20 Burst results for "Notre Dame Law School"

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:51 min | 2 months ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"They're not going to violate court orders, but the way to be in compliance with that order is to not have groups officially recognized groups operating at all. I'm sure that's not the university's preference. And once the litigation plays out, I suppose they can go back. Whether it's analogous to the kind of discrimination that the lawyer mentioned with respect to desegregation, I guess people will disagree with that. I'm implying to think that you should have a very different take on that. Does this dispute mirror the kinds of legal disputes we've seen that pit religious beliefs against local or state anti discrimination laws? Yeah, sure. When we're seeing, as you know, we're seeing more of these. You can think of the masterpiece cake shop decision or there's a free speech decision that the Supreme Court has this year called three O three creative and other wedding vendor case. The Fulton case from two years ago having to do with foster care certification in Philadelphia. This is the this is the arena in our current time. It wasn't always true where some of the more high profile clashes between government regulations on the one hand and religious liberty interest on the other are being seen. Now, you know, there is a danger, I think that we focus on these classes more than many, many religious liberty cases that are out there that don't involve anti discrimination law at all, but these are the ones that do seem to be highest profile right now because it's just a fact that there is kind of a cultural or social or I guess a religious divide in the country on some of these questions. And they're going to continue. Yes. You know, all those cases you mentioned show why it's pretty clear which way the Supreme Court is going to rule on this if it gets to the Supreme Court. Yes, I think that's true and yet these cases are not contrary to what some people think they're not always sort of liberals versus conservatives and so on. I mean, I think there has been an interest in trying to find kind of compromised positions where anti discrimination norms can be closely enforced in public context and certainly by government agencies and so on while still giving religious institutions space to act in accord with their own religious beliefs and whether we're able to find kind of a consistent across the board way, those sort of compromise, I guess that does remain, but I suspect that the justices will actually have a consensus on this one. Thanks, Rick. That's Richard Garnett of Notre-Dame law school, coming up. Texas social media law. This is Bloomberg. How are financial services firms managing in this new reality? Claire Santa

Supreme Court Fulton Philadelphia Richard Garnett Dame law school Rick Notre Bloomberg Texas Claire Santa
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:27 min | 2 months ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"University has decided to temporarily suspend all undergraduate club activities after the Supreme Court refused to step into a legal fight over its refusal to recognize a campus LGBTQ student group. The ruling split that justice's 5 to four, but the descent appears to indicate that the win for the student group may just be a temporary one. I've been talking to Richard Garnett, a professor at the university of Notre-Dame law school. So the lower court judge ruled that yeshiva was incorporated as an educational institution, not a religious one. So as a secular institution, it's bound by New York State human rights laws. If the appellate court affirms that as an interpretation of New York law will the Supreme Court accept that? Yeah, because so if the court in New York were to agree that Shiva is covered, then you sort of pivot to the First Amendment question. So in a sense, the case has two layers, right? Under New York law, should this anti discrimination rule even be applied to ishiba and then the second question is if the New York law does apply, well, does the First Amendment permit that application? And I think the question that justice Alito and his colleagues, I think we're signaling their views on what that latter constitutional question that even if the New York law does apply under current free exercise doctrine current First Amendment doctrine that application would probably be invalidated. So I'm wondering if the university has sort of tried to tread this line between welcoming LGBTQ students, but refusing to recognize this club on religious grounds. Does that cut against yeshiva in any sense? Well, in order to get protection for religious freedom rights, courts will ask whether the belief in question is sincere. So in some cases, not very often. But in some cases, a court might say that a party's inconsistent practices suggest that its objections are not really sincere. I don't think that would happen here. Religious institutions are allowed to decide for themselves what their religious commitments are and you see this position could well be look, we have no we have an overly this problem with welcoming people. The problem, the concern that we have is with officially recognizing a group because that might be that might count as kind of an institutional endorsement of the group's particular positions, which they might think is different from simply welcoming people to come if they so choose. And of course, it's not going to, and we wouldn't want courts to do this, I don't think. Of course, not going to get into the question whether, are you religious liberty religious positions do they make sense to us? Do they seem consistent to us to be line up with how we think their religion should be interpreted courts aren't going to get into that? What about the question of yeshiva's law school recognizing its own LGBTQ student group? Yeah, I have to admit that I don't know the precise details about the relationship that you have with cardozo. I mean, it's true that

New York Richard Garnett university of Notre Dame law school ishiba Supreme Court yeshiva Alito cardozo
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:55 min | 2 months ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"On determinations related to national security. Why because the executive branch is in a much better position to evaluate and assess any potential threats to national security, certainly much more than the courts. The courts are going to have the information, the evidence before the court to make that determination. So this claim, by DoJ, that the court's order is going to result in irreparable damage to national security, I think that any court, including the 11th circuit, including the Supreme Court, should be very differential to DoJ's determination on national security grounds. Finally, Jimmy, as a national security expert, what are your concerns about the mishandling of these classified documents? Over a hundred classified documents were ceased by the FBI during the search. And dozens of those were classified as top secret documents. Documents that if obtained by our adversaries could result in severe damage to national security. So the fact that former president Trump literally had dozens and dozens of these top secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence that were not properly stored that he did not have proper authority to retain is not only shocking and stunning, but again it raises serious concerns regarding the jeopardy national security jeopardy that Trump reckless actions have placed the United States. Thanks, Jimmy. That's Jimmy gurule of Notre-Dame law school coming up minor league baseball players unionize. This is Bloomberg. Circle is spraying together developers and entrepreneurs from around the world. Join us in San Francisco for circles converge 22 from September 27th to the 30th to shape the future of money in a digital asset ecosystem. Go to converge that circle dot com to register and

DoJ Jimmy Supreme Court FBI Jimmy gurule Lago Dame law school Trump Notre Bloomberg United States baseball San Francisco
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:40 min | 2 months ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"On determinations related to national security. Why? Because the executive branch is in a much better position to evaluate and assess any potential threats to national security, certainly much more than the courts. The courts are going to have the information, the evidence before the court to make that determination. So this claim by DoJ that the court's order is going to result in irreparable damage to national security, I think that any court, including the 11th circuit, including the Supreme Court, should be very differential to DoJ's determination on national security grounds. Finally, Jimmy, as a national security expert, what are your concerns about the mishandling of these classified documents? Over a hundred classified documents were ceased by the FBI during the search. And dozens of those were classified as top secret documents. Documents that if obtained by our adversaries could result in severe damage to national security. So the fact that former president Trump literally had dozens and dozens of these top secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence that were not properly stored that he did not have proper authority to retain is not only shocking and stunning, but again it raises serious concerns regarding the jeopardy, national security jeopardy that Trump's reckless actions have placed the United States. Thanks, Jimmy. That's Jimmy gurule of Notre-Dame law school. Coming up minor league baseball players unionize. This is Bloomberg

DoJ Jimmy Supreme Court Trump FBI Lago Jimmy gurule Dame law school Notre United States baseball Bloomberg
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:28 min | 2 months ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Victory for former president Donald Trump, a federal judge granted his request yesterday for a special master to review documents seized by the FBI from his Florida home, and also temporarily halted the Justice Department's use of the records for investigative purposes. The ruling presents a dilemma for the Justice Department, whether to appeal or not. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Jimmy Carroll, a professor at Notre-Dame law school. When I first heard about this motion by Trump, frankly, I thought it was a little bizarre and had no chance at all. What was your reaction when you heard the judge had decided to appoint a special master? Well, I was surprised by the decision and then when I read the decision, I was even more concerned by the lack of really thoughtful legal reasoning. It's a deeply flawed ruling and opinion. And I would say this as a law professor had this been the quality product of one of my students had submitted for a grade. I'm not sure that it would have received a passing grade. It's that. I just want to ask a basic question because what I find puzzling about Trump's claims of attorney client privilege and executive privilege is that don't all these documents from the Trump White House belong to the national archive, whether or not they're protected by executive privilege. I think he's making a distinction. The FBI seized over 11,000 documents and certainly not all of those are documents or documents that were classified for intelligence purposes as confidential secret top secret. And so he's claiming that the documents that weren't classified as confidential intelligence documents that those other documents may include attorney client privilege information. So communications with his lawyers. And then second, he's arguing that these other documents may actually involve communications that are privileged by the executive privilege. The problem with that second claim is that there's no legal authority. Whatsoever for the proposition that a former executive of former president of the United States may properly invoke executive privilege. And more so, it's problematic because executive privilege has been raised in the context of whether or not Congress, the legislature can access presidential documents, not whether the executive branch itself can not access such documents. And that's the case here. He's claiming that there is an executive privilege, not only for former presidents, but that the executive privilege further bans the executive branch of the government from accessing certain documents involving communications with the president. And there's no authority for that proposition whatsoever. You said this decision was deeply flawed. What's the most flawed part of it? I think there's two aspects to it. And by the way, the judge can admit that this is an open issue. It does not cite any authority for the proposition that executive privilege applies here. In fact, the one case that she cites, which is Trump versus Thompson, which involves a January 6th committee, a decision by the Supreme Court decided earlier this year, that involved a legislative branch. And again, the January 6th committee that was seeking documents from president Trump and she quotes from justice Kavanaugh. But again, that quote involves very different context of the legislative branch seeking to obtain executive records. But secondarily, the other problem with the ruling as a she grants a restraining order on the Department of Justice, the FBI from continuing to investigate the matter while these 11,000 documents are being reviewed by the special master and the legal standard for an injunction is first and foremost, number one, a substantial, likelihood of success on the merits. And then she finds that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. But the merits here involve whether the executive privilege applies to a former president with respect to requests from the executive branch. That's an open question. How can there be a substantial likelihood of success that there is this executive privilege that applies here when there's no authority to support it whatsoever? So that just is an absurd conclusion and certainly undermines and is going to hamper DoJ's investigation for the foreseeable future. Is it unheard of for a district judge to enjoin a federal criminal investigation? I'm unaware of any precedent. If there is precedent, it is extremely, extremely rare. For the judiciary to intervene in an executive branch criminal investigation and order that that investigation be halted. So this, in my opinion, is unprecedented ruling by the court and one reason of many why I believe that the DoJ and the Department of Justice should appeal this ruling to the 11th circuit Court of Appeals. Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show, I'll continue this conversation with former federal prosecutor Jimmy Carroll of Notre-Dame law school and we'll talk about the downsides of the Justice Department appealing this ruling. What's the likelihood of a favorable ruling from the 11th circuit considered one of the most conservative circuits in the country where 6 out of the 11 judges were appointed by Trump. I'm June Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. When pole Sweeney and Matt Miller bring you the day's market news. How do you think investors should view Bitcoin? You can count on some frivolity. Matt, did you know that you and I are special? I feel special. Bloomberg markets, extensive, essential, and endlessly entertaining. I know you had a trainer. Well, no, I hired the guy and then we started hanging out for beers. We don't really work out training. Now we're just buddies. Weekday mornings at ten eastern on Bloomberg radio, the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg radio dot com. This is a Bloomberg money minute. Wall Street's attempt

Jimmy Carroll Dame law school Justice Department FBI Trump White House Donald Trump Trump versus Thompson president Trump justice Kavanaugh Notre Trump Florida Department of Justice legislature DoJ Congress United States Supreme Court pole Sweeney
"notre dame law school" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

02:42 min | 3 months ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"And then said this. And really, really has a huge, huge November and stay before. I think there's going to be opportunities to do a lot of great things across the country, how setting governors races. Now cleta Mitchell from CPI claims that she's invited Democrats to these events to, the DNC told me they were unaware of any invitation, they needed more information to be absolutely sure, but so far CPI has not provided any records to back that claim up. So what are experts saying? I talked to Lloyd hitoshi Meyer. He's a professor at University of Notre-Dame law school. He said some of CPI's online post appeared to clearly cross the legal line, and he said there's real concerns about whether their activities are just too closely intertwined with the Republican Party. If I was looking at this as an IRS agent or has an outside lawyer for that matter, I would say there's enough here that I want to do some digging. Now definitely yellow flags here. Now, if the IRS were defined that CPI is violating the law, they couldn't impose tax penalties, revoke their tax exempt status. CPI declined to answer our questions on the record. They said in a statement they fully comply with all IRS rules and do not engage in any political campaign activity. So do experts think the IRS will actually take action in this case? Well, the IRS does not comment on individual cases. They declined to comment here. In general, the IRS is just not done a lot of enforcement among nonprofits lately. Budget cuts over the last decade have really reduced how much they enforce the law. In the past, they've also faced major political blowback when attempting to reign in nonprofits, electoral activity happened in 2004 when the NAACP was audited over some comments, critical of president George W. Bush and the Iraq War. There was another controversy that people might remember from 2013 over alleged IRS targeting of Tea Party groups. The backlash there also made the agency a bit more reluctant to act. An expert said though, without tough enforcement, nonprofit groups have gotten a bit more bold. And Congress recently, though, gave a major boost to IRS funding in the inflation reduction act, so that might change the dynamics here a bit. I'm Pierre's Tom dries back. Thanks so much. Thank you. Vietnam's capital Hanoi is noisy, and it's about to get noisier. The government is bringing back old school neighborhood loudspeakers, even though for some reason few residents seem to want that. In this story, Michael Sullivan, a veteran correspondent for NPR, tries to be heard above the sound. I have a very strong memory of my very first morning in my new house in Hanoi. With one of those loudspeakers mounted on a pole just outside my bedroom window

IRS cleta Mitchell Lloyd hitoshi Meyer University of Notre Dame law school CPI DNC Republican Party NAACP Tom dries president George W. Bush Tea Party Iraq Hanoi Pierre Congress Vietnam Michael Sullivan NPR
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:42 min | 7 months ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"In Bloomberg legal experts My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy garu joining me as Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases and headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June Grasso from Bloomberg radio Welcome to the Bloomberg law show I'm June Grasso adding this hour In the Supreme Court's final week of oral argument for the term the football coach who wants to prey on the 50 yard line and the remain in Mexico policy The Supreme Court signaled it will likely side with the praying football coach in the latest case seeking to bolster religious rights The coach lost his job at a public high school outside Seattle after repeatedly taking a knee alongside his players on the 50 yard line after games The coach said the district violated his constitutional rights by punishing what he regards as private religious expression but the school district argued that his prayers were becoming a community spectacle and leaving players feeling pressured to join My guess is Richard Garnett a professor at Notre-Dame law school Tell us the issue here Rick So what's an issue here in the Kennedy case is whether an order that was given to coach Kennedy that he had to refrain from any religious expression or activity in view of students whether that order was consistent with his First Amendment rights At the time the order was given the record is pretty clear that the school district remerton was of the view that they had to require coach Kennedy to stop engaging in this publicly visible prayer because the establishment clause required it That is the district thought that the separation of church and state required the district to prevent the coach from engaging in this public prayer now coach Kennedy says on the other hand you're misunderstanding the separation of church and state and you're violating my First Amendment rights to engage in religious expression I'm a citizen like anybody else I'm allowed to pray in public If I want to And so at the oral arguments it was interesting because I think one of the challenges for the justices was that the litigation position of the school district seems to have changed So at the early stages of this case their position was look we had to require coach Kennedy to stop praying Otherwise people would have gotten the wrong idea that we were sponsoring the prayer And that would have been an establishment clause violation And in the Supreme Court yesterday during arguments though the district's position seems.

Grasso Jimmy garu Supreme Court Jordan Rubin Bloomberg radio Bloomberg Kennedy Richard Garnett Dame law school football Mexico Seattle Notre Rick
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:31 min | 10 months ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Would be my impression with all the caveats that justice has asked questions all the time that don't necessarily tell us which way they're going to rule The first of this series of cases I mentioned Trinity Lutheran from Missouri That was 7 to two It wasn't an ideologically divided case The more recent one Espinosa that was 5 to four And so I suppose it wouldn't be surprising if this case out of Maine was also 5 to four or 6 to three given new membership But the questions that the more conservative justice we're asking seem to be pressing main on the claim that this isn't really discrimination against religion So there were a lot of hypos and kind of intriguing questions trying to flesh out the question whether what Maine is doing here is really just kind of a neutral way of deciding what it wants to fund or is this really the same kind of exclusion on the basis of religion that the court has already said is impermissible And tell us about the liberal justices concerns Justice breyer said look the state of Maine has an interest in deciding that it will reduce the possibilities of political strife political division if main just says look we are going to have a policy of only sending public funds to non religious schools That that will be a way of kind of preserving peace and a pluralistic society Justice Kagan proposed that when you're talking about funding that in that particular context states should have the leeway to decide whether or not they want to fund certain kinds of education or not It's a fascinating question that comes up in law a lot How do you decide when what the government is doing is penalizing somebody versus simply declining to benefit them Is that a tomato tomato kind of thing Or are there meaningful distinctions there Some look at this as a slippery slope that could lead to public funds being used for church sponsored charter schools To really intriguing question is whether a charter school program is analogous to the benefits program here Charter schools at least in theory our government schools And so because they're going to regard them as public schools It follows that they're not going to be religious schools But of course if we think of a charter school authorization program as being more like a general scholarship or school choice program well then it would look kind of weird if having a charter where a benefit but it was being denied to religious would be charter school operators but being granted to charter school operators who wanted to have stem schools or art schools or what have you So that will be a question Thanks Rick That's Richard Garnett of Notre-Dame law school coming up next Boston appears to be on the losing side of a Christian flag dispute This is Bloomberg.

Trinity Lutheran Maine Justice breyer Espinosa Justice Kagan Missouri Richard Garnett Dame law school Rick Notre Boston Bloomberg
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:31 min | 1 year ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"That would be my impression with all the caveats that justice asked questions all the time that don't necessarily tell us which way they're going to rule The first of the series of cases I mentioned Trinity Lutheran from Missouri That was 7 to two It wasn't an ideologically divided case the more recent one Espinosa that was 5 to four And so I suppose it wouldn't be surprising if this case out of Maine was also 5 to four or 6 to three giving the membership The questions that the more conservative justice we're asking seem to be pressing main on the claim that this isn't really discrimination against religion So there were a lot of hypos and kind of intriguing questions trying to flesh out the question whether what main is doing here is really just kind of a neutral way of deciding what it wants to fund or is this really the same kind of exclusion on the basis of religion that the court has already said is impermissible And tell us about the liberal justices concerns Just as far as to look at the state of Maine has an interest in deciding that it will reduce the possibilities of political strife political division if main just says look we are going to have a policy of only sending public funds to non religious schools That will be a way of kind of preserving peace in a pluralistic society Justice Kagan proposed that when you're talking about funding that in that particular context states should have the leeway to decide whether or not they want to fund certain kinds of education or not It's a fascinating question that comes up in law a lot How do you decide when what the government's doing is penalizing somebody versus simply declining to benefit them Is that a tomato tomato kind of thing Or are there other meaningful distinctions there Some look at this as a slippery slope that could lead to public funds being used for church sponsored charter schools To really intriguing question is whether a charter school program is analogous to the benefits program here Charter schools at least in theory our government schools And so because they're going to regard them as public schools it follows that they're not going to be religious schools But of course if we think of a charter school authorization program as being more like a general scholarship or school choice program well then it would look kind of weird if having a charter were a benefit but it was being denied to religious would be charter school operators but being granted to charter school operators who wanted to have stem schools or art schools or what have you So that will be a question Thanks Rick That's Richard Garnett of Notre-Dame law school Coming up miramax versus Tarantino This is Bloomberg Go.

Trinity Lutheran Maine Espinosa Justice Kagan Missouri government Richard Garnett Dame law school Rick Notre miramax Bloomberg
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:29 min | 1 year ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"That would be my impression with all the caveats that justice has asked questions all the time that don't necessarily tell us which way they're going to rule The first of this series of cases I mentioned Trinity Lutheran from Missouri That was 7 to two It wasn't an ideologically divided case the more recent one Espinosa that was 5 to four And so I suppose it wouldn't be surprising if this case out of Maine was also 5 to four or 6 to three giving the membership The questions that the more conservative justice we're asking seem to be pressing main on the claim that this isn't really discrimination against religion So there were a lot of hypos and kind of intriguing questions trying to flesh out the question whether what main is doing here is really just kind of a neutral way of deciding what it wants to fund or is this really the same kind of exclusion on the basis of religion that the court has already said is impermissible And tell us about the liberal justices concerns Justice breyers said look at the state of Maine has an interest in deciding that it will reduce the possibilities of political strife political division if main just says look we are going to have a policy of only sending public funds to non religious schools That will be a way of kind of preserving peace in a pluralistic society Justice Kagan proposed that when you're talking about funding that in that particular context states should have the leeway to decide whether or not they want to fund certain kinds of education or not It's a fact the only question that comes up in law a lot is how do you decide when what the government's doing is penalizing somebody versus simply declining to benefit them Is that a tomato tomato kind of thing Or are there meaningful distinctions there Some will get this as a slippery slope that could lead to public funds being used for church sponsored charter schools They're really intriguing question is whether a charter school program is analogous to the benefits program here Charter schools at least in theory our government schools And so because they're going to regard them as public schools it follows that they're not going to be religious schools But of course if we think of a charter school authorization program as being more like a general scholarship or school choice program well then it would look kind of weird Having a charter were a benefit but it was being denied to religious would be charter school operators but being granted to charter school operators who wanted to have stem schools or art schools or what have you So that will be a question Thanks Rick That's Richard Garnett of Notre-Dame law school Coming up miramax versus Tarantino This is Bloomberg.

Trinity Lutheran Justice breyers Maine Espinosa Justice Kagan Missouri government Richard Garnett Dame law school Rick Notre miramax Bloomberg
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:29 min | 1 year ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"That would be my impression with all the caveats that justice is asked questions all the time that don't necessarily tell us which way they're going to rule The first of this series of cases I mentioned Trinity Lutheran from Missouri That was 7 to two It wasn't an ideologically divided case the more recent one Espinosa that was 5 to four And so I suppose it wouldn't be surprising if this case out of Maine was also 5 to four or 6 to three giving the membership The questions that the more conservative justice we're asking seem to be pressing main on the claim that this isn't really discrimination against religion So there were a lot of hypos and kind of intriguing questions trying to flesh out the question whether what main is doing here is really just kind of a neutral way of deciding what it wants to fund or is this really the same kind of exclusion on the basis of religion that the court has already said is impermissible And tell us about the liberal justices concerns Justice breyers said look the state of Maine has an interest in deciding that it will reduce the possibilities of political strife political division if main just says look we are going to have a policy of only sending public funds to non religious schools If that would be a way of kind of preserving peace in a pluralistic society Justice Kagan proposed that when you're talking about funding that in that particular context states should have the leeway to decide whether or not they want to fund certain kinds of education or not It's a fact that any question that comes up in law a lot is how do you decide when what the government's doing is penalizing somebody versus simply declining to benefit them Is that a tomato tomato kind of thing Or are there meaningful distinctions there Some will get this as a slippery slope that could lead to public funds being used for church sponsored charter schools To really intriguing question is whether a charter school program is analogous to the benefits program here Charter schools at least in theory our government schools And so because they're going to regard them as public schools it follows that they're not going to be religious schools But of course if we think of a charter school authorization program as being more like a general scholarship or school choice program well then it would look kind of weird if having a charter were a benefit but it was being denied to religious would be charter school operators but being granted to charter school operators who wanted to have stem schools or art schools or what have you So that will be a question Thanks Rick That's Richard Garnett of Notre-Dame law school Coming up miramax versus Tarantino This is Bloomberg When.

Trinity Lutheran Justice breyers Maine Espinosa Justice Kagan Missouri government Richard Garnett Dame law school Rick Notre miramax Bloomberg
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:41 min | 1 year ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio Should a death row innate be able to have his pastor pray out loud and lay hands on him during his execution It's a question the Supreme Court Justices struggled with this week and it led some justices typically solicitous of religious rights to express concerns about the possibilities of gamesmanship and a flurry of last minute filings by death row inmates Here are Jones who says clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Can ones repeated filing of complaints particularly at the last minute not only be seen as evidence of gaming of the system but also of the sincerity of religious beliefs What's going to happen when the next prisoner says that I have a religious belief that he should touch my knee He should hold my hand He should put his hand over my heart But other justices such as Sonia Sotomayor seemed to see the inmates request as reasonable His desire to have the pastor in the execution chamber when he's dying because the whole purpose of the religious belief is that you should have a pastor to help guide you to the other place Joining me is Richard Garnett a professor at Notre-Dame law school and director of the program on church state and society Rick this isn't about the First Amendment Tell us about the law at issue here So this law this religious land use and institutionalized persons act was enacted by Congress a couple of decades ago and it had.

Bloomberg Samuel Alito clarence Thomas Supreme Court Jones Sonia Sotomayor Richard Garnett Dame law school program on church state and so Notre Congress
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:34 min | 1 year ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio Should a death row inmate be able to have his pastor pray out loud and lay hands on him during his execution It's a question the Supreme Court Justices struggled with this week and it led some justices typically solicitous of religious rights to express concerns about the possibilities of gamesmanship and a flurry of last minute filings by death row inmates Here are Joneses clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Can ones repeated filing of complaints particularly at the last minute not only be seen as evidence of gaming of the system but also of the sincerity of religious beliefs What's going to happen when the next prisoner says that I have a religious belief that he should touch my knee He should hold my hand He should put his hand over my heart But other justices such as Sonia Sotomayor seemed to see the inmates request as reasonable His desire to have the pastor at the execution chamber when he's dying because the whole purpose of the religious belief is that you should have a pastor to help guide you to the other place Joining me is Richard Garnett a professor at Notre-Dame law school and director of the program on church state and society Rick this isn't about the First Amendment tell us about the law at issue here So.

Bloomberg Samuel Alito clarence Thomas Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor Richard Garnett Dame law school program on church state and so Notre
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:34 min | 1 year ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio Should a death row innate be able to have his pastor pray out loud and lay hands on him during his execution It's a question the Supreme Court Justices struggled with this week and it led some justices typically solicitous of religious rights to express concerns about the possibilities of gamesmanship and a flurry of last minute filings by death row inmates Here at justice's clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Can ones repeated filing of complaints particularly at the last minute not only be seen as evidence of gaming of the system but also of the sincerity of religious beliefs What's going to happen when the next prisoner says that I have a religious belief that he should touch my knee He should hold my hand He should put his hand over my heart But other justices such as Sonia Sotomayor seemed to see the inmates request as reasonable His desire to have the pastor at the execution chamber when he's dying because the whole purpose of the religious belief is that you should have a pastor to help guide you to the other place Joining me is Richard Garnett a professor at Notre-Dame law school and director of the program on church state and society Rick this isn't about the First Amendment tell us about the law at issue here So.

Bloomberg Samuel Alito clarence Thomas Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor Richard Garnett Dame law school program on church state and so Notre
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:39 min | 1 year ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio This week the Supreme Court Justices considered the extent to which the U.S. government can refuse to turn over information under the state secrets privilege even when the information is widely known The case involves efforts to get testimony from two CIA contractors who were instrumental in the torture of Abu zubaydah at a CIA black site in Poland Joining me is former federal prosecutor Jimmy garley a professor at Notre-Dame law school Tell us about Abu zubaida Was believed to be believed by the U.S. government the CIA in particular to be a high level Al-Qaeda official a member And he was abducted in Pakistan back in March of 2002 And then he was taken to a black site and Poland and in black site refers to a location where he was held outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts for the purpose of interrogation the interrogation involved something called enhanced interrogation techniques which included waterboarding and other techniques stress positions being kept up sleep deprivation for literally days at a time They don't affect amount amounted to torture So what is the issue in this case before the Supreme Court Well the issue involves an attempt to buy abuse of beta's lawyers to subpoena two CIA contractors by the name of James Mitchell and Bruce jessen Their psychologists and they were retained by the CIA to develop these enhanced interrogation techniques that were used against suspected members of Al-Qaeda after the 9 11 terror attacks in an effort to obtain from them information regarding future terrorist attacks the dates and locations of those attacks And these witnesses are being subpoenaed to assist in a Polish criminal investigation involving again the use of these black sites being located in Poland and used to detain I was a beta and used to torture him pursuant to these enhanced interrogation techniques So the government is claiming that this involves state secrets and national security It's called the state secrets privilege And it's a privilege that extends to the government It permits the government to bar the disclosure of information If there is a quote reasonable danger that such disclosure would expose a military matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged So the short explanation is is it basically it blocks the admission into evidence of classified information information that would threaten national security Is this a state secret anymore It's been acknowledged in an official congressional report Countless news stories even a movie Yeah so that's the issue So that's one of the important issues before the Supreme Court And so it's no longer a secret I think it's well known In fact the Polish government has admitted that its territory was used by the CIA for the purpose of detaining abusive beta and others So that's the question So the fact that it's public knowledge and it's not a state secret does the state secrets privilege apply And the government maintains that it does even though again this information is well known because if it was disclosed or if these individuals were permitted to testify and this Polish criminal investigation it would confirm it would actually confirm what is known It would confirm that Poland was being used or permitted to be used by the United States government for establishing or using these black sites So what was the main concern that you heard during oral arguments from the justice Was there one in particular that stood out Well I think there were concerns expressed by several of the justices on exactly the point that this is no longer a state secret This is a matter of public knowledge This is well known So the state secrets privilege should not apply And so the justice is really pressed the government lawyers on that point And again the government's response as well If these individuals are permitted to testify it's going to confirm what is believed So right now it's kind of understood but now this will make it a fact It will confirm the fact that Poland was used by the CIA for these purposes And the claim is further than that this is going to undermine our relationship the U.S. relationship with foreign allies because again it was understood that when this black site was established in Poland that it would not be disclosed by the United States And so this would undermine that agreement and then therefore foreign governments would be less willing to cooperate with the United States on national security matters in the future Coming up next I'll continue this conversation with professor Jimmy garu of Notre-Dame law school We'll talk about how the Supreme Court is likely to rule and a novel solution that three justices came up with.

CIA Abu zubaydah Poland U.S. government Dame law school Jimmy garley Supreme Court Bruce jessen Qaeda Al James Mitchell Bloomberg Polish government Notre Pakistan United States government professor Jimmy garu
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:04 min | 2 years ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"When a mob of pro Trump riders stormed the capital breached the security barriers, terrorized lawmakers and vandalized the offices in congressional chambers, delaying the certification of the electoral college vote. President elect Joe Biden was blunt. They weren't protesters. Don't dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionist. Domestic terrorists. And Biden was not alone in blaming President Trump for inciting his followers. Lawmakers like Republican Senator Mitt Romney also placed the blame on Trump. What happened here today was an insurrection. Incited by the president of the United States. Joining me is an expert in national security law. Former federal prosecutor Jimmy Gurule, a a professor at Notre Dame law School. Clearly the Capitol police were UN prepared with all the notice, some from Trump himself, with much of the nation bracing for what might happen and with threats of violence on social media. Should they have been prepared for this? They had four warning literally weeks in advance. I mean, Trump on Twitter had notified the world that that he was again recruiting his followers to come to Washington, D. C on January 6th. And he said, you know, be looking out. This is going to be like something you've never seen before. It's gonna be powerful. I mean, so it was clear that again. He was recruiting his followers to come to D. C for this event, and then, of course at the rally before the actual assault on the Capitol building. He's firing up his supporters and telling them to take back America and then in order to do so, you have to be strong. We have to use act with strength. Which is cold wars for violence, So there was plenty of time to prepare, and it's inexcusable. I mean, this should never have happened in America and thank God it wasn't worse than it. Actually, Wasim mean had these protesters have been more heavily armed. When they took siege of the Capitol building. We could be talking about today, the killing of members of Congress, the killing of senators, violence, much larger scale than what was witnessing this can never be permitted to happen again. And I'm hopeful that the new administration immediately initiation investigation or commission To get to the bottom of this and determine what went wrong and to ensure that it never happens again. Would you call this an insurrection and attempted coup? What would you turn this? Well, it's certainly an insurrection. You know, if certainly falls within the seditious conspiracy statute, it's an act of sedition. It was an attack either to overthrow the government by violence or to prevent the enactment of laws by violence, which is also prohibited. By the sedition conspiracy statute These people wanted to disrupt Congress is fulfillment of their constitutional duties under the 12th amendment. That's what was driving them. The timing of this was an accidental you know their presence on January 6th. They're storming the Capitol building while Congress was in session, undertaking its constitutional duties. That was not a coincidence. This was an attempt to destroy Up to prevent them from fulfilling those constitutional obligations from certifying the electors and then certifying. Joe Biden is an ex president of the United States. And I would say further that it was certainly anti Democratic. Because one of the principal cornerstones of our democracy that we have cherish over the last 200 plus years is the peaceful transfer of power. There's a range of crimes the writers could be charged with from misdemeanors to felonies from vandalism to sedition. Does it seem like they're going to be charged with the lower level crimes, vandalism, breaking and entering etcetera rather than sedition? Well, I would say certainly everyone that could be identified was inside the Capitol building should be charged under the anti riot act because this clearly satisfies the requirements of the statute made. These are people that traveled on interstate or used on interstate facility for the purpose of engaging in a riot. Or either inciting a riot or participating in a riot or facilitating acts of violence, which is what is required under the statute, And fortunately, many of these individuals were caught on video inside the Capitol building and the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. You're gonna be able to identify many of these perpetrators quickly. And once they're identified, they should be charged by the FBI and prosecuted by the apartment of Justice, the U. S attorney's office. I mean, it could be U. S Attorney's office is in the district's where these individuals reside or in the District of Columbia, where the offenses were actually committed. The question of sedition. I think here we're talking about again a conspiracy and I think it conspiracy can be proven through their concerted action and their concerted action their intent. Again was to buy the use of violence to prevent hinder delay the execution of any law of the United States. That's language from the seditious conspiracy statute. To prevent, hinder or delay the execution they need along the United States and the law of the United States that they were attempting to prevent was the 12th amendment was certifying of the electors, the recognizing of the electoral votes and certifying of the president. Coming up. Next. I'll continue this conversation with Professor Jimmy Gurule A and talk about the calls for President Trump's removal. This is Bloomberg. You've probably heard the O a fondue set. Now.

President Trump president United States Joe Biden seditious conspiracy Congress Trump Jimmy Gurule America Senator Mitt Romney Capitol police FBI vandalism Notre Dame law School Bloomberg Wasim assault
"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:13 min | 2 years ago

"notre dame law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"The siege of the U. S. Capitol. So far, only 55 people have been charged with crimes stemming from the attack, although the U. S attorney's office in D C. Says it's committed to ensuring those responsible face the full consequences for more on the kinds of charges. We could see Bloomberg Stone ground So speaks to Jimmy Gurule, a a professor at Notre Dame Law School. Would you call this an insurrection and attempted coup? What would you turn this? Well, It's certainly an insurrection. You know, if certainly falls within the seditious conspiracy statute, it's an act of sedition. It was an attack, either to overthrow the government by violence or to prevent The enactment of laws by violence, which is also prohibited by the sedition conspiracy statute These people wanted to disrupt Congress is fulfillment of their constitutional duties under the 12th amendment. That's what was driving them. The timing of this was an accidental you know their presence on January 6th. They're storming the Capitol building while Congress was in session undertaking its constitutional duties. That was not a coincidence. This was an attempt to disrupt to prevent them from fulfilling those constitutional obligations from certifying the electors and and certifying Joe Biden is an ex president of the United States. Range of crimes that could be charged with from vandalism to sedition. Do you think it will end up that they're charged with the lower level crimes, vandalism, breaking an entering rather than tradition? Well, I would say certainly everyone that can be identified who was inside the Capitol building should be charged under the anti riot act, because this clearly satisfies the requirements of the statute made. These are people that traveled on interstate or Used on interstate facility for the purpose of engaging in a riot for either inciting a riot or participating in a riot or facilitating acts of violence, which is what is required under the statute, And fortunately, many of these individuals were caught on video inside the Capitol building,.

Congress vandalism seditious conspiracy Notre Dame Law School Bloomberg Stone Joe Biden Jimmy Gurule U. S attorney United States professor president
Trump To Select Amy Coney Barrett as Supreme Court Nominee

Weekend Edition Saturday

04:23 min | 2 years ago

Trump To Select Amy Coney Barrett as Supreme Court Nominee

"This edition from NPR News. I'm Scott's time and we are expecting President Trump to announce Amy Cockney Barrett as his nominated. He was Supreme Court this afternoon. Judge Barrett sits on the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Ah, in in Chicago, although she's in Indiana and served his clerk to just Saturnian, Scalia. She, of course, would fill the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose life and career were honored at the court in the capital this week, and you will be buried next week at Arlington National Cemetery. Let's now welcome Michael McConnell of Stanford University law professor and former federal appeals court judge. Thanks very much for being with us, sir. It's a pleasure. I gather, you know, Amy Cockney Barrett. What's your estimation on her apparent nomination? What kind of justice you might be? Well, I do. Ah. She was a professor at Notre Dame Law School for about 15 years and then Now that capacity I knew her fairly well, she is. We're not personal friends, but I'm in admirers of both her academic work and her performance on the On the seventh circuit. Uh, she's I think a completely unsurprising nominee. Even her opponents recognized that she's extremely qualified, highly and intelligent, hardworking. What are personal Friends knows what in it. Fantastically warm, kind, considerate human being she is and she's I think she'll be an inspiration, especially toe working mothers like like my two daughters, because, and it's just seven Children, including Two adopted Children from Haiti. One right in the wake of the terrible earthquake and on almost everybody who knows of Amy has a story about just how and how she She is so kind and does just considerate things in ways that no one whatever I know about not publicly, but just on a cz, a wonderful warm human being. Let me ask you about some of the public stuff, though, because you're a former U. S appeals court judge and, um I wonder if you've taken note of any particular rulings that she's had the chance to make in her time on the bench. And not quite three years as an appellate judge. He's written 100 opinions, which Dad and itself is pretty impressive. That's Andi. They are. You know, I've not read all of them, but I've read quite a few of them and they're consistently Love of a kind of restrained, very lawyerly of fashion sheep. She clerked for Justice Scalia, who was a brilliant writer, she doesn't write like Scalia. I'm You know, for better or worse. Her opinions are not very rhetorical. There. Ah, rigorous. They are much more low key. Er than that on DH. You know her, and they're just they're consistently conservative, but mainstream conservative. I don't think There's not an extremist bone in her body does does she have opinions? That might surprise some of her supporters every now and then? Ah, every now and then. Ah! Of course, no one really knows where any judge is going to come out on every and maybe we should remind ourselves calling someone a conservative jurist doesn't mean they will always vote a certain way, right? That's right. And the modern legal conservative movement is little different from conservative politics because the conservative legal movement is really mostly about having a more restrained Roll for judges that they ought to read the Constitution modestly with humility, not reading their own preferences into it, And that generally means leaving legislatures and the Congress to make most Democratic choices rather than having the court be like a super Legislature. Stanford law Professor Michael McConnell. Thanks so much for being with us, sir. Thank you.

Amy Cockney Barrett Supreme Court Justice Scalia Circuit Court Of Appeals Michael Mcconnell Npr News Ruth Bader Ginsburg Chicago Indiana Notre Dame Law School Stanford University Scott President Trump Haiti Congress Saturnian Professor Arlington National Cemetery Writer
Supreme Court hears case on "Obamacare" birth control coverage changes

Bloomberg Law

05:20 min | 2 years ago

Supreme Court hears case on "Obamacare" birth control coverage changes

"The Supreme Court appears divided over trump's rollback of contraceptive coverage under obamacare and the court considers a challenge to the ban on robo calls this a bream quartered oral arguments today over the trump administration's giving employees in universities abroad religious opt out from the obamacare requirement that they offer free birth control coverage through their health plans from the first question Chief Justice John Roberts the possible pivotal vote suggested the administration had gone too far but being a refer exemption reaches far beyond that in other words not everybody who seeks the protection from coverage has those same objections so I wonder if and your reliance on refresh is too broad to use Richard Garnett a professor at the university of Notre Dame law school explained the issue here the real issue what the fun part of the P. the real issue in this case is probably not what a lot of people think it is a much a layer so one question will meet me decide to step back the issue here is whether the administrative agency and questioned HHS has the authority to create the accommodation that it created a lot of help of what the issue was not the issue is not whether the constitution requires that the combination it's not whether the religious freedom restoration act requires this accommodation it's really a question of administrative law did the agency create accommodation in the correct way and what the acting within its authority when it did during the oral argument hi I thought that the some of the justices seem to be talking about trying to re litigate questions that I I don't really think are the ones that are presented unification people could be about whether the contraception coverage mandate is a good idea or whether the hobby lobby case was correctly decided you know what what happened here the the federal agency determined to change its own rules and then some state the card is that because he didn't like that changing the rules they were going to say that they lack the power to change them and I act that the court is not going to agree with that claim some other additional fun kind of log geek technical question like the federal District Court have the power to issue a nationwide injunction on a policy or does it have the power only issue an injunction within its jurisdiction and do they have what's called standing to challenge changes to federal regulations we because they predicted those changes will result in some cost to them I'm a law professor or you know log each perspective and all kinds of things falling around in this case but it's not really about whether or not one believes that contraception coverage mandate is a good idea or whether one believes that the hobby lobby case was rightly divided some of the justices seem to be talking to a broader audience perhaps and yeah justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who by the way was participating from the Johns Hopkins hospital after undergoing gallbladder treatment yesterday she kept coming back to the cost of exemptions to women saying that this would be tossing to the winds Congress's intent that women have seamless and no cost coverage yes the popping to the wind damage I think three different times that might be a good example of what I'm talking about I mean it's clear that doesn't convert think that the change in regulations that the HHS adopted are are are bad policy but you know the question of what Congress's intent was that is I think a little more complicated I mean after all the portable character self didn't contain a contraception coverage mandate that was created by the administrative agencies have now decided to re craft the accommodation in the agency is changing it you don't roll the clock going against what Congress actually Anderman exemption from the coverage mandate from the very beginning that it is never been a blanket requirement there always been employers who are exempt in a balancing act so I think the claim that the latest regulations are a dramatic departure from what Congress did it difficult to maintain the better complaint it seems to me you know the kind of administrative law complaint that the agency crafted the new accommodation in a way that might not have followed the strict requirements for notice and comment on the outside complication and so on but it came time to in which state that so long as the agency does get that input at some point it's permissible but you were I think you're exactly right to pick up on the fact that we just didn't Berg was speaking to a larger audience about the broader policy question but I don't really think that broader policy questions the legal question before the court in this particular

Supreme Court
As Walmart sales boom, JC Penney cuts sales outlook

Rush Limbaugh

00:30 sec | 4 years ago

As Walmart sales boom, JC Penney cuts sales outlook

"President Trump keeps touting support from a mystery. Executive but is it for real this is Bloomberg This is a Bloomberg market minute UN's dunks posting gains Dow Jones industrial average is up four hundred and five points to twenty five thousand five sixty seven s and p five hundred up one percent the NASDAQ climbing. Eight tenths of a percent

Bloomberg Donald Wilson Bloomberg Penney Notre Dame Law School Commerce Department Jimmy Garoppolo Walmart Dow Jones Donald Trump President Trump Professor UN Nasdaq Executive One Percent