28 Burst results for "Sam Alito"
"sam alito" Discussed on WTOP
"Was 6 53 now civil rights and church leaders in Anna rental county are reacting after a man charged with writing a racial slur and church was a no show for his trial. The trial for 66 year old Donald hood junior was set to begin last Friday, but he didn't show up. Hood is charged with four misdemeanors after allegedly writing a racial slur on a church back in August and gambles. Police left over security video from the church and say it shows hood in the act. The kingdom celebration center put in the security camera after a similar thing happened in July. Civil rights leader and activist Carl Snowden tells the capital gazette that hood should have never been released, especially Snowden says when hood didn't have an address on record and no bond was set. A bench warrant is now out for hood's rest. And Kramer, WTO news. Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito has denied the allegation of a former abortion rights opponent who claimed that Alito or his wife disclosed to conservative donors, the outcome of a case involving contraceptives and religious rights in 2014. However, democratic senator dick Durbin, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, calls the allegations serious detailed in The New York Times report, and he once Congress to pass a bill requiring the high court to adopt a code of ethics, the allegations follow the stunning leak earlier this year of a draft opinion indicating that the high court would overturn roe V wade ending constitutional protections for abortion. Embryos frozen in April of 1992 have resulted in live births, twins Lydia and Timothy ridgeway were born October 31st to a couple outside Portland Oregon, the national embryo donation center says they are likely the longest frozen embryos ever to result in a live birth, the embryos were created for an anonymous couple using in vitro fertilization and for nearly three decades they sat in frozen storage. The couple who created the embryos donated them to the national embryo donation center in Knoxville, Tennessee, hoping another couple might be able to use them. Jason David Frank, who played the green power ranger Tommy Oliver on the 1990s children's series mighty morphin Power Rangers has died at the age of 49. No details on his death, his family and friends have asked for privacy. Mighty morphin Power Rangers was about 5 teens deputized to save earth from evil. It's debuted on Fox in 1993, it went on to become a pop culture phenomenon
John Zmirak and Eric Discuss Samuel Alito's Dismantling of Roe V Wade
"Samuel Alito, in his decision overturning roe V wade and Planned Parenthood V Casey, he doesn't talk about the morality of abortion. He doesn't talk about the unborn baby being human. He doesn't talk about Christianity. What he does is exactly what the lawyers did in the movie denial. Systematically dismantles the false intentionally deceptive, shallow, dishonest arguments offered in roe V wade and Planned Parenthood V Casey to pretend that the U.S. Constitution as adopted in 1787 and amended after the Civil War to pretend that the constitution secretly entailed the right to abortion. And he systematically obliterates all the arguments offered by the left in favor of abortion being protected by the U.S. Constitution. He doesn't show that they're false. He shows that they're garbage. They're garbage. They're worse actually than David Irving's falsification. But just to be clear, so the parallels clear to those listening in case people are missing it. In other words, rather than play to the crowd, knowing that abortion is a monstrous evil, just like we know what happened in the Holocaust is a monster evil. Rather than doing that, what Alito does just as Deborah lipstadt's lawyers do. They effectively say, no, we're going to pitch our argument at the legal experts. Right. We're going to show legally bloodlessly how this fails completely on a legal basis on a basis of fact, we're going to take a motion out of it, not that emotions ought to be taken out of it. But these are the tax taken by the lawyers in that case. And then by Sam Alito, so that's a brilliant parallel. That's
"sam alito" Discussed on Dennis Prager Podcasts
"34 minutes past the hour and welcome back to the Dennis prager show bob brand sitting in for Dennis live in the relief factor dot com studios of a.m. 1420 the answer. My show is called always right radio. It airs well right before this one from 9 until noon every day in the Eastern Time zone. And if you ever want to check it out, I'm at W HK radio dot com, WH, K radio dot com from 9 to noon eastern. We do our thing here. That's where the interview I did with Ted Cruz came from that I played for you before if you'd like to react. By all means, please do so. 8, 7, 7, two, four, three, 77, 76, 8 prager 7 7 6. I wish I had 9 hours to do today. I have so much information I want to cover and we're going to hear next segment. Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito, laying out the facts about what the how dangerous the Democrat party is, and how dangerous the far left movement is in this country. Literally life and death stuff. That Sam Alito was talking about. We'll get into that. For now though, we're going to go to the phones. We're going to go to Atlanta, Georgia, and talk to Sam. You're on the Dennis prager show, Sam, thanks for joining us. Bob grant sitting and go right ahead. Protecting my call. Hey bob, thanks for taking my call. I get it. Let me say that defeating Democrats is important. You know, I get it. They are totally evil. The things that they do, the things they say, it's just unacceptable. I don't know any other clean word to use just unacceptable. But I remember, I remember the second time Obama was elected. The late great Rush Limbaugh listened to him every day back then. And he would say, you know, if we don't defeat Obama, you know, we're going to lose America. We're going to lose what we are. We're going to lose this at the other. And here we are, you know, and I'm thinking to myself, we're still America. We're a little different. We still have problems, but America wasn't lost. He thought he was, was going to be. Well, let me respond to that, Sam by pointing something out. And he makes a great point, by the way, so I'm not trying to disagree with you except maybe expand that thought a little bit. Rush was right. The Russia was right, and what I mean by that is reelecting Obama wasn't necessarily going to lead to the end of America by the end of Obama's term. It was going to be the beginning of the end of America in the long game that they had planned, and that plan was supposed to include four years of or actually 8 years of Hillary Clinton continuing the same platform and continuing with the same policies and continuing with the same destructive laws and spending measures and so forth in that it was going to continue after that. What we experienced was a hiccup. And that was Donald Trump. Donald Trump came in out of nowhere, which is why I don't care how much you may dislike Donald Trump's personality or anything about him. We will be forever indebted to him for delaying and stopping. Nobody else could have done it. I told you as a Ted Cruz fan back in the 2016 primaries. Ted Cruz couldn't have beat Hillary in a general election. I found out. I realized, after the fact, neither could have ruby or anybody else. Only Trump could have and thank God he did because he delayed the destruction of this country by the four years he got should have another four to be building back from that. Now, but here we sit. So what we're doing now in the first 21 months of the Biden administration, Sam is continuing what Obama started in his first NNA second terms. And if you look at the place we're in now, this is far worse than we were ever in even under Obama. Even with the passage of ObamaCare, even with the extraordinary spending and taxing of the country by Obama, we were never at 9 and a half percent inflation, where we are where we were just a couple of months ago, now sitting at 8 and a half. We were never in the position that we are with 5 million people coming across the southern border in two years, even under Obama, things are far worse now because what Biden has done, my friend, is continued the Obama agenda. It's not new here, and that's why what Ted Cruz said puts us in the position we're in. If we lose on November 8th and they get 52 votes, it's not about one man, like rush talked about with Obama. It's about 52 Democrat senators. They will abolish the filibuster and all of the things cruise laid out that I played in the first segment are going to come to pass. We'll never win another election again. Because they will pass S one and HR one the for the people act to reform the entire electoral process, pack the court, add two states, adding more senators will never gain control again. This is a part of the endgame. Obama was at the very beginning of it all. So I think that's what I think we need to keep in mind. Great call. Great points. I want to talk to you more and I want to listen to you more. 8, 7, 7, excuse me. 8 prager 7 7 6 will be back. The Dennis prager show..
The Impact of Reagan Conservatives
"But this has always been the approach Of Reagan conservatives traditional Conservatives again do not confuse people who sit at think tanks and spit out white papers Or write columns to The Wall Street Journal of national review With movement conservatism look at what the court's done What do you think Sam Alito came from Came from the Reagan administration What do you think Scalia came from before he passed from the Reagan administration Where did Robert bork come from the Reagan administration It was the Reagan administration that started the whole judicial pushback against the activism that had taken place in the 60s the 70s and into the 80s Led by Ed meese the attorney general So don't burn the bridges down Rachel The things we can do and we should do We should learn from the successes But I think most of the complaint here while people are trying to be very philosophical about it isn't about philosophy And it isn't about even politics It's about getting strong patriots in the right position so they'll get something done
"sam alito" Discussed on WCPT 820
"It out. 22 minutes past the hour. Welcome back. There is this extraordinary story. I just want to mention this real quickly. I'll get back to your phone calls here and then goes Friday. Down in Louisiana, there was a lesbian couple. Two women have been married for a few years. They're quite a few years actually. And one of them her sister and her sister's husband died. Leaving behind a four year old child. So this lesbian couple is gay couple adopted this child. And put their daughter in the Emily and jeanine Parker. Jenny Parker, excuse me. Put their daughter into this, it's called the Bible baptist academy into Quincy, Louisiana. And which was a local kind of charter school. And everything seemed good, you know, the first year, and then this year, they bought the books and they enrolled their daughter. They had adopted her because her parents were dead. I mean, consider this kid, right? She's had a really, really tough life. And two days before school starts, the principle of this so called Christian school calls them up and says, you know, we don't agree with your choice of lifestyle. And so your daughter can't come to our school. Now their daughter isn't married to anybody. Their daughter, and if she was, it's perfectly legal. And there's nothing wrong with it, but for a 5 year old, it would be kind of problematic. But you get my point. I mean, they're punishing a 5 year old. For what they perceive to be the sins of her parents, and they call themselves Christians around this. I'm just astonished. Just astonished. As. The grandfather of a couple of adopted kids with a gay couple. I'm furious. And I'm horrified. I mean, this is now the way that the Republican Party thinks that they're going to win elections. Is by trashing in particular, gay people, gay couples. Gay and lesbian couples. And trans people. Obviously they go after trans people and the whole girls in sports and all this kind of trans girls in sports. But this is even bigger. And this is, I mean, it's all, it's all very problematic. And it's all the same thing, essentially. It's bigotry. That's all it is. This is legal, although the Supreme Court Sam Alito and clarence Thomas have said that they're going to come after this and try to make it illegal. But we have to talk back to these people. And tell them that this is not Christian, this is not love thy neighbor. This is not care for the little child. You know, Jesus said, you mess with little kids. You would be better off having a rope tight around your neck and having that rope attached to a rock and
"sam alito" Discussed on WCPT 820
"Has passed the hour. Welcome back. There is this extraordinary story. I just want to mention this real quickly. I'll get back to your phone calls here and then goes Friday. Down in Louisiana, there was a lesbian couple. Two women have been married for a few years. Quite a few years, actually. And one of them her sister and her sister's husband died. Leaving behind a four year old child So this lesbian couple is gay couple a doctor this child. And put their daughter in the Emily and jeanine Parker. Jenny Parker, excuse me. Put their daughter into this, it's called the Bible baptist academy into Quincy, Louisiana. Which was a local kind of charter school. And everything seemed good, you know, the first year, and then this year they bought the books and they enrolled their daughter. They had adopted her because her parents were dead. I mean, consider this kid, right? She's had a really, really tough life. And two days before school starts, the principle of this so called Christian school calls them up and says, you know, we don't agree with your choice of lifestyle. And so your daughter can't come to our school. Now their daughter isn't married to anybody. Their daughter, and if she was, it's perfectly legal. There's nothing wrong with it. But for a 5 year old, it would be kind of problematic. But you get my point. I mean, they're punishing a 5 year old. For what they perceive to be the sins of her parents, and they call themselves Christians around this. I'm just astonished. Just astonished. As. The grandfather of a couple of adopted kids with a gay couple. I'm furious. And I'm horrified. I mean, this is now the way that the Republican Party thinks that they're going to win elections. Is by trashing, in particular, gay people, gay couples. Gay and lesbian couples. And trans people. Obviously, they go after trans people in the whole girls in sports and all this kind of trans girls in sports. But this is even bigger. And this is, I mean, it's all, it's all very problematic. And it's all the same thing, essentially. It's bigotry. That's all it is. This is legal, although the Supreme Court, you know, Sam Alito, and clarence Thomas have said that they're going to come after this and try to make it illegal. But we have to talk back to these people. And tell them that this is not Christian, this is not love thy neighbor. This is not care for the little child. You know, Jesus said, you mess with little kids. You would be better off having a rope tight around your neck and having that rope attached to a rock
"sam alito" Discussed on Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast
"But it just makes no sense politically, Charlie. That's the other thing. You just don't get it. I wonder about that because I want to see them pay a political price for it. Yeah. So far, they've been able to do all this stuff. And pay a relatively slim political price. Can we go give me 16? It's just this political hacked Ness goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. I guess there's a new low, but Sam Alito is she wrote about Sam Alito went to Rome to correct some jokes after overturning roe. He said apparently Sam Alito went to Rome and let his free flag by guaranteeing he is now known internationally as a head. Yeah, this is him. Here we go. I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string
Supreme Court Political Hackery Revealed in Sam Alito's Rome Speech
"This political hacked Ness goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. I guess there's a new low, but Sam Alito is she wrote about Sam Alito went to Rome to correct some jokes after overturning roe. He said apparently Sam Alito went to Rome and let his free flag by guaranteeing he is now known internationally as a head. Yeah, this is him. Here we go. I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price, what really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine. Wow. The crisis test has Boris Johnson and Trudeau. I mean, now he's admitting it. I mean, it's out in the open now. You've got a Supreme Court, the majority of whom are conservative hacks. Right. And we'll deliver for all the people who and Sheldon White House is right about this and he's been right about this for three years now. He's delivering for their donors the same way a congressman would.
New Founding's Matt Peterson on Justice Alito, Christian Nationalism
"With us right now is a great American patriot cofounder and general partner of new founding and also the president of American firebrand super PAC and friend of the show. Matt Peterson Matt, welcome back to the program. Hey, it's great to be here, Charlie. So Matt, I want to get through a couple news items here. But first, I want to play a piece of tape here from justice Alito's speech. I think he gave it in Rome, which is super scary 'cause that's where the Catholic Church is headquartered and not allowed to do that. And I want to play cut 94 here. And the way the media has responded is a new line of attack that you can see in kind of the smart coordinated circles, the people that are considered to be smarter than not. However, they are all kind of coordinating their attacks around Christian nationalism, play cut 94. Over the last few weeks, since I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a cold string of foreign leaders. Who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law. One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price, Matt kind of mocking Boris Johnson there, Sam Alito, who I think is the best thing George W. Bush ever gave us, probably my favorite member of the court. They're attacking him as being a Christian nationalist. What do they mean by that, Matt? Well, in their minds, of course, they think Christian nationalism is a smear. They think both of those words are bad. And if you put them together, it's too bad things. And that's one big bad thing, and it's a scary monster, which I think in their minds means something like handmaid's tale and enforced Christian religion. They think it's racist too, somehow they seem to only regard whites as Christians, interesting. But white people who are Christian controlling the country and shoving their views down everyone else's throat is what they mean by it. And the hilarious thing here is that neither of those words are bad and when you put them together, you actually get what I think millions of people throughout the country think is normal.
What the Reactions to Clarence Thomas Post-Roe Reveal About White Libs
"What the reactions to clarence Thomas post roe reveal about white liberals I said wait a minute where did this come from Columbia University Sociology department Which is like the sociology department you know the university of Beijing or the university of Moscow And they say here soon after the court handed down its decision in row that is the Dobbs case Some pro choice advocates began hurling outrageous and overtly racist remarks of the justice By Musa our carbide and Paul F Lars fell There were 6 Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn roe versus wade they said The majority opinion was authored by justice Sam Alito But in the aftermath of the ruling there has been an intense and particular focus on a different justice Clarence Thomas soon after the court handed down its decision some pro choice advocates began hurling outrageous and overtly racist remarks In Thomas's direction including liberal evocations of the N word on Twitter Often to the acclaim of some other left aligned whites
Clinton: Justice Thomas Is a Person of 'Resentment, Grievance, Anger'
"Justice clarence Thomas. The black Supreme Court Justice now, by the way, she's not upset at Sam Alito, who wrote the opinion, right? The white guy. No, no, no, no, no, no. She's upset with the black guy. Justice Thomas has sort of floated that out there about contraceptive rights. Contraception. And about same sex marriages. But other justices have pushed back to say, no, he's really sort of on his own with that. Well, he believes that? Well, he may be on his own, but he's signaling as he often did. I went to law school with him. He's been a person of grievance for as long as I've known him. Resentment, grievance, anger. And he has signaled in the past to lower courts to state legislatures, but find cases pass laws get them up. I may not win the first, the second or the third time, but we're going to keep at it. So you're saying people pay attention to the people he is speaking to, which is the right wing very conservative judges and justices and state legislatures. And the thing that is, well, there's so many things about it that are deeply distressing. But women are going to die, Gayle, women will die. Women will die. Well, only if they're connected to
"sam alito" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Family has what was it again? Um, food? You really should have thought of that before you became peasants. It's that. You should have thought of this before you became unable to afford a powerful, amazing attorney. Stop being. I go back, my favorite cartoon reference is, of course, the Transformers reference. While we're doing the greatest hits, sure. Grimlock leader of the title bot says, me and grimlock not care about earth. Like, oh planet can fall apart for all me grim lock cares and the octopus pride says with you on it. Oh man, I haven't thought of that. As grimlock cookie monster, same guy, same. So. No, Dina bots are based off the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs have simple brains. So the dinah bots have simple brains. I appreciate that delightful interaction getting us out of what is a horrible, terrible, stupid, evil decision. But thanks for the breakdown, Andrew. There you go. That is terrible. And as usual, what we can do about it is when more Senate seats and expand the Supreme Court, that's the answer. That's what we can do if anything. Yep. And also, do not fall for centrist rhetoric and Politico puff pieces and the like talking about how wonderful John Roberts is. Sean Roberts is just slightly less of an activist than Sam Alito. Again, he might just be the more competent evil person. That might honestly, that might be the main difference. Oh, no social this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding. And now it's time for Thomas takes, the bar exam T three BE each week I attempt to answer bar exam question using nothing but my biceps. This is biceps. There we go. TBT three. I don't lift weights, so it's not going to be a T three B two E the E is an ethyl group at the end. All right, anyway. So let's have it. Let's see if I can answer another one right. I think I got last week's right on a bit of a streak. So Thomas, a restaurant headquartered in state a, was the subject of multiple premises liability suits. Stemming from a spill on the floor that caused multiple injuries. Plaintiff won, sued the restaurant in state court located in state pay for negligence. In that suit, it was determined after a full litigation that the employees of the corporation were aware of the spill on the floor and did have a duty to warn the plaintiff of the spill. Following a full trial plaintiff one succeeded in her suit against the restaurant, the restaurant filed an appeal and that appeal is still pending. Plaintiff two filed suit against the restaurant in federal court located in state B plaintiff two sought to preclude the restaurant from asserting that it did not owe a duty to warn of the spill under collateral estoppel. The law of state a, allows for the use of offensive non mutual collateral issues. Oh my God. The law of state B prohibits the use of offensive non mutual collateral to stop it. Federal law allows for the use of collateral to stoppel as justice permits. Oh, my God. The law in all three jurisdictions states that a judgment is final until reversed or otherwise modified, assumed jurisdiction and venue are proper. What should the court do? Not to try to answer this question and leave. The court should do. By the way, this is not just a civ pro question, civil procedure question. These were the kinds of questions I lived for. This is, to this day, I don't get a chance to do as much like straight on law geekery civ pro stuff, you know, because these kinds of fact patterns rarely present themselves, but I love this kind of stuff. Anyway, what should the court do? A, allow the restaurant to litigate the issue of its duty to warn because the federal court will apply the law of the state in which it sits. B, evaluate whether justice would allow the use of non mutual collateral estoppel because the federal law will apply its own law on procedural issues. C, prohibit the restaurant from litigating the issue of its duty to warn because the federal court will apply the law of state a, or D delay the case until the appeal is decided. Interesting. That sounds like a silly answer, but I kind of think it's not. I've seen real cases in our coverage of that kind of thing happening. Well, this strikes me as impossible here. Let me take a 30 minutes off air to read no, not really. You know, after rereading this to myself, Andrew, I see why you like these. Now, it just doesn't mean that any chance of answering this, but I see that I think I start to see the puzzle here. You know, I'm seeing the Rubik's Cube, and I don't know how to do a Rubik's Cube, but I think I understand why it might be fun for you. Okay, there's a case since there's a couple cases going on. One is just in state court of state a, the plaintiff wins, and in the suit, this is important, it was determined after full litigation that the employees of the corporation were aware of a spill and did have a duty to warn of this bill. So after that trial, that succeeds, the restaurant is appealing, filed an appeal, but the appeal is still pending. Now, the other plaintiff has gone a different direction. They have sued in federal court in state B now we are to assume it says at the bottom of the question, we're not going to worry about any of the 75,000 and the whatever we're assuming jurisdiction venue are proper. So okay, I know what that means. I've learned enough to know what that means. So now, here's the part where I have to use what I know, what's the set in the question and context to try to figure out what any of these terms are. But I think I kind of can. Because it says, plaintiff two, so this is the plaintiff suing in federal court in state B play of two sought to preclude the restaurant from asserting that it did not owe a duty of a duty to warn of the spill under collateral estoppel. Now that sounds to me, like plaintiff two is trying to take what happened in the trial of state a and is trying to say, I guess, and I don't know how legitimate this is as a law thingy. And I imagine it's a legitimate enough to have a term. So I imagine there's like rules of when it can and can't apply that I won't know that I'll have to try to guess that. But it sounds like you can be like, hey, they just did this whole trial over there in state a big to do is all this stuff. It was 6 weeks long as on TV. All that. And they determined that the restaurant did have a duty to warn. So I'm saying, let's save ourselves the trouble over here in state B and federal court and not go through that. I think is what collateral stop will must be. Sounds like it. Now it says, this is interesting. The law of state a allows for the use of offensive, non mutual collateral estoppel. So sounds scary, but I think that just means the plaintiff is.
"sam alito" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Things. They can not arrest a husband and wife. But the same crying. Yeah, I don't think that that's true, dad. Really? I got the worst attorneys. So Andrew, I saw this the coverage, the 5th circuit is just, it just feels like they are testing the limits, you know? There's not even really a fence anymore with the Supreme Court, but they're testing, I don't know, the outer bounds of the earth to see how terrible they can make decisions and not have the Supreme Court overrule them. This latest one involves the SEC and given the impression that they're essentially ruling the SEC just can't do anything. There's not in charge of anything anymore and they don't exist. Am I exaggerating what's happening here? You're exaggerating a little but not much. This is an excellent description of the 5th circuit as I called them on Twitter a stalking horse for the right wing that thinks this Supreme Court is too tentative, right? It's too small so you can. And essentially, the strategy that they're employing, you've correctly described it, is to disregard Supreme Court precedent that they're pretty sure Sam Alito doesn't like anyway. That's what they did in affirming the constitutionality of Texas SB 8, and it's what they're doing in this particular case, spoiler alert, this one pretty much overturns a 2018 Supreme Court decision written by clarence Thomas, okay? So liberal, yeah. Yeah, that by the Beacon of progressivism that is clarence Thomas. This one I think they are hoping flies beneath the radar. The Twitter outrage has been out there. But this is complicated and I'm going to have to do an explainer of administrative law. This is really, really important that you understand the game that's going on because at minimum what this is is delivering a key undeserved win to a far right Republican constituency. That's the very minimum that this decision will do. What it is intended to do is continue the Republican Party's sole operating principle of arguing that government doesn't work and proving that by wrecking every lever of power they get their hands on. Yeah, this car doesn't work, see? Just drive straight into a wallet max speed. See, it doesn't work. That is broken is the Republican Party and I'm going to explain that it's going to require a little bit of effort, so strap it. If I know our listeners, like me, we are all ready for you to deliver us an administrative law breakdown. It's our favorite. Yeah. So let's kind of start at the top and that is, one of the things that I've always used as an illustration for why originalism is silly and particularly the kind of strict constructionism of the text of the various terms of the Bill of Rights is starting with, say, the Fifth Amendment. No person can be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. What's a liberty? What's a process and how much of it are you to do? And that is actually something administrative law answers. Generally speaking, the idea that you would read that literally, no person can be deprived of their liberty without due process of law. You would say, okay, does that mean, for example, that we have to have a trial on the merits every time government does something that changes my behavior. And the answer to that is very obviously not. Perfect example, the city council tomorrow decides to make the street out in front of your house a one way street. Well, that interferes with literally 50% of your liberty, right? You can only turn right and all the things that you involved you turn a left and doing stuff. Now involve you having to make three rights, right? So you can not seriously argue that that doesn't constrain your liberty. But you know what process you're entitled to in connection with that? Almost nothing. You were not even entitled to notice that they're going to make it a one way street before they start putting up the signs. They might hold a public hearing and if you were paying attention and you happen to read your local newspaper or walk by, you were county councilman's office, maybe you noticed and maybe you attended. But by and large, you could just wake up tomorrow and your street could be a one way street and if you try and argue that you've been deprived of your Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, they'll say, no, you got all the process to which you were due. How much was that process nothing? Or almost nothing. You know, we changed the sign. We held a public hearing, it's not my fault if you didn't know when that was and didn't bother to attend. Okay, so then you can kind of go up in baby steps and every step you go up, you get a little bit more process. So for example, if you were denied unemployment or other federal certain federal benefits, you get notice, but not a hearing. You'll get a letter in the mail that says, dear mister Smith, this is to inform you that you're unemployment benefits will stop as of May 30th, 2022. If you do nothing, guess what they stop. It puts you on notice if you want to bring a lawsuit or otherwise challenge that administratively, you can take advantage of whatever procedures are available to you. But if you do nothing, those benefits are just going to stop all you get is notice. That's a step up from the one way street, but it's still several miles away from being entitled to a trial before they take it away from you..
"sam alito" Discussed on WTOP
"The top story we're following for you this morning Senate Democrats want to vote soon on abortion rights CBS News special report lawmakers are mobilizing after Politico published a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion this week indicating a majority of justices may be poised to overturn roe V wade Senator Elizabeth Warren tells CBS Ed O'Keefe Democrats are planning a vote on putting abortion rights into law You don't have the votes for it By making people vote on this issue that matters to so many people We've got a chance now Maybe to change the makeup of who's in the United States Senate Warren with an odd to the midterm elections governors are lining up for and against possible Supreme Court action Michigan Gretchen Whitmer I'm using every tool at my disposal I'm going to fight like hell to protect this right for women Oklahoma's Kevin stitt signed a bill into law this week banning most abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy We do not believe that 9 on the elected people can make a decision for all of Oklahoma CBS News special report I'm Deborah Rodriguez 6 33 now will a change of plans for Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito the justice wrote the draft opinion on abortion that was leaked to Politico on Monday and now Reuters reports that alita was set to appear at the 5th U.S. orca is circuit Court of Appeals judicial conference in Georgia this week but he's now bowed out of that event the conference program says chief justice John Roberts and justice clarence Thomas will still or are still slated to speak at the event today and tomorrow There are additional security measures in place at the Supreme Court and at Politico The news organization sent a memo to staff members yesterday saying it had restricted access to its offices and told security to be extra vigilant about visitors While not reporting any specific threats the company also urged employees to consider removing their political affiliation on social media accounts After publishing the draft Supreme Court opinion on abortion there has been wide speculation online about Politico's sources for the document It is very rare for internal Supreme Court discussions to be made public and unprecedented for a full draft decision to be seen Maryland's Republican governor has turned down a request for the early release of money that had been set aside to train medical professionals other than doctors to perform abortions They controlled Peter Franco concerned that the Supreme Court could overturn roe versus wade as calling on the state to release $3.5 million now to train nurse practitioners nurse midwives and physicians assistants to perform abortions The money from the abortion care access act which governor Larry Hogan vetoed was set aside for the 2023 fiscal year budget but Franco who's running for governor says the state needs to prepare now for a dramatic increase in the demand for abortions Franco is seeking the democratic nomination for governor Michael Ricci a spokesperson for Hogan's has the money won't be released now that the governor firmly believes in non licensed physicians should not be performing these medical procedures Mike Morello WTO P news Interest rates are headed higher as the Federal Reserve tries to get inflation in check Bank rate dot com analyst Greg McBride says the fed's rate hike means a significant jump in borrowing rates At the end of the year you may have a rate on your credit card or your home equity line that's two percentage points higher than where you started the year On the other hand savers might finally receive a yield high enough to top inflation CBS News business analyst Jill schlesinger on other signals from the Central Bank The fed also announced that it would begin to unload the massive quantity of bonds that it had purchased during the worst of the COVID recession More rate hikes are coming but fed chair Jerome Powell downplayed the likelihood of an even larger increase than the one just announced Jennifer Kuiper CBS News Meantime polls show that inflation is a big issue for voters and congressional Republicans charged that President Biden's plans to address it are falling short We get more on that with WTO's Mitchell Miller today on the hill Inflation is costing Americans an average of $327 per month Indiana Republican senator Todd young pointing to rising rents grocery bills and gas prices And wages are not keeping up Not even close Pennsylvania Republican pat to me among the GOP lawmakers urging changes including a renewed emphasis on oil exploration and energy independence White House press secretary Jen Psaki says the administration is committed to lowering costs and remains open to working with Congress on various issues Whether it's child care healthcare elder care prescription drugs all of these have an impact on people's day to today lives On Capitol Hill Mitchell Miller WTO news Coming up Russia ramps up attacks in Ukraine as it prepares for victory day It's 6 36 Let's face it Real estate is broken Commissions are outrageously high Service is poor and there's been little to no innovation for the last 50 years Until now let me tell you about Hauser there are disruptor brand kind of like what Uber is for public transportation They're bringing so many new things to market that truly benefit you the.
"sam alito" Discussed on WTOP
"Signals for the legitimacy of the nation's high court It's interesting that leaked draft that we saw doesn't appear to include John Roberts in the majority It appears to be 5 of the conservative justices without John Roberts for exactly the reason you just laid out chief justice Roberts is very much following in the steps of his mentor then chief justice William rehnquist who also felt that his job as the chief justice was not just to be another vote but to protect the public esteem for the court the legitimacy of the court and we may recall justice rehnquist did all sorts of things as chief justice he might not have done as a junior justice because he was deeply worried about that and chief justice John Roberts seems to be saying by declining to sign on to this draft by Sam Alito he cares too much about public opinion about the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of the public to sign off on something that would Willy nilly overturn 50 years of precedent So are you saying the courts should be swayed by public polling or public outcry I'm saying both I'm saying in some sense the framers created life tenure They have an institution that answers to nobody because the court's not meant to be swayed by public opinion But I'm also saying that the justices themselves from the time of the great chief justice John Marshall till today have always been mindful of not overturning cases of not taking zigzags just based on the composition of the court In fact the rules and the discussion around precedent and overturning precedent are really bound up in not shocking the public in not jolting the public by simply changing lanes because the court has different membership And so I think what I'm saying is the court has massive power to do just that And the justices have historically conducted themselves in ways that protect the public from those kinds of shocks and that John Roberts is essentially saying everything we know about precedent about stare decisis tells us we don't simply change directions because we have new justices and we can change directions We have to be really mindful of public opinion and public support and the legitimacy of the court requires that just because one member of the court dies and is replaced by another doesn't mean we get to do what we want to do now If a decision comes down some people will be pleased and some unhappy that's in the draft justice Alito really seems to leave the door open to other cases that are not rooted in the constitution like contraception like same sex marriage and even interracial marriage If you take justice Alito at face value marriage equality is back on the table contraception is back on the table even the case that said that anti miscegenation rules the rules that said you couldn't have interracial marriage all of that is in the same bucket.
"sam alito" Discussed on podcast – Lawyers, Guns & Money
"We're discussing the lead opinion of Sam Alito's 8th rate hack work overruling roe versus wade. Which the court itself has admitted his authentic, although not final. So we thought that we would discuss the implications of this. And I'm here with Paul campos, actual Professor of law at the university of Colorado. And we wanted to discuss all the implications of this. And we're going to subvert the media narrative by talking about what this means substantively before we get to the question of the leak, you know, surely the greatest breach of norms and civic protocol and dignity and human decency in American history, but nonetheless, there's the tiny matter of the ability of American women to actually access reproductive care and we thought we might start with that. So Paul, if you wanted to get us started, what I think we've both read and the rather embarrassing opinions. So I don't know if you want to start with the kind of material policy implications or the arguments being made on behalf of I'll leave it to you. Sure. I think that Alito's opinion is essentially shows all the marks of being something that's been drafted by a nonstop for the last 45 years, basically. And it doesn't have very much problem, I think, trashing roe and Casey, because I don't know if Scott agrees with me on this particular point, but I think that the liberal left critics of role in Casey are pretty much correct that they're very weak opinions. They're not well written or reasoned, and they're sort of the easy pickings for right-wing deconstruction. I myself have always believed that abortion rights would have been much more soundly grounded in an equal protection argument about women's rights rather than in the due process argument that both roe and Casey put forward. Nevertheless, I think Alito is argument is really pretty sophomoric. He doesn't grapple with the really difficult issue, which is the issue of star decisis..
Ketanji Brown Jackson on How She Approaches the Constitution
"We had this hearing today with a brown Jackson Brown Jackson And some of the things she said were utterly preposterous She was the most radical among the candidates and the small group of candidates that Biden looked at Had to be a woman had to be black and I think had to be on a court That's a small group And here's what she said in her confirmation today about the way she approaches the constitution cut to go So if it is a statute for example or a provision of the constitution I'm looking at the text The adherence to text is a constraint on my authority I'm trying to figure out what those words mean as they were intended by the people who wrote them Ladies and gentlemen that's called originalism Which is embraced and promoted and used by justices like clarence Thomas and Sam Alito the late justice Scalia rehnquist justice Gorsuch now you know full well that's not what she does
Breitbart: Then-Sen. Biden Opposed Janice Rogers Brown’s Nomination, a Black Woman, for Being Conservative
"Because as they point out a breitbart our great friends over there Paul boys Biden Philip fostered a black woman judges nomination for two years and I remember this Biden blocked among others Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit Because she was a constitutionalist Bush had nominated her for the District of Columbia circuit court in O three She had served as a justice on the California Supreme Court since 1996 So she didn't get confirmed until 2005 over his objections Now why Not just because he wanted to prevent her from being on the so called second most important court in the country the D.C. circuit That is the appellate court He did not want her becoming the first black woman on the United States Supreme Court As a possible replacement for justice Sandra Day O'Connor Now we got Sam Alito so that was terrific but she is terrific as well That she is as well And Obama didn't want her anywhere near the court As they point out as they point out in
"sam alito" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Reason liberals line up for a SmackDown Three government chiefs from March 11 Unfortunately we only have a short segment here so I will continue with justice Stephen breyer Then we'll move on to Neil Gorsuch And Sam Alito because that's where they have listening to as well And then I want to remind you and unfortunately history is not a strong suit in this country Even recent history of what occurred in 1976 During the presidency of Gerald Ford It was something called the swine flu In a vaccine was developed to deal with the swine flu And I feel in part the remnants of what took place as a result of that vaccine and that episode an American medical history Last today a dear dear friend of mine who passed away a little bit ago Little over a year ago Rick a bell a great patriot a great reaganite Political appointee I would say for decades.
"sam alito" Discussed on WLS-AM 890
"Geno show So in what may be a bit of good news and I say maybe because you can never predict this Supreme Court There is a 5 four conservative majority Oh Dan it's 6 three No no no there's not a 6 three majority John Roberts is now all in with the libs There's not a that is a myth It is 5 four and even that 5 four hold on the Supreme Court is tenuous because listen you just can't predict what Kavanaugh and Amy Coney barret are gonna do I mean sadly I really thought they would be strong originalists like clarence Thomas and Sam Alito and even Gorsuch at times but they really haven't They've been very shaky on the constitution which is which is disturbing On a personal indictment you know they were they have lifetime appointments but you know we were really hoping that we had won elections to get constitutionalists and originalists in there The good news is that maybe good news is that January 7th the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments about the Biden vaccine mandates because remember there were many of them There was one via osha for the employees people with a hundred employees or more There was one for the healthcare space So I'll get to that more in a second and what can happen there Yeah it's going to be critical First it's the holidays You deserve a gift How about a gift that keeps on giving you joy and comfort every day all year long A gift that looks as good as it feels and a gift that will actually pay for itself in terms of how much more productive you'll be at work I'm talking about giving yourself the gift of an X share I absolutely love mine I'm sitting in it right now It's by far the most comfortable and ergonomic chair I've ever used And honestly.
"sam alito" Discussed on On The Media
"Yes that is a fair summary. You know not so long ago if the governor or legislator was endorsing antiabortion bill. They would give these kind of phony secular reasons for doing what they were doing saying. Abortion hurts women. Abortion hurts the medical profession. I mean all kinds of stuff and they didn't say what they really meant. Which is we oppose abortion. Because it's against our religious doctrine and of course it's everybody's perfect privilege to think that abortion is against the religious doctrine but when i'm trying to say it's not their privilege to enforce their religion on the rest of us there are some justices on the court who have an agenda. We know that they're very open about it. I mean just to. Sam alito spends a lot of his energy writing opinions that basically invite disaffected members of the public to bring issues to the court for instance. He's convinced that there's a real threat in the country of discrimination against people who oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons. He says they're going to be subject to discrimination. Going to be written off as bigots when just a few years ago it was a majority view to oppose same sex marriage. This kind of thing. I think the public can watch this and say wait a minute. We thought the court was the passive recipient of the disputes. That are roiling. The country not going out seeking to comment those kinds of disputes so that the supreme court has the raw material to enable it to decide the way wants to decide and remind us of the denominational breakdown of the court. Justice neal gorsuch episcopalian. He was raised catholic. He attended the same jesuit. Boys' prep school. That just as brett cavenaugh did so. Let's say there is seven justices raised catholic on the supreme court and there are two who were raised jewish. And you can say how did this happen. I think it happened..
Texas Abortion Ban One of Dozens Intended to Challenge Roe v. Wade
"Let me explain about the texas law. It is the texas heartbeat act. The case is whole women's held their whole woman's health versus jackson. The abortion providers in texas sued texas judge in county court clerk and others in an attempt to cast is widen it possible to challenge the texas Heartbeat law that bans abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. It was denied. They appealed to the fifth circuit court of appeals. The fifth circuit denied the abortion providers requests to hold a quick hearing on the law before it can take effect. The result is that they had to file an emergency application. Sam alito sam alito chose to do nothing. The result is that the texas law goes into effect. There will be court hearings. I'm sure a judge will a progressive judge will issue an injunction of some kind but right now in texas abortions mussi's when a child's heart develops in utero now a bunch of states. Have these bills. They've been blocked by court. Georgia where i am be bill. A federal judge blocked it. I'm reading now from the l. C. the ethics religious liberty commission explainer. The texas law takes a novel legal approach to limit abortions by taking enforcement of the measure exclusively through private selections essentially. The law allows any private citizen to bring a civil lawsuit against any individual who performs or induces an abortion or knowingly engages in conduct that aides were abets abortion including the payment foreign reimbursement of the costs for an abortion individuals who prevail in their lawsuit will be awarded statutory damages in the amount of not less than ten thousand
"sam alito" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Decide win they care about painstakingly analyzing the text or not exactly right and as we predicted on four seventy one this will lead in the next five years without the passage of the for the people act or something similar preventing this it will lead to what we call the death of a thousand cuts right. It will be twenty five separate additional burdens each one of which is quote mere inconvenience but when taken together make it substantially harder for members of minority groups to to vote. Which by the way is exactly what the statute has meant to prohibit right. That's the whole point of that. Totality of the circumstances language. It is to say yeah. You don't just look at one particular rule you look at the entire process. So i he just imposes this random restriction that says if it's little command is that supported by any evidence whatsoever it is not second and again. We'll go back to the quoting for similar reasons. The degree to which voting route departs from what was practice when section two was amended in nineteen eighty two is a relevant consideration because every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort. It is useful to have a benchmark with which the burdens imposed by a challenge. Rule can be compared the burdens associated with the rules in widespread use when section two was adopted are therefore useful engaging whether the burdens imposed by challenged rule are sufficient to prevent voting from being equally open or furnishing an equal opportunity to vote in the sentiment by section two. therefore it's relevant that in nineteen eighty two states typically required nearly all voters to cast their ballots in person on election day and only allowed narrow and tightly defined categories of voters to cast absentee ballots again. I'm almost at a lack of words. For how complete utter nonsense that is section two does not say you know what it's nineteen eighty two and voting is awesome and this will never get any better than it is right. No it said in one thousand nine hundred. Two voting is massively unequal. And we want to fix this by enshrining in nineteen eighty to president. Ronald reagan rightly. You're talking about president bernie sanders with filibuster-proof democratic majority rejected about ronald reagan's america. We looked out with a republican majority in the senate and said okay. Voting rights still a problem so if states are trying to pass laws that make it harder for minorities to vote. We want to do something about that. Wow those were the days those. The republicans thought they would do something about that. Yeah so the. i mean. Those really weren't the days but like in that one. The steel body of this argument is to say you want to look at the objective quality of the burden being imposed right and so nineteen eighty two is now going to be our benchmark for what counts as objective quality. Let's assume that that's a cognizant argument isn't but let's assume that it is that is not what the voting rights act is meant to protect the voting section. Two of the voting rights act is meant to protect disparities between racial groups so in other words if we made it super duper easy for white people to vote by mail but super duper hard for black people to vote by mail under the alito rule established in the burn of each case. You have no section to claim. That is preposterous. It is it is. It is ridiculous at at a fundamental level because the whole idea is not like how would grandpa have felt about standing in this line. The whole idea is to remedy racial inequalities in how voting laws are applied and obviously a bill that says hey black people. Don't get to vote by mail but white people do is as textbook case of violating the voting rights. Act as you could possibly come up with this provision that i've just read suggests that it would not be it's like come on like it's based on nine hundred eighty two. It couldn't vote by mail in one thousand eighty two. You can't vote by mail now. What he complained about god. We're not all the way through. I mean imagine so would that logic apply like let's say hypothetically if we came up with online voting super easy internet voting and then some state is like black people. Don't get to use that by lido's reading what he'd be like well. I couldn't use it. Nineteen hundred wasn't even the internet in nineteen eighty two in this way. So it's fine. I don't see that there is any other way to read. The degree to which voting ruled. Departs from what was standard practice when section two was amended in nineteen eighty. Two is a relevant consideration. So i suppose right if you wanted to say. This is a good decision. But also overturn. What would plainly be intentional discrimination. You could say okay. What's a relevant consideration but it it. It doesn't hold sway here because the obviously racial animus outweighs but the idea that you would say well on the other hand to a of a law that says black people can't vote via internet or can't vote via mail Is like there should not be on the other hand for the and it should just be no. there is no other hand but sam alito thinks there is. It's all the more infuriating because these people try to rely on some like something that they think shows integrity you know. I'll just reading the plain language of the textile blah. And it's like no no matter how clear the law is. They will find a way to do the thing they already want to do. Do it's worthless and none of this is in any way tied to the text of the voting rights act whatsoever. I read you the text. You will not see objective test. You'll not see so. The third point he makes. This illustrates this. This goes hand in hand with the death of a thousand cuts on on the size of the burden. Leader says the size of any disparities in a rules impact on members of different racial ethnic groups as also an important factor to consider. Small disparities are less likely than large ones to indicate that the system is not equally open to the extent that minority non minority groups differ with respect to employment wealth and education even neutral regulations. No matter how well crafted may well result in some predictable. Disparities rates voting in noncompliance with voting rules. But the mere fact that there is some disparity and impact does not necessarily mean that the system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote again. That's just not what words mean right. He saying if you have a slightly unequal opportunity come on it kinda rounds out to equal and again this incentivizes employing the next thomas ho feller. He's already out there. I'm sure of it to figure out. Okay how can we suppress one percent of the plan of okay. Let's get person's daughters already. Hate him me too. I'm sure they do seriously if you if you if you get twenty five different regulations that each suppress one percent of the black vote. Totally free and clear. Nothing we can. Hopefully frankly fourth next courts must consider the opportunities provided by states entire system of voting when assessing the burden imposed.
"sam alito" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show
"It was a pretty expensive decision by the supreme court. The plaintiffs were unable to provide. This is a lido writing. The plaintiffs were unable to provide statistical evidence showing that ballot harvesting restrictions had a disparate impact on minority voters. The modest evidence of racial despite desperate burdens caused by the law in light of the state's justifications lead us to the conclusion that the law does not violate the voting rights. Act discount -als merrick garland case against georgia now because the supreme court did not write a hard and fast rule. Merrick garland can technically proceed with his case. But even so doing it makes it much much. Harder for merrick garland in the department of justice to sue georgia. Why because their cases premised on section two of the voting rights act and the supreme court. Today made it very clear that if every voter is inconvenienced it is defacto presumed illegal. The allegation from the democrats about georgia's new voting law is that it will overwhelmingly harm black residents with the supreme court. Says today in this bronevich case in arizona is that although something may have disparate impact on minorities if it's not designed to target minorities if every single person in a county has the same issue it's presumed to be legal and georgia's law though the democrats say it was designed to target minorities. It's not really true. It impacts every voter in every county equally every voter in georgia. We'll have to comply with the same standard based on today's ruling in the supreme court. That means georgia's law is cuts cuts. Titutional georgia is allow old to make it more difficult to vote particularly as the supreme court notes. Today more and more people are not showing up on election day vote. They're voting by other means earlier with no excuse that means states have an extra burden to regulate to make sure there's no fraud and sam alito said something else the state does not have to show fraud existed in order to show. It's taking steps to prevent fraud from happening. So the state does not have to provide evidence of fraud to impose restrictions that are to protect from broad. This completely destroys the department of justice case against georgia texas and florida. All three having passed new election reform. Laws there's no way they're getting these things through court now given the supreme court decision today and that's not the only big supreme court decision day the other decision is arguably even bigger and we'll get to that when we come back. Hello there is zero in the full number is eight. Seven seven nine seven eric. Eight seven seven.
"sam alito" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show
"It is a big day because of the united states supreme court. The sound you hear or heard a couple of hours ago was merrick. Garland flushing down the drain his lawsuit against the city of georgia. Thanks to the united states. Supreme court was a very big case about section two of the voting rights. Act which the supreme court all but gutted today. they didn't gut it but they did. They don't want to come up with a new rule. They don't wanna come up with a new test right now which is gonna make it very very difficult for congress to write a voting ruled that satisfies the supreme court since the supreme court refused to come up with the test. It was actually a very fascinating ruling. Most people guessed that sam alito was going to be the author of the case in large part because he wound up not getting the majority in the catholic charities case the fulton case. now the faulting case. That's where chief justice. John roberts wrote the majority opinion that said essentially in a nine nothing decision that the city of philadelphia can't discriminate against catholic charities. Catholic charities wanted to provide adoptions but catholic charities only provides adoptions to heterosexual married couples. They don't do gate. Options or adoptions to single people or foster care in that regard and the supreme court in a nine to nothing decisions said they had to allow catholic charities. Do it. Interestingly enough don lemon from cnn. Do you want an idea of how far out the mainstream he is. Don lemon from. Cnn is going on a tirade about that nine to nothing decision saying that no religious group should be able to provide adoptions in this country. That's a cnn news anchor you a perspective of how far outside the mainstream is nonetheless. So i i'm setting the stage here going back to that decision because it's important to understand the dynamics. Most every legal scholar assume sam alito would be writing that decision and in fact sam alito Concurrence it wasn't really a descent. It was a concurrence. Sam alito concurrent reads like. It was supposed to be the majority decision..
Biden Signs Executive Order Aimed at Expanding Voting Rights
"So biden marks the fifty six anniversary of bloody sunday by signing executive order to make voting easier and he takes aim at trump over. Voter fraud claims that unprecedented insurrection in our capital on january six. Now we know. It wasn't an insurrection. Nobody was armed. Nobody had a weapon. Nobody's been arrested for having a weapon. The only shooting that took place was a capitol hill. Policemen shooting at and she died a veteran. How do you have an insurrection. Without weapons was never an insurrection. It isn't an insurrection. And i'll continue to say that it was violent and it was an attack on the capitol building. That's what it was but it was not an insurrection. But they can't stop and they won't stop because the media are propaganda even in the midst of a pandemic he said the judge appointed upheld the integrity of the vote. We have a corrupt majority now on the supreme court intellectually corrupt and politically left. They're cowards and the leading cowardice. John roberts i hate to tell you this amy coney barrett and brek having in on it. They've had multiple opportunities including today to clean up this mac and uphold the constitution of the states. And make it very clear. What needs to be done clarence. Thomas has said so over and over again. Sam alito said so over and over again no gorsuch said so over and over again. The barretts already a huge disappointment and cavenaugh is. And i knew he would be now. Let's get back to this insurrection. They talk about the democrat party strategically and meticulously went into the battleground states and destroyed. Their voting systems violated the federal constitution. What around the republican state legislatures not to protect minorities but to protect joe biden and the democrat party. That's what they're about.
"sam alito" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"As the president of the United States. His lawyers appeared, I'm told before 50 judges in various states, some of whom were Republican judges, some of whom were Democratic judges, some of whom were actually appointed by him. The Supreme Court chose not to hear the Texas case. That's my point. Why did they not hear the evidence? Well, I could only tell you there are six Supreme Court justices. Who were appointed by Republicans, three of them were appointed by President Trump. So fill in the cracks and Republicans Dan don't like trump, right? So why wouldn't you just love the body money? If you don't mind? Let me just finish my point. And then I want to hear your comment. With three judges of Supreme Court justices Gossage, Cavanaugh and most recently Amy Cockney, Cockney Brian They were in the group of seven. Who chose who basically said the case should not be heard. There were two judges Um Sam Alito, who had been nominated by George Bush and Clarence Thomas. We've been nominated by Bush 41, who wanted to at least hear the case, but all three judges that President Trump nominated to the Supreme Court ruled against him. Yeah, I say a tu brute. A Why? Why wouldn't they want to hear the evidence? I don't know. I'm not a Supreme Court justice. I would think that if he was going to get a hearing Those judges. If those three judges had joined with a legal and Thomas they would have, then you would have had some action on the Texas case. I think that is at this point. That's water under the bridge. We can argue that But I can just tell you it wasn't like That he only got into one court and it was a Democratic judge. There were judges because we all know there was evidence. But the courts didn't want to hear it. The state Supreme Court convention body and I'm not giving it my best shot Their point man. Why should we trust our elections? When there's millions of mail and votes that untrustworthy? And why would we trust computers for votes? What do Why should we trust the system really works. Well, it's worked before. And if, Okay, let's assume Let's take your position. Marty, let's take your position that the that the system the electoral system doesn't work. Okay, let let's assume you're correct. Does that does that again, Marty, I'm having a tough time. Have a conversation, buddy. Please work with me. Here. Let me assume. As you say that the electoral system doesn't work here. Enough. I'm saying it does work down. You're saying it does work? I thought you were singing votes a suspicious because they can be tapping with There was obviously a lot of tampering where they came in late are they came in without verified signatures, especially in Pennsylvania. And in Georgia, there's a video of them pulling suitcases out after hours. George is very suspicious, all with so okay. Money. You know what? I've tried my best. I'm not going to dissuade you from your point of view. And I would not want to try to dissuade you from your point of view. Trust the vetting, Dan, Because they don't want to hear the evidence. You just told me you trusted the voting. I'm sorry. I'm confused now. Money I gotta write cause him up in the newscast will talk soon. I misunderstood you. Have a great night. Good night. 617254 10 30 Triple 8929 10 30. We're coming back on Nightside Passions Running high or nightside Nightside with Dan Ray WBZ.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Hits Highest Level in at least 3 Million Years
"In our science fact of the day this just in according to the world meteorological association no you know flaming left wing think tank the a this is the W. ammo the literally the world meteorological association atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide CO two are now at the highest ever in three million years now that is longer than human history human history only goes back a couple hundred thousand years so atmosphere CO two levels right now are higher than when Lucy was around right the the pre human and a higher than when Lucy's ancestors were around getting Lucy was only about a million or so ago all of which means that our children and grandchildren can expect temperatures to continue to rise more extreme weather more sea level rise more destruction to marine life more destruction of land based ecosystems more death of insects and and stuff at the bottom of the food chain which then echoes up so that the birds die and and we're saying this right now you know sixty seventy percent of certain kinds of birds particularly the insect insectivorous birds drawn from our planet we're looking at at at an insect apocalypse right now and and this is just the very beginning we have not yet even hit one point five degrees Celsius increase in temperature over the bass line and the pre industrial base line I mean we're just about there but we haven't quite hit it and the bottom line what what all these climate scientists are saying is is that we have to stop it right there I can't go any farther and yet what is the industry doing right now and and in on the right wing media that is that is supportive of industry while they're making fun of the stuff I mean Michael Mann for example the the the scientist he's been a guest on this program many times as a brilliant easy university of Pennsylvania sciences he's the guy who invented the cop the hockey stick conception of the SCO to going up that Al Gore popularized bed professor of cleans climate science or atmospheric science or whatever it is add to Penn state university one of probably a top five climate scientists in the world Michael Mann me was made fun of by the competitive interest enterprise institute in their blog ran Samberg wrote that well first of all they they attacked Michael Mann they said that his science was nonsense and and that is so Penn state did an investigation because there was all this ball Rollin publicity Penn state did an investigation what they found was that he was totally stand up everything he said was true and the way he said it was fine and though he published it was in compliance with scientific rigorous scientific standards reviews stuff so the compatible devices that is one of these right wing think tanks in quotes it really just a propaganda show operation for industry guy name brand Sandburg wrote that Penn state had quote covered up one two in by Michael Mann and characterize man as quote the Jerry Sandusky of climate science because he had quote molested and tortured data in service of politicized science and then not a blog posted by hosted by the National Review online the national reviews the magazine that William F. Buckley started back in the day when he was alive the saying that the you know the National Review is supporting segregation not just in South Africa but in the United States as well apartheid the National Review still around even though he is gone and they said in the end they oppose this was mark staying he said the man was behind the fraudulent climate change study in the investigation clearing him was a cover up basically and so Michael Landon Jr mattered factions from from the competitive enterprise institute see I am from National Review and instead they naturally you published an op ed by rich Lowry their editor titled get lost well so Matt Michael Mann suit and they just tried to get the lawsuit dismissed and here's the headline this is in the Washington post's Robert Barnes a climate scientists may pursue his definition lawsuit against a magazine in a Washington think tank after the Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene at this stage of the litigation Sam Alito dissented Sam Mr craze right wing dissented but the the Supreme Court said not spread go ahead and so on it's absolutely amazing I mean this is this is so so here we are we've got more CO two in the atmosphere than at any time in the history of the human race or even the pre human race day in other holidays mmhm more and more CO two in the air our course it takes sometimes as much as a century to that for the CO two in a holding heat and to accumulate to the point where you really start seeing the effects we're already starting to and you've got industry trying to pretend that there's not and there's nothing to see here and making fun of it ridicule and the folks and I've got real scientists were starting to fight back and say no this is real stuff and then the world meteorological organization just comes out and says CO two levels higher than they've ever been