the court size and other issues and calls for court reform will grow much louder as the court overturns roe not to mention what might happen with the abortion case itself and the abortion right itself That is William and Mary law professor Neil Devin since still ahead A DCT arrested at his high school is charging a killing on Virginia's eastern shore On Meghan clarity It's 9 37 One day you're serving.
WTOP
"mary law" Discussed on WTOP
"People chanted and held signs here outside the Supreme Court spilling from the sidewalk on to first street My sign says your wife matters abortion is wrong Tom Bryson drove here from Michigan for this I'm hoping they overturn roe versus wade My sign says abortion how you want it when you're on it Jessica Olsen drove from Chicago to be here What I would hope is that they would understand that we've already settled this issue It is settled law Outside the Supreme Court John Aaron W TOP news William and Mary law professor Neil devons tells the implications of this case extend beyond abortion rights he says if rose overturned the decision could affect the future of the high court itself It will call into question what justice Kagan said which is whether the court is a political court and presidents can change doctrine through appointments And that may raise a specter of other issues involving court reform There's a commission that President Biden has approved as making recommendations governing the court size and other issues and calls for court reform will grow much louder as the court overturns roe not to mention what might happen with the abortion case itself and the abortion right itself William and Mary law professor Neil devons We'll talk about the nation's first confirmed COVID omicron case with The Washington Post Joel achenbach coming up just after traffic and weather for 36 Today's cloud report how a multi cloud approach can give you the freedom of any cloud with the simplicity of one provided by VMware Here's Keith's knockout Sony federal strategist for VMware When federal agencies talk about multi cloud transitions the conversation usually centers on technology but a true multi cloud environment is holistic It requires rethinking your approach to cloud agencies need to reexamine the skill set of their teams which were often built under legacy IT environments Now teams need to be multi disciplined in cloud solutions agencies set up skill their workforce revise business processes and policies can help shape the agency's culture and deploy a true multi and.
WTOP
"mary law" Discussed on WTOP
"Sleep happens dot com Two 41 on TOP and we continue to follow today's oral arguments one of the most closely watched Supreme Court cases in years the legal battle over Mississippi strict abortion law The law would uphold the state's ban on abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy It's a direct challenge of the roe versus wade decision that essentially guaranteed the right to abortion up to the point of viability roughly 24 weeks The high court is made up of 6 conservatives and three liberals Liberal justice Elena Kagan argued there's a reason the Supreme Court does not easily overturn past decisions To prevent people from thinking that this court is a political institution that will go back and forth depending on what part of the public yells loudest and preventing people from thinking that the court will go back and forth depending on changes to the court's membership Meanwhile conservative justices concentrated on the rights of fetuses if the Supreme Court upholds the Mississippi law what will be the immediate effect on abortion rights elsewhere Joining us to talk about it Neil Devin's constitutional law professor at William and Mary law school thanks so much for being with us Happy to be here First what options do the justices have here when coming to a decision on this case There are three principle options One is to overturn row and let the states outlaw abortion if they see fit or allow for abortion rights if they see fit That's option one Option two is to reaffirm row which no one thinks the quarter is likely to pursue And then option three is for the court to essentially punt which is to uphold the Mississippi law but not really say what the standard of review is and have it be a little bit unclear whether there really are abortion rights going forward or they're not abortion rights going forward A number of states have what's called trigger laws that could go and effect if the abortion landscape changes explain what a trigger law is and how many states are prepared to implement them Well there are 12 states that have trigger laws and they vary from state to state Some give discretion with the attorney general to interpret what the Supreme Court has done to conclude if the court has overturned row Some give it to the governor Some give it to the state legislature And what would happen essentially is after the court's decision if it was unclear whether rose was overturned you would see political officials in the various states potentially saying that they consider overturned and seek to nullify abortion rights in their respective state under the trigger law But that's going to be chaotic and it's going to be a state by state situation We don't have a lot of time but there was a lot of talk today of stare decisis and the fact that a previous decision is the law of the land If the law of the land is overturned how does that play out on a national level Do we have any idea what that looks like Well it will call into question what justice Kagan said which is whether the court is a political court and presidents can change doctrine through appointments And that may raise a specter of other issues involving court reform There's a commission that President Biden has approved that is making recommendations governing the court size and other issues and calls for court reform will grow much louder if the court overturns roe not to mention what might happen with the abortion case itself and the abortion right itself Professor Devin thanks for your insight on this We really appreciate it You bet Neil Devin's constitutional law professor William and Mary law school Sports next Hey.
WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"mary law" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"Here's what's going on a silent walk across the U. S. CAPITOL Building as House managers begin the process of the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. House impeachment managers have delivered the article of impeachment against President Trump accusing Mr Trump of inciting a deadly insurrection of the Capitol building. January 6th US incited by President Trump members of the crowd he'd addressed In an attempt to among other objectives interfere with the joint sessions. Solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the capital, Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin read the article. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial removal from office. And disqualification, toe hold and enjoy any Office of Honor Trust were profit under the United States. Senate trials to begin February 8 The sampling of opinion from Republican senators chose skepticism on whether it's constitutional to try and convict the president no longer in office. But some say they do. Want to hear the evidence. Chuck's Iverson ABC News Even though this will be the second time most senators have been down the impeachment road. There are still more questions than answers. Alison Larson is a professor at William and Mary Law School in Virginia, trying to sort it out in cases of impeachment. It doesn't extend to the criminal justice system, but it extends more than removal from office to include if they vote for this disqualification, and I suspect that's probably why the Democrats and teach president former President Trump was to reach that disqualification remedy. The former president continues the business of politics as well formally announces the launch of the office of the former president in Florida. Which will set up an organization to keep his platform alive well, days after returning home. The Massachusetts National Guard hits the road again. Another trip to the nation's capital is scheduled as governor, Baker sent some 700 members to Washington, this time to help with the Secret Service. The troops will be in the nation's capital until February. 23rd scared on a ski slope. A seven year old.
News Radio 1190 KEX
"mary law" Discussed on News Radio 1190 KEX
"I'm Richard Can't SUE Kentucky Senator Rand. Paul says he'll force a vote on whether there could be an impeachment trial now that Donald Trump is no longer in office. Issue might spur litigation. There's no precedent for a former president to be impeached upon leaving office, so that truly is new ground. Alison Lauren is a professor at the College of William and Mary Law School. She says the expected trial is different from the last one more clear cut in that the factual questions will be easier to prove, because Both of the people in the room as jurors were also there at the time of the insurrection. The trial set for the week of February, 8th on the pandemic. The U. S is above 420,000 deaths. Republican opposition the President Biden's nearly $2 trillion relief packages mounting, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki says. Time is running out for Americans relying on jobless benefits We're going to hit Cliff and unemployment. Cliff unemployment insurance cliff. I should say in March, where millions of people won't be able to have access to unemployment insurance. We're going to hit a point where we won't have enough funding for vaccine distribution. The International Labor Organization, a United Nations agency says the pandemic wiped out four times as many jobs last year's during the worst of the global financial meltdown in 2009. Among executive orders signed Monday by President Biden, one mandating the government by American There's a B C's Andy Field. President Trump promoted by and made in America, President Biden now ordering it for anything federal agencies purchase the president will put to work. Nearly $600 billion in taxpayer dollars. That goes toward federal contracting and support of American manufacturing and good paying jobs Spokesperson Jen Psaki, saying they will close loopholes that gave some foreign companies an advantage and supplying the federal government and he failed. ABC NEWS Washington You're listening to ABC News. Have you ever thought about saying good bye to your job? Just walking into your boss and saying I quit. And how would you like to commute to work without ever leaving your home will not long ago, A 39 year old entrepreneur from a billionaire family spent $20 million.3 years to find the best home based business in North America. He researched 70 different companies, and when he found the only one that had real long term potential, he bought it. Right now he's looking for people to help him turned this company into his next billion dollar success story. So if you're serious about making money from home without having to leave your home will grab a pen because I'm about to.
Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"mary law" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"Some of you asked. And now we've delivered l. r. n. taught. Fm's live keene. New hampshire studio shows are now streamed in hd on twitch visit our channel at twitch dot l. r. n. dot fm and. Give it a follow. If you have amazon prime you get one free subscription on twitch if you use it on our channel which will give dot. Fm a monthly piece of your prime subscription cost so please watch follow share and subscribe to twitch dot l. r. n. dot fm that's twitch dot l. r. n. dot fm. Bitcoin dot com has launched a trading platform at local dot. Bitcoin dot com allowing you to buy or sell bitcoin cash via dozens of payment methods like paypal then mo bank deposit remittances or meeting in person with cash. There are no i requirements to sign up for and use the site and all communications between buyers and sellers are encrypted finally a global trading platform that respects your privacy visit local dot. Bitcoin dot com to get started trading. Bitcoin cash local dot. Bitcoin dot com declare your independence with ernest handcock continues after the news. Live on the liberty radio network at l. n. dot. Fm you're listening to the heartland newsfeed radio network at live dot heartland use feed dot com. This stream is supported by advertisers and contributions by follow us on facebook twitter and instagram's the public service doing newscast january the six twenty twenty one by clifford too close to call in both key georgia's senate races as of our deadline. Not broadcasters if things change in the early morning hours will feed an update. The congress meets today to count the state's electoral votes and possibly never before. Has the ceremonial process received so much attention. We get some perspective from ohio in mary. Sherman a dozen republican senators than one hundred and forty house members including a few from ohio planned to challenge president. Donald trump's lost in key battleground states while the effort is not unprecedented university of dayton political science. Lecturer dan birdsong. Contends at scale is noteworthy. Question the motivation behind these individual leaders. Because it doesn't look like it can change the outcome. It looks more like political theater. If it was clearly supporting democracy they wouldn't be so partisan the challenge would have to pass both the us house and senate while he believes instances of fraud and irregularities did occur. Ohio republican senator rob portman says he won't support the among ohio's republican house members. Jim jordan and bob gibbs. They'll challenge the vote count. Anthony gonzales. says he'll oppose. And the remaining seven have not made an official declaration. This story was produced association with media and the public interest funded in part by george gun foundation. President trump has encouraged demonstrations claiming election fraud and. He tweeted on monday. That vice president. Mike pence has the power to reject some states electors rebecca greens a professor at william and mary law school. She notes under the electoral count act. Vice president has no authority to decide the election outcome. His duties as senate president or to maintain order break any potential tie and announced the winners none of these duties. The power to decide controversies that might arise for counting. Electoral votes were otherwise outcomes elections. So that's just not how the law works. Today's joint session of congress begins at one. Pm eastern time. The group maine. Healthcare action is launching a campaign to get universal health care on the state ballot for twenty twenty two instead of proposing a specific bill. The initiative would direct the legislature to draft and enact a universal healthcare plan by twenty twenty four research indicates. Most americans think the government has a responsibility to provide health coverage for all and exit polls from cnn. In last year's primaries nearly seventy percent of mainers said they support universal government plan over private insurance abby writer with maine healthcare action says the economic crisis caused by the pandemic has made it a critical time to act. Our legislature has seen multiple universal health. Care bills. get to the floor but then just not go any further so we a major element that was missing was the voice of the people. I'm lucky this is us in new. Mexico is families cope with unemployment pay cuts in the threat of eviction. Because of the corona virus state homeless agencies. There say communities could help by granting financial support hank hughes with a new mexico coalition to end homelessness says infection rates among the homeless population. Happen kept to a minimum because the federal cares act provided money for motel rooms but he says reduce funds will mean only. A portion of those currently housed at motels will be able to stay. They're going forward. Also as we know people's unemployment checks got interrupted. You know we're just seeing a surge in homelessness and housing insecurity. In general people kinda struggled to make it through the winter corona virus vaccines are expected to become available in the next few months but he says people and families will continue to need help with food clothing and money for the next eighteen to twenty four months. I'm russ brown. Recent report of housing in santa fe estimated. The city suffers from a rental shortage of more than seven thousand units and cities like asheville charlotte and durham adopted. Clean energy strategies to fight climate change but across north carolina's of group c a gap in community advocacy. A series of online workshops. This month aims to equip residence with the knowledge. They need to act on climate solutions and advocate for their region. A-bone a lock it up. Harvesting humanity says the people affected most by climate. Change often are heard in the policy debates about problems like more intense and frequent rainstorms. Extreme heat and changes in weather patterns that impact crops. And if they don't understand it and if they don't understand they roll them responsibility and helping to shape in cultivate our physical bills environment then they missed the whole idea of community and community centered and people centered work. I'm nadia ramlogan. Finally our address. Here's tells us. After use of weakening environmental regulations a new report says there's hope for restoring chesapeake bay but pennsylvania needs to meet its clean water commitments to twenty twenty state of the bay report shows of thirteen key indicators obey health declined but most water-quality measures showed some improvement of the six watersheds states pennsylvania is the source of sediment and nutrient pollution flowing to the bay but according to shannon gordy pennsylvania executive director of the chesapeake bay foundation. The federal epa approved a state plan. That is underfunded by three hundred forty four million dollars a year and falls far. Short of pollution reduction goals. We want to see them. Step up helping identify funding. Also making sure that it's a priority for the state. She says the federal government could help by including money for agricultural and environmental infrastructure. in covid. relief plans. This is mike clifford for public news. Service member listener supported radio.