2 Burst results for "New York University School Of Law"
"new york university school law" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes
"Kind of scheme to nullify. The constitution of the united states is one that all americans whatever their politics or party should fear if it prevails. It may become a model for action in other areas by other states and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents nor need one thing long are hard to realize the damage that would be done to our society if states were allowed to implement laws and empower any private individual to infringe on another's constitutionally protected rights in this way that was the attorney general. The united states merrick garland earlier today announcing that he is throwing the full force of the department of justice at the state of texas. Suing them over there near abortion ban. Now this comes just over a week. After supreme court refused to block the blatantly unconstitutional law in a five four decision issued in the dead of night pushed through by five conservative justices including three trump appointees. Melissa marie is a professor of constitutional law new york university school law. She clerked for justice. Sonia sorta my aura. When she was on the second circuit she. Now co host. The strict scrutiny podcasts. Along with full disclosure my wife kate shah as well as the allotment and she joins me now. Melissa i want to get into the substance here but i was so struck by the wording. Their race's this is an effort to nullify federal law. I mean nullification has a particularly sharp residents in constitutional history. There was a nullification crisis in the eighteen twenties. That was the precursor to the civil war. It was a very very strongly worded statement from garland today. It was a strongly-worded statement. And i'm not sure that it was entirely directed exclusively at the public. I think ultimately attorney general garland recognizes that. This lawsuit is in some way bound for the supreme court. And so the idea. That constitutional law may be nullified. They protections of the constitution may be nullified by state. I think he's trying to implore the members of the court remember that. This doesn't just end with abortion that this can go even further to the point where the constitution is nothing more than paper. The department of justice is seeking an injunction and. I just want to read from the suit here. The united states also seeks an order. Preliminarily purnell joining the state of texas including its officers employees and agents including private parties. Who bring suit under the law from implementing or enforcing sba. This seems they're just going straight at the kind of argument that the five justices use. Well there's one to join here and just saying like enjoying it all no. It's a very novel approach again. I i think that's warranted. But texas is john is surely unorthodox in this perhaps is the best way to meet it on the united states. Government has the authority to sue states. Texas doesn't have sovereign immunity against a sued from the united states. But the question here is whether in including as agents of texas even those private hardee's were authorized under the law to enforce sba whether they're still the question. We don't know who exactly to enjoying if we actually do issue injunction blocking this law. It's all well and good to say we're blocking texas but the real issue is how to stop those private parties from enforcing this law right and it does seem to me that there's a very high likelihood of us getting a five four decision from the same set of justices basically rejecting this one in the morning but at some level. It's like you kinda gotta throw everything you have it legally. If you're the united states department of justice i think texas definitely pushed the envelope in promulgating the statute which is one that we've never seen the likes of before and i think the department of justice is similarly pushing the envelope in trying to enforce it and i think again i'm speaking to all of those people who last week have been imploring the by administration to do something to step in and intervene to protect constitutional rights in texas. Other things department of justice could do to your mind while the of justice has some limited jurisdiction. Here i mean. They're certainly the prospect that they've floated earlier about enforcing more robustly. The face act freedom to access clinic. Entrances act at but that release the issue here on the issue is not getting into clinics. It's getting into clinics getting the services that you require on. it's also possible for the federal government to withhold federal funding from states that infringe upon constitutional rights. So that is one avenue. But we've seen this kind of thing before in our history. It reminds me a great deal of the situation. After nineteen fifty four's brown versus board of education where the southern states drag their heels about enforcing the integration mandate and eventually the united states supreme court stepped in in a case called cooper versus errand to say that when the when the court enforces the constitution and interprets the constitution those decisions on the force of constitutional law. And you don't just get to ignore them. Or defy them. They have to be obeyed than it was then left to the administration. John f kennedy's administration rather eisenhower's administration to step in and send the national guard into little rock. To enforce that mandate right. The problem here though is the court is saying nor our own precedent. I mean you've got the court basically saying like Yeah it's all constitutional we can't figure it out and basically throw it on the scrap heap themselves. Well then i think is the subtext of the attorney. General's stop afternoon press conference. I think he's talking to public shortly. But i think he's also trying to impress upon the judiciary that where does this end if we allow the judiciary l. philip facilitate states waiting their constitutional duties. Where does it add. It doesn't end well. I think he was underscoring that.
"new york university school law" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder
"To figure out how he can marshal the resources of the presidency. The united states to get joe mansion on board with a reforming the filibuster in some manner that allows for things like as one to be brought up before the people act the proactive. The pro act bills. That will not only be important for people in this country but also important for to enhance democratic power small and large team. Yeah and that's what this is. When i get like don't legitimately pissed because the the binding administration says they care after every mass shooting about getting gun control passed right. Not even that man mansion pass anything substantively. But they're zero shot with the filibuster in place. They say they care about ending. Police massacre of black people of civilians in this country but they don't take the necessary steps to do it yet they're still fundraising off of it. And that's what makes me so annoyed about the democratic party's posture on this. For many reasons. Yes but it really is quite cynical. Because there's e mail blast every time there's a mass shooting gun control gun control sandy hook what happened marjorie stone high school down in florida right. There's all of this talk but all of that is to morally posture so they can fund raise from suburban upper middle class types. And then they don't take the necessary steps to do it so if these are the easiest issues for the democratic party by then should be flexing as you say every ounce of his muscle to get the filibuster reform to happen so that they can not just be all talk and all. Let's milk the democratic base for money on. Because i really do believe that's a a much of the driving know driving the conversation behind those topics in the in the lawmaker circles there is a op ed in the l. a. times today by erwin shurmur linski and bert. Newborn newborn is a professor of civil liberties and new york university. School law. Shimransky is the dean of the uc berkeley school of law. And they right. There is a clear next step in changing the senate filibuster vice-president comma harrison's presiding officer of the senate can and should declare the current senate filibuster rule unconstitutional nixon. Did it. in one thousand nine hundred fifty seven it was reaffirmed by hubert humphrey in nelson rockefeller subsequent to that it was that ruling which was the basis of the democrat controlled senate in two thousand thirteen and the republican controlled senate in two thousand seventeen for changing the filibuster requirements for executive and judicial nominees and the ultimately what it comes down to is equal suffrage in the senate article five of the constitution and the seventeen th amendment which changed the way that the senate was elected the seventeenth amendment preserved the founders decision to give each two senators with voting rights. Now we all know that that is still relatively not relatively. It is undemocratic state like wyoming. That has sixty five times more. Voting power than california has forty million residents wyoming. Has something like five six hundred thousand. And however that's the way it was set up and it was reaffirmed in the seventeen th amendment what was reaffirmed in the seventeenth amendment and has never been affirmed the filibuster which makes it even more unconstitutional. The senate has the authority to create a does not have the authority by using the filibuster to create even more on fairness than already exists. So there is easy. Legal precedent for this filibuster reform. We get a quick break. We come back. I just wanna finish up with a leaked memo. That could be good news. I want to get too excited about a memo but good news in terms of immigration at least in terms of what joe biden can do early. We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back after this so briefly new york times reports on a memo that has been obtained by the new york times. I imagine it was leaked. Forty six page draft to draft that maps out the biden ministrations plan to significantly expand the legal immigration system including methodically reversing donald trump's reforms or attempts to dismantle. It and we should say caveat. It's a draft to blueprint is only mammo both caveat. It's for may third. Dhs plan a lot of it seems to be increasing numbers but our friend frequent. I am of the show. Ronald reagan who has a podcast called redirect is an immigration lawyer and so much of what has happened. Is there a been administrative obstacles that have been placed that make it much much harder for people to gain immigration status. It seems like the plan is to streamline a lot of these procedures which is going to make it a lot easier. the proof will be in the pudding. We'll talk more about this. As the days go on and the pudding begins to become more gelatinous moldy. No no no. What flake form. Oh that's don't really know how putting works. 'cause i don't know if you realize this i'm not seventy years old russell. Folks still enjoy good pudding until tomorrow. We will see you again if you if you're leaving us if you're watching us on peacock weight and those sticking around more putting tanakh you're going to break out of jello. Isn't it amazing. That in what does seventies and eighties. They had entire jello cookbooks and recipes. I believe it. i'm not. i'm not. I enjoy a good jello jello. Pack as the kid. Of course i'm i've gotten back into pudding recently. I'm not kidding. He brought it up out of nowhere. The proof is in the pudding. Okay but for this coffee to. They feel like monday..