24 Burst results for "Paul Clement"
"paul clement" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"It's the third challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which in the past was upheld by votes of 5 to 4 and 6 to 3. This time, the Trump Administration and a coalition of Red States are arguing that because the Republican Congress three years ago zeroed out the monetary penalty for those not covered by insurance. The whole law is now void. If the administration were to prevail, there would no longer be protections for those with pre existing conditions and Obama care health insurance for some 22 million people would likewise be gone. Trump's newest Supreme Court nominee, Judge Barrett has been highly critical of chief Justice Roberts reasoning in the previous Obama care cases. But even Paul Clement, who led the initial legal challenge to the thinks this case is a stretch. It's just hard for me to say that the mandate was central when it doesn't have any teeth. Indeed, sources say that top Justice Department officials tried and failed to talk Trump out of bringing this case. The Obama care case is just one of many controversies flashing red on the docket this term. Many of them political. Some cases are already being expedited. One involves how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives. The Constitution requires the quote whole number of persons in each state. To be included for apportionment purposes. But President Trump maintains he has discretion to determine the numbers and has said he intends to exclude non citizens without legal status. A three judge Federal court prevented him from doing that now. The case is before the Supreme Court. In addition, there are numerous cases directly involving the upcoming election that air being teed up in the wings cases that could determine who is the next president. Or of Gornstein is director of the Supreme Court Institute at the Georgetown University Law Center lurking in the back room. Is the possibility that this could become the most tumultuous and divisive terms since the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, and that's just the beginning. There is, for instance, a case that pits the rights of religious groups against state and federal laws that bar discrimination in this case, the city of Philadelphia contracts with a wide variety of groups that it pays to screen and certified couples for foster care. The city, however, cut off Catholic social services because the group refused on religious grounds to certify same sex couples in violation of the city's non discrimination law. Lower courts upheld the city's decision, citing the Supreme Court's 1990 decision, declaring that religious groups are not entitled to exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws. The decision was written by conservative icon Antonin Scalia. Nonetheless, four of the court's current conservatives have expressed an interest in overturning that decision. And with the addition of Judge Barrett, there may well be a majority. Totenberg. NPR NEWS Washington Hey, Thanks for listening to your public radio station. Which brings you morning edition. You can get the latest news this afternoon on all things considered. And follow us any time on social media..
"paul clement" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Be a key issue this November, with 64% of Americans, saying it will be a very important consideration in their decision about whom to vote for. That's, according to a Pew research survey and President Trump is attempting to draw attention to the Supreme Court as November approaches, adding 20 more potential Supreme Court justices to his so called short list, which is not so short anymore. His new potential nominees. All conservatives include senators Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Josh Holly, to former Solicitor General's Paul Clement and no Francisco and several appellate court judges. Joining me is Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law. Some names actually stood out for most Americans on this list because they're well known senators Tom Cotton Ted Cruz, Josh Holly, Why are they on that list? They're not known as great legal scholars. Well, I think that they're on the list, partly because they've been very supportive in a Senate member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they've been very supportive of President Trump and President Trump's nominees, so with a nod in that direction And it is procedures even be mentioned for the Supreme Court would coach Souther holy about two seconds to disavow any interest in being on the Supreme Court. So that was interesting, And I don't think Senator Cruz won the consolation prize because I think he would like to be president. So that means we don't have very many viable choices from the Senate. Of course, people like you go black or name from the Senate. But that hasn't happened in Quite some time. By choosing these senators, for example, Cotton tweeted it's time for Roe v. Wade to go after he was named to the list. Is the president choosing them for political reasons. Solidify his base? Perhaps sure, I think many people on that list were included for exactly that reason problem, principally for that reason, their numbers. Well, who are you? From what are considered the battleground or swing state, a couple from Florida and nominee from Arizona trying to help the senators there in some situations like Arab Ona, you know, close race and trying to help themselves Trump when the presidency and so you see reasons of that short for a number of knowledge. The names on the list. The prior list were shows in in large part by the Federalist Society. Do you know if the federal society took part in forming this list is well. I'm virtually positive that Leonard Leo was instrumental in helping us assemble this list. And I think Heritage Foundation again, which wass protected men in 2016. Many others believe White House counsel was intimately involved, as was Mark Meadows chief of staff, and I think they were the prime movers and of course you see Many people who Trump has appointed to the appeals court. Ah, hole number of them are on this list. So that's not surprising. Is it surprising that the Federalist Society would choose the senators on the list who are not known for legal scholarship? No. But it may be that Trump had some pick he wanted for political purposes and then also relied on federal of society, heritage and other people for input. And a number of these people are very high profile. I mean, Paul Clement is considered to be one of the preeminent Supreme Court litigators. And then a number of people from his own administration from wealthy sister general know Francisco who just stepped down. So it's easy to explain. I think most of the people and how they are came to be on the list. Are they all conservative? Or are they all super conservative? Is there some characteristic that unites everyone on the list? Well, I think most of them are ideologically very conservative. A few, maybe less so and some of them. For example, appeals court appointees of Trump may not even have been on the court flog enough to really know where they might be on a particular issue. But certainly the vast majority are but a few are not. The ninth Circuit person who was a magistrate judge, for example, may be relatively moderate or mainstream. Oh, and a few others, perhaps, but probably not bring Manny both have records have litigated for conservative interest, for example. Four issued conservative opinions. And so we have some sense of their track records. According to a lot of legal experts, the top contenders are still the same, and they're the ones that we've been familiar with Amy Cockney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman and William Pryor. A few of those Trump even brought in to talk to the last time around when he ended up choosing Cavanaugh. Correct and they may well be positioned. That way for the next opening. If there is one, I don't think he's just about those people you just named and they may well be at the top of any New lift that is considered. We're there to be a vacancy. I think that's probably accurate coming up next on the Bloomberg Law show Will. Trump's announcement put pressure on his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden to release his own list of possible Supreme Court nominees..
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
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.
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
"paul clement" Discussed on KCRW
"Woodward's new book. It's Wednesday, September 9th. This is all things considered. I'm Sasha Pfeiffer. Then I'm Elsa Changhe later how the Fukushima disaster May Japan completely rethink the broader expense of nuclear power, the social costs ofthe separation, the family, including the land losing their jobs. How can you measure all these impacts plus the declining ler of downtown urban life when so much is shut down during the pandemic? What am I here for? If I can't enjoy the cultural institutions that I moved here for, and the Oscars announced new diversity requirements for best picture nominees, now news Live from NPR news. I'm Jack Spear. President Trump 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 Totenberg. NPR NEWS Washington Smoke is blanketing the West Costa's dozens of major wildfires burned out of control from Washington to California. NPR's Nathan Rot reports the size and scale of the fire is currently burning in a few Western states is rewriting the history books. More than two million acres of land burnt California has already surpassed its annual record of areas scorched, and it's on ly now entering what's typically it's busiest time of year. In Oregon Governor Kate Brown is warning of unprecedented damage and possibly loss of life because of fires and in Washington state. Further north more than 330,000 acres burned in a single day, more than in 12 of the state's previous 18 fire seasons. The.
"paul clement" Discussed on 90.3 KAZU
"Coming up on all things considered on 90.3 K easy you, President, Trump told journalist Bob Woodward, the Corona virus was deadly stuff while publicly downplaying the severity of the virus, according to Woodward's new book, Rage. And U. S. Military officials announced they're planning to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq. First this news Live from NPR news. I'm Jack Spear. President Trump 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 Totenberg. NPR NEWS Washington Smoke is blanketing the West Costa's dozens of major wildfires burn out of control from Washington to California. NPR's Nathan Rot reports the size and scale of the fire is currently burning in a few Western states is rewriting the history books. More than two million acres of land burnt California has already surpassed its annual record of areas scorched, and it's on ly now entering what's typically it's busiest time of year. In Oregon Governor Kay Brown is warning of unprecedented damage and possibly loss of life because of fires and in Washington state. Further north more than 330,000 acres burned in a single day, more than in 12 of the state's previous 18 fire seasons..
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
"paul clement" Discussed on KQED Radio
"We had to pull back from New Hampshire we had to do certain things that that insert the company an injured are members and we have only been able to crawl back from that inside the Supreme Court lawyer Paul Clement representing the insurers told the justices that the case involves a massive government bay eight and switch when the government makes a promise to pay money he said it has to keep its word justice Alito asked caustic Lee why there should be a special solicitude for insurance companies Chief Justice Roberts chimed in you claim that the insurance companies were basically seduced into this program but they have good lawyers why didn't they insist on an appropriations provision in the law before putting themselves on the hook for twelve billion dollars Clement replied that when the law was enacted anyone who looked at the money mandating language would have thought that was sufficient now could it have been better belt and suspenders sure but it's good enough you set the tenor of the argument turned dramatically however when the trump administration's deputy Solicitor General Edwin Needler rose to defend the refusal to pay justice prior this is day one of contracts law I see the you my hats on the flag pole if you bring it down I'll pay you ten dollars how does this differ why does the government not have to pay its contracts just like anybody else need a reply that without an appropriation by Congress the government can't pay justice Ginsburg pointing to language in the A. C. A. said Congress didn't repeal that language saying that the government shall pay there weren't sufficient votes in Congress to repeal that obligation she noted Chief Justice Roberts you don't dispute that these companies would not have participated in the wrist quarter program but for the government's promise to pay just prior to the government says we shall pay you Mr private citizen if you do acts he does X. but the government doesn't have to pay him justice Cavanah Congress knows how to pass a law that prevents a promise to pay from being binding in the future it can promise to pay subject to future appropriations in fact it does that often justice Kagan that language puts people on notice it says this is not a guarantee and when that language is not there the government says we're committed under this program she asked our insurance companies obligated to pay into the program if they have excess profits yes replied the government's neither so you pay end that's a blanket Tory Kagan shot back but if the government commits to paying out it turns out it's only if we feel like it what kind of a statute is that a decision in the case is expected before summer.
"paul clement" Discussed on KCRW
"We had to pull back from New Hampshire we had to do certain things that that insert the company an injured are members and we have only been able to crawl back from that inside the Supreme Court lawyer Paul Clement representing the insurers told the justices that the case involves a massive government bay and switch when the government makes a promise to pay money he said it has to keep its word justice Alito S. caustic Lee why there should be a special solicitude for insurance companies Chief Justice Roberts chimed in you claim that the insurance companies were basically seduced into this program but they have good lawyers why didn't they insist on an appropriations provision in the law before putting themselves on the hook for twelve billion dollars Clement replied that when the law was enacted anyone who looked at the money mandating language would have thought that was sufficient now could it have been better belt and suspenders sure but it's good enough he said the tenor of the argument turned dramatically however when the trump administration's deputy Solicitor General Edwin Needler rose to defend the refusal to pay justice prior this is day one of contracts law I see you my hats on the flag pole if you bring it down I'll pay you ten dollars how does this differ why does the government not have to pay its contracts just like anybody else need a reply that without an appropriation by Congress the government can't pay justice Ginsburg pointing to language in the A. C. A. said Congress didn't repeal that language saying that the government shall pay there weren't sufficient votes in Congress to repeal that obligation she noted Chief Justice Roberts you don't dispute that these companies would not have participated in the wrist Corder program but for the government's promise to pay just prior to the government says we shall pay you Mr private citizen if you do acts he does act but the government doesn't have to pay him justice Cavanah Congress knows how to pass a law that prevents a promise to pay from being binding in the future it can promise to pay subject to future appropriations in fact it does that often justice Kagan that language puts people on notice it says this is not a guarantee and when that language is not there the government says we're committed under this program she asked our insurance company is obligated to pay into the program if they have excess profits yes replied the government's neither so you pay end that's a blanket Tory Kagan shot back but if the government commits to paying out it turns out it's only if we feel like it what kind of a statute is that a decision in the case.
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
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
"paul clement" Discussed on First Mondays
"You take this will happen in big cases, so you take something like the NF I case having to do the constitutionally of ObamaCare and your name is Paul Clement, you argue a case on relatively narrow bunked. If your name is Richard Epstein up there. The problem with this case is wicked and Philbin is wrong. Let's. And I mean, I'm quite willing to defend that position with all the passion that I could possibly some, but that is generally not thought to be winning strategy. And so with these guys are trying to do is to thread the needle. I thought his biggest mistake in that case, interestingly enough is not taking the tax augments seriously enough devoting nothing to it when in fact, he should have basically taken on, which says, if you can't regulate, you can't tax and is dole again South Dakota, which is a case that does that. And strangely enough the child labor tax cases from the nineteen twenties does it under very different constitutional regime. So they're all ways to try to do this. And my strategy is an academic is always to essentially go back to route premises, and we talk about particular cases. I'm going to indicate you how it is. I think that we want to blow up some supreme for jurisprudence for the better of it's all that's reminds me a little bit of McDonald. The second amendment corporation case where you had Alan Gura who is really not. I mean, you know, he's an experienced litigator, he's not kind of in this. I'm talking about advancing really a kind of. Argument from first principles that didn't make the justices a little bit mad. It was. It wasn't effective writer is less effective than well. Yeah, I mean, commit came in as an Emeka sensor said, you should just do this do to do process Inc. They like that and it worked. The problem with it is we slightly heretical is Hellers completely rule. And what happens is essentially what it is. Federal is amiss you a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of state. So the one place, the second amendment doesn't apply to DC. And the one thing that doesn't do is to tell a states how they should regulate their internal affairs. It's an amendment which says that the federal government can't do something. So Inc is in my mind excluded by the text of the second amendment. I'd have been quite happy to tell that to the supreme court, and I don't think they have got to it because they argued McDonald conditional upon and what happens. Therefore therefore's you compound mistakes. Yeah, kind of reminds me of, I think Justice. Thomas has a similar theory about the religion clauses, right? That in that too. Speak of them as Inc, doesn't actually make sense that what they're supposed to do was preserve a sort of St. domain to establish religion. So to talk about them being incorporated like, no, it's a federalism could do it with free exercises more than you can do it with establishment which adds another complication. Yeah, essentially, what the amendment was originally about was to preserve state monopolies Virginia could have it's established church in Massachusetts have is. And then when you have no establish churches after the mid nineteen thirties, it's kind of a historical novel. So the general rule and constitutional laws, you have a clause not doing anything useful anymore fry to create a little mischief and give it a new application. We don't want things sort of sitting around not doing anything so. So that's interesting, but we'll see what happens but big ups to friend of the show can sure. Should we talk about some cases. Let's talk about some cases, Dan, what do you wanna talk about? It's an interesting cases argued the sitting. We haven't talked about them also when we haven't talked about is warehousing environmental case, Richard, you said you were interested in this one to tell us about it a little the fraud case. This is about fraud. Well. That's the same thing about saying you're e against Tompkins is about railroad. These cases which have much logic significance and the way in which the supreme court does. It is it seems that the task of habitat designation without compensation is perfectly appropriate activity on which can be undertaken by the folks in charge of particular forests or whatever it is that they're doing..
"paul clement" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot
"Hour from townhall dot com. New in Washington. Former US solicitor General Paul Clement says judge Brad Kavanagh is well qualified to sit on the US court based on my experience knowing him just as a friend, and as judicial collie is a judicial officer by any conventional measure, I believe he is enormously qualified to serve on the nation's highest court. I'm confident he will serve with distinction, and I urge you to vote for his confirmation. But overall, the judge a mixed review on the final day of testimony at the Senate Judiciary committee on Friday Cedric Richmond is chair of the Congressional Black caucus judge Cavanaugh who relies heavily on the same textualist reading of the constitution employed by former Justice Scalia possesses a conservative judicial record that leads us to believe that voting rights education criminal law outcomes will be greatly endangered in the coming years Olsen whose argued before the high court says you don't always expect justices who hold your political views, but we can aspire to a judiciary that will be prepared. Perceptive competent, open-minded, honest and respectful that. It is the jurist that is Brad Kavanagh appears headed toward confirmation by the end of the month. That's Capitol Hill. Correspondent Wally Hindes president. Trump appears ready to escalate the US trade war with China. The president says he's prepared to impose tariffs on an additional two hundred sixty seven billion dollars of Chinese imports. And that would be on top of the two hundred billion dollars already mentioned for everything from bicycle tires to handbags, but Trump says it's up to China. What happens next the administration has already imposed tariffs on fifty billion dollars worth of Chinese imports? And Beijing has retaliated the growing trade war stems from concerns. China has used predatory practices to try to undermine America's technological dominance. That is correspondent Jackie Quinn. Reporting. A bit of a sour note to end the week on Wall Street on Friday, the Dow was down about eighty points..
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
"paul clement" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Not entirely where he is on this but it was a very provocative piece by surkov who supposedly is relatively close to mr putin and the thrust of it is basically russia is a half blood it is a half breed is between east and west and because of what's happened since two thousand fourteen since crimea we are now in a path where russia will remain that way for at least a century or maybe even longer it will never become part of the west paul clement currently an adjunct professor at columbia university the die is cast that's one extreme on the spectrum the other school of thought is now no no no putin's a realist putin understands there are certain things he must do to try to get russia back on track for his own domestic economic reasons for his own political position in terms of the relationship he has with key oligarchy and colleagues have benefited from this cronyism system that he's put into place and this school argues that economic side putin understands there has to be some interaction with the west of politically and economically if he's ever going to get russia on a slightly different track one specifically the takes off the economy curse if you will the utter dependence on oil and gas that if you can't start to seriously diversify that economy russia will remain what it is always susceptible invulnerable to the epson flows in the oil market now the criminological sign that those people say is critical is where's mr coudron who dron if he gets elevated at some point to become again minister for the economics or finance or better yet prime minister that would be the biggest signal of all that putin has decided we must really really reengage on i have the right guy who can do this atmos recently asked one of the.
"paul clement" Discussed on WGTK
"Race trap here this is going to get this is gonna divide along racial lines and again they could have avoided that this is i mean look i'm sorry every time i think i'm gonna stop ragging on roger goodell is a bad commissioner here a mistake like this gets made i'm sorry he is oh let's kick the tires show on the nfl he just got a failure at leading the nfl i hope mark bitch is listening because yes he is all right let me go to the other news that mark short made two things one they're expanding their open to expanding the list of possible supreme court justices which would put paul clement back in the game which everyone thought that was interesting number two the president's still stands by his position to raise gun purchases age to twenty one we talked about gun control and stop orders on the show on sunday on meet the press and he has not got a position on stop orders but i am surprised to hear him stand by the twenty one year old role because i thought he'd rolled that back are you surprised by that i i you know i just i i didn't think he was still if that was still i think what you're saying i believe it if i hear the president talk about more you've got mark short's saying the president hasn't changed his position from when he met was the park one survivors but we haven't heard from him so for what it's worth we don't we have mark short i mean and and by the way marchers been putting this position before so i still we hear from him again i i wouldn't necessarily take that to the bank.
"paul clement" Discussed on KTKR 760AM
"You know the nfl as well as i and you know worked in there i mean they didn't they didn't call an eight hundred number for a lawyer i mean they paul clement in front of the the supreme court and so i mean i would think they tried to win and i think that they you know even with the revenue opportunities ian rapoport tweeting i mean a reporting as well and nfl dot com article on the subject today that the league had presented before it at the owners meeting in march a previously secret a a secret investigation by the league into what this could mean and patterns of gambling etc you know i do you really think the nfl wants something like this lose an obviously paul clemente another speaking of the packers big packer fan from wisconsin games yes they wanted to win because they wanna federal framework they wanted the courts not to be involved in this they wanted not to be a statebystate patchwork the point generally though is what ian was talking about these tremendous revenue opportunities that are gonna come from this and we've seen this with fantasy the past three or four years where it is an incredible fan engagement tool where you're re you're watching games where you have no rooting interest that will obviously continue with gambling i was on a panel rich guy from nielsen research puts out this statement or this research average nfl non bedding fan watches fifteen sixteen games year makes sense home.
"paul clement" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"It does regulate a quite comprehensively is the operation of sports gambling schemes it doesn't actually regulate sports gambling in the generic sense and it says nothing about individuals engaging in sports gambling so if new jersey wants to say look all our prohibitions which right now are both on the supply side and the demand side all of its prohibitions on the demand side it can partially repeal estate in act the federal government enact a law saying no state shall pass an income tax greater than six percent i think it might be able to do that because i put it this way i mean i don't know why in principle that would be so different from the statute at issue in baker with says no state issue a bearable noting that you wish you a bearer bond i so i think it's the same but i think to the extent there would be anything odd about it and it's what mr olsen suggests is odd about pass is this idea that there's just a preemption provision and even he seems to concede that if congress regulated the field that there would be no problem with the preeminent seems to me that something a little more out about it which is goes to the fundamental powers in progress of a state to sort of function their own own government if you say you can go so far as to regulate what level of income tax they can charge you're right mr chief justice i thought maybe i should amend my remarks which i don't think the commandeering problem with that statute now there might be some other federalism problem you know i think if if the court if kong chris tells the state to move it state capital i'm not sure it's a commandeering problem i just think that it's not to use the word maybe i'm not supposed to maybe the national league of cities problem but i don't think it's commandeering former solicitor general paul clement and that was december fourth or arguments.
"paul clement" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Right case at the right time and as much progress as gideon embodies it can be asked whether we've really done full justice to the deep ideas whether we're providing enough resources in the criminal domain to make gideon full reality there folks who say we should have gone beyond felony cases to misdemeanor cases to traffic court cases you heard questions about civil gideon for indigence in various contexts and you've heard questions today about a civil juries in general and and and wet their their lawyers who lament the vanishing jury trial both state and federal lots of things are pleaded out in the criminal system and they never get to trial definitely don't get to jury trial the civil system i'm one entity that really is championing civil juries in a very interesting way it's a project at nyu loss bull organized by a very great learning steve sussman and you won't be surprised to know that way back when he was a law clerk to none other than the great jury trial lawyer hugo black well thanks very much to yale law school professor and constitutional expert akil rita mar and two former us solicitor general paul clement for being back on landmark cases this season so glad to have you and thanks to all of you for watching it for those of you who sent in your questions for participating.
"paul clement" Discussed on Men In Blazers
"The last particular thing on this day isn't dogs and this is this is football yes this is premier league football ross and this is liverpool football club cosac subject fine but you're right you're right is football football is and we talk about let's loyd's why we love it a roller coaster of a motion from the holies have nothing can stop us now fully by the flimsy beni hill ask stupor of humiliation and in the modern period has become we grew up with the liverpool way which is a proud tradition of winning generation degeneration generation liverpool way right now they vote is exactly this this week manchester city to swansea and we'll break it down and talk more about it we should start the liberty stadium from the off they looked sluggish that allow wet flavor pull the ability to penetrate that swansea bat line let history record by the way only took 34 minutes before cocommentator dan higginbotham for want of anything else to say just decided to appoint own liverpool really i think they're mess felipe cottee no one in that first half gave any credit to swans a and have go beyond this i was really quite impressive issues no kind of newcastle just sit tight they were diligently organized ed discipline that commitment koloss covar high i too will it car instilled in the swazi side which would that they would dead in the same ways like when paul clement took over law season as opposed to paul krugman though this year he has got to tell me how that welsh bog they didn't just come to hold on david they threatened up the flanks who that first half mile and olsen kyle lohan hardcharging hard living fullbacks and a sat there watching in my alfi morse in jersey that swansea city there is.
"paul clement" Discussed on Ringer FC
"Episodes ago not years ago um we had i guess some questions about him coming into the season and playing on swans e you know it's sorted going back to what we were to say about ozone sterling it's like it's hard to divorce of forwards performance from the quality of the rest of his team and swansea of kind of an up and down last year were very defensive under paul clement um but he's out four goals he has more expected goals than murata and walk as at and he's twenty so i think he is i to me sorta shown that he does he deserves a chance at chelsea and he has just scoring goals at a young age usually pretends while for the future that in his i mean he weighs like 95 wound but uh and his name is tammie green name also he might play for england might play for nigeria there's another two tug of war going on there so we'll see what happens with that um third question be honest with me guys did you know that tottenham had 17 points remake gibson was in third place now i tell her i obviously did matvey they've got the the you know utilitarian window went overboard myth at the weekend with the question behind the question though was that's question behind the question is todd was pretty good and we don't really talk about them a he talk about them all the time.
"paul clement" Discussed on Men In Blazers
"In the history is wonderful moment box when you're in charge since you know your calling the shots and all the responsibility falls on to you there's no better failing them been successful in that situation so it was by far my greatest achievement was to keeps ones in the league dimension everton game poll of gop got a confess i'm an everton fan i remember rather differently than you dave but at the remember a moment i think alfi mawson cleared the ball off the line in the dying minutes of that game and the broadcast cameras closed in on one swansea fan a woman who was move close to tears by that clearance we interviewed afterwards her name is sean that deficit and she described the feelings to us thusly she said swansea have completely changed the city over the last few years thanks to all the investment that this come in because of the club she said he got local businesses you've got schools that are all affected by the league and the work in the city goes on after ninety minutes you fail the club across the entire town as a manager to feel a sense of that what the club means the entire area what staving off relegation means said the entire area yes short are due to trump brought out because focus for may needs to be on the pliers on the chain and if i think too much about the other things the responsibility becomes can become overwhelming i'm very much aware of it of course um how important the is to the city and in the end your your show glazed that everyone was happy talking about happiness the season before you've been fired as manager bhai dhabhi county in the championship they were fifth table only five points behind the league leaders at the time with this swans he accomplishment the swazi achievement did you personally experience a sense of.
"paul clement" Discussed on Men In Blazers
"Hello roger thank you for having me on saturday poll we are on the two have yet how is beautiful rally north carolina treat any there's been good we arrived here yes i and had a session lawn yesterday evening very strong sessions morning show lovely place where you win and really nice hotel here and the training facility white met shocker park where we've been working lovely facility very warm love humidity warm allaf humidity just signed wales in my generation but i wanna take amid it's a but no not won't let tell you back to wales i want you back to the beginning of youths onsy tenure january third this year you're about to walk into your first press conference you club bottomofthe table they were just twelve points from nineteen games loss four on the trot conceding thirty goals in doing so you their third manager in as many months now pull you'd left a massive job in germany as carlo ancelotti's number two a by a munich to join swansea what made you take that job in the first place having been a manager once before it so was a good experience and it was an experienced i wanted again after i left arbi there wasn't an opportunity to really interested may so caller said would you like to come back and workers marched and barnum it was enjoyable charm from abe i always hides my mind looking at what was coming up in the premier league what was happening and an opportunity came up at swansea so you know there was no hesitation for may once a start talking to the club him now that i wanted me to come through brilliant opportunity to join a a really good football club at a tradition of a shut install the are very much believe in.