13 Burst results for "Sarah Harrington"
"sarah harrington" Discussed on Native America Calling
"To, I mean, on a personal level, how do you think many Alaska native people in your area feel now that we're seeing Russia invading another country and imposing some of the same harsh practices that your people experienced 300 years ago? You're going to give you the last word there, Sarah. Sure. Well, of course, I think we all see those memes in Alaska. They surprised me with what's happening in regards to Russia and Ukraine. And knowing our history here in Alaska, but in kodiak, we really see this region as an international crossroads. And all of these stories are so connected. The building that I'm in today, the oldest building in Alaska, brings elements in terms of the construction of the building. There are so many ways in which our stories overlap and that we are working to understand. So that we can have better perspective on today's issues and be able to move forward in a heart led way, but with better understanding of what the facts are that got us here today. I just want to say thank you for having us on it's been really a wonderful experience and I'm going to continue to think about this for the rest of the day. It's a great start. We've now reached into the hour and that's all the time we have for today's show. I do want to thank our guests, house PacMan and Sarah Harrington for a stimulating conversation on the history of Russian colonization in North America, and its lasting influence on Alaska, native peoples. We're back tomorrow with another awesome live show plan. It's Saint Patrick's Day and we'll explore the parallels between Ireland and Native Americans. I.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on Native America Calling
"This is native America calling. I'm Sean spruce. What do you know about Russian colonization of Alaska, dating back three centuries? What does that influence mean today? Give us a call, join the conversation, the number one 809 9 6 two 8 four 8. That's one 809 9 native. Sarah, before we went to break, you were talking about what Russian occupation looked like in the kodiak region of Alaska. Please continue your thoughts. Sure. I was just speaking to the fact that the colonization really changed all the culture. As a seafaring culture who really realized primarily on marine resources, we started to see effects like changes to our boats. So we use a kayak and they went from a one or two hold ship to three where a Russian colonizer or would go out with the aleutian people and would stay with them to make sure that they were doing their work to hunt the sea otter for bringing these resources for gain by Russians and it was little payback to the elite polluted people. I think it's also worth mentioning here too that a lucic is a term for our community that has changed over some time. So elders used to sometimes identify it as a lutech and a more common and correct term that we use now is to create, which means the real people. And all of these identifiers that we've used in our community have changed over the years as we start to reclaim our cultural identity here in kodiak. Sir, do you know about how many native people were living in Alaska at the time of Russian contact? That's a great question. I'm not sure if hell no is the answer to that. I can look into it a little bit here quickly. Okay, well, do you know about how many Alaska native people were living in the region when Russia contacted the continent 300 years ago? There is no definite numbers that I'm aware of. I mean, it was literally in the thousands of people, but I think the thing that's important to understand when you think about Russia and the colonization of Alaska is the sheer size of Alaska. And most people really can't comprehend how big Alaska is. And the distances between places. And so the more important question probably might be how many Russians were there? Literally hundreds and that's it. And so the multitude of Alaska people and vibrant cultures that were there were in the thousands and tens of thousands and the Russians knew that they could not colonize such a big area without the help of those people. And they chose a rather brutal way of terrible way of capitalizing on those people, but they never would have survived without the native people. And that, I think, is very important because the Russians kind of they came here with a sole idea. We're going to extract as many resources as we can. And we're not here to try to establish. A permanently like on the eastern coast of the United States. It was let's get a system that allows us to harvest the furs and get them to China and Russia and different markets. Okay. Thank you. And my producer just handed me a note, apparently approximately a 100,000 Alaska natives at the time of Russian contact who were living there. And approximately 17,000 lived on the aleutian islands. And how you mentioned that Russians didn't occupy Alaska in large numbers. In fact, even at the peak of what we might call this Alaskan Russian Empire, there were only about 800 Russians that were living in these settlements and you mentioned that disease, massacre and conflict were these huge, huge factors in how they were able to maintain this foothold. But what were some other ways that they were able to hang on to this, these colonies, these settlements among these many Alaskan people, again, it's remarkable fewer than a thousand Russians living in these settlements, even at the height of this period of their colonization. I think I kind of mentioned the Russians learned soon that they couldn't do this by themselves. And so they had to help the help of the native people. And so I'll give an example. They bought deer and fish and different wild game from the slink at people. They used noggin and shoot react. Hunters to harvest the animals. The sea otters and things like that. And they literally brought them to sitka. To do that, which is, I think, is a trap in its own right. And so it's what they did is they developed this symbiotic relationship with the native people in order to, I guess, use the word succeed with their goals. And they had just very little recognition of what it was doing to the culture and the people. And it's like Sarah had mentioned the church to change that a little bit, but certainly it was a system of let's get in, let's take as much as we can and make as much money as we can and then not worry about all the other things like establishing settlements. None of them are survival. Okay. And I know it was mentioned early on the show that the were capable warriors. And I'm interested to know what were these efforts by Alaska native people with regard to resisting these Russian occupiers. Well, there were numerous incidents of not just the battle of sitka is one of those called in 1804 in which you see ansky just happened to be in town with the after on off came back and was going to extract revenge for the 17 or 1802 massacre of the fort of saint Michael. Our archangel archangel. And that was a siege and a battle and they clink at people that will have a well documented march after they deserted that form. And they continue to. I guess have incidents with the Russians and the aleut hunters both. And trying to exert their dominance of the region because we had people had a very sophisticated culture and trade and lifestyle of this area that was quite remarkable. And the Russians, there is no way they're going to come in and destroy that with just so few of people. Well, folks, if you've got a question or a comment, we're having a fascinating discussion on the Russian occupation of Alaska. It started about 300 years ago. So give us a call. One 809 9 6 two 8 four 8. We've got two guests on our show today, Sarah Harrington with the kodiak historical society and house backman who is the executive director of the sitka history museum. And sir, I'd like to ask you, did Russians venture far into the interior of Alaska? Or did they primarily stick to the aleutian islands in the western coast? If my understanding that it was largely coastal that there were the resources that they sought, the sea otter furs, as we mentioned, were so incredibly valuable that they had a pretty clear focus on extracting those resources. And when.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on Native America Calling
"This is native America calling. I'm Sean spruce. By all accounts, Russians first set foot in Alaska in 1741. That's when the first expedition headed by vitus Bering landed on the aleutian islands that journey opened Russia's eyes to the natural resources Alaska had to offer. Particularly fur from otters, seals, and foxes. And a flood of Russians followed, establishing colonies, mostly on the western coast. They were known to brutalize and enslave the native people. Russia laid claim to the land to the point the country felt entitled to sell Alaska to the United States in 1867. By that time the native population was diminished by half through conflict and disease. Although it lasted just over a century, Russian occupation of Alaska continues to exert influence. As Russia is now in the midst of invading a neighboring sovereign nation, we're taking time to review the history and continuing legacy of the country among this country's native population. And we want to hear from you. What is your view of Russian influence in America? Please join our discussion by calling one 809 9 6 two 8 four 8. That's also one 809 9 native. Joining us on the show today from kodiak Alaska is Sarah Harrington. She's executive director of the kodiak historical society and kodiak history museum. She's a ludic and from the shoot act tribe in kodiak. Welcome to native America calling Sarah. Thank you so much for having me. Also on our show today from Maui, Hawaii is how spackman he's the executive director of the sitka history museum. Welcome to native market calling as well, how? Thank you, Sean. I appreciate you having me on. Hell, please start us off today. When did Russians first arrive in what is now the state of Alaska and how did they get there? Well, there is some belief that vidas bearing was the first Russian to see Alaska in fact there were other less documented discoveries I should say, but when you I'm going to talk specifically about sick as opposed to kodiak in different places, but Sarah do that. But for sitka, they really came in the late 1790s and established a trading post called fort of archangel and Matt. Now, thought of as old sitka. And then in 1802, the destroyed that fort and the Russians reestablished a place in presence in 1804 after a very. Terrible battle, I should say and in which they displaced the claimants. Okay. Now this history of Russian occupation in Alaska, one marked by brutality by warfare by enslavement. Can you talk a little bit more about these early interactions with native people in Alaska and Russian colonists? Well, certainly there were some terrible egregious treatment of Alaska native people and much of it was in the region where Sarah lives that the Russians were especially brutal. And they basically enslaved a ludic noggin people that betting for them. And that was to extrapolate. The sea otters to other furs for Alaska and to make a profit from it. And so when you literally look at what the Russians did, it was a matter of how can we take advantage of the resources in North America with a limited number of people from Russia and still make a profit and that's how they viewed things and certainly they use the Alaska native people and they didn't care how the effects of those people, especially early on. And then it got better once the Russian Orthodox Church arrived, but certainly it was a terrible time in Alaska native history. Well, thanks, Al. Sarah, I want to ask you, when did Russians first appear in the kodiak area and what was that initial contact like? Sure. Well, the Russians first arrived in kodiak and around 1763. On glow trough came in winter and kodiak. And that was really the first point of contact where attacks were organized against the Olympic people. And slowly from that point, kodiak became really the epicenter. I think of Russian history and colonization in Alaska. As the settlement grew and stabilized in cognac, it was moved the headquarters of established in what's currently the city of kodiak in 1792. But that was after years of years of difficulty to put it lightly between the Olympic people and the Russians. And most famously, I think in 1784, shella koff landed at three saints bay in kodiak, which we really recognize as a significant point where there was a massacre against alleged people, men, women and children who had gathered for safety on refuge rock, which is kind of offset from the primary island of kodiak. And at that point, we kind of recognized that the Russians had broken the back of the elliptic people and slaving them subjugating them to all kinds of terrible difficulties removing their families. And so yeah, kodiak story is different than sic has not only in terms of timeline, but also in terms of the impact of colonization in our community that still exists today. In this colonization, again, enslavement so much brutality. What was the impact overall on Alaska native culture?.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on The PokerNews Podcast
"The national suicide. Prevention lifeline is available twenty four hours a day at one eight hundred two seven three eight two five five once again. The national suicide prevention lifeline. One eight hundred two seven three eight two five five. You can also go to nimh dot. Nih dive got for more help with mental illnesses. Jeff it was a sad note to end on when it spend a great show. We've covered a lot of ground From eric site house win all the waso soapy news. I think that between now and the wpa which is just like a month and a half away. I think I think it's gonna be good. I think we still got what w coop coming up. Just got these super high. Roller will europe as you mentioned. I think it's going to be full. Steam ahead write into into the fault of espn. I think so too. I mean next week. We're going to see tom. Dolan film you go at it in high stakes stool three round two. We're going at poker masters in. We're gonna be super high. Rollerball the three educa- bind before world series of poker kicks off so. I'm really excited about this next month. And a half and certainly about the rest of the year. Get you arrested now chad. Get your arrested now. Maybe this weekend maybe next week because we're rolling full steam ahead Pretty shortly before. Let's go who's your pick. You like home you one again. I mean this is like everybody's saying okay. Here it is drawn stops the streak here. We go and i like how me what about you. I actually do to keep going. I want to see it. Go because how doin would challenge again right during the hewitt for marks I i do think the streets got to end at some point. And i think doin could do it but i do think this first time. We'll go to hell with. He is experienced in the format considerably at this point. Whereas this will be doin' s- i first matchup and yeah. I don't know. I just. I don't wanna see that Poker brat train. Keep on rolling. And he's been on a roll man. He's been on a roll. It'd be eight. No now it'd be some kind of impressive. That's for sure. Well that's going to do it for this episode of the poker news. Podcast if you enjoyed the show please get on their give us a five star review subscribed tell your friends. We are award winning. Asked at this point. We'd like to win some more awards and we can only do that with your support. So they for listening on behalf of jeff. Sarah harrington myself deuces.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on Capes & Lunatics: Sidekicks
"Check out the most we can ca- case included takes six. Yes sorry let's get three twenty five daredevil and the newly returned electra are fighting health on the new york sewers. He retreats giving time to ask electric questions. She refuses to answer sarah harrington and other reporters march and the matt murdock's townhouse to find evidence supporting sarah's claim that he is there till they find furniture with foam rubber cushions talking street maps and other signs that a helpless blind man lives here. Mattered snuck in earlier to prepare his home back at his office. And your calls the fbi to report sarah's hacking into his computer oh burn. The snake digs up the section of the subway. Where eddie pass. Drop the foul of the about face. Virus years ago they discover. The old track was torn out taking the virus with it. The us eddie. Pass them to locate the virus made from the brain cells of his lover. Hell spawn watches from the shadows because nineties comic son's watching from the shadows. There is definitely more questions a bum. Who knew eddie he reveals how eddie would go crazy. Whenever they reached a certain section of track he also says that track was renovated some years ago just then daredevil and elektra show up and knock out more. Electric explains how it's her responsibility to retrieve her dark essence now within horrendous. She didn't want to leave. The piece of chased mountain retreat. Terrible reminds for life is about passionate and feeling two things. She can't ignore a pick up line. Definitely like you know my place later bone can get out. I repeat get out Back at his place matt murdock finds out where the torn up track and possibly the virus was dumped. He's worried about people still coming after him because they think he's daredevil a brief fight with care and pay daredevil bath dozen her glacier brisbane brew fight with karen ends with him declaring his love for her again. There won't electro find the vowed containing about face at the rail yards in brooklyn. Suddenly everyone shows up snake route garrett arenas has bond ken coin. Pass them neely in zoos. Daredevil can only think of one way to end the madness giving the giving the virus to hell spawn. He breaks He breaks the bottle and health spas mouth turning him into a flesh and blood creature. Free of magic horrendous immediately kills hells bond for robbing her away to go deep into the shadows. The whole time model shows up and fights garrett electra faces off against the renis pass amuses his power to kill himself in ken koi with their doubles help electric renison reclaimed her darker self electrically and she is now lost siege beats garrett and gets ready to take him back to shield the state retreat helps bonds corpses turning into an ordinary person and exact double of matt murdock. Yes together sonetti silent. Suddenly matt has an idea the next day papers and television report. Death of matt murdock. Whose body was found in the brooklyn. Rail yards foggy karen ben even the kingpin all think matt murdock is dead in reality. Murdoch is alive. He's used the body of health bond to end his current lifing. Starting new one matt visits his mother maggie at issue i ever purchased it neared l. Really yeah that was like wait. A minute what i had to go back and fight all the other efficiency. His early they really through Through the death of superman anyone exactly Essy's used the body guy. Visit maggie at the church asking for a new name. She suggests jack after his fall back like his father. S and the two hearts of the of the two halves of the heart shown here were drawn and porn back in third over three hundred ac- last episode but yes any gave so much potential future things to come and it seems like an answer that whole you know not gonna do with the media all over. Just when he went went on he made a new identity and pretended to be a different daredevil. Exactly thank god we're gonna. Eero burst version and finally by not was in the hold on. Don't what you're gonna say. I must become something someone else. Oh yeah excellent. Were on like i would even recommend. Never nevels start here. Yeah yeah and again. It's like a double sized issue really doesn't feel cash grabby it really doesn't it gives you so much and you are right by the way on is still ninety nine the everything else that images three ninety nine nine and above. 'cause i know. Rat queens is three ninety nine and a couple of other books that a lumber janes three ninety. Yes so is that a mcfarland mandate then. I think so. Because i think because it's the premier character for the comet like i feel like he feels a at a necessity oh acceptable and maybe that actually. Yeah maybe help. The image books toots comfort this bonds. Stay for something else absolutely. That's absolutely what has happened. And you know honestly. A lot of other books are latte. They haven't run as long as they get a more precision acclaimed but had it not been for sponde- than they wouldn't be there the mcfarland we'd love to talk to you sir. What am i favor canadians. First yano as deadpool Aways world close zach favorite. I canadian ryan reynolds halloween. His name our lord jokester on world. Yeah like i said i. I can't say enough. Good things about this run. The artwork is absolutely amazing literally confronts an act just like even the use of the sunrise in everything and of course like a little splash. Pete exactly lock the luge call. Beck's great use of guest stars At grabby like say a spiderman eczema excellent storytelling in like offended. Set up so much potential for things that come they.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"To travel or 10 large gatherings to illustrate the effect of such travel in data analysis, company tectonics followed the movement of cell phones. Without specific identification of the phone's owner to track Hollis students returning to their home states. Katie K. A. T V. S John Shumway has more. You have to think colleges is basically mass gatherings. They followed the phones as they went home for Thanksgiving, and those phones have now dispersed all across the country. This is a virus that thrives on social interaction. So understanding how wide a person social network is, helps you understand what to expect. Johns Hopkins, Dr Romesh Adult to college students in general are going to have some level of infection when they traveled to their hometown. And when they start to hang out with their high school friends, you're likely to see transmission events. The United States added more than one million new cases in the first five days of December, The Vatican announces the first visit the pope will be making after months and months of being grounded because of coverted. ABC is Meghan Williams is in Rome. With all the details. Francis will be heading to Iraq and early March. It will be the first papal visit and more than a year after the coronavirus put air travel on hold for the Catholic leader. The Vatican made the announcement Monday. Morning, saying the plan is for the pope to go there from March. 5th to eighth. Protecting Iraq's shrinking Christian population is of great concern to the Vatican after the 2000 and three U. S. Led war that toppled Saddam Hussein. The number of Christians there dropped from 1.5 Million to about 300,000. Meghan Williams. ABC NEWS Rome The Supreme Court hearing a case over whether Germany and Hungary are immune from lawsuits by Holocaust survivors over property taken during World War two Arian Holocaust survivors are seeking compensation for things taken from them when they were forced into concentration camps hungry took every single thing they owned, including things that are necessary for survival. Sarah Harrington represents the survivors. Gregory Silbert represents Hungary, which argued an American court is the wrong place for their lawsuit. Places should first assert their claims in a Hungarian court. Germany is also trying to avoid being sued in an American court over Nazi forced sales of artwork. Aaron Carter SKI ABC NEWS New York Instead of working from home. Apparently, you can now work from your favorite carnival ride. CVS is Lisa Matteo explains. Looking to shake up your work from home atmosphere. A Japanese amusement park has just the answer. Yomi Yuri Land located outside of Tokyo, is renting out Ferris wheel seats. Styled is cubicles complete with WiFi for just $18. You can get a poolside lounge chair along with a one hour rotation that takes you up to 500 ft. In the air. As for the other rides, Park officials say they're not left. Friendly and suggest enjoying them when you get a much needed break least Matteo CBS News.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Bloomberg Law with Joon Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. Still hear argument this morning in case 1946, United States Patent and Trademark Office. Versus booking dot com. Ms. Ross, Mr Chief Justice, and May it please the court. Thank you, Counsel, ms Tables. Mr Chief Justice, and May it please the court. Thank you, Counsel, Ms Corcoran. Three minutes for rebuttal. Thank you, Your Honor. So you hear the voices of more female attorneys at the Supreme Court that in past decades, women advocates are still fairly rare at the court, and the percentage of women attorneys has gone down since 2016 when it reached the highest in history, so many women are taking a less traditional route to the court. Joining me is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson Bloomberg Law. Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Women argued between 12% and 21% of the time in recent terms. That does seem fairly low compared to the number of women attorneys. There are that doesn't actually one thing that I think really hits home for me, is the court hands out these day called he's just with all the attorneys that are going to be arguing in cases that day on. I remember there were more Jonathan rocking in the Supreme Court. One day there were three than women who are arguing Just two. So I think that's just an example of how this really is kind of imbalance between men and women in a place where it really doesn't seem like there should be Now, why has the traditional launchpad for Supreme Court women advocates been the solicitor general's office? Well, because the solicitor general's office are used so many more cases than any other entity or law firm that comes before the justices. They tend to argue about half of the cases that come before the justices, and that's a lot of opportunities for arguments. And so we've seen traditionally. That's where men and women tend to get their first bring. Court arguments is through that office, and that may be changing a little bit. Now, the number of cases argued by women has fallen in recent years. The high water mark was in 2016, and then it started plummeting in 2017. Why Well. There were a number of women who left the solicitor general's office longtime veterans like Sarah Harrington and the coal, the harpy who have argued between them dozens of cases. And they left right as the Obama administration was heading out, and the Trump administration was heading in that thing, like the Trump Administration has difficulty getting women joined the office. But it doesn't seem like they are making some strides in that area. Now we saw the first attorneys to argue on behalf of the Solicitor general's office. This term was a woman making her first Supreme Court argument. So how are more private firms becoming a launch pad for women advocates that the Supreme Court Well, we're seeing a handful of women advocates were getting their first argument not through the solicitor general's office, but infirm and the women. I talked. Tio, who had gone this route, said that there was a mark of achievement because it's hard to get a case in a firm because you not only have to convince your boss is that you're up to the death but also the quiet in a way that you don't have to and you're in the solicitor general's office South. We do see women arguing more cases from law firms. But again, the numbers are still really out of whack. Most attorneys who come from private Practice our men and not women. I found this fascinating. The women you spoke to said you not only need a mentor, but the mentor basically has convinced the client to let you argue. That's right. And you know, that was the one thing of all the women that I talk to say all that you need to have a mentor and you need to have a mentor who will be willing to go to bat for you.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on MyTalk 107.1
"Taking things for hanging out with us Happy Friday afternoon. We're delighted to be joined by Mary Simpson's Marry My saying that right? You are saying that right says with her hat block the summer that just came out. The wedding thief. Thank you for being on our show, Mary. And can you tell us all about what This wonderful book is about to prove something to thank you for having me Absolutely. Well, The wedding thief is the story of Sarah Harrington, who is summoned home to Connecticut by her mother. Sarah's mother tells Sarah that shaved very ill, but you can't talk about it on the phone. But she said, You just have to get home right away. So Sarah does, But when she gets there, she finds that that her mother is not well at all. In fact, she's fine. She's making dinner. And the whole thing was a ruse to get Sarah and her younger sister Mariel, back home at the same time. So that they would make up after not speaking for 18 months. And the reason why they haven't spoken in 18 months because Mariel is about to marry Sarah's ex boyfriend who Sarah is still in love with So there's a little love triangle on here. It's such a fun book to read. We got it before we get into the book and asking you questions about it. You have a plug right on the front covered by James Patterson. I dio How How did that happen? Are you friends? Yes, we are. I met him and CPatterson many years ago because our kids who are now 22 used to go, Teo, you know, grammar school together. And so I, You know, I knew them and I knew quite well from doing things at the school together in a club in room Mom and all that, and About two years into writing the book. I mentioned over 11 evening at a little event that I was writing a novel and she asked me what it was about, and I told her and She said. It sounds good. I'd love to read a draft and I said, Boy, that'd be great. So one thing led to another. She read it. She gave it to Jim. He read it and liked it, and he Took it to his publisher, and he said, I don't I can't guarantee they'll publish it. But I'm going to, you know, take it to them and then and they did give me an offer. So very, very lucky. And he's a very generous person with the next time you see him. Just tell him a big thank you for doing that filthy rich. The Jeffrey Epstein documentary that was amazing. Oh, I know. Would you wanna know? Yeah, that was I mean, that might be regulating Maxwell finally got arrested. Who knows? I mean, that's that's a subject that's very You know, I'm very interested in it. Because of course, you know he lived down here on Oh, yeah. During Connecticut, right? Well, I'm in Palm Beach. Oh, you're Pompeo. Honeywell? Yeah, We spent time in Connecticut in the summer, but not this year. You know yet that we're in Palm Beach. Okay. So in one of your books was even made into a Hallmark movie, which I've watched so happy, Huge Hallmark movies, and I like the's books. They're happy. I mean, there's Conflict and resolution, but I don't have to be stressed. Right. Exactly. There's a happy ending. There is happening. And I think one of the things about this book about the two sisters is that You know, you're the the older sister who seem, is the go bare the girl who just works really hard for everything. It doesn't want any help from Mom and Dad when you've got the younger sister who's more pretty and feels the oldest just feels like everything comes easy to her. And she always been seed money from Mom and dad. And they both have these. Thoughts about each other because they're not that tight and the misconceptions and jealousy about each other which end up not even being true. Exactly exactly. And you might want to know how I would know all that being an only child right to marry someone with sisters. Do you know what I mean? You know, you just have friends there in your life with siblings and you learn all this stuff. And then I did talk to a bunch of people. And I did You know, I did my research. You know, it's not uncommon. It's not uncommon this stuff so in them, and then how one of you know in resentment is the other big thing and how you just hold on to resentment? Because you have this This fairytale thought in your mind of how something went and it's completely wrong and how someone tells you it's completely wrong. And you find it finally hits home and I just I I really enjoyed this block. I think people love it. It's called a wedding. Think we're talking to Mary Thief? What I call it the wedding Cook the wedding chief. I don't know what it's Friday Thief, as in the will, and it can only have two interpretations. The wedding if you've got to be somebody who's stealing things at weddings, which it's not Or somebody who's actually trying to to hijack the event, which is what it is, and that is fun in itself and you use and I loved what I was reading on your website about how you Love using photos is inspiration. I d'oh idea because I just had this image of the mill that's described in the bark. And you know of what it would look like. Yes, you know what? Actually, I have a photo of that and On my instagram state. Actually, I don't know that I've put that one up yet. But on little Brown's instagram site, which I took over all day yesterday, so all these they're like, 10 post that I put up there. One of them is a post of what I call my idea Board and it's just a sample. It's not every picture I used. Every picture I use is on my laptop, but But on the idea board I have pictures of that mill and there is, you know, it's from a real mill in Connecticut, not in the area that I describe in the book in a different geographic area, but a very, very old Textile mill. Yes. So I like to start with pictures. I don't always start with pictures, but it just helps me kind of get grounded, and I might not Use everything in the picture, or I might not use it exactly the way it shone, But you know, it's it's It's just something. It's a jumping off point for Ming. I don't know that we had never heard before. Not we interview. Not a week. I've never heard. I know you did that before..
"sarah harrington" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Producing properties for investor partners see them at an R. I. A. dot net stocks rose for a sixth straight week as optimism that the trump administration will clinch a partial trade deal with China diverted attention from evidence that economies are struggling at home and abroad the S. and P. five hundred is now up twenty four percent this year but there are warning signs ahead on Friday report showed that factory production declined last month and bluebird economics US economist Andrew Husby says retail sales in October showed some weakness a step down in some of the core categories stepped down in discretionary categories and that's a bit of an a negative omen for the holiday shopping season so what it does do is it it starts mechanically lower fourth quarter growth estimates as the major indexes hit records on Friday Chris Rupp the chief financial economist at M. U. F. two union bank said the smart people are clapping today of the risks the economy faces remain a threat in a report issued Friday the federal reserve said continuing low interest rates could debt US bank profits and push bankers into riskier behavior that might threaten the nation's financial stability the ten year note finished the week at one point eight three percent a five day standoff between protesters and police the Chinese University of Hong Kong ended Friday as activists evacuated their makeshift fortress and left the campus on Saturday morning workers were clearing debris from the area blockaded by protesters the trump administration is set to once again extend a license that will allow American companies to continue doing business with while away the Chinese telecom giant The New York Times reports that while the company's future is not technically part of trade talks between the US and China president trump has brought while way up as a potential bargaining chip global news twenty four hours a day on Erin a tick tock on Twitter powered by more than twenty seven hundred journalists and analysts to more than one hundred twenty countries I'm mark mills this is blue Burke you're listening to Bloomberg long I'm Jim also a case about a traffic stop led to some interesting arguments and several skeptical Supreme Court justices a Kansas man claims that police violated the Fourth Amendment when an officer pulled him over after running the license plate on his truck and discovering it's registered owner had his driver's license revoked without doing anything more joining me is Jordan Rubin Bloomberg all legal letter why did the court take this case as with pretty much any case that the court takes the ticket to resolve an issue that and resolve the around the country and so here the question is whether it's reasonable for police to pull over a car just based on the fact that the cars registered owner has their license revoked without any more information and so whether it's because some justices wanted to take the case to say that it is reasonable or it isn't at any rate it's an issue that it seems that the court at least felt it was reasonable to want to clear up in this case the registered owners license was revoked and the officer stopped him driving his truck what was the claim by the defense so even though it was actually the registered owner of the car Charles Glover who was in fact driving the car lover raise the argument in the suppression motion that there wasn't a good enough reason for the officer to think that it was clever before he pulled him over that's because all the officer did before pulling levers truck over was just run the license plate at which point it showed that the registered owner Glover had his license revoked but he also didn't do anything more than that he didn't try to confirm that it was Glover's identity first or observe a traffic violation or anything like that it was just the simple fact of Glover having his license revoked and Glover argues that that's simply not enough to amount to reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment so what should the officer have done he's not supposed to stop the truck unless what what else was he supposed to do right so that's the million dollar question that came up with the argument that Glover's lawyer didn't necessarily have a specific answer to other than to say there needs to be something done obviously one thing that was brought up was trying to visually check to see if it appears to be the same person say it's the registered owner appears to be a sixty year old man if it looks like the driver is someone like that then that would be an example of one of their facts that according to the defense's argument with a man probably two reasonable suspicion the bottom line was they said it at least has to be something more than just the fact that the registered owner having their license revoked do we know what the officer didn't do so it's a very good question and it raises sort of a weird aspect of this case which is that at the stage of the suppression motion the officer then testified to hearing all we had were stipulated facts meaning both parties the prosecution and the defense the agreed to a certain set of facts without testing them in the crucible of cross examination and essentially what it boils down to is simply the fact of the officer saying the car was driving I ran the plate it came back as a registered owner having license revoked and that's it so is it possible that the officer did something else maybe but really were bound by this stipulation in the Supreme Court is down by its here and there was actually some frustration with that at the argument and some of the justices saying you know it's sort of difficult for us to rule on this without having enough information now they could send it back to the court to say this is the situation we just need more on the other hand some the other justices and perhaps a majority of the court seems perhaps more likely to say just based on common sense it was a reasonable thing for the officer to do the two were common sense came up a lot during the argument but different members of the court in a different parties have different views of what exactly is common sense in this situation Chief Justice John Roberts seemed particularly exasperated he said do you think it's totally random who the driver is in other words it's registered to Fred Jones but it could be anybody in the world yes Sir GPS Roberts usually it's a pretty even keel he got sort of almost agitated during the argument in a back and forth with Glover's attorney Sarah Harrington Roberts seem to really buy into the states common sense argument and so he was getting frustrated in terms of trying to search for an answer of what more exactly was the officer supposed to do including the question of what sort of probability can we attach to whether the registered owner is in fact the driver and Roberts is well is justice a leader and some other justices they were sort of frustrated at the defense essentially not buying into the state's common sense argument from there so now let's talk about the standard the standard is reasonable suspicion and that's a pretty low standard it isn't so that came up during the argument as well of course that the point that the state press more vigorously than the defense that obviously the defense doesn't want to highlight that it's a low standard but the defense said even under this was standard this isn't enough in their view and so obviously it's a point that the state wants to emphasize in saying the fact that reasonable suspicion of such a low standard combined with this sort of common sense argument that it's at least reasonable for an officer to pull over a car that is being driven where the registered owners licenses revoked at least to investigate more in the words of Candace lawyers argument it would have been bad police work for the cop not to pull the car over again sort of going towards this common sense type of argument that's Jordan Rubens Bloomberg long legal editor coming up on Bloomberg law.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Address partisan gerrymandering with us to debrief is sarah harrington she is a partner at goldstein and russell a boutique law firm focused on supreme court practice she's argued at twenty cases before the supreme court and is a former assistant to the solicitor general she's also a contributor to scotus blog sarah hello hi i'm happy to be here thank you it is a day full of complicated decisions the court laid down a couple of groundbreaking decisions let's start with the twenty twenty cents question case tell us what did the court decide so the court basically held that the census bureau has the authority to include a question about citizenship in the census in twenty twenty but that it can't do so at least not yet because the only justification that the agency offered for doing so appear to be protect jewel so basically the citizenship question could not be added because the government didn't give enough explanation well what they said is that the only explanation the government gave what the government says we're including the question because we want to help the department of justice enforce the voting rights act and they said that the department of justice asked us to include the question for that purpose but then it became clear that in fact the census that the commerce department rather had asked d._o._j. to then ask the commerce department to include the question and so the chief justice joined by the former a liberal justices concluded that that show that that wasn't there real reason that they had sort of ginned up the request and so they affirmed the district's remand of that to the agency so let's let's break down some of these legal terms wicked remand back to the agency yes the lower court the trial court had said well the reason you gave isn't good enough so i'm going to send it back to the agency which is the commerce department and if you can give a better explanation that we think is fine than you could do it so so the holding doesn't say that the court that the the census questionnaire can't include this question it just says based on this record developed by the agency that can't do right now there was an interesting bit from the majority opinion if judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case later the majority said we do not hold that the agency decision here was substantially invalid but agencies must pursue their goals reasonably what does this mean for the trump administration well it's an interesting question so this case has some synergy with the travel ban case that was decided last year in a sense that both of them had official explanations offered by the administration for the actions but both in both cases there was also other evidence suggesting that the official explanation might not be the real reason that they did they took the action last year the court said we're only going to look at what's in the record we're going to uphold the travel ban this year the chief justice switch to the other side and said well there is other evidence that makes us think that the reason you gave isn't the right answer and so it's a little bit of a mixed signal to the administration dischord has a very interesting so far relationship with the administration will have to see what happens so just to make sure that we're perfectly clear on what's a complicated decision the court isn't saying that the question itself is invalid or in the example you just use the travel ban is it self invalid it's the way the administration got there that's problematic and they need to revisit it right that's right before liberal justices would have held that the question itself is invalid because they say it results in a worse count less accurate count but the chief justice was joined by the four more conservative justices in rejecting that argument but what the chief said in this case was although you could do it you you have to have a real valid reason for doing it in their only reason you offer does not appear to be your real reason so we're sending back so this has to do with an actual census form that all americans are all the people living in the united states are going to be receiving what does this mean because it's getting close to time to print those forms it is getting close the government has said a couple of different things initially said we have to have a decision by the end of june which as we know is coming right up because that's something you have to print the forms a later suggestions have said that maybe we could do it as late as tober i don't know what the current official position of the government is on that but presumably they may consider trying to offer different explanation and get this on the on the questionnaire but it made me too late to see and if it is too late does that mean the question is interesting let me is the questions out okay just wanted to be clear now you mentioned this is a complicated outcome for the trump administration going in there were questions about how closely the judiciary was going to play with the administration's and their interest you mentioned a little bit about the dynamics of this court but could you go into that a bit more about how the dynamics of the court as it stands right now played into this decision and whether the court might be making some kind of statement sure so this administration this justice department has much more often than previous administrations republican democrat has sort of taken extraordinary steps in getting cases to the supreme court quickly so they this is a good example of this case they skipped over the court of appeals normally there's trial court decision part of appeals decision in many they just skipped over the court of appeals and the court let them do that because of the exigency of the timing of asked for stays which means like a halt in the action below an unusual number of cases and so and and the president himself has spoken openly about just wanting to get every case that challenges his actions up to the supreme court because he views that as basically a friendly place for this administration so it's unusual to have an administration call out the court openly as friendly in that kind of a way and there are people there are you know the dc buzz is that that kind of wrinkle some members of the court i think in particular the chief justice it's very important to him that people viewed the court as a separate political body and when you have one of the political branches thing we've got it in the bag with this court that looks pretty bad for the court and so it's possible that that played into the chiefs decision here to sort of push back on the ministration a little bit let's switch to a different decision that also came down this morning to gerrymandering cases received a conclusion by five to four vote the supreme court has said it cannot decide the question of partisan gerrymandering in federal court so the supreme court will not strike down the gerrymandering in north carolina and maryland what was the court's reasoning for this well this is again a decision authored by the chief justice in his main reason was basically like there's just no way to do it that isn't political hit the ultimate holding by the majority was this is a political question it's just not a question were there is law that we can enforce or interpret the chief relied on the long history of partisan gerrymandering in the country said we've always had it people criticized it but the republic hasn't fallen and there's just no role for the courts in this question that was all of the court and was that a partisan decision on partisan gerrymandering you know he would see certainly wouldn't say so but there was a pretty blistering dissent from justice kagan saying basically yes we had it but it's much worse now than it ever was because now we have these mapping and computer tools that allow people to really take advantage and she really called out the court she said this is a severe constitutional problem it's a problem for our democracy in the court is just saying i've seen a constitutional problem but there's nothing we're going to do about it and so there's clearly some heated feelings behind both sides in that case so these are sort of a very high level decisions with on the ground implications what does that mean for north carolina and maryland so it means that the instructions were that the case it should go back and be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and so it means the mass will stand in maryland of course it was the democrats who did the gerrymandering in north carolina was the republicans but it basically is you know opens the doors to future political gerrymandering the court has struggled for decades about how to deal with these issues has tried to avoid them just sort of an interesting technical these cases come to the court on a mandatory appeal the court doesn't have the option of turning cases away like it doesn't most of its docket and so finally they were forced to confront it and they said once and for all this is just not for us don't come back here basically we're there any other rulings of notes that came out today there is one interesting little quirk at the end there's a kiss called i forget about the murphy versus carpenter governor versus murphy but it's about whether basically half of the state of oklahoma is an indian reservation that people just haven't treated as such and the case was argued in the fall it's been hanging around and hanging around and what the court said at the end of the session this morning was we're going to restore it to the argument counter for the fall so that means it's going to be rearview d- there's only eight justices on that case because just as gorsuch has been accused so unclear what's gonna be different next firm that's going gonna let them decided that wasn't there this term speaking of next term since this is the end of the session what other cases are are leftover to be taken up next next time around so they're none of cases technically leftover from this term but they have granted some cases to be viewed next term some of the big there's a bunch of little ticket cases like there's three orissa cases about pension benefits and things like that which some people are excited about but probably not most of your list listeners but they're already talking about it straight is n._p._r. right there are some big ticket cases there's a couple cases asking whether title seven which is the main federal law that prohibits employment discrimination whether that covers discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status so those will be very interesting to watch those are big deals so looking back at this particular term has been a really significant term for the supreme court or a little low level i'm seeing more low level than significant the buzzing d._c. was that they wanted to relatively quiet term because they've gotten a lot more sort of negative attention than they than they liked and they had a relatively quiet term you know the sort of big cross current issue in the court right now is how much they're willing to overrule precedent obviously people have roe versus wade in their minds but there's other presidents to and so you saw a lot of imitations in the last couple of weeks especially a lot of conversations between the justices about that in various purring and dissenting opinions a lot of sort of drawing of battle lines for future cases sarah harrington is a partner at goldstein and russell and a contributor to scotus blog sarah thanks thank you coming up how far would you get without your g._p._s. we'll explore how others in the animal kingdom get around without technology and what we have to learn from them i'm kimberly adams of marketplace in for joshua johnson you're listening to one a. from a._m._u. and n._p._r. how did violence outside the stonewall in new york city fifty years ago helped define the push for queer rights they could now fight back for all the times they had to slink away without being able to say anything and take whatever crap the cops will giving at and once it broke loose it was very contagious why we remember stonewall plus more reaction from the democratic debate on the next morning edition from n._p._r. news.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on 90.3 KAZU
"Who support this n._p._r. station this is one a. i'm kimberly adams in washington sitting in for joshua johnson the final opinions from this term of the supreme court are out today and they saved some of the most controversial cases for last rulings on the addition of the citizenship question to the twenty twenty senses and two cases from north carolina and maryland which address partisan gerrymandering with us to debrief on what's happening at the court today is sarah harrington she is a partner at goldstein and russell boutique law firm focused on supreme court practice she's argued at twenty cases before the supreme court and is a former assistant to the solicitor general she's also contributor to scotus blog sarah hello hi i'm happy to be here thank you it is a day full of complicated decisions in the last hour the court lay down a couple of groundbreaking decisions let's start with the twenty twenty census question case tell us what to the court decide so the court basically held that the census bureau has the authority to include a question about citizenship in the census in twenty twenty but that it can't do so at least not yet because the only justification at the agency offered for doing so appear to be pretextual so basically the citizenship question could not be added basic because the government didn't give enough explanation is that the only explanation the government game what the government says we're including the question because we wanna help the department of justice enforce the voting rights act but then they said that the department of justice asked us to include the question for that purpose but then it became clear that in fact the census that the commerce department had asked d._o._j. to then ask the commerce department to include the question and so the chief justice joined by the former liberal justices concluded that that show that that wasn't the real reason that they had sort of ginned up the request and so they affirmed the district remand of that to the agency so let's let's break down some of these legal terms remand back to the agency yes the lower court the trial had said well the reason you gave isn't good enough to send it back to the agency which is the commerce department and if you can give better explanation that we think is fine than you could do it so so the holding doesn't say that the court that the the census questionnaire can't include this question it just says based on this record developed by the agency that can't do it right now there is an interesting bit from the majority opinion if judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case later the majority said we do not hold that the agency decision here was substantially invalid but agencies must pursue their goals reasonably what does this mean for the trump administration while it's an interesting question so this case has some synergy with the travel ban case that was decided last year in a sense that both of them had official explanations offered by the administration for the actions but both in both cases there is also other evidence suggesting that the official explanation might not be the real reason that they did they took the action last year the court said we're only going to look at what's in the record we're going to uphold the travel ban this year the chief justice switch to the other side and said well there is other evidence that makes us think that the reason you gave isn't the right answer and so it's a little bit of a mixed signal to the administration dischord has a very interesting so far relationship with the administration's we'll have to see what happens so just to make sure that we're perfectly clear on what's a complicated decision the court isn't saying that the question itself is invalid or in the example you just use the travel ban as it self invalid it's the way the administration got there that's problematic and they need to revisit it right that's right the four liberal ducasse's would have held that the question itself is invalid because they say it results in worse count less accurate count but the chief justice was joined by the form or conservative justices in rejecting that argument but what the chief said in this case was although you could do it you you have to have a real valid reason for doing it and they're only reason you offer does not appear to be your real reason so we're sending it back so this has to do with an actual census form that all americans or all the people living in the united states are going to be receiving what does this mean because it's getting close to time to print those forms it is getting close the government has said a couple of different things initially said we have to have a decision by the end of june which we know is coming right up because that's what we have to print the forms a later suggestions have said that maybe we could do it as late as october i don't know what the current official position of the government is on that but presumably they may consider trying to offer a different explanation and get this on the on the questionnaire but it made me too late to see and if it is too late does that mean the question is interesting but the questions out okay just wanted to be clear now you mentioned this is a comp occasioned outcome for the trump administration going in there were questions about how closely the judiciary was going to play with the administration's and their interest you mentioned a little bit about the dynamics of this court but could you go into that a bit more about how the dynamics of the court as it stands right now played into this decision and whether the court might be making some kind of statement sure so this administration this justice department has much more often than previous administrations republican democrat has sort of taken extrordinary steps in getting cases to the supreme court quickly so they in visit good example this case they skipped over the court of appeals normally there's trial court decision a part of appeals decision in many gossiping they just skipped over the quarter of appeals and the court let them do that because of the exigency of the timing asked for stays which means like a halt in the action below an unusual number of cases and so and and the president himself has spoken openly about about just wanting to get every case that challenges his actions up to the supreme court because he views that as basically a friendly place for this administration so it's unusual to have an administration call out the court openly as friendly and not kind of away and there are people there are the dc buzz is that that kind of wrinkle some members of the court i think in particular the chief justice it's very important that people viewed the court as a separate non political body and when you have one of the political branches saying we've got it in the bag with this court that looks pretty bad for the court and so it's possible that that played into the chiefs decision here to sort of push back on the administration a little bit let's switch to a different decision that also came down this morning to gerrymandering cases received a conclusion by five to four vote the supreme court has said it cannot decide the question of partisan gerrymandering in federal court so the supreme court will not strike down the gerrymandering in north carolina and maryland what was the court's reasoning for this well this is again a decision by the chief justice in his main reason was basically like there's just no way to do it that isn't political hit the ultimate holding by the majority was this is a political question it's just not a question were there is law that we can enforce or interpret the chief relied on the long history of partisan gerrymandering in the country said we've always had people criticized it but the republic hasn't fallen and there's just no role for the courts in this question that was all of the court and was that a partisan decision on partisan gerrymandering you know he would teach only wouldn't say so but there was a pretty blistering dissent from justice kagan saying basically yes votes had it but it's much worse now than it ever was because now we have these mapping and computer tools that allow people to really take advantage and she really called the court she said this is a severe constitutional problem it's a problem for our democracy and the court is just saying seen a constitutional problem but there's nothing we're going to do about it and so there's clearly some heated feelings behind both sides in that case so these are sort of a very high level decisions with on the ground implications what does that mean for north carolina and maryland so it means that the instructions were that the case should go back and be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction so it means the mass will stand in maryland of course it was the democrats who did the gerrymandering north carolina was the republicans but it basically is you know opens the doors to future political gerrymandering the court has struggled for decades about how to deal with these issues and has tried to avoid them so sort of an interesting technical cork these cases come to the court on a mandatory appeal the court doesn't have the option of turning cases away like it doesn't most of its docket finally they were forced to confront it and they said once and for all this is just not for us don't come back here basically we're there any other rulings of notes that came out today there one interesting little quirk at the end there's a kiss called forget about the murphy versus carpenter covers has murphy but it's about whether basically half of the state of oklahoma is an indian reservation that people just haven't treated as such and the case was argued in the fall it's been hanging around and hanging around and what the court said at the end of its session this morning was we're going to restore it to the argument counter for the fall so that means it's going to be rearview d- there's only eight justices on that kiss because just as gorsuch has been recused so unclear what's going to be different next firm that's going to let them decide it that wasn't there this term speaking of next term since this is the end of the session what other cases are leftover to be taken up next next time around so they're none of cases technically left over from this term but they have granted some cases to be argued next term some of the big there's a bunch of little ticket cases like there's three orissa cases about pension benefits and things like that which some people are excited about but probably not most of your life Listeners but they're talking about. straight is n._p._r. right there are some big ticket cases there's a couple of cases asking whether title seven which is the main federal law that prohibits employment discrimination whether that covers discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status so those will be very interesting to watch those are big deals so looking back at this particular term has been a really significant term for the supreme court or a little low level see more low level than significant the buzz in d._c. was that they wanted a relatively quiet term because they've gotten a lot more sort of negative attention than they and they liked and they had a relatively quiet term you know the sort of big crust current issue in the court right now is how much they're willing.
"sarah harrington" Discussed on First Mondays
"Burst. Mondays. Okay. So there were some arguments last week, and we want to quickly recap some of those we are trying to make these sitting episodes shorter brisker. You know, there's obviously swing opinion among our listeners as to whether a positioning to be longer or shorter. But the the bulk of the feedback is maybe shorter. So we're gonna try to just give you a little bit of a highlight of some interesting moments from or argument recaps, the book does contain an important caveat though, which is generally shorter except when the episode pertains to ACA so without in my. Yeah, they're not sending me those going to you one case, we're not gonna recap is a very interesting copyright case called fourth state versus Wall Street dot com. Friend of the show Kentucky's Bryan Frye was dragging us on Twitter for not digging into that. But Bryan, we will talk about it. We're just gonna wait till the opinion. Because we need the opinion to figure out what's going on there because come on. This is not copyright stuff. This is about registration things like that. And you know, we'd love to dig deeper into it. But we're just not that smart. But I noticed Brian has written article on this with a student ical pottenger. So if you want to know more about that. In the meantime, you could read his article registration is fundamental. But until then in otherwise, we will we will figure out what this case is about a little bit more win the court, actually gives us an opinion. What are we gonna talk about the Home Depot versus Jackson? This is a case in which I mentioned in passing in the two previous episodes. It is about whether a defendant who enters the case via a counterclaim can remove a case to federal court because the counterclaim involves a class action claim and it falls within the scope of the class action. Fairness app to this is a case in which a plaintiff filed suit against the defendant and the defendant files a counterclaim not against the original plaintiff. But against some other third party that counterclaim involves a class action that would otherwise follow within the scope of the class action. Fairness act and the question is whether that new entity or individual can remove that claim to federal court. Did you all that? Because I didn't. But I think I did. And I think I was able to because in the case was very clear and teach you teach federal courts in your like, you can understand all the stuff, and I'm just like, I'm just like lowly, Kremlin Krimmer guy. Well, I appreciate your vote of confidence in dad, but one of the reasons why I was excited about this particular case is that it was going to be the opportunity for Sarah Harrington who had left this listener general's office to argue at the court in private practice. However, she didn't end up arguing the case on behalf of Home Depot. Even though she was counsel of record on the cert petition and an anonymous for C pointed out to me that the Serpa Titian in this case was technically on a split Lewis issue. So getting the Serpa Titian granted honest bliss issue on half of potential class action defendant. It kind of looks like the court is maybe inclined or receptive to home depot's argument. That was not however, my reading of the transcript based on what occurred at argument, I mentioned Sarah was council record at the cert stage. Someone else ended up arguing the case William Barnett and unannounced council. Yes. In-house counsel at Home Depot. And I think that the that's a pretty unusual choice to have somebody in house take on a supreme court argument, especially for a very big company that has imagine as very big litigation budget. I think that in general I would say that is an unusual choice in it is non which which I would recommend especially given. You could probably get a very very good serving advocate, even if you're a big company, you could probably get them to do it for free. You could probably go to somebody who just left the office and say, look you want your first argument in private practice. I'm going to give it to you. Give me at least a very cut rate. So interesting interesting choice. Yeah. And the argument for. For Home Depot, just really did not seem to go. Well, from the outset Justice Sotomayor asked a series of questions about why the court could examine just in isolation. The claim by the original defendant slash new plaintiff against this third party in isolation. When that's not what the court does. When a counterclaim involves the original plaintiff. That is the court doesn't do a claim by claim analysis in order to ascertain whether a claim is removable they look at whether the original civil action was removable and things really took a turn for the worst. Once justice. Keagan came in with a very strong view about this particular case, and you know, when she sinks her teeth in particularly on technical issue involving civil procedure. It would take an incredibly incredibly skilled and deft advocate. I think to get out of that. And Justice Kagan was really fixated on whether the district court even had jurisdiction because the original suit itself wasn't removable. And that was her view of the case. And I just wanted to play two clips in which she announces that view. Will you claim might be under the original jurisdiction of the district court if it had not your claim, but the claim to which you defendant if that had started to law school suit, but didn't start the lawsuit the lawsuit. The civil action was started by claim. That's completely non federal in nature. And you look to the original claim to decide whether the courts have original jurisdiction. Don't you? I mean the question is you would you would be right. If this clam started if excuse me. Action started with the claim against you. But it didn't start with the claim against you. And you're suggesting that we essentially ignore all this language about original jurisdiction in order to get to the second clam. But the second claim isn't what counts under fourteen forty one. What counts under fourteen forty one is the first claim does he say anything? Interesting response. You think that's worth playing? No. I don't think he said anything particularly interesting in response. And I think that is part of why this argument really seemed to go poorly particularly want she stepped in and one indication that it seemed to be going poorly. Was you had Justice briar who's usually a very self deprecating and kind of light hearted questioner seemingly debt pretty frustrated
"sarah harrington" Discussed on First Mondays
"And part of the reason why I am interested in the case as I think that this was one of the first cert grants from or on a petition that was filed by Sarah Harrington after she had left the solicitor general's office. If I'm not mistaken. So I'm just kind of excited to see her argue, you know, now that she's in private practice, and it's just a significant case to begin with the other one that I was watching closely as Harare versus Wyoming, which is a pretty significant Indian affairs tribal rights case, and I guess that's partially on my mind. Because of the bonus episode that I just recorded with Gregg Abbassi, Matthew Fletcher about another case involving Indian affairs, and that was the Indian child welfare act Herrero. Versus Wyoming is about whether tribal fishing and hunting rights on non-tribal. But on occupied lands survived the admission of Wyoming into the United States and the creation of national forest in some of the areas, and I think that's just an interesting case in general. But I'm also curious to see what Justice Gorsuch does in particular. I think. During his confirmation hearings and afterwards people suggested that maybe he would bring a unique perspective and reason to the courts Indian lodger prudence, I think he's also hired. I think the first native American law clerk at the supreme court. So I'm just kind of curious to see what he does in that case in particular. I native American who is an enrolled tried member at the time of clerk because friend of the show Rick or net became an enrolled tribe member. As I understand in an advert contrive after he clerked for Justice Ringquist Ringquist got it. So that's a good clarification. But I'm interested in kind of a big Indian Indian law term for the court with got Murphy versus carpenter. Yeah. So that could be quite interesting. That's another one I had flagged as well. So exactly should be interesting. And we'll talk about some of these a little bit more detail when I'm not in the the lovely city of New Orleans, but why don't we? Talk just a little bit more about a case. I think we're gonna probably talk about a couple of times over the course of the show because it's super interesting. This is this is gonna be the most interesting law nerd case for this sitting what do you think? So. This is a franchise tax board against Hyatt, which is a great fed courts case that is actually been to the court now three times this case is kind of wacky. And it arises from this tax dispute. This guy Hiatt had stated California, I guess he lived in California, then he moved into Vada and the who's had in some dispute about the taxes he owed because they claim that he left California at a later time than he actually did at somehow somehow got in this big thing with the the fficials of the franchise tax board where they were like calling him racial religious epithets calling calling him a Jew, and they were coming to his house sneaking, you know, looking through the window and looking through his trash like it sounds like things got really out of control. So he went to his state courts in Nevada, his new state and sued them. They're sued this franchise tax, which is a state agency like five hundred billion. Dollar award. It ultimately got after going up the court a couple times that got cut down by you know, till like a hundred thousand dollars. But like the whole thing was baffling to me. I didn't you can go you can go to state court and like sue another. I didn't even know this was possible. Well, and that's really the question, right? Whether this is actually still possible to do in the court had..