27 Burst results for "Paul Clement"
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"paul clement" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"So last question, Congress. But I use Roku, because I use Roku, and I know how it works. And I don't know if they're Friends of yours or they lobbied you. I have no idea. I'm just using them as an example. Rough numbers, Roku at $1.8 billion in liquid assets, $600 million of which were the Silicon Valley bank. Now Roku is run by smart people. They're changing the industry they're cutting the court everywhere. So obviously they're very smart people, but is tech so insular. So absolutely divorced from traditional rules of banking that they ignored having $600 million on deposit in one bank with a $250,000 deposit insurance. I mean, what's wrong with the tech world? That was malpractice. I can't, I can't defend them. I don't know them. They may be incredibly savvy technology company, but they need someone who's taken accounting one O one. I mean, to have that kind of money and not to have it in a sweep account or in a mutual market account or in bonds and just to have it sitting in a bank account was just financially irresponsible. The one final point here I'll make on the moral hazard is let me tell you the people who are going for the management and the executives of Silicon Valley bank, their careers are ruined. And as they should be, they're going to they're facing investigations by the SEC by the Department of Justice. They're probably never going to get another job again. I don't think there's any bank management in this country and any place that wants to go through what's happening to Silicon Valley banks. So I do think there's a lot of consequence for being totally run and the largest claim. I know there's a lot of back and forth. Republican Democrats. The largest flame in anger should be at the bank management. Well, what I want to see is one rule for everyone because when enron fell apart, it was an anchor around George W. Bush's neck wrongly. I don't know if this should be an anchor around Joe Biden's neck, but I do want one rule. We got 30 seconds congressman. If tomorrow a bank runs into a liquidity crisis, do you expect the United States to back it up? I don't think it will because of the fed discount rate. I mean, the fed is basically said if you have a liquidity crisis, you can borrow it at a discount window through the fed that I think is going to backstop it. Ro Khanna, good to talk to you again, congressman, thank you not an easy job to be out defending SVB, but you're making the best case that can be made. I appreciate.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"paul clement" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"So we are in essence where we were with Freddie and Fannie Mac before 2008. An implicit guarantee that the government will bail out every depositor in the country. Is that where we are, congressman Connor. Well, I don't think it's going to come to that, but I certainly think it's tomorrow there was a run on a bank in Arkansas, a bank in Texas or in Ohio, I don't see how you could the government wouldn't say that those deposits are protected. And the people would be outraged that you're protecting the deposits in Silicon Valley banks, but not in bank in Ohio. So I do think that the president and the fed and the treasure made it clear that depositors will be protected. The question is, how do you pay for that? And I think that means you have to raise bank fees and you have to make sure that that fee is on the larger accounts that are bearing the risk. Well, if you're going to find another 8 trillion out there, that's a lot of fees. And those will go through to customers, right? In the middle of a recession, banks can't just absorb that, so that's an indirect tax on companies and depositors. And I think it's a moral hazard. And this is what I really want. You get this. You understand what moral hazard is. Easy loans, great service. Why Silicon Valley loves Silicon Valley bank and it's a pretty eye opening story in the journal this morning and then why top Washington officials chose to rescue SVB and signature depositors also another eye opening. How many people called you O'Connor over the weekend to get you into the game? I imagine your constituents more than any were scared to death by what was happening. Sure, I had a Friday 600 people on the line, but I'll tell you the stories they were telling me. These are 50,000 companies. Some of them, by the way, leading in AI and defense tech, if you care people care about the United States being ahead of China. I mean, wipe those companies out. You're basically losing a lot of the defense technology to China. And some of these are being funded by CIU, by darpa, these are companies that are developing the cure for cancer. These are companies by the way that employ people across the country. There was a payroll company that employs 400,000 Americans, and so look, if people may not love Silicon Valley venture capitalists, they may not love Silicon Valley. They may be Silicon Valley's made too much money. That wasn't the question. The question was do you want to make sure that these 50,000 companies that just had money in their bank deposits were going to be able to make payroll and survive? And yes, you're right that it higher premiums would be higher fees. I mean, I mean, money doesn't is not free, but the question is, do I think most companies, if you're a business person? And you say, look, here's the deal. You got to pay a little bit more into insurance to know that you're a couple $1 million in a bank or going to be protected if there's a bank run. I think people would the business owners would say yes. And I think those fees need to be explicitly on people with a larger account, not most people who have accounts less than 250 thousand..
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"paul clement" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"It really can't because the one thing the framers were absolutely clear about is the power of purse. The power of the purse has to be with Congress and particularly has to start in the House of Representatives, the most representative branch of government. So I do think the framers would be particularly offended by this particular form of regulation where the regulators are essentially appropriating their own funds. And spending it to essentially get additional federal agents monitoring every one of us. I hope everyone reads your petition for certain the reply as well. Let me just get close by asking you, when do you expect to hear from the court? Obviously, it hadn't been even scheduled for a conference yet. I don't think. But when would you expect to hear and then the argument would be next fall, right? The argument would be next fall. We would expect to hear within the next month. So it is now fully briefed and it's being distributed to the justices. So I think we're three or four weeks away. And they're obviously some vagaries of timing there and the court can hold the case and relist it, which usually does before it grants. So we'll be looking for hopefully some good news in about a month. Well, you've got three alumni of the D.C. circuit out of the 9. I think they would be, I mean, Brett Kavanaugh has been waiting for this case for years, I would assume, good luck in that and general Clement, thank you for joining me and talking about this case. I hope you'll keep coming back when we get one this big, this important. And people don't even know about it because it's fishing boats, right? They don't get it, but you're doing your best to raise its profile, and I appreciate that you did it with me. Now my pleasure, good to be with you. Thank you. Welcome back, America, I'm Hugh Hewitt. Food for the poor need your help. Food for the poor is our great sponsor. And this is the time of the year that they come out and they say to you, here is the need. Can you give us $10, a $100, a 150, 200, $72, takes care of two children for an entire year, water, food, and good, good food and water. That's it. They're rice and beans and water. That's what food for the poor does. And they do it as well as anybody. Here is the president food for the poor talking about what they do and how you matter to them. We work in 20 countries in the Caribbean and Latin America. And people who have no other resources, except the incredible generosity of typically Americans who time and time again really just give from the bottom of their heart and through their love for the thy neighbor. And so this is a faith based organization. And through our church networks and all these countries, we're able to get the aid to where it needs to be. Ed reyne has been doing this a long time. Food for the poor had been doing this for more than 40 years. And it is faith based. And they do deliver the goods, and they do deliver. When they needed emergency assistance in Ukraine, they were there. After the turkey earthquake, they were there. They're the group that I give and fetching mister Hewitt give money to when there is an international response being called upon to deal with people because we trust food for the poor. We just trust them. And so whether it's $10 or a $100 or $300 or $400,000, whatever you want to give. And I would think if you're a depositor who dodged a bullet, you might be in the charitable mood, but maybe you're not. It's an old story. The widows might and the person giving psalm, you know, you're not supposed to let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. So I don't talk about it much, but I think people need to be generous if they are asking people to be generous..
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"paul clement" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Well, and general Clement, I can just share justice Brown Jackson or justice Sotomayor saying, so you're saying that we should just dismantle the federal administrative process where that we're just going to turn these people lose. I know you're not saying that, but you're going to need a different rule to come up with, right? We are going to need a different rule and the different rule in this context though, I think, is the rule that applies in almost every other area of the law, as we said at the outset. If you and I get in a lawsuit and the lawsuit turns in the meaning of the statute, the court decides the meaning of the statute, one of us is right, one of us is wrong. But one of us doesn't leave court with the court telling us, well, you know it was close. And we actually think the statutes unclear and we're just going to go with the government because they're the government. I mean, that just doesn't, I don't think that passes the basic fairness test. So I don't think, you know, this may not be the case. They're going to be other cases down the line, right? Where the court wrestles with whether we can really even have some of these so called independent agencies that aren't directly accountable to the president and end up being accountable to no one. And in those cases, it may be fair, it may be fair to ask, well, what's that going to mean for regulation? But here I think in some respects, it's easier because what's going to happen if the court moves away from Chevron is that courts will have to do their job agencies will have to do their jobs and that well, I think the combined effect of that will force Congress to do its job. Well, even if they say silence is an ambiguity. I mean, or this is almost ambiguous. It was such a strange D.C. circuit opinion. I thought this is a wide open door for every petty tyrant in the 2.8 million strong civilian federal employment workforce. And I know that there are a lot of good people trying to do good work. But there's a bell curve in everything. So last question, Paul Clement, how do we get notice and comment rule making back to what the APA godfathers thought it would be? A genuinely deliberative process where data mattered because I have seen it as a general counsel myself of the federal agency right through to when I laid down the lists and got out of the law, they don't care what you send in. They pretend to read it, they pretend to answer it, and then they do what they would have done 60, 90 days, whatever, and we see that all the time, depending on who's in charge of the agency. How do we fix that? Because it's a potemkin village. Notice and comment process. I agree, and I think that has to be fixed through rigorous enforcement of the APA and kind of meaningful review, but I really do think this case could be a step in the right direction. And just one last thought on this case is why it's so important. You know, I'm a realistic person. I've lived in Washington a long time now, and I always feel like, you know, there are things that the court can do, but one of the other protections we have against over regulation is just, you know, at some point, if an agency puts so many regulations on the books, they can't even pay enough people to enforce them. And that's why I find this case so important and so pernicious because if the executive branch can essentially fund its own monitors, doesn't need appropriations from Congress, it can just say, look, you know, you the regulated. You, the citizens, you have to pay essentially for additional government officials and agents to enforce our laws, then there's almost no practical limit. Well, that got my attention. I began to think about in the regulatory context. I'm familiar with, what if I have to pay for a monitor from the Army Corps of engineers to be on the site for every day of the site construction and I have to pay for my developer client has to pay for it. And they can't do that. Or if you're an osha regulated person in ocean says, you're going to have an ocean Specter there 24/7 and you're going to pay for it. That is an unlimited taxing authority. It can't be constitutional..
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"paul clement" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Nobody can complain. They aren't accountable to the electorate. And you I'll tell you what really attracted me to this case. You know, I've had other cases where I've tried to cut back on Chevron, but I've been arguing for, you know, on behalf of major oil companies, major chemical companies, but this case more than most really kind of puts it on the level of the individual citizen and it kind of puts Chevron in context to what it means to a small business person. That's why I love it. Anyone who saw the movie coda, they saw a federal monitor on a fishing boat, screwing up the fishing boat, and it's a small business that's barely making ends meet. And I found that in my life, big development, big landowners, can deal with the agencies because they can hire me and people like me at ridiculous amounts to deal with a 7 year entitlement. Little landowners get crushed by the EPA. The Chevron deference actually puts the largest burden on the smallest clients. That's absolutely right. That's absolutely right. And sophisticated clients know how to lobby agencies when they get with the agency. They're not ignored the way that 90% of the commentators here were, and so I do think that Chevron, you know, it seems like, I mean, just the name of the case, you know, you just think big companies, you know, being regulated by the federal government, hard to know who to root for. But in a case like this where, you know, you see these vessels are really, they are classic small businesses, they are being regulated some of them virtually out of existence by these burdens. And so this is just really important. I really hope the court will take it. As you know, if you get in the Supreme Court to take any one case about the hardest thing to do in Washington, but I do think that, you know, we have some great support from Amy, you know, Friends of the court, but they are urging the court to take this case. We have something like ten amico sprays in support of this. We have people like you writing columns highlighting the case. And I thank you for that. I mean, so I think we have a lot going for us, but I really hope the court will take this case. Well, let me raise the objection that came up in response to the column I wrote in The Washington Post. 1600 people got angry at me and put nasty comments down. They said, wow, well timed. The bench is clouds for lack of regulation and the train just around for lack of regulation. And I don't get mad at people. They don't understand. That's got nothing to do with regulatory fare. That's got a lot to do with regulatory capture. And I mean, do you think you're going to run into that argument from our Friends on the maybe center left side of the court, justice Kagan was solicitor general Kagan first? Is she going to say, oh my gosh, you're proposing an unregulated world, Paul Clement. I don't think so. I mean, look, I'm not saying that if this case gets up there, I will have every justice with me. But I think somebody like justice Kagan, who has seen the full scope, the way, you know, obviously had the same job as she did and when you have a job like that, you see all of the regulatory output of the federal government and you realize that all these regulations are not committed equal. There are some areas where the regulations work. There are other areas where as you say, the real problem is regulatory capture, not over regulation, but then there are some areas where it's just the regulatory agencies are unchecked. And of course, we talked about this already, but where would you expect to see that? Would you expect to see Citibank over regulated? No. You'd expect to see people like these small fishing vessels and their operations over regulated because they just don't have the forces to fight back. And again, going back to just like the genius of the framers, they expected small businesses to mostly be regulated by the states and local governments where a small business still might have a foothold in the community ability to get the ears of legislatures get sympathy from other people in the community who the legislatures had to be respectful for, but when you have the federal government directly regulating small businesses, it's just not a fair fight..
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
The Major Questions Doctrine
"Yeah, yeah. General Clement, when I read the D.C. circuit's opinion, which is a two one opinion. I read that after I read your petition for shirt before I wrote my Washington Post column, they seem to treat the Supreme Court new precedent on administrative law the way that the national marine fisheries service treated the comment. It was like a potemkin village notice and comment here. 90% of the notice and comment responses that don't do this, you'll kill us and the national marine fisheries service just dismissed them. Well, the D.C. circuit took a look at what the Supreme Court has been saying about administrative law and they said, we are fully aware of that, but this isn't that. And I said, oh my gosh, this is exactly that. I mean, isn't that your reaction? This is exactly what the major questions doctrine or other changes. Maybe they just need a two by four to get it right. Well, sometimes the court has to give an unmistakable message to the courts of appeals before they'll listen. You know, I had a case last term completely different area of the law. But for years and years and years, the Supreme Court had basically been saying, we've moved away from our lemon test in the establishment clause context. And last term, the court got frustrated with lower courts not getting the message and just made it unmistakably clear in the case involving coach Kennedy. And I think we may need something else in the administrative law area.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"paul clement" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Welcome back, America. I'm guilty here and thank you for joining me this morning. Now I'm about to talk about Chevron deference and my steeler fans friends think that means there's a line at the gas station like under Jimmy Carter. That's not what it is, but you need to understand Chevron deference and you and to understand why a new court filing in loper bright enterprises versus raimondo may finally lead to what we need in this country, which is a checking in of the administrative state. It's been filed by the former solicitor general of the United States. Paul Clement, who joins me now. General Clement, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt show. Great to talk to you. It's great to be with you. You know, I'm very happy to talk about that. You are a friend of Carol plant lebao and she'd been telling me for years. How can you not know Paul Clement? You know, ruxley, you know, Ted Olson, you knew chuck Cooper and, you know, ten stars. I just never run across and he's too young. So am I correct you've argued more than a hundred Supreme Court's arguments thus far? That's right here. I have argued more than a hundred cases, quite amazing to me. That is so fabulous. And I have personally recommended this man to people when they are looking for Supreme Court litigators because you don't want to send in the local council actually to target before the Supreme Court. This case of loper bright though, caught my eye, Paul Clement, because I teach con law and I try and explain Chevron deference and even law students eyes glaze over, but it can't be an issue for the administrative conference. It can't be an issue for administrative lawyers and professors. It matters to every small business in American carrying great burdens of regulation. Will you explain what Chevron deference is and then what loper bright is going to try and do I delight it to. So the thing about Chevron at least that makes me so kind of concerned about it is you and I have a lawsuit and we disagree about the meaning of a statute. The court is ultimately going to have to figure out which one of us is right. And there's no tie breaker. They have to do all the work and they have to get to a point where they just give their best impression as to what the statute means. But if instead of having a legal dispute with you, I have a legal dispute with a federal government agency, then instead of the courts having to get the statute just right. And figure out what's the best reading of the statute. They essentially get to look at it and unless the statute is clearly in my favor. Then basically the courts will defer to the government. And that's really never made any sense to me. I mean, in a system where we're trying to protect the liberty of the individuals, you would think that the rule is, if the statutes unclear, the tie ought to go to the citizen, not that the child would go to the government. But it was unfortunately the opposite. In 1983, and we're going to talk about the plaintiffs, especially, but I was going to say, in 1983 to 84, when I clerked on the D.C. circuit, it's before Chevron. And we had different tests. I mean, it was a mass, and no one quite knew what to do with it, but the Chevron deference came in after I stopped actually practicing other than as an administrative lawyer looking for permits. It's completely changed the way that the government operates. And I don't know that do you think the justices understand how absolutely indifferent agencies are to the average person approaching them for help? I think some of the justices do, I think that is really one of the things that the change in personnel on the court over the last couple of years has really made a big difference because I do think that justice Kavanaugh saw this firsthand on the D.C. circuit, even though justice Gorsuch was out in Denver, administrative law was a particular focus of his, so he understands these issues. He understands the stakes and I think they have an appreciation that Chevron doctrines problematic, both from the standpoint of the citizen facing the government in a particular case, but I think they also appreciate that it really kind of erodes the way the separation of powers is supposed to work in our system of government. Because it makes it frankly too easy for the executive branch to legislate and when you allow the executive branch to legislate, it makes it easier for Congress not to legislate. And to just sit on the sidelines and let the executive branch try to deal with some of the big issues in society. And, you know, it's hard enough to call your congressperson and get their attention. But try getting a hold of some regulator at the national marine fisheries service or the Environmental Protection Agency or fill in the blank. And you know, they're not responsive, and they're not responsive for a reason that I think the framers of our constitution would well understand. Why would they be responsive? They don't have to face the electorate. You know, the genius of the framers was they put most of the power and all of the power to legislate in the hands of people that were going to face the electorate. At least in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, they were going to be responsive to the states. So the idea that the people who would pass laws that would tell you when you should fish and when you can pay for some government monitor to be stuck on your boat, which starts to get into the facts of arcades, they assume that those restrictions on our liberty would only be imposed by people we could pretty immediately vote at an office..
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
The Merits of "chevron Deference"
"Welcome back, America. I'm guilty here and thank you for joining me this morning. Now I'm about to talk about Chevron deference and my steeler fans friends think that means there's a line at the gas station like under Jimmy Carter. That's not what it is, but you need to understand Chevron deference and you and to understand why a new court filing in loper bright enterprises versus raimondo may finally lead to what we need in this country, which is a checking in of the administrative state. It's been filed by the former solicitor general of the United States. Paul Clement, who joins me now. General Clement, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt show. Great to talk to you. It's great to be with you. You know, I'm very happy to talk about that. You are a friend of Carol plant lebao and she'd been telling me for years. How can you not know Paul Clement? You know, ruxley, you know, Ted Olson, you knew chuck Cooper and, you know, ten stars. I just never run across and he's too young. So am I correct you've argued more than a hundred Supreme Court's arguments thus far? That's right here. I have argued more than a hundred cases, quite amazing to me. That is so fabulous. And I have personally recommended this man to people when they are looking for Supreme Court litigators because you don't want to send in the local council actually to target before the Supreme Court. This case of loper bright though, caught my eye, Paul Clement, because I teach con law and I try and explain Chevron deference and even law students eyes glaze over, but it can't be an issue for the administrative conference. It can't be an issue for administrative lawyers and professors. It matters to every small business in American carrying great burdens of regulation. Will you explain what Chevron deference is and then what loper bright is going to try and do I delight it to. So the thing about Chevron at least that makes me so kind of concerned about it is you and I have a lawsuit and we disagree about the meaning of a statute. The court is ultimately going to have to figure out which one of us is right. And there's no tie breaker. They have to do all the work and they have to get to a point where they just give their best impression as to what the statute means. But if instead of having a legal dispute with you, I have a legal dispute with a federal government agency, then instead of the courts having to get the statute just right. And figure out what's the best reading of the statute. They essentially get to look at it and unless the statute is clearly in my favor. Then basically the courts will defer to the government.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
Who Would Make a Great Supreme Court Advocate?
"Just because you've watched so many Supreme Court arguments, you know, so many of the justices, you know, so many of the legal people. If you had to recommend a Supreme Court advocate today, someone called you up and their company is on the line, they have to argue before the Supreme Court, who would it be? I guess it would probably be Paul Clement. You and I said the same thing. I got asked that question a couple of years ago. And I've never met Paul Clement or spoken to him, but I hit Paul Clement. Tell people why. Well, because he's just if he weren't such a nice and intelligent and good guy, I would say that he was an idiot savant of an advocate. I mean by that, I don't mean that he's an idiot. I mean that even when he was a baby advocate, he came to the Justice Department with John ashcroft for whom he had worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I think. And he was in his young 30s and Ted Olson was the solicitor general and had just won Bush versus gore for president Bush by then president Bush and ashcroft, I think, actually wanted Paul to be solicitor general and the compromise was that he would be deputy, which he was for four years, and then he became solicitor general on his own. But as Ted also would say, Paul is just an amazing advocate. And he is not a, you know, when he worked for the government, he represented the government. When he worked for the Catholic Church, he represents the Catholic Church. Do I think that is closer to an approximation of his views? Yes, I do. But he was a just a bang up advocate for the government. And so was Ted Olson. They both represented they both defended the McCain feingold law. And one in the Supreme Court, and it fell apart years later, and they represent different interests now that they're in private practice, but that didn't stop them from being the best advocates possible for their client at the time and their client at the time was the United States government. You just named two of the four of the greatest Supreme Court advocates of my generation, the other two being the now chief justice John Roberts, and the fourth being an it'll come to me. I just forgot his name. And there are four. And they were always, I get calls, and when the chief justice was in private practice at Hogan, I would say go get him. And now when I get calls, I say go get Paul Clement because Ken Starr judge Starr is no longer practicing. They work great Supreme Court advocates because they just are at ease and I bring that up because of your Walter dellinger story on page one 30 and God bless the late Walter dellinger, who is a great man in the law, with whom I disagreed often. But he mixed up the names of justices, O'Connor and Ginsburg in his first argument. That's over practicing. Nina, that's don't you think that's what it was. He was overprepared he had thought about it so much. I'm not going to mix them up. I'm not going to mix them up. I'm not going to mix them up, and he mixed them up, and they were not happy. I don't even know if it was that. First his first argument, it just was maybe the first time he faced the two of them on the court. You're right. You're right. And he said, I mean, I've done this. I've said North Carolina when my script says South Carolina, I don't know what happens. In a less than ladylike expression, it's a brain fart. Yeah. Happens to me like on a daily basis. Nina totenberg. I mean, on a daily basis, three hours of radio you're going to do it, your buddy Steve never makes a mistake inscape. And I really hate that. But I make mistakes every day. Let me go on now to what the essence of dinners with Ruth is. And I remind you of the Frank luntz role, we've got to say the title of dinners with rouge 7 times for people to remember dinners with Ruth and order dinners with Ruth. And I want to tell my Friends on the center right in the right, this book will charm you and inform you and you'll be better for having read it. I said that most recently about Evan Thomas's one, Evan is a friend, one is about justice O'Connor and as dinners with Ruth does for justice Ginsburg one did for justice O'Connor and together they do what is only very infrequently done they give you a glimpse of the real world of the Supreme Court. And you know what? So much better than I do. I know some of the justices, but not as friends. I mean, colleague, John Roberts, an old colleague, chief just a justice Thomas and Stephen Breyer sat for interviews. And justice Gorsuch had been spent time with, but I don't know them like you know them. And you are a great storyteller. And you humanize them, but especially judge justice Ginsburg. Did you intend that when you began?
ESPN FC
"paul clement" Discussed on ESPN FC
"Said to you? Anything swing to do so. But I will do one. Well, I can do, I did in a premiership, I think that people don't remember me for a lot of things, but I think they do remember me kissing Tim flowers. Yes. It was a great photo. And that was me and Tim flowers. Before a corner kick, we were knocking like strikers do on a keepers. And I said to him, if you knocked me down and if you try to knock me again, I will kiss you on your mouth. And he said to me, oh, you want there to do that? And then he knocked me on them. Here we go. A great photo was all in the game magazines in the UK on the front pages. Which I'm very proud of. Fantastic photo. It kissing tin flowers. I mean, punch by Roy Keane. I feel they're the two main things that you contributed during your Premier League campaigns. And one of the highlights. Have you not seen the picture? No. Yes. Why? Because he was winding him up and he said, if you just told the story. I had this kind of vigil in my head and I'm trying to figure out why you would do that. Because they said it wasn't. If you pushed me down again, I'm going to kiss you on the lips and he pushed him and he saw he kissed him. One of the highlights when I see you, Steve, I will give you a kiss, but one of the highlights of the season is what I wasn't knocking him. And I was doing the Liverpool, the FA Cup game there. And I was waiting for Steve Cooper to come into get my interview, so that Roy Keane came and he came straight over and said, yeah and I didn't even touch you when I tried to. So that was a great comment for me. That's brilliant. That's very good. NATO. You know, I've got to say furnace, that Clint Dempsey thing. I think I was biker and I were both at city at the same time when that happened. And he couldn't carry himself like that. If you didn't bombard him, he would kind of say, hey, you don't know me. You don't know me, but I'm like, yeah, but we're on a football field. Nothing's really gonna happen. But it turns the funny things have been said to me. I think the biggest one was probably when I had my fingers ever heard of it when he was a galaxy and I was a rail Salt Lake. And he scored the winner and all this stuff on the fields of frustrated and then to be in the dressing room and see his big 6 foot four self walk in. And then asked me, have I calmed down yet? I don't even know you. What's going on? It was the weirdest moment probably ever had in football as an opposition players in the dressing room, trying to humiliate me in front of all my teammates after we've just lost. So I probably have to say that one. But you want to chain in one day. We're doing this drill. So we've got a few other boys to do it and claims one of them. And Paul was standing on the corner. He was going to end up on. Okay. So we were doing this drill, right? And then we broke everybody out right. Going to your groups and everybody do the drill. And as he's leaving the corner, he turns to Paul Clement and he goes, he goes, hey, very much. I came here to learn and I will teach you. His speech was really, have you seen his speech for the nuts? Really, really nice speech. You had a chance to have a look at that. Thank you to his parents, very emotional. Jan, predictions for the biggest flop of the World Cup in negative. Oh, that's a hard one because what is a flop, but it's like saying Messi will never win a World Cup, but I don't dare to say that because then I will have all that social media and messy thing, so I can't do that. I can probably not saying that I don't think Brazil will do well. I can't say that either. So there I have two candidates for that position. The biggest flop so far is Italy. Now going there. But I'm not sure about this Brazilian team. I will have to put them on a slowly soft candidate list of maybe being a flop and for me flop will be then going to the knockout stages and be knocked out. Wow, he answers. Yeah..
Opening Arguments
"paul clement" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"And that would have been fine. That's the cool thing about prayers because it's an imaginary thing you're doing in your head. You can do it, I could do it right now. And during the show, you wouldn't even know it. Well, Andrew, I mean, you brought out really a third issue there, right? Because the two interests that you staked out previously are the right of students to be free from coercion. And the right of students administrators to sort of maintain order and not get trampled in all of that. But I think you just articulated a really, really strong point. It's something that shows up in the 9th circuit opinion, and that is the right of the school district to disassociate itself from the activities of one of the members of its staff. And to say, hey, look, we're way more inclusive than this. We don't endorse it. And again, it's why I love Thomas hypothetical. It is super easy to understand. This case would go nowhere if it were Muslim prayer rugs were being dragged out at the 50 yard line. And the school district said, hey, we want to indicate that this is not a madrasa. We are not a Muslim. We love Muslim. We know we have nothing against them, but we want to disassociate ourselves if we want to show as is required by lemon versus kurtzman that we are not endorsing Islam. We're neutral towards Islam, which is what we have understood since time immemorial to be the job requirement of us acting as a school as a school district. Public school. It's right there in the name. And so two questions on that. Number one, we can talk about how lemon was treated during oral argument, which was not good. Number one, is that still a cognizable interest in Supreme Court law anymore to be able to say as a public institution, we want to maintain neutrality public neutrality not endorse neither favor nor inhibit religion. And number two, if so, how could the school district do that in this case? I mean, it's a really great question. Do you want to play the clip about slicing lemon right here? I would love to play a clip about slicing lemon. It's a stubborn fruit, and I don't think just pushing a pencil through it has done the trick. I mean, you really have to slice it in half. And make an individual opinion. In the case of oh, that was quick. Yeah. I need to go two seconds. It's a short one. So that's Paul Clement, the coach's lawyer talking with justice Kavanaugh about the Levin test, which is what Andrew was just talking about. The lemon test is just is so wrongly maligned. And thank you. I thought you said it was dead after the last time we had you on here though. Isn't lemon dead? It was certainly put on a shelf. Hey everybody, I'm doing the ads, and so you know what that means. It's time for another amazing moin promo. And time for me to get my next point box. So you should know the deal by now, moin delivers grass fed, grass finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, sustainable wild caught, Alaskan salmon, all of.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"paul clement" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"To have changed to well The reason we had to tell coach Kennedy to stop this is that he was coercing his players into participating in a prayer and the constitution obviously doesn't permit government officials to coerce anybody to participate in religious activities So I think part of the oral arguments was the justices trying to sort out what exactly the district's position is And then to evaluate the competing arguments Was this about the coach offering silent prayer on the field after the games or was it about the coach offering a prayer surrounded by players After the game It's a great question And the answer is it's not entirely clear and the justices spent a lot of the time at the oral argument trying to dig into the facts So what appears to be the case is that over time the coaches prayer and the kind of surrounding context for the prayer changed and also the policy in the districts stance changed The lawyer for the coach Paul Clement who is a pretty prominent Supreme Court advocate was urging to the justices to focus on the order that was given to the coach that that's what's relevant here And the order said that he wasn't permitted to engage in public religious expression if it was viewable by students as in a sense what the lawyer for coach Kennedy is suggesting is the justices need to focus on that order and not on what might have happened later as sort of media attention grew and as some people from the stands or other players from other teams started joining and so on The lawyer for the school district wanted to suggest to the justices that they should consider not just the order that was given to the coach but they should consider all of the reactions that these third parties had to the controversy as it developed It's a common problem in some of these cases involving religious expression and religious symbols is that the facts are fluid and they kind of evolve and it will be interesting to see how the justices pin down what it is they're actually evaluating But as I saw it and I think a majority of the justices saw it as well it appeared that the district again had shifted its position from what it originally relied on when it disciplined coach Kelly to what it's arguing now in the court Didn't the coach also change his position His lawyer said that all that was at issue as you said in the case now was whether his client could offer a brief silent and solitary prayer of thanks after his team's games The school board had been letting him do that For a while but then it became this coach surrounded by players and then media controversy coach surrounded by players and TV cameras Yeah I think that's not quite right I mean so it is true that there was some back and forth before coach Kennedy was disciplined between the district and the school on the one hand and the coach on the other But I think for legal purposes this is an employment discrimination case and what coach Kennedy is challenging is the fact that there was an order given to him that he not pray in view of his students and that that order could be violated it caused his adverse employment action Now that order if you think about it is incredibly broad It would suggest that miss came up at oral argument in the lunchroom high school teacher about her head and made the sign of the cross instead of grace or one of the examples that came up with a teacher came to school with ashes on ash Wednesday that that would all be in violation of the order And so if the court is focusing just on the order that was given to Kennedy and the adverse employment action that followed I think a lot of this other atmospherics is kind of not relevant but it will be interesting to see which facts the justices treat as relevant and which ones they treat as sort of sideline Coming up next on the Bloomberg long show I'll continue this conversation with professor Richard Garnett of Notre-Dame law school We'll talk about the different ways that justices could rule here I'm Joan Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg The market news you.
WTOP
"paul clement" Discussed on WTOP
"Red tape so that weapons can rapidly get into the hands of Ukrainian soldiers On capital hill Mitchell Miller WTO The Supreme Court tackled a dispute this week between public school officials and a former high school football coach who for years would kneel at the 50 yard line and lead students in prayer The school district asked Joseph Kennedy to stop the practice out of concerns that some students may feel coerced to join This morning we turned to Politico senior legal affairs reporter Josh gerstein has covered The justices definitely were very intrigued by this case the arguments ran almost twice as long as the one hour that the justices had set aside for this case And they spooled out all kinds of hypotheticals involving teachers who wanted to pray in the classroom including whether if a coach went out on the field wearing a swastika after the game would the school district be permitted to regulate that At the end of these arguments I think the main question out there was not whether the coach here who was fired is likely to prevail at the Supreme Court because I think he is Really whether the justices think this very fact intensive case that's been pending now for 7 years there was a history of him doing this at games and then of the school system objecting to it is this a good one to sort of generalize to make some rules for public school systems across the country or is it one where it's just such an idiosyncratic case that maybe it should be resolved on its own terms and other cases left to make more general rules Is there a concern then that this might overturn 1962 precedent that remove prayer from public schools I don't think you're going to see it overturn that kind of a precedent completely I didn't hear anything even from the conservative justices that they wanted to do that That wasn't my takeaway It was more a question of how to balance this coach's religious freedom rights There were notations by the arguing lawyer here on behalf of the coach Paul Clement He noted that many professional athletes and college athletes after they score a touchdown for example they will either kneel or cross themselves or both That draws a lot of attention but nobody I think sees it as coercing other members of the team towards prayer but obviously a coach is a somewhat different situation And the way this played out in Washington state you ended up having parents complaining that they felt their sons up laying time on this team might be affected by whether he decided to join in this prayer and some of them weren't interested in having their children join in the prayer and it became quite a controversy In fact at one point ending up with pushing and shoving and people running out on the field in some players or students getting knocked over So that's really the question about whether that scenario is one that the court feels it would be a good vehicle to set rules for schools across the country How do you see this playing out I think it's likely that the coach here will get a ruling in his favor It may be that the case is sent back to lower courts to look at some of the safety concerns and other issues that the school district might have raised But there's no question that a number of the conservative justices would like to see the court alter the way it approaches many types of religious freedom cases That's Josh.
WTOP
"paul clement" Discussed on WTOP
"Of firearms long guns Conti says Spencer could see police through a camera set up in the hallway of the apartment building and that he used an appliance to slow down officers as they rammed down his door Inside of his bathroom where he ultimately ended his life he had like a little command center For now they can't say that the Edmund Burke school was the target the school was certainly in his line of sight I mean we want to be definitive about why he did what he did In northwest D.C. John dome in WTO P news 8 34 a New York State judge finds former president Trump is in contempt of court for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents related to his business dealings Now he and the Trump organization face a fine of $10,000 a day Legal analyst Lori Levinson was CBS News says the judge is sending the former president a message It judges remarks that quote he knows mister Trump takes his business seriously but the court also takes its business seriously is sending the message that Donald Trump even as a former president of the United States is not above the law A little while ago earlier this hour we spoke with ABC News political director Rick Klein he tells us Trump's latest legal troubles would not prevent him from running for office again One would assume that that sort of legal distraction would keep you from running but there's nothing in the constitution that says that your guard from running just by means of a criminal probe Unless there's a specific act of Congress or an outgrowth frankly of an impeachment conviction you'd be free to run again The question of course is will he run Would he run if he has all of this hanging over ABC News political director Rick Klein on Skype The Supreme Court is deliberating whether there's a place for prayer in public schools Justices today heard arguments from public school leaders and the former high school football coach in Washington state who for years led students in prayer on the field after games The school district asked Joseph Kennedy to stop saying some students may feel coerced to join He eventually was let go from his job Politico's Josh gerstein tells WTO Pete tonight the Supreme Court is not likely to overturn a 1962 precedent that removed prayer from public schools It was more a question of how to balance this coach's religious freedom rights the arguing lawyer here on behalf of the coach Paul Clement He noted that many professional athletes and college athletes after they score a touchdown they will either kneel or cross themselves or both that draws a lot of attention but nobody I think sees it as coercing other members of the team Thirsting says parents felt their kids playing time was affected by whether they participated in prayer Coming up on WTO after traffic and weather a controversial pandemic era public health policy stays in place for now and it's also supercharged because it involves the southern border We'll have the latest on that and the fact that you may soon get an easy treatment for COVID at the drugstore much easier than maybe you could find it right now It's all ahead for you tonight on WTO After our full forecast a 36.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"paul clement" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"That a sovereign independent Ukraine will be around a lot longer than Vladimir Putin's on the scene And to point to the future Much of the work that we're doing is enabling them to strengthen their hand both on the battlefield right now but also eventually at a negotiation if there is one And president of volodymyr zelensky He says this includes preparations for a major ministerial meeting in Germany tomorrow which will bring together ministers from 40 countries But Ukraine's prime minister halya yuchengco says waiting is not a good option The humanitarian crisis The crisis would refuge will only continue and will grow bigger And says Ukraine needs heavy weapons and jets to drive Russia out Judges rule Donald Trump in contempt of court for failing to turn over records in the New York attorney general's probe $10,000 a day until the information is turned over Very interesting argument before the Supreme Court of the United States who could help shape the separation of church and state arguments in the future it involves a Washington state high school football coach who was told he could not pray in the middle of the field after the conclusion of one of the games his attorney is Paul Clement When coach Kennedy took a knee at midfield after games to say a brief prayer of thanks His expression was entirely his own That private religious expression was doubly protected by the free exercise and free speech clauses But justice Sonia Sotomayor had questions He had a duty to make sure that he escorted all the players off the field He had a duty to make sure the other team got off the field He had a duty to do a postgame wrap up both with the players and the coach He had a duty to clean up A number of constitutional issues here including separation freedom of speech and religion In San Francisco I met Baxter This is Bloomberg Brian Interesting one Yeah thanks very much He had 38 minutes past the hour Now time for world sport Let's get to Dan Schwartzman so Dan is a Liverpool star on his way to joining Barcelona It's a possibility Brian the mirror in England reports that now that barsa has gotten a.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"paul clement" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Suggested it was a compromise that suggested that states do have regulatory authority over things like bans on felons possessing firearms or restricting guns from sensitive places But the justices seem very interested in history and tradition and Paul Clement arguing on behalf of the challengers to New York's law said be really don't need to look at history past 1871 Well if we don't look at history past 1871 after the adoption and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment well then bans on felons possessing firearms can not be constitutionally permissible Bans on people with mental illness from having firearms can not be constitutionally permissible We might even note that sensitive places which it did seem like a majority of justices were willing to say states could keep guns out of also have no historical precedent pre 1871 So I think this case is going to put the conservative justices who believe in history and tradition in an awkward place trying to say that only history matters but yet much more modern forms of regulation seem very mainstream and unlikely to be struck out Public approval of the court is at an all time low and a majority of Americans favor gun control laws So how far do you think the justices are willing to go here Stepping out of line with the mainstream of the country Well I do not think the justices especially the conservative justices are really interested in what public opinion polls say And I don't think they're going to be guided in their constitutional analysis at all by public opinion At least in any direct and straightforward way And so I think if the Supreme Court has a low approval rating now well just wait until they require guns on the streets of New York and California Just wait until they overturn or severely cut back row versus wade as they seem almost certain to do this term And maybe even take on and declare unconstitutional race based affirmative action I think we'll see the court's approval rating plummet even further So I don't think we've found the depth of the Supreme Court's approval ratings quite yet In a ruling against New York would have consequences for at least a half dozen other states Would that mean that they would have to rethink their laws I do think that's exactly what it's going to mean I think places like New York are going to have to think of new ways to restrict gun caring or to protect public safety on the public streets And it's not just New York It's also California and Hawaii Massachusetts a number of other states and I think that there's going to be a variety of gun laws that they're going to have to reconsider in the wake of the new invigorated Second Amendment on behalf of the Roberts court And I think that's why this case is really so important It's not just about New York's concealed carry laws It's a signal that the court is prepared to step back into the Second Amendment to strengthen Second Amendment protections and call into question gun safety laws I think we can expect to see the court take on bans on assault weapons and bans on high capacity magazines before too long And Adam should gun control groups change their approach in light of the Supreme Court Look the gun safety movement has arguably never been stronger than it is right now But it has put perhaps too much weight into proposals like banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines that are likely to run afoul of this Supreme Court So I think that the gun safety movement should stop trying to regulate the types of guns that we have And instead focus on things like community intervention programs that have a proven track record of reducing gun violence of unshackling the ATF that's been hobbled by artificial restraints that have been imposed by the NRA and its allies in Congress And of course we need better and universal background checks I think we can continue to try to reduce gun violence despite the fact that the court is going to make it hard to regulate particular types of weapons Thanks Adam That's professor Adam Winkler of UCLA law school Michael Bloomberg the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP the parent of Bloomberg radio is a donor to groups that support gun control including every town for gun safety which filed a brief at the Supreme Court.
ESPN FC
"paul clement" Discussed on ESPN FC
"Please? Oh yeah. And Lampard is rolling up his sleeves, kind of adjusting his shirt. There's a little bit of smoldering stairs. And I'm watching it and I completely forget that I'm watching an announcement video for a manager and all I could think of was like, this was an advert for a perfume. You know where there's a guy in a swimming pool, and it's a moonlit swimming pool. That kind of one. You know, some kind of like, yeah, and I expected this voice. Relegation. Poor home by Lampard. Available now at Bloomingdale's. Vision. The new fragrance by Frank Lampard. You know, that kind of thing. It was very, very odd given at the hard sell. Lampard has brought in Paul Clement, former assistant to Carlo Ancelotti. He's kept on Duncan Ferguson because Ferguson told him you're not allowed to live there. You're not allowed to fire me. I'm in a headline. And you, I have my son. You fire me. I don't send you back to London in a box. That's what happened there. And he kept Alan Kelly the goalkeeping coach. So I just hope that Everton aren't getting when we talk to Greg O'Keefe, he talked a little about machur listening to agents. If you look at some of what Everton have done here, Lampard, van der beek, Delhi, these are like flashy name and lights type acquisitions. Right. Does that necessarily mean that they're the right move forever to make? Time will tell lamp part I would say I have no idea van der beek I already said, I like that sonic. Dele Alli, I have no idea. We'll talk more about that. What about was there a center half they could assign maybe? Maybe another central midfielder to help or maybe they have too many midfielders or central midfielders at this point. But maybe you're right back left back. No, they just let Lucas dean go. To Aston Villa. So some help for Sheamus Coleman although I think he's out of the frame now anyway. So I don't know. We'll see. Everton, I'll say this about them right now. They're not always good, certainly, but they're never boring. Like, they're interesting to me. The decision making one of the most interesting clubs. I'm fascinated by them. And I will be watching this with a big bag of popcorn. And I'm not like those. It's not because I'm a Liverpool fan. I've no interest in the mean relegated. None whatsoever. No, no. I just have an interest in this story. Yes. It's interesting. What's going on there? The whole experiment. We have to get off every ten, but we're not getting off Everton without you talking about dele Alli. Can we do that? You have to. Well, I have categories, JJ. Do you want to stick the categories? You want me to get to Delhi right now? Will you tell me? You actually, you do what you think you're right. Stick to what you've written. Other moves that I like during this window. Quickly on this one. I don't have a ton to say about it, but it kind of flew under the radar a little bit. Julian Alvarez to Manchester City. Yeah. This is kind of the definition of smart business. Like Manchester City, a lot of what they do is smart business. I don't want to say that. But they spend they spend a lot of money, but this is kind of like they identified a guy for the future who had a very low buyout clause who has become one of the best, if not the best young player in South America. Yes. They don't need him right away. He's been loaned back to River Plate where he can continue to get minutes there. If your Manchester City, it's kind of like a smart insurance policy. Like, we don't need this guy right now. Our number one target for that position for a striker position is going to be early in Holland. There's going to be a lot of competition for him. If we don't get him, then this guy will hopefully develop and can be the error apparent to Sergio Agüero and this train keeps on moving, and we wound up doing it for probably a tenth of the price of whatever. Holland is going to wind up going for. Just it felt like it felt like a kind of wily move by them. Bill Halsey writes a piece for defector about this transfer. And it's very, very good. And but he makes a point, he doesn't like this lawn. He says the prone back to river play? Yes. Okay. He says he doesn't like because the problem is that Alvarez already deserves a shot to get that playing time at a major European club right now. What's more cities disinterest in bringing him in this window and reports that the signing will not impede their plans to go after a big name striker next summer, erling haland, give the clear impression that the club sees Alvarez more as a roster filler than a foundational piece to build on. That is problematic because, but I don't know that we know the stock well, no, but it feels like that. And that is the stockpiling of talent that goes on. And wouldn't it be better to see him at another club somewhere showing but that's not cities problem? That's a Julian Alvarez problem. It's a football problem. What are you talking about for Manchester City? No, I'm not. I'm not staging off cities decision to do it. What I'm saying is, you know, I'd like to see this guy, no, wouldn't you? I'd like to see him at somewhere else where isn't football about playing football for Paul Andrew and seeing hence him being loaned back to River Plate because he's probably not breaking into that city squad right now. They're doing all right. So I'm generally good with them. Agreed to disagree on this one. Fair enough. JJ, another move I like Louis Diaz to Liverpool. Didn't see a comment to be honest with you. I think it's a really good move. For those people, I think, where does he fit in? How does this work? Who loses out? That last part. That's interesting. Well, it is interesting..
Caught Offside
"paul clement" Discussed on Caught Offside
"Please? Oh yeah. And Lampard is rolling up his sleeves, kind of adjusting his shirt. There's a little bit of smoldering stairs. And I'm watching it and I completely forget that I'm watching an announcement video for a manager and all I could think of was like, this was an advert for a perfume. You know where there's a guy in a swimming pool, and it's a moonlit swimming pool. That kind of one. You know, some kind of like, yeah, and I expected this voice. Relegation. Poor home by Lampard. Available now at Bloomingdale's. Vision. The new fragrance by Frank Lampard. You know, that kind of thing. It was very, very odd given at the hard sell. Lampard has brought in Paul Clement, former assistant to Carlo Ancelotti. He's kept on Duncan Ferguson because Ferguson told him you're not allowed to live there. You're not allowed to fire me. I'm in a headline. And you, I have my son. You fire me. I don't send you back to London in a box. That's what happened there. And he kept Alan Kelly the goalkeeping coach. So I just hope that Everton aren't getting when we talk to Greg O'Keefe, he talked a little about machur listening to agents. If you look at some of what Everton have done here, Lampard, van der beek, Delhi, these are like flashy name and lights type acquisitions. Right. Does that necessarily mean that they're the right move forever to make? Time will tell lamp part I would say I have no idea van der beek I already said, I like that sonic. Dele Alli, I have no idea. We'll talk more about that. What about was there a center half they could assign maybe? Maybe another central midfielder to help or maybe they have too many midfielders or central midfielders at this point. But maybe you're right back left back. No, they just let Lucas dean go. To Aston Villa. So some help for Sheamus Coleman although I think he's out of the frame now anyway. So I don't know. We'll see. Everton, I'll say this about them right now. They're not always good, certainly, but they're never boring. Like, they're interesting to me. The decision making one of the most interesting clubs. I'm fascinated by them. And I will be watching this with a big bag of popcorn. And I'm not like those. It's not because I'm a Liverpool fan. I've no interest in the mean relegated. None whatsoever. No, no. I just have an interest in this story. Yes. It's interesting. What's going on there? The whole experiment. We have to get off every ten, but we're not getting off Everton without you talking about dele Alli. Can we do that? You have to. Well, I have categories, JJ. Do you want to stick the categories? You want me to get to Delhi right now? Will you tell me? You actually, you do what you think you're right. Stick to what you've written. Other moves that I like during this window. Quickly on this one. I don't have a ton to say about it, but it kind of flew under the radar a little bit. Julian Alvarez to Manchester City. Yeah. This is kind of the definition of smart business. Like Manchester City, a lot of what they do is smart business. I don't want to say that. But they spend they spend a lot of money, but this is kind of like they identified a guy for the future who had a very low buyout clause who has become one of the best, if not the best young player in South America. Yes. They don't need him right away. He's been loaned back to River Plate where he can continue to get minutes there. If your Manchester City, it's kind of like a smart insurance policy. Like, we don't need this guy right now. Our number one target for that position for a striker position is going to be early in Holland. There's going to be a lot of competition for him. If we don't get him, then this guy will hopefully develop and can be the error apparent to Sergio Agüero and this train keeps on moving, and we wound up doing it for probably a tenth of the price of whatever. Holland is going to wind up going for. Just it felt like it felt like a kind of wily move by them. Bill Halsey writes a piece for defector about this transfer. And it's very, very good. And but he makes a point, he doesn't like this lawn. He says the prone back to river play? Yes. Okay. He says he doesn't like because the problem is that Alvarez already deserves a shot to get that playing time at a major European club right now. What's more cities disinterest in bringing him in this window and reports that the signing will not impede their plans to go after a big name striker next summer, erling haland, give the clear impression that the club sees Alvarez more as a roster filler than a foundational piece to build on. That is problematic because, but I don't know that we know the stock well, no, but it feels like that. And that is the stockpiling of talent that goes on. And wouldn't it be better to see him at another club somewhere showing but that's not cities problem? That's a Julian Alvarez problem. It's a football problem. What are you talking about for Manchester City? No, I'm not. I'm not staging off cities decision to do it. What I'm saying is, you know, I'd like to see this guy, no, wouldn't you? I'd like to see him at somewhere else where isn't football about playing football for Paul Andrew and seeing hence him being loaned back to River Plate because he's probably not breaking into that city squad right now. They're doing all right. So I'm generally good with them. Agreed to disagree on this one. Fair enough. JJ, another move I like Louis Diaz to Liverpool. Didn't see a comment to be honest with you. I think it's a really good move. For those people, I think, where does he fit in? How does this work? Who loses out? That last part. That's interesting. Well, it is interesting..
Gun Talk
"paul clement" Discussed on Gun Talk
"Standing guard over all that is and was and forever will be. This is the black hills of South Dakota. The place that made the people who make the best ammo on earth visit black hyphen hills dot com for more information. I want to spend a little bit more time on this because this is a very important case. This case is at least as important as the Heller decision, I think the case that was argued before the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday of this week we're talking with Don Kilmer law professor litigant knows this stuff. One of the things that hit me as I was listening to this was chief justice Robert to has been somewhere between iffy and maybe not even strong on the Second Amendment, he was going at Underwood on some of this stuff. And he was sounding like a Second Amendment guy. That one's surprised me. Yeah, when you talk about trying to make a prediction of how this is going to turn out the prediction becomes stronger that this will favor Paul Clement's client is the fact that just as Roberts was a so engaged and B seemed to be implying that the New York has this wrong. He's not necessarily necessarily ready to say, well, every state should have shallow as you like Idaho, buddy. I think he's ready to say something like New York's doing it wrong. And in New York over the basics to get your permit there, you carry permit. You have to show that you have proper cause, which is almost never agreed upon by the bureaucrat who checks you out. And I did appreciate the fact that finally we have arguments before the Supreme Court where they're saying, you would never do this for the First Amendment. It would be anathema to say you have to go to a bureaucrat and say may I please have my First Amendment rights. And they're saying, no, I'm sorry, you're just not worthy. You don't really have a good need for them. But yet they're doing it for the Sacramento. To see them actually argue the two of those together, I was like cheering them all in the whole way. Yeah, and it's appropriate to cheer, but keep in mind here. And here's the intellectual ammunition for your audience. The other side is always going to want to come back with yes, but the First Amendment is regulated to or is limited to. And they'll point to things like parade pyramids or time place and manner restrictions so that if you want to have hold a rally in a park or something like that, you have to get the permit for the day or you want to hold a parade. You have to get a parade from it. But they miss the fundamental distinction. But the government in those regulations is not saying you can't exercise at the right. The government is saying for you to exercise the right, we have to do something. We might have to have extra security. We don't have to close some roads for a few hours. Or merchants at the streets going to be closed where you're going to have your parade. It's not that you can't have the parade. It's that it's that we have to plan it because you're going to be using city resources for it or something like that. And what they're going to try to do is analogize that in the second I know. Well, you're using city streets and therefore we get to regulate the right. Well, that's where the permit comes in. The government gets to step in and say, are you a felon? Are you a violent person, okay? Do you have a history of mental illness? Because we need to know that before you get to exercise the right. It's not a opportunity for the government to deny the exercise of the right. It's an opportunity for the government to make sure that the right does not impact the rights of other people. Okay. As you read the transcript, you listen to the oral arguments, do you come away with a general sense or a feeling after all of this? I come away out very optimistically that the court is going to say that New York is doing this wrong. Now the specific remedy could be simply. Strike down the New York law and tell them they need to do it better. The court could remand it and say, they need to be finding the fact in the trial court. There needs to be instructions issued on how this look that maybe a trial on whether the law can be implemented, constitutionally and give New York a chance to justify, could they enact regulations that would fix the statute? But I have a sneaking suspicion in the U.S. Supreme Court is simply going to say this law is unconstitutional in the way that it allows absolute discretion to local government officials to say whether somebody can action exercise a fundamental right or not. This is not a regulation of a right in a public space. This is a cancellation of a right or the conversion of a right to a privilege to a privilege or something. And one of the things that when people listen to this read it, there are a few things there that if you're paying attention, you're going to get a chuckle or two or maybe it's that whole head shaking deal when justice breyers says, you mean anybody could have a gun just could carry a gun just for fun? I'm thinking, what? What Yeah. Some of this has to do though Tom with people who and one of my other favorite.
This Land
"paul clement" Discussed on This Land
"Casinos aren't the only corporations that would make more money if tribal sovereignty went away any of the other kind of areas of any law. That you're talking about that are big nationwide issues. Land use water rights gaming those. There's big big money involved in that when nemo says big money. She means half of all gaming revenue in the united states and tribal land tribes have jurisdiction of about two percent of all land in the united states but that land holds about a third of all fossil fuel resources in the country like coal natural gas and oil worth around one point five trillion dollars. When you're not associated with a tribe in that industry you often are as tribal interest. Matthew mcgill the lawyer representing the bread. Qian's in that big federal lawsuit has used the same arguments in casino cases that he's now using an equity cases specifically that states rates argument. We talked about earlier in the season. He's used it to stop tribal casino from opening in arizona and gibson dunne were matthew mcgill. Works represents two of the top three casino and gaming companies. In the world gibson dunne also specializes in the other industry that comes up against tribes. Allot oil you've probably heard about the fight over the dakota access pipeline because the resistance camp at standing rock made national headlines gibson dunne represented the pipeline company. What happened at standing rock worried. That whale industry one study. Estimated indigenous resistance cost the dakota access pipeline seven point five billion dollars it also inspired movements against other pipelines industry leaders including lobbying groups that represent gibson dunne clients have talked openly about why these indigenous led protests need to be stopped seven months after the resistance. Camp in north dakota was shut down gibson. Dunne filed the bracken's case in federal court matthew. Miguel that lawyer at gibson dunn is currently working on three challenges to equa that we know of and one of those cases shocked me. It's a case in missouri. That i'm not supposed to know about because it's still in family court working alongside mcgill. Is paul clement. Paul clement showing up in family court is like the head of cardiology at harvard. Popping up to take your blood pressure. It's extraordinary and here's the thing about these lawsuits. It only takes one case to topple equa and all the dominoes that come after and because the people mounting challenges to have so much money they can bring as many cases as it takes the day after tallying. I've got that call from the interior talent for a walk. She needed to clear her head. She was headed down the main street in town when she saw her cousin playing outside with her kids she stops us and we just start talking about everything that was happening. We just started like brainstorming and just kind of like feeling and feeling what that meant what that felt like to have land underneath you and then kind of ticket have it taken away within the matter of seconds seemed what made the whole thing. Harder was cove ed in normal times. They would have all gotten together but they couldn't do that now. And so we thought like what can we do and so we thought of the spirit fire protests and We initiated it and said you know ask. Supporters asked the public to to light a fire or any sort of fire flame. You know candle fire outside anything the day before. The court date was just to support the decision. Makers that they'll see the truth in what's right in which moral in you know like what is meant to be. The mashpee want took the department of the interior. Back to court and it was just astounding. The amount of support that we received in a lot of people kept their fires going until we received our decision was it was just amazing. Honestly if you ask me. I think it works. I think our spiritual ceremony in our protests in that way helps in actually one of the main reasons why we were able to get such a quick response in such a positive one when we were getting negative ones after negative after negative in the in the lower courts a federal court ordered the department of the interior to reverse its decision. The mashpee watanabe reservation remained intact. That casino developer dropped his effort to open a casino and massachusetts years ago. Actually he and paul clement weren't even around when the mashpee almost lost the reservation the mashpee walks story shows just how fragile tribal land and treaty rights are indigenous nations that have existed since the beginning of time have watched the ground underneath them change with one court decision or the whims of one administration. That's why the breakings case is scary. If the supreme court decides that the brett qian's or the clifford's or the foster children were discriminated against based on race. It could set off a chain reaction one that could impact the constitutionality of tribal land. Police health services gaming even tribal governments sure we could still have powwows and museums but we would no longer be able to govern ourselves..
Morning Edition
Trump unveils list of possible Supreme Court picks if reelected
"All right. Amid the uproar over the president's pandemic response, A new item appeared on the White House schedule yesterday, and it was very clearly a change of subject. I am announcing 20 additions to my original list. Of candidates for the United States Supreme Court That list served him well and energizing conservatives. Back in 2016, NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports on what he is offering in 2020. Administration insiders, Khun See that this list of 20 names is a validly more political. While the previous three lists included just one elected politician and no administration officials, this one includes three U. S. Senators all fire breathing conservative Republicans, Arkansas's Tom Cotton. Ted Cruz of Texas and Missouri's Josh Holly. All three have directly or indirectly criticized Chief Justice John Roberts for not being conservative enough, and all three have presidential ambitions. Indeed, Holly tweeted that he's not really interested in a seat on the court. Also on the list are a top White House lawyer and to top officials from the Trump Justice Department, including former solicitor General Noel Francisco who've carried Trump's legal banner in the courts. Perhaps the most interesting name on the list is Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration and is considered perhaps the best legal advocate among the very able lawyers who practice regularly before the Supreme Court. Clement has an added value. He's represented a variety of conservative interests before the court from gun rights advocates to religious groups to groups opposed to Obama care. As for federal judges on the list, they're all trump appointees with records hostel through abortion, voting rights legislation, LGBT rights and regulation of business and the environment. According to sources involved in compiling the list. The White House counsel, as is usual, presided over the process. But White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was aggressively involved and even the president's son in law. Jared Kushner, got into the act, as did some conservative senators like Holly, who pushed back against including Federal appeals court judge Naomi Row because of some of her writings prior to becoming a judge, But as a judge, she's written some of the lower court decisions most supportive of Trump. With the latest list of 20 new names now added to the 45 names on his previous lists. Trump on Wednesday blasted Democrat Joe Biden for failing to release a comparable list and the president issued a dark warning about the future. If Biden is elected and has an opportunity to pick one or more justices, radical justices will erase the Second Amendment. Silence political speech and require taxpayers to fund extremely term abortion. In fact, the courts five conservative justices are all in good health and two of them. Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are the youngest members of the court at 53 55, respectively. The only ailing justices 87 year old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, leader of the court's liberal wing, who's being treated for 1/5 bout with cancer, her second cancer in less than two years. Should she leave the court. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has said that the GOP would fill the sea even though McConnell four years ago refused for nearly a year. To allow hearings on President Obama's nominee to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly in February of 2016. McConnell's justification for blocking the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland was that the voters have a right to make their views known in the presidential election. A rationale that GOP leader is not embracing this year. Nina Totenberg NPR NEWS Washington
All Of It
Trump unveils list of possible Supreme Court picks if reelected
"President Trump has issued another list of potential Supreme Court nominees, his fourth since his 2016 presidential campaign. But as NPR's Nina Totenberg reports, this list is a bit different. Today's list of 20 is avowedly more political. While the previous three lists included just one elected politician. Today's includes three senators all fire breathing conservative Republicans. Missouri's Josh Holly, Arkansas's Tom Cotton and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. All have been highly critical of Chief Justice John Roberts for not being conservative enough. Also on the list are to current or former Trump Administration Justice Department officials who have been carrying Trump's legal banner in the courts. And Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration and is considered perhaps the best legal advocate among the very able lawyers who practice regularly before the Supreme Court.
WNYC Programming
Trump unveils list of possible Supreme Court picks if re-elected
"Has issued another list of potential Supreme Court nominees, his fourth since he started issuing the list during the 2016 presidential campaign is to subsequent appointees came from those lists. But as NPR's Nina Totenberg reports, this list is a little different. Today's list of 20 is avowedly more political. While the previous three lists included just one elected politician. Today's includes three senators all fire breathing conservative Republicans. Missouri's Josh Holly, Arkansas's Tom Cotton and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. All have been highly critical of Chief Justice John Roberts for not being conservative enough. Also on the list are to current or former Trump Administration Justice Department officials who have been carrying Trump's legal banner in the courts. And Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration and is considered perhaps the best legal advocate among the very able lawyers who practice regularly before the Supreme Court. Nina
NPR's Business Story of the Day
Supreme Court Eyes The President's Power To Say 'You're Fired!'
"At the Supreme Court today the trump administration is trying to make it easier for the president to replace the heads of the country's independent regulatory agencies. The administration is asking the court to restrict or reverse a decision that dates back more than eighty years. Npr legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports in two thousand eight the. Us economy was on the brink of financial disaster. A rising number of homeowners quite simply can't pay their mortgages for closures have hit a record high. The National Association of Realtors reported the worst month dropping existing home sales since they started keeping track in the late nineties. Further meltdown in the mortgage market had investors. Heading for the exits in two thousand nine. Congress sought to reestablish oversight and regulation of the financial system among the remedies enacted was a law that consolidated powers from across seven agencies into one call the consumer financial protection bureau. It was placed in the offices that the Federal Reserve and funded by the Fed. The new agency was charged with preventing a repeat of two thousand eight financial crisis. Richard Cordray was its first director for the baby. Had two roles one was to try to prevent an economic collapse of that kind ever happening again. And that was done largely to putting in place rules that safeguarded the mortgage market and ferreted out. A lot of the irresponsible and ultimately failed lending that had occurred once in place. The bureau moved aggressively to protect consumers from bad actors in banking and other financial services also in the CFP BE SITES. Were Bill Collectors. Telemarketers and others accused of misleading practices among these was the Salem Law Firm in Los Angeles investigated for charging consumers illegal. Upfront fees for debt relief services the CFP as part of its investigation demanded certain documents from the law firm. The firm refused contending that the structure of the agency is unconstitutional. Because it's director cannot be fired by the president at will instead the bureau's director like the heads of other independent federal agencies can only be fired for cause meaning malfeasance inefficiency or neglect of duty lawyer? Andy Pinkus who represents the Chamber of Commerce explains the theory of our government is that the popularly elected president will appoint officials and remove them. They're not doing what he wants. So if you take away the president's power to remove someone Then you're drastically limiting the political accountability of that individual that view however lost in the lower courts and the sale affirm appealed to the Supreme Court backed by the trump administration central today. Argument is a case dating back to nineteen thirty five. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to fire one of five commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission over his policy views. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously. That Congress created the FTC to perform quays judicial quasar legislative functions and that the president could not therefore dismiss its members the way he could members of his own administration the sale firm and the trump administration will argue that. The CFPB is different because the bureau's power was placed in the hands of a single director instead of a multi member commission again lawyer. Andy Pinkus multi member agencies the way they're structured our system have to have people from different parties. The president picks the chairman who has a lot of control about how it operates. The terms are staggered. So most presidents will have an opportunity to appoint a number of those people because the trump administration is not defending the CFP structure. The Supreme Court appointed lawyer Paul Clement to argue on behalf of the Bureau Clement notes that there are other single-member directors the government who cannot be fired by the president will among them the control of the currency and the director of the Social Security Administration. The constitution says nothing about the president's power to remove officers confirmed by the Senate pointing to that fact Clement notes. There are literally dozens of independent agencies. That control everything from monetary policy to the stock market to public health and Safety Clement says that the consequences of invalidating the CFP structure could be dire. The issue in this case is like the thread on the sweater. That if you start tugging on it and you tug on it hard enough. Potentially the whole sweater comes undone and the sweater here really is is the entirety of the whole alphabet soup of agencies that all have these four 'cause protections these agencies. He notes are often central to our economy. The Federal Reserve is a great sort of example of why Congress imposes these kinds of restrictions. Because there are certain issues in the world that we deal with the national level where it's nice to have a degree of installation for a discharging a particular duty where it's not GonNa Change with whoever's the president the trump administration however is willing to roll the dice in this case. It argues that if a single director agency cannot be distinguished from a multi member agency the court should reverse. The case decided eighty five years ago. That would throw into doubt not just the CFP B but independent agencies that comprise roughly a third of the government and not just those agencies but also potentially the rules that those agencies have laid down over the years
Morning Edition
1st Supreme Court Gun-Rights Battle In 10 Years May Transform Legal Landscape
"The Supreme Court justices will hear their first gun rights case in a decade in two thousand eight and twenty ten the court held the second amendment right to bear arms is an individual right not a right tied to military and law enforcement service NPR's Nina Totenberg reports that today the question is how far state and local governments may go in limiting that right the key to those early rulings was justice Anthony Kennedy who cast the deciding fifth vote but insisted according to court sources on language that would permit wide regulations of gun possession and use outside the home now however Kennedy is retired replaced by justice break Cavanah who as a lower court judge wrote in support of expansive gun rights Paul Clement who will represent gun owners today knows that even so Cavanaugh was constrained as a lower court judge in ways he is no longer now he can interpret the constitution in a different way in his new perch away that Clemens says will not see the individual right is limited to having a kind of home Nina Totenberg NPR news Washington
Morning Edition
Supreme Court begins election year term full of big cases
"I we've reached the first Monday in October and that among other things means that the United States Supreme Court formally opens a new term it is a very different place since twenty eighteen with conservatives now holding a firm majority on the court and your legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports the upcoming Supreme Court term will likely be a March to the right on almost every issue that's a flash point in American society abortion guns to gay rights the separation of church and state immigration and presidential power and that's just the beginning headed to the court are cases testing power of Congress to get information from the executive branch that's relevant to congressional oversight and potentially to impeachment clearly president trump had something like that in mind when he had this to say about impeachment late in September it shouldn't be allowed they should be a way of stopping it may be legally through the courts with the newly energized conservative majority in place Chief Justice John Roberts occasionally splits from fellow conservatives as he did in upholding obamacare in twenty twelve and then repudiating the citizenship question on the census seven years later but usually on the big issues as Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstine puts it the Chief Justice does seem to be a solid conservative vote the disagreement among the right in the Supreme Court has been about how fast do you move the first place that disagreement could become a parent is on abortion and a case that asks the court to essentially riverside twenty sixteen decision that struck down a Texas law that threatened the very existence of most clinics that perform abortions Goldstine whose publisher of the leading Supreme Court blog expects the court to eventually reverse roe versus Wade out right or Hollywood out over time it's coming but when nobody quite knows whether it's in one year five years or maybe ten also before the court is a gun case the first major test of gun regulations in the ten years since the justices ruled that there's a constitutional right to own a gun for self defense in one's home court observers have long attributed the ten year hiatus on gun cases to a closely divided court on which neither the four conservatives nor the for liberals we're sure how justice Kennedy would cast his deciding vote but now Kennedy is retired replaced by justice Cavanaugh who on the lower court was a critic of most gun regulations and a strong supporter of expensive gun rights also before the court this term are major questions involving the separation of church and state for generations the court sought to erect a relatively high wall of separation but that's began to change and religious rights advocates are poised to pounce mark Rienzi is president of the Becket fund for religious liberty I actually can't recall time in the last twenty years that there were this many key issues that seem ready for decision and prime for decision in particular Rienzi and others have set their sights on invalidating or undermining provisions in most state constitutions that barred direct or indirect aid to religious schools former Solicitor General Paul Clement the mood music of the court is that they would probably say that that's discrimination on the basis of religion and that's for bitten by the federal constitution moving on to another hot button issue the court will hear a case that tests whether employers are free to fire gay employees because of their sexual orientation or transgendered employees because of their gender identity the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act bars discrimination in employment quote because of sex the fired employees contend that language protects them from such discharges the employers argue that the law was never meant to cover gay or transgender employees then too there are a variety of immigration cases the biggest being the trump administration's attempt to rollback the Obama administration program that currently protects from deportation some seven hundred to eight hundred thousand so called dreamers brought to the U. S. by their parents when they were children without legal authorization in short the cases before the court are a legal Rorschach test if ever there was one Nina Totenberg NPR news
You Auto Know
Judge Cavanaugh, Fox News and Brad Kavanagh discussed on You Auto Know
"Cameras were rolling when fists went flying at a fast food joint a violent brawl caught on camera at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in northwest DC. Now viral clip shows a fifty five year old customer being beaten up by restaurant worker before others broke it up. Police say the customer was shouting at other customers and went behind the employees counter when the twenty seven year old manager asked him to leave. The man threw the first punch. He was taken to the hospital for minor injuries and charged with simple assault. In a statement. Chick-fil-a says a team member involved in the altercation is no longer working in the restaurant. Adding this situation does not live up to our brands commitment to hospitality. And for that. We are very