35 Burst results for "Scalia"

Governor Pete Ricketts Selected to Fill Nebraska Senate Seat

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:49 min | 3 weeks ago

Governor Pete Ricketts Selected to Fill Nebraska Senate Seat

"Governor. You know, Mitt Romney was a governor became a senator. Joe Manchin was a governor became a senator. It's a very different way of are you used to slowing down a lot because you used to have to make things happen in Nebraska. Now you're going to have to watch things go slow. What do you think? Well, that's what I have been told that as governor, you know, there's a sense of urgency about everything you're doing because you've got to make things happen. The Senate by its design, right? Our founders wanted a body that would slow things down. They didn't want politics to be whipsawed back and forth. And so that's how they designed the Senate to work. So I've got to change my mindset with regard to how this goes. But it's certainly informed been an important institution for us over the years to provide that stability for our country. We can certainly see that when you're compared to say the parliamentary systems around the world that can change governments at a drop of a hat. Governor ricketts shouldn't be senator ricketts. I don't know if you've talked to leader McConnell yet. I am a great fan of leader McConnell. I think he saved the United States Constitution when he held open the vacancy created by the untimely death of Antonin Scalia. And I think he got Donald Trump elected, and of course he got Donald Trump's nominees confirmed. Have you talked to him yet about what you want to do and your priority? Yeah, I have as a matter of fact, I just had a conversation with him last night where he was giving us an advice. Not that due to similar to what you said. He was urging patients because the Senate moves slower. But I've actually known senator McConnell since I ran for Senate back in 2006. And I'm staying in touch with him over the years. So I'm looking forward to working with him. And I agree with you, you know? He is a very strategic thinker. He's really done a great job for us in the U.S. Senate as leader and I'm really looking forward to the opportunity to be able to learn from it.

U.S. Senate Joe Manchin Governor Ricketts Senator Ricketts Mitt Romney Mcconnell Donald Trump Nebraska Antonin Scalia Senator Mcconnell United States
The Impact of Reagan Conservatives

Mark Levin

01:34 min | 4 months ago

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

Reagan Administration Sam Alito Reagan Robert Bork The Wall Street Journal Ed Meese Scalia Rachel Patriots
"scalia" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:22 min | 6 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Of more even and conservative spears to this quote unquote original public meaning, which looks more to a broad understanding of what did equal protection mean, what did freedom of speech mean that kind of understanding, as opposed to expressly limiting ourselves to what the drafters of that language would have thought of applied to at the time. You know, this allows us to take into account, for example, changes in technology or changes in society, women can vote now. So we're part of society. So that kind of shift in the conservative originalist philosophy has taken place. I remember events where justice Scalia and justice Breyer would talk about originalism versus the living constitution. But it seems like even the liberal justices are almost afraid to use that phrase living constitution anymore. Yeah, I definitely think that in some way conservatives have won the branding war in terms of coming up with a narrative around why the conservative at least claim of originalism is better. Their idea was that, look, originalism is tied to the constitution's text and histories. So it restrained judges from injecting their personal views into things, you know, it isn't just based on changing policy preferences, but that's where I think conservatives have gotten into trouble. Now that they actually, you know, it's like the dog finally catching the car. I think they're getting into trouble because what we're actually seeing when they apply originalism is that a lot of those claims of why originalism was better than any other method in terms of restraining justices and keeping it tied to the constitution doesn't seem to be playing out in these big cases we've seen in the Supreme Court. Yeah, justice Scalia said that originalism would keep judges from injecting their personal views into the law, but then why do we have cases where the originalists on the court differ, for example, the bus stop case, where justice Gorsuch joined with the liberals? So justice Scalia himself would acknowledge that originalism and constitutional interpretation were not in his words as easy as pie. But a lot of it depends on the question you asked. So if you look back to say, you know, what does the word equal mean in the Fourteenth Amendment? What does the term liberty mean? You can take a broad lens to that, or you can take a narrow lens to that. So the whole idea that somehow originalism is like putting a question into a computer and it spits out an answer, that's just wrong. And we've seen that with the way that, for example, justice Alito takes the constitutional text and comes over the very limited vision of liberty and another person can take that same text that same original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, for example, and have a much broader vision of liberty. Following up on that, in some of the most controversial decisions of the term, the case you mentioned that took away the constitutional right to abortion, and the case that established a constitutional right to carry a handgun rather than the words of the constitution, the majority opinions used historical analysis going back as far as 12th century England to justify the results. Is that the correct way to apply originalism? Absolutely not. I think the first

Scalia justice Breyer justice Gorsuch Supreme Court Alito England
How Did Such Garbage Law Come Out of the Supreme Court?

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

01:25 min | 7 months ago

How Did Such Garbage Law Come Out of the Supreme Court?

"Did such garbage law come out of the supreme? Because no one had a philosophy. That's why I'm saying Nino Scalia. But when they had to have, they had to know the law that this is a bench and not a legislature. Basically what feels good. Maybe you find it hard to tell they did it. It was the culmination of a type of thinking on the Supreme Court that started under Earl Warren and it never stopped, and it was that type of thinking. That the court could do anything. Anything was that it could create out of whole cloth things. And blackman just when you go back and you read roe V wade, you are astonished at how awful it is as jurisprudence. How monumentally bad it was, emanations, penumbras, to find rights in the Fourteenth Amendment. You had to have a kind of arrogance to write that opinion and believe that it was the right thing to do. And really importantly, when Casey came down about 20 years later and reaffirmed roe V wade, it rather ignored roe V wade ignored Rosie. So bad. Viability. Well, in science. Science was catching up with roe V wade because of sonograms and all that sort of stuff. Well, let's see now. Let's see, this trimester thing, let's go with undue burden on the mother.

Roe V Wade Nino Scalia Earl Warren Legislature Blackman Supreme Court Casey Rosie
Charlie Celebrates the Overturning of Roe From Legacy Church

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:51 min | 7 months ago

Charlie Celebrates the Overturning of Roe From Legacy Church

"But you know what, we're going to get right into this chart. I just want to talk to you about the landmark decision, the biggest and over 50 years. We're going to stand for that. Got a good. We just gave God a standing ovation. Amen, and just praise God praise God praise God. And I just want to say, to those of you that have been prayer warriors on the issue of life, God bless you, that victory was for you. For those of you that have been fasting and praying for your nation, God bless you that victory is for you. For those of you that have seen someone that made a decision for life and you know how beautiful and precious life is and you prayed at the courts when one day make that decision, that victory was for you. And for those of you that work in the pregnancy crisis centers here in Albuquerque, God bless you. And I also want to thank so many of the Titans that came before that fought for this because this was a generational fight. There's so many people that are no longer here that fought so hard for this. God bless Billy Graham for his moral clarity for years on this issue. God bless Rush Limbaugh, who never gave an inch who sought on this issue. And ten years ago, justice Antonin Scalia, another warrior, passed away, and he passed away in 16, but ten years ago, he was saying, you know what? I think the court is just off the

Albuquerque Titans Billy Graham Rush Limbaugh Antonin Scalia
The Supreme Court Has One Job: Interpreting the Constitution

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:05 min | 7 months ago

The Supreme Court Has One Job: Interpreting the Constitution

"Okay, so again, let's review folks. Their gutless. They admit sort of that, yeah, roe V wade is made up. And I think I want people to understand John how extraordinary that is because the Supreme Court has one job. It's to interpret the constitution in 73, they misinterpret the constitution, deliberately, which is an amazing thing. It's a power. Yeah, it's a coup d'etat by 5 lawyers as justice Scalia once said that the Democrats gave up on a menu with us too. The old fashioned way, like the equal rights amendment because it's hard and they'll fail. So they just decided to have the Supreme Court do it and be like a sitting constitutional convention, 5 guys ruling the country by decree. If you're not comfortable with that, you should be happy with the overturning of roe V wade. Regardless of how you feel about killing children for sexual convenience, even if you're for that. You should be happy that 5 guys are not running the country like it's a mafia family.

Roe V Wade Justice Scalia Supreme Court John
"scalia" Discussed on WGN Radio

WGN Radio

07:05 min | 7 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on WGN Radio

"One of them, the one that directly regulated greenhouse gas emissions was one called clean power plants. And clean power plan was issued in 2015. And as soon as it was issued, it was stayed by, well, soon after it was issued stayed by Supreme Court Justice Scalia. It was the last decision he wrote before he passed away. And so ever since that time, it's been in sort of limbo. The Supreme Court had stated when the Trump administration came in. They put the rule, the watered down the rule a lot. And then the Biden administration came in and they wanted to redo the rules. So litigation never really went away. Finally, today, 7 years after the rule was issued, the Supreme Court has put a halt to the whole thing. By saying EPA, you can't issue this rule because you don't have congressional authority to do so. As it turns out, EPA is not Congress and only Congress can write the laws that direct the executive agencies like EPA, executive agencies, regulatory agencies can not just do what they want because they think it's the right thing to do. They need direction from Congress. So that's the sort of thrust of today's ruling. And it has obviously major ramifications for EPA, the climate agenda, but also other regulatory agencies. The Supreme Court established this doctrine called the major questions doctrine. And so when there are major when regulatory agencies try to cast these wise societally important regulations, Supreme Court is not going to let them do that unless they have expressed congressional authorization. All right, so folks, again, we're on with Steve malloy, Trump transition official and the founder of junk science dot com. And we're talking about this EPA ruling and I'm wondering, I see some people are up in arms as people on Twitter that are really just beside themselves. What is the real impact here that we're going to have? It just seems like we're going to allow industries to continue to do what they do and just not allow the EPA to have more authority than they're allowed to have. Well, the impact is a lot less than you might think. Don't get me wrong, it's important really, it's important constraint on EPA, but the reality is, is that the Obama EPA, in addition to with its other war on coal rules, record industry long before this decision was made. It's why instead of burning for electricity, half of it being powered by coal, only 25% or less is now powered by coal because the Obama administration. The Obama administration forced virtually the entire colon street into bankruptcy, wiping out 95% of the market value to the coal industry. And coal industry still hasn't really come back. It's one of the reasons we pay such high prices for electricity and natural gas now because the Obama administration wiped out the coal industry The Obama I'm sorry, the Biden White House wanted to issue new rules, even though it doesn't really matter because just as a dynamics of the utilities and the coal industry and what Obama did, most utilities were going to phase out coal to a much greater extent than the clean power plan. So the clean power plan is really the whole litigation now was just about how much power does EPA have. And today we learned that number one, if EPA doesn't have congressional authorization, it's not going to be allowed to regulate number two, it does not have congressional authorization to regulate CO2 from power plants so it won't be able to. All right, now tell us a little bit about the dissent. Obviously, we know the opinion you just explained that. I think justice Kagan had the dissent. And I know there's a lot of people chiming in saying, you know, she's right and what she's saying is gospel truth. I don't know what she's right about. I mean, I started reading her dissent and I put a thread up on Twitter. It's just, it was nonsense from the beginning. I never. She doesn't like the major question, doctor. For sure. All her facts about climate were wrong. And she doesn't really understand the issue. She doesn't want to understand the issue. She said my or prior just sort of took this knee jerk ETA has EPA is authorized to issue climate regulations, even though it has no express congressional authorization. It was the whole descent was particularly disappointing, especially from Breyer, this is the last decision on his last day, I'm old enough to remember in the 1980s when he was actually four the major questions doctrine. He thought that agencies should only regulate when Congress has told them to do so. And all of a sudden, today he's what's the major questions, doctor. Never heard of that before. This is the first time I've ever been used. So it's just the whole, they're just that was really pathetic. This whole issue is kind of like, you know, you can analogize it to roe versus wade, I think, a little bit. In Dobbs, the decision that overturned roe and Casey, what Dobbs did? It didn't ban abortion. It didn't say that there would be no more abortions. What did was kick the issue back to the states? So that state legislators legislatures could decide for themselves, which means it goes back to the democratic process and people can lie before and against it. So it's very democratic in that way. Well, this is sort of the same thing. It doesn't say that EPA can never regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants. It just says that Congress has to pass something which Congress has not been able to do and Congress has tried, but it's been rejected. Time and time again. So it's not this cataclysmic. And even if you believe the junk climate science, I'm just I'm just looking past all that right now. I consider it all a big hoax. Just looking past all that right now. It's not the end of democracy. It's really the beginning of democracy because if Congress, if people really want EPA to regulate climate, then have Congress do it. But Congress hasn't been able to do it. All right folks, we're on with Steve malloy, founder of junk science dot com he's the author of the books, scarce pollution, why and how to fix the EPA. There's more to come with him. He stands with us till the bottom of the hour we're going to find out what's going on in New York City with enviro terrorists and more. I am rich valdes at rich valdes on all of the social media and this is the bohan and show on the Westwood one network. I'm

EPA Obama administration Supreme Court Congress Justice Scalia Trump administration Biden administration Steve malloy Obama Twitter Trump Biden Dobbs Kagan White House ETA Breyer roe
"scalia" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:34 min | 7 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Interpretation of statutes, I think this question of whether the court views a rule as presenting a major question is now the determinant of what's going to happen in a case. It may be that if the court says, well, this rule doesn't meet whatever we think of as a major question. Then you might see some form of deference to an agency. It's not going to be the kind of deference that Chevron of course authored by justice Scalia talked about where the court must defer to a quote reasonable interpretation of a quote ambiguous statute. Now it's going to be the question is, is the rule you're proposing major because if we say it's major, you're not going to get any difference. If we say it's not major, we'll be willing to look at the way the agency views it. And if it's a if it's a technical rule within the agency's expertise within their so called Wheelhouse, then you might see even this court deferring. And I have to say it'll be interesting to see whether or not rules that seem to deregulate on environmental issues get some deference. Whereas environmental rules don't. So we'll have to keep an eye on right now the major question doctrine has never been used to validate an agency rule. It's only been used to strike them down. In the dissent by justice Elena Kagan

justice Scalia Chevron Wheelhouse Elena Kagan
Mark Walters: The 2nd Amendment Is 3-0 Against Anti-Gun Owners

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:24 min | 7 months ago

Mark Walters: The 2nd Amendment Is 3-0 Against Anti-Gun Owners

"Because he ruled in our favor in the 2008 Heller case. He also in that decision Penn brilliantly by Scalia. But he also ruled in our favor in the 2010 subsequent case, the McDonald V Chicago case. And it's important to put this in context as we discuss the brewing case because the McDonald case was the Second Amendment foundation case brought against the city of Chicago and their handgun ban. And it was in that ruling in the McDonald case that found the Fourteenth Amendment protects the Second Amendment by incorporating it through the privileges and a privileges and immunities clause to the states as the rest of the Bill of Rights. So the New York case couldn't have even been brought or it might not have had if it were brought, it might not have been granted by the Supreme Court. And if it had, we might not have had the level of confidence in a victory without that Fourteenth Amendment, applicable to the states in the McDonald case. I know this gets a little confusing, but it's all tied together and thank God Thomas got the decision and thank God we waited, albeit 12 years for this particular case because it was as strong as the day is long. And the decision was actually better than we had anticipated. Our concern Carl, you and I talked about it on previous shows was we expect a victory, but how wide of a victory. And Thomas cast a net very wide. The Second Amendment is three and O against the anti gunners. We are on solid ground.

Mcdonald Second Amendment Foundation Chicago Scalia Heller Penn Supreme Court New York Thomas Carl
Article III Project's Mike Davis on the Transformation of SCOTUS

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:55 min | 7 months ago

Article III Project's Mike Davis on the Transformation of SCOTUS

"With us right now is Mike Davis formerly chief counsel for nominations for the U.S. Senate committee on the judiciary and a law clerk formerly and also helped justice Gorsuch, get on the U.S. Supreme Court, Mike, welcome back to the program. Thank you for having me, Charlie. I always love when you do our interviews, you have that beautiful picture behind you. It's just, it's incredible. So Washington crossing the Delaware if I'm not mistaken. It is, yeah, and I've big, big, big admirer of that painting and what it actually means. So Mike ten years ago, I got my start in politics and I was pro life then as I am now, but I was told by people that roe versus wade would never be overturned. Ten years ago, justice Scalia was lamenting that the court had gone off the rails. What happened in a decade, where we went from a court that was insane and dominated by Sotomayor and Kagan and upheld ObamaCare is merely a tax, even though we know simply that that was an insane decision. We're ten years later, we now have restored constitutional sanity. What do you attribute the success to? I attributed this success to president Donald J Trump and Senate Republicans. President Trump in 2016 won an upset victory against Hillary Clinton in big part because he promised he would appoint constitutionalist Supreme Court Justices and federal judges who would follow the law instead of rewrite the law and what we saw with this Dobbs decision coming out was the culmination of that. It was because president Trump transformed the 5 to four John Roberts court to the 5 to four clarence Thomas court with the appointments of justices, Gorsuch, my former boss, justice Kavanaugh, who I helped lead through the Senate confirmation and then justice Amy Coney Barrett. So it is a fundamental transformation of the federal judiciary back to its constitutionalist origins, what is supposed to be before the liberals hijack the Supreme Court nearly 90 years

Gorsuch U.S. Senate Committee On The J Mike Davis Mike U.S. Supreme Court President Donald J Trump President Trump Scalia Charlie Delaware Sotomayor Kagan Wade Washington Senate Hillary Clinton Justice Kavanaugh Dobbs
The Pro-Life Warriors That Need to Be Honored Today

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:11 min | 8 months ago

The Pro-Life Warriors That Need to Be Honored Today

"Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention two, now passed away legend and heroes. That are largely responsible that helped us get where we are today. And that is justice Antonin Scalia and the great Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was a pro life warrior. He would be so happy right now. He brought so many people into the pro life movement. Rush Limbaugh, for years, was one of the most articulate and courageous. And intense pro life leaders, unapologetically so. Rush Limbaugh was pro life before the pro life movement had the funding or the infrastructure or the kind of grassroots support. And rush would never lay off of that topic. Rush was on top of it for 30 years in the excellence in broadcasting. I remember time and time again when I was a senior in high school and I would be listening on local Chicago radio, rush would be going on and on and on about some pro life story about how Planned Parenthood was doing something illegal. And another person that I do want to mention that deserves a lot of credit as well is Billy Graham. Billy Graham, he would just be so ecstatic right now. Scalia, rush, Billy Graham. Billy Graham, who spoke moral clarity into our times. Billy Graham, who was, in my opinion, the most successful evangelist in the 20th century. Who at any pastor you turn to, they have nothing bad to say about Billy Graham. Verse by verse chapter by chapter, he preached the inner sea of scripture, but he was very clear about the moral truths of our country. Or that under undergird our country. And then finally, Trump brought all of this movement to fruition. And yes, I begrudgingly and reluctantly. Have to say, Mitch McConnell deserves credit for not putting Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme

Rush Limbaugh Billy Graham Antonin Scalia Rush Scalia Chicago Donald Trump Mitch Mcconnell Merrick Garland U.S. Supreme
Circuit Courts Had Ignored Previous SCOTUS Decision on Gun Rights

Mark Levin

01:53 min | 8 months ago

Circuit Courts Had Ignored Previous SCOTUS Decision on Gun Rights

"What happened ladies and gentlemen is that the circuit court basically ignored the Supreme Court's decision several years ago written by justice Scalia in the Heller case And these circuit courts started to create their own tests a two tiered test A two tier test And what Thomas says in the majority says here there's no two tiers That's one tier too many This one test The constitution basically And as a leader notes the holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm It requirements that must be met to buy a gun nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess In other words that's an issue for another day But once people are applicants for a weapon and they are proved to receive a weapon then there's no reason they can't take it outside their house To protect themselves as much as they protect themselves inside a house And you can not simply leave it to bureaucrats to make decisions on a one off basis If they say as I said from the opinion felons can have it and so forth That's one thing But to say you have not demonstrated to me why you need this You're not required to demonstrate why you need that or why you need free speech or why you need the freedom to exercise your faith or any of those things That's the point That's a secondary level of examination that the state has no power To conduct

Justice Scalia Supreme Court Thomas
"scalia" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:11 min | 8 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"The filibuster and then deal with comes after Do you agree I do and I'm so glad you said that because that's something I wrote in my notes listening to the president You didn't hear him go there again and that's something I think people who want to see action are going to say he's going if he really means this He's going to have to push for that reform and he has never done that to this day What about the causes Because even if you're dealing with something like homelessness which is endemic it's particularly in California it's an issue that just they can not seem to solve And probably gun violence is the same What is causing America to be so different from other countries You know I think there is a real concern about the Second Amendment and the president made the right point that all of our liberties he quoted justice Scalia former justice Scalia are limited You don't have an absolute right to anything but I think there is a real concern that people want to make sure the government doesn't take away their guns So I think that is one thing that separates us from Australia is almost always used as good example or New Zealand where they've dealt with these issues and they've been able to move forward but we do have this Second Amendment that people take very very seriously in the president is trying to tell them tonight You are misunderstanding it listen to somebody as conservative as former justice Scalia on that point So I think that's one aspect And the other aspect is of course we have a country in which the last time we had real concerted gun control legislation passed was 1994 and the president talked about this At that point you had members of the GOP vote for that Bill and many Democrats vote against it That was because they had diverse caucuses now the parties have become incredibly homogeneous And so you'll see an almost straight down the line party vote on this That's something we haven't seen in the United States and it's something you don't see in a lot of other countries So those kinds of things make us different than other countries who have dealt with this but certainly we have to deal with this now as we've been saying for decades Well the president was quite clear that you know putting some of these controls in place have nothing to do with the Second Amendment They're not going to take guns away If there was one thing that could happen that would leave you more optimistic What would it be The one thing would leave me more optimistic would be to get rid of the filibuster That's the one thing I would like to see You know apart from that I do support and think Chris Murphy has a really good focus on this The senator from Connecticut And he has changed his tone quite a bit He's saying he wants to get incremental progress to show Republicans that they could do this and they could get public support for it So you know if not removing the filibuster which seems unlikely at this point I hope that Murphy is right in that quest and he's able to move the needle on that but again it's a real uphill battle And I think the president has to step out on the filibuster at this point Okay.

Scalia justice Scalia America California New Zealand Australia GOP Bill Chris Murphy Connecticut Murphy
Why the Constitution Still Matters on Guns

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:40 min | 8 months ago

Why the Constitution Still Matters on Guns

"Headline writers came up with the headline what the center wants after evolving. Now I do not presume to speak for the center. I am center right and there are many, many people to my right and 60% of the country that my left I'm probably in the 70% range on most issues. For example, I do not believe in constitutionalizing the status of the fetus in the womb. It's a matter of state law, the police power, it's not a matter of the constitution, that upsets many of my pro life allies. I believe as a Catholic that it's life at conception, but I don't believe it's in the constitution or within the federal government's authority to say so. And I always begin with the constitution, so I begin in this piece with the constitution. I quote. On what can conservatives and liberals agree in the aftermath of the massacre in Texas. Let's begin with justice Antonin Scalia, with what he wrote in 2008, D.C. versus Heller decision, a case affirming an individual's right to bear arms. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms and sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. That's the majority of decision in Heller, that is our understanding of the Second Amendment, the majority understanding and the one that has endured. It's now been incorporated to be a different case to the states. That was about a federal law so it needed incorporation. It's an individual right. It may not be abridged, et cetera

Versus Heller Antonin Scalia Federal Government D.C. Texas Heller
Who Is Scott Presler?

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:54 min | 8 months ago

Who Is Scott Presler?

"Where did you come from, Scott? Well, I was born in Jacksonville, Florida to a retired navy captain. We moved up to Northern Virginia, and here's where I got my start because it all started with president Obama, the night that he was reelected, I created my Twitter account. And in part because I was mad at myself, Mike. Where was I registering voters? Where was I knocking on doors? Where was I getting out the vote? And the answer is that I hadn't been an active participant in our constitutional republic. So as opposed to me pointing the finger at other people blaming them for president Obama's reelection, I turned the thinker back at myself. And I started volunteering for the Republican Party. I fell in love with it. I felt like I was making a difference in my community. And I'm wearing cowboy boots right now because in honor of 2014, my first ever political job was helping to elect governor Greg Abbott and the great state of Texas. Then I knew with the passing of the late Antonin Scalia that the Supreme Court was up for grabs and I never wanted Hillary Clinton to be the deciding factor in appointing a Supreme Court Justice. So I spent two years of my life helping to defeat Hillary Clinton and I spent the last four years of my life traveling the country registering thousands of voters training tens of thousands of volunteers and cleaning up our cities. You see, because it was president Obama who inspired me, but it was president Trump who had me take a deeper look at our neglected and abandoned inner cities. And I started cleaning them up. We and just two years time have done cleanups in Atlanta, Austin Baltimore, Chicago, Denver decaying Detroit, Houston Kenosha, Los Angeles, Miami Milwaukee, Nashville, Portland, Pittsburgh, Philly. And I was even protested, Mike Gallagher, for picking up trash.

President Obama Northern Virginia Jacksonville Navy Hillary Clinton Greg Abbott Scott Supreme Court Florida Antonin Scalia Republican Party Mike Twitter President Trump Texas Kenosha Atlanta Baltimore Austin Denver
Sebastian Chats With Ken Klukowski About the Impending Roe Decision

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

02:25 min | 9 months ago

Sebastian Chats With Ken Klukowski About the Impending Roe Decision

"We have somebody who I trust for legal advice who's worked in the Trump administration at the DoJ practicing lawyer breitbart contributor, you've got to read his latest pieces at breitbart dot com. His can clockhouse can. Welcome back to America first. Great to be with you. Thanks for having me. All right, I'm going to just say what I think about the Supreme Court draft decision. Because I'm not a lawyer, but I read all 70 pages recently. And you know what shocked me and maybe I should read more of these documents, it was a fabulous historic tour de rizon. It was a treatise. It wasn't full of mumbo jumbo that a layman couldn't understand. First it was this amazing historic review of how the law treated abortion in western civilization going back to the 17th century in the UK, the concept of quickening. And then basically this conclusion that until roe V wade, it was illegal in America, and then it was a segment by segment dismantling of both roe and Casey saying it's just bad law and analyzing started decisis in other concepts. So Ken, give me your illegal professional opinion, is this an unusually good pre decisional draft, or is this because it's a Leto who's riding it? Well, first of all, justice alita was a brilliant justice. His opinions are uniformly wonderful. But what you just described in as I read it as well, it reminds me of the late justice Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia versus hello. Yeah. Which held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right from 2008. That opinion was also almost exactly the same page length. That was a little over 60 pages. And what you saw there is what a well written Supreme Court opinion is supposed to look like. This is an original list decision. One that looks to the text, structure, and history of the constitution, and in this case, in terms of looking at the history of a purported right to abortion, showing why. This is in fact not a right found in the U.S.

Trump Administration Roe V Wade Breitbart DOJ U.S. Supreme Court ROE Alita Casey KEN UK Scalia District Of Columbia
Inflation Is Still Front and Center for Voters

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:55 min | 9 months ago

Inflation Is Still Front and Center for Voters

"You know, I'm so glad you brought that up. Proclamations of political doom are always overstated all these premature and they always revert to the mean and the mean is that many activists on both sides of this issue will be energized, but inflation remains the continent in everybody's life. And the ability to provide for your family, the real one, not the theoretical one, the real family, is uppermost in people's mind. I'm just curious if you think there's going to be a withering away of the issue, which is what I think is going to happen. I think the states are going to go about their business and activists will activate and work in the states, but that it will actually yield calm, not more storms. This is the point that this board of draft opinion makes the point that justice Scalia along made as well by seizing. From the state legislatures, the people's elected representatives, this question of abortion in 1973. And then reaffirming it in 1992, the court did not settle this question as they wrote in Casey. They only supercharged the debate because they did not allow the natural process of liberation and compromise occurs on so many other questions in our society to occur on this question. Again, as it was in many states in 1973. So I do suspect that in many states, they will reach a compromise and they will have a set of laws that govern the practice and although there will always be some on either side to try to revisit those. Usually the case, the people's elected representatives liberates and reach compromise that satisfactory through the maximum number of people. And if not, then obviously, the democratic process of electing new governors and new state legislators and process will continue.

Scalia Casey
Senator Mike Lee Discusses KBJ's Appointment to the Supreme Court

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:02 min | 10 months ago

Senator Mike Lee Discusses KBJ's Appointment to the Supreme Court

"Support. It's senator Mike Lee senator. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk show. Thanks so much, Charlie. Good to be with you as always. So just breaking the last couple of moments. Brown Jackson is now going to be a Supreme Court Justice. You voted no? Give us your take. I voted no. Look, she's got some impressive qualifications, academically and professionally. I'm concerned about her judicial philosophy and therefore can't vote for. What I mean by that is she doesn't have an appropriate relationship with the role of the federal judge, which is narrow, and it's supposed to focus on interpreting the law rather than making policy. There are too many instances in which she has done the latter when her job is limited to the former. So she was narrowly confirmed with 53 votes. Talk more about kind of her philosophical view of what she thinks a judge needs to be more activistic, a living or breathing constitution. Kind of in the tradition of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or the Warren court or the burger court, when in reality, we've kind of seen this really exciting revival of people more in the tradition of Scalia. Talk about how she's kind of a departure, obviously, because of who nominated her, Joe Biden, and what that could mean for liberty and for citizens watching the show. Yeah, you know, I think she'll be to the left, not only of the Republican appointed nominees to the Supreme Court. But I think she's probably to the left of Earl Warren of Harry blackman of Stephen Breyer. That's right. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I think she is a liberal ideologue, a very smart liberal ideologue who has shown her colors in the past. For instance, by enjoining Trump era administrative decisions that were outside of her jurisdiction. On at least two occasions, she took a Trump era executive action. And invalidated it in the absence of a valid cause of action, really in the absence of jurisdiction and was twice reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, which is a very left leaning appellate

Senator Mike Lee Charlie Kirk Brown Jackson Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court Charlie Warren Court Harry Blackman Scalia Joe Biden Earl Warren Stephen Breyer U.S. Court Of Appeals D.C.
Navy Ship to Be Named After Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Mark Levin

00:32 sec | 11 months ago

Navy Ship to Be Named After Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

"It would be good to know there's going to be a navy ship named after the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg I would think that'll scare the hell out of the enemy wouldn't it mister Medusa Oh my God here comes the Ruth Bader Ginsburg How many things By the government ships or anything have been named after Anton and Scalia His death preceded hers I guess I guess none While George Mason university law school I didn't say that

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Navy Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg Scalia Anton George Mason University Law Sc
"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:57 min | 11 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"K BJ. Next clip. That constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the centralization of power. In one person or in one party, and when that happens, the game is over, the Bill of Rights is just what our framers would call a parchment guarantee. So the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our government. One part of it, of course, is the independence of the judiciary. And he goes on, you can listen to that whole clip. We should put the whole thing up on Charlie Kirk dot com actually. It's a 7 minute clip. It's one of the best that I've ever found of Scalia. He was just in rare form that day. Caught 55. This is a refresher. You go from Scalia, are things actually getting better? Play cut 55 to this. Can you provide a definition for the word woman? Can I provide a definition? No. Yeah. I can't. You can't? Not in this context. I'm not a biology. You have the word woman is so unclear in controversial that you can't give me a definition. Good for Marsha Blackburn. You go from Scalia? Talking about the federalist papers, talking about a parchment guarantee talking about the structure of the system separation of powers and checks and balances and the independent judiciary to fast forward to this. How did we get here? We got here every single person in power that panders to this racial garbage of CRT is how we got here. I have no problem with any person being on the Supreme Court of any skin colored all whatsoever, but it is inarguable why could tangi was selected. They set it out loud. She was selected because of her skin color and her chromosomes of which she doesn't even know what those mean. For ten years, we try to pander to all these racial minority movements. For ten years, conservatives have tried to say, well, you know, we need to try to hyper fixate on race at all costs. All the grievance groups, the oppression Olympics, this is what you get. This is the country you're gonna live in, everybody. The trans groups, the grievance groups, police are killing unarmed black people all this stuff. It manifests in the policy of one of 9 on a Supreme Court. That's what you get. You go from Scalia to kb. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email me directly freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com and support our show at Charlie Kirk dot com slash support. Thanks so much for listening. God bless. For more, on many of these stories and news you can trust. Go to Charlie Kirk dot com..

Scalia Charlie Kirk Soviet Union Marsha Blackburn tangi America Supreme Court Olympics
"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

03:11 min | 11 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Hey everybody, people say this and Plato actually said it first. Ignorance is the root and the stem of all evil. People say ignorance is bliss, wrong. It's not. Are you reading the headlines? Are you looking around and seeing the things I am? Look, Americans are being hoodwinked by half truths, deceit, and propaganda, and our country is almost unrecognizable. Normal is long gone and the future is a dangerous place. That's why you need a preparedness plan. And that's why you need to turn to my Friends at my patriot supply. Their website, my patriots supply dot com carries everything you need for when the shelves get emptier. You are 9 meals away from anarchy, and our country could get even crazier. Their food tastes better and stays fresher for up to 25 years. They carry a whole selection of water purifiers, hospital quality medical supplies, survival gear and you name it. They thought of everything. So all you need to do is go to their website today. That's my patriot supply dot com. Time is not on your side, but you are 9 meals away from anarchy. Do you have supplies, if not, you are not protecting your family. Build up your supplies like I have right now. At my patriot supply dot com. That's my patriot supply dot com. So we will go from katangi Brown Jackson. Let's go back to how things were. Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away right before the 2016 election and thank goodness we were able to fill Scalia's spot with justice Gorsuch. This is how Supreme Court Justices used to talk. Play cut 84. I asked them, what do you think is the reason that America is such a free country? What is it in our constitution that makes us what we are? And I guarantee you that the response I will get, and you will get this from almost any American, including the woman that he was talking to at the supermarket. The answer would be freedom of speech, freedom of the press, no unreasonable searches and seizures. No quartering of troops in hope, those marvelous provisions of the Bill of Rights. What they might tell them if you think that a Bill of rights is what sets us apart, you're crazy. Every banana republic in the world has a Bill of rights. Every president for life has a Bill of rights. The Bill of Rights of the former evil empire, the union of Soviet Socialist republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally. Justice Scalia was testifying in front of the U.S. Senate, and he was talking about his conversations with students at Yale law, students in law school challenged them. Why are we free in this country? And they say, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, no. It's the structure. And if you don't know about the structure of the constitution, if you don't know about the thought process or the weeds of the foundation of our system, then you don't quite understand why we're free. And we're becoming less free because we don't teach children this. We don't teach young people this. We don't teach students this. Here are articulate he is how passionate he is. What a contrast versus the affirmative action CRT pick.

Justice Scalia Brown Jackson justice Gorsuch Plato Scalia Supreme Court Yale law union of Soviet Socialist repu seizures America U.S. Senate
"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

04:21 min | 11 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"The view is getting really upset that Jackson is getting all these questions, play cut 72. The black woman who went to predominantly white institutions, my entire life. I know how hard it is. It was for her to get to where she is. And I know what it's like to be the only person in the room. And I cried because my daughter now will see this because my cousins now will see this in little girls all around the country. We'll see this. As a mother, what she said, and I think we have a clip. She said she did not always get the balance right between career and motherhood. And what mom can't relate to that. Can't relate to that. What are your cousins and daughter going to have to see? A really foolish, unintelligent black woman who doesn't prepare for her Senate confirmation. Is that what makes you cry? I mean, I guess, I mean, one thing if she was really prepared and she had answers and she had everything in front of her, but instead she kind of just scoffs with this sort of kind of dismissive arrogance and I don't say that lightly. It's clear that katangi was told by people, you have the regime media behind you, just don't say anything stupid. Well, it turns out, by trying not to say anything stupid, she didn't even answer the obvious question that makes her look really dumb and foolish. And so I'd love to ask sunny hostin. You know, she says, I've been the only person in the room. Okay, enough of this sort of narrative drives me nuts. But what exactly do you not want your daughter or cousins to see about this? Like maybe it's a lesson that you should do your homework. Maybe you should prepare for tough things in life. Because she's, she's really kind of breaking the entire push for the affirmative action CRT regime. Not exactly making it look good. I have to say. Look at how the media treated Amy Coney Barrett versus katangi Brown Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett, who aced her Senate confirmation hearing with no notes in front of her. Katangi Brown Jackson can't tell you what a woman is. Play cut 82. It's such a great day for history to be made, particularly with somebody with the credentials of judge katangi Brown Jackson, the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, to the Supreme Court, which could bring potential setbacks on women's rights. And she is the candidate of the base. I mean, she is the full Trump program. That was judge katangi Brown Jackson, president Joe Biden's overwhelmingly qualified pick. I do Gorsuch. Do Kavanaugh next and let's do a Hail Mary with the real right wing lunatic. The overwhelmingly qualified how is she qualified exactly? What has moved you during this confirmation? That has made you really feel as if you're confident she's going to be one of 9 on the United States Supreme Court. And there's some broader things at play here, which really goes to show that the Democrats just don't care. They don't care if she's smart, they don't care if she has the right answers. They don't really care. Instead, what they do care about is that she'll be useful. They believe she'll vote the way they want her to vote, she'll be the first black woman so they can check that box so that their base can be really happy and she will be obedient. Katangi Brown Jackson will not have an original thought and any time when she's on the Supreme Court. She's an activist. She's not a judge. She reminds me more of Patrice colors. Brown Jackson wouldn't be on the U.S. Supreme Court should be running a BLM chapter in Louisville or Cleveland or Chicago or Atlanta. She has praised Nicole Hannah Jones the author of the 1619 Project, who did a drive by shooting of the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Washington Post in New York Times says that she's one of the most, if not the most qualified ever. How exactly? I can tell you someone who was qualified, and we're going to go back into the archives of the type of judges we used to have on the U.S. Supreme Court. The way they were able to explain the context and detail the structure of the United States Constitution. To be able to show the checks and balances, the separation of powers within the brilliance. Of the system of government that we have today..

Amy Coney Barrett katangi Brown Jackson Katangi Brown Jackson katangi judge katangi Brown Jackson Senate Gorsuch Supreme Court Jackson Kavanaugh Joe Biden Brown Jackson Nicole Hannah Jones United States Washington Post in New York Ti Patrice BLM Louisville Cleveland Atlanta
"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

03:44 min | 11 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Let's go to cut 35. Katangi Brown Jackson refuses to give her opinion on court packing play cut 35. Do you agree with justice Breyer and justice Ginsburg that court packing is a bad idea? Well, respectfully, senator, other nominees, to the Supreme Court, have responded as I will, which is that it is a policy question for Congress. And I am particularly mindful of not speaking to policy issues because I am so committed to staying in my lane. What lane is that exactly. You don't know what the equal protection clause says. You don't. You don't know what a man is or a woman is. You don't know when life begins, then you won't even comment on whether men and women have differences. So what lane exactly are you in charge of? You don't know all the pedophiles you've let off before, let's go to another piece of sound here. Okay, cut 62. Asked if she reached out to any of the victims of heroin trafficker. Jackson dismisses the question by saying there were no victims. Play cut 62. Judge Jackson before you granted this fentanyl kingpin's motion to reduce his sentence. Did you contact any of the victims from his case? Senator mister young was not released, his sentence was reduced and I did not contact the victims in this case because there were no victims. He committed a crime, a drug crime. There were no identifiable victims in his case. You hear that? She says that people who peddle heroin, there's no victims, she has a soft spot for the criminal. She really does. The law breaker. Now, why would she have a soft spot for the criminal? Because she views the world the way an academic, or a leftist would view the world. So in order for the left to be able to explain their worldview, they have to be able to explain to themselves and their fellow activists, where does suffering come from? So we believe suffering is the natural state of human existence. We believe in original sin, we believe we are prone to mess things up. The Bible is very clear about this, that human beings will end up being self destructive, will end up being greedy, will end up being our own worst opponent in trying to make things progress or make civilization strong. However, katangi Brown Jackson disagrees with this. She does not believe that the raw material that we're dealing with human beings themselves are flawed. She thinks society is flawed. Now this is a romanticist view of the world that comes from one of the social contract theorists Jean Jacques Rousseau. Who heavily influenced, Karl Marx. You see, if you believe that human suffering is largely because of society or capitalism, not because of something that is wrong within the human being itself, well then you're going to have to change society. So she'll go look at a child predator and say, you know what? It's not really the child predators fault. It's the Internet's fault. She said that. It's not exactly that it's the child molester's fault. It's society that overwhelmed this person and was unable to really know their place in the world..

Katangi Brown Jackson justice Breyer justice Ginsburg Judge Jackson Senator mister young kingpin Supreme Court Congress katangi Brown Jackson Jackson Jean Jacques Rousseau Karl Marx
"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

03:11 min | 11 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Person wants to spend the Supreme Court, not a trick question. Okay. Not trying to trip you up here. Do you agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg that men and women are different? I'm sorry. I'm going to have to look at the specifics of the case. Pretty simple. And I have to make this overly complex. She won't answer that. But she is quick to get super animated hands flying all over the place. Passionate heart rate going up when anyone dares question her sentencing of child pedophiles. That's where she gets the most enthusiastic. So you can't agree that there are physical difference between men and women you support the gitmo terrorist enthusiastically, it's obvious she didn't prepare herself or she thought she could just bluff her way all the way through or these last couple weeks all of her handlers basically said, hey, Russia, Ukraine is going to take all the headlines, just kind of breeze through this. And no one thought in the briefing to say, hey, let's get a pretty good answer in case someone asks you what a woman is because you are the first woman that black woman that wants to be on the U.S. Supreme Court, either way, neither shows arrogance, like they assume this was a foregone conclusion, which is of course the left's biggest vulnerability, or they think she's just doing beautifully. In fact, I could just see some academic saying finally. The deconstructionist post modernist agenda that we've been putting forward at Harvard is making real gains finally. We have to question everything. And finally, at this hearing, we are seeing that she rejects very simple things that used heteronormative beliefs that men and women are things. No, reject that. Look, with all the different makes and models of cars, it could be very confusing. I'm not a car guy. I'm not. And I get ripped off, okay? If I go to a traditional storefront, it's a disaster. It really is. You know, these people that know a lot about cars, they're selling me all sorts of weird and wacky things. They're like, you need a flag pole and you need a Wilson wire and you need a Hamilton bar and all this different sorts of stuff never heard of. I said, okay, sure, here's the credit card. Next thing you know, it's thousands of dollars later, and I've been ripped off. Well, look, you have computers so you can access rock auto dot com at home and in your pocket. So you should repair and maintain your cars. It's a way to save money and you can use them for other important things like mortgages and food. So you got a rock auto dot com that's rock out of dot com. Their prices are reliably low. At rock auto dot com always offers the lowest price as possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear like airlines do. Rock auto dot com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years. Go to rock auto dot com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers, best of all, prices that rock out of dot com are reliably low. Go to rock auto dot com right now to see all the parts available for your car truck, where Charlie Kirk and the how did you hear about us? So they know that we sent you. Amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts of your car will ever need rock auto dot com. Let's.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court Ukraine Russia Harvard Wilson Charlie Kirk
"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

03:40 min | 11 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"I'm afraid with what we're watching with the katangi Brown Jackson saga. We might be watching a national divorce court proceeding. This might be like the U.S. Senate becomes Judge Judy almost. If you can't even agree on what a she is, you might be watching the national divorce unfold. Then it all just kind of manifests in one period of time with katangi Brown Jackson. So here is cut 40 where Brown Jackson, comments on abortion cases, where she says, look, we now know women have a right to terminate a pregnancy, but the obvious question is, well, then what is a woman though because you told us you can't tell us what a woman is. So how can you tell us someone can terminate a pregnancy if you can't tell us what a woman is? Play cut 40. Thank you, senator. I do agree with both justice, Kavanaugh, and justice Barrett, on this issue. Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy, they have established a framework that the court has reaffirmed and in order to revisit as justice Barrett said, the Supreme Court looks at various factors because stare decisis is a very important principle. When you can't even decide on the most basic things in a society, what does that say for the more complex things you can't determine what when does life begin? What is a female? You're starting to see these kind of two Americas and the other side, this is just fine. What does dick Durbin have to say? He thinks she's doing wonderful. Dick Durbin thinks that she is ten out of ten, no one has risen to the challenge. As well as KB J play cut 66. First, I would say judge Jackson, then I thought the President Biden got it right yesterday. He tuned in and watched the proceedings and said, you showed both grace and dignity. I've used the phrase grace under pressure and it's been referred to by many people. This is a tough assignment, and many have risen to the challenge, but none as well as you did yesterday. Thank you for doing it so much. It's just nauseating. We're supposed to take this seriously. Yeah, you just did so well. You can't tell us what a woman is. You don't know when life begins. You don't know very basic equal protection cases. Senator Blackburn then referenced justice Ginsburg. And said there's no, are there physical differences between men and women? Play cut 78. Do you agree with justice Ginsburg? That there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring. Respectfully, I am not familiar with that particular quote or case. So it's hard for me to comment as to whether. All right. I'd love to get your opinion on that. And you can submit that. Do you interpret justice Ginsburg's meaning of men and women as male and female? Again, because I don't know the case. I don't know how I interpret it. I need to read the whole thing. Okay. Hey, look, smart.

Brown Jackson justice Barrett dick Durbin Judge Judy Supreme Court U.S. Senate Kavanaugh judge Jackson President Biden Roe Casey Barrett Senator Blackburn Americas justice Ginsburg Ginsburg
"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

03:33 min | 11 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Now they call this dead naming, which is using their dead name because we said Richard Levine. But Richard Levine, which we used, was actually in the context of the 54 years of the individual, that was a man that had children. So let me just ask a question for Twitter. Am I allowed to post a picture or a video of cassius clay? Or do I have to only say Muhammad Ali? People change their names all the time. Or you're not allowed to ever mention somebody in the context of when their name was that name or else it's hate speech. Dead naming is the act of referring to a transgender or non binary person by a name they used prior to transitioning such as their birth name. You hear that on Twitter, you're not allowed to call somebody a name that isn't actually their name. And yet we even admitted in the tweet this person has transitioned something radical enough that I even reject the premise of, but we did it in the tweet just to kind of see how Twitter would react and they still censor us off their platform. Everything about it was precisely on point. They still don't want to be part of it. Obviously, it's about crushing dissent. It's about sending a signal to millions of other people that are on the fence of whether or not they should speak out. It was a perfect tweet. Nothing about it is wrong, therefore people say Charlie, are you going to delete the tweet to get access access back to Twitter? I stand with the Babylon bee on this. And now Tucker has been censored over it. Now, if Twitter wanted this story to go away, they would have just, they would have just not sent your Tucker and said they're amplifying it as a signal boost, the story is continuing a story is growing. Because of this. Let's get to another story. I do want to get more to kanti Brown Jackson. And there's a lot there I want to uncover and including senator dick Durbin. Let's go to cut here, cut 75 senator dick Durbin, says that questions about katangi Brown Jackson's lenient treatment of convicted child pornographers amount to attacks. Play to cut 75. And here's the point. Most of this information was published in The Washington Post 5 days ago, all right? This is not confidential information. When the holy attack on the judge started, we requested more information, The White House did, and then shared it with us with the day and you now have the same copy that we have. Is it fair for you to characterize senator hawley's questions or the questions raised by any of us as an attack? It's not a personal attack. This is a race of legitimate question regarding regarding the most heinous crimes imaginable. Oh, come on. So this is your legitimate questions, mister chairman. Don't call them a tax. Oh, come on, dick Durbin says, I mean, it's not like it's that big of a deal. If the election would have been perfect, dick Durbin would not be chairman of that committee. Instead, it would be Lindsey Graham, which not that much better, but I don't know who needs to hear this, but child pornography is not a victimless crime. Not a victim. I can't believe we need to say that. I can't believe we need to explain what a woman is, but that's the state of the country that we're in. That is the state of the nation that we are in right now..

Richard Levine Twitter senator dick Durbin Muhammad Ali Tucker kanti Brown Jackson katangi Brown Jackson senator hawley Charlie dick Durbin The Washington Post White House mister Lindsey Graham
"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

04:09 min | 11 months ago

"scalia" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Hey everybody, what a contrast. KB J and Antonin Scalia demonstrate. Also, we talked about an update from Twitter where Tucker Carlson has now been censored on Twitter and so much more. Email me directly freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. If you want to support our show, go to Charlie Kirk, dot com slash support and get involved right now with turning point USA at TP USA dot com. Turning point USA is the place where you can get involved and get off the sidelines in the fight for America where we are making hope happen TP USA dot com TPUSA dot com sort of high school or college chapter today at TP USA dot com. You can email me directly freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. If you like to support our show, go to Charlie Kirk dot com slash support. Buckle up everybody here. We go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running The White House folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job. Building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, turning point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Brought to you by the loan experts I trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific mortgage at Andrew and Todd dot com. The saga of the suspension of Twitter continues, we are still suspended from Twitter, so is the Babylon bee, but now Twitter is censoring Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson came out and simply posted screenshots of our tweet saying what's wrong with this. Now Twitter has censored Tucker. Tucker Carlson has posted the screenshots Tuesday of the tweets written by satirical news outlet Babylon B, as well as turning point you say founder Charlie Kirk, the daily caller reports. So people are asking all the time, why Twitter is doing this? Well, Twitter has to be kind of a regime space. It has to be a place where there is very little disagreement. It's actually become really boring, actually, used to kind of be a edgy space for the Internet and for ideas to be spread now it's just kind of very conformist. Twitter is doing this for an obvious reason as they're really threatened that the entire fraud of Levine pretending to be a woman in that whole kind of mafia cartel that runs that will be exposed. Now, I think it's important to note that we are not going to delete that tweet. It's not going to happen. So the way it works, you tweet something they don't like, they give you an opportunity to delete it. And if you delete it, then you get your access to your Twitter account back. We're not going to do that. It's not going to happen. So we're not going to delete the tweet. We're going to let this play out. We're going to appeal. I will not admit to a lie for saying something true. The lie is saying that I was somehow participating in hate speech. What they want is your conformity. The currency of the tyrant is you bending the knee. Twitter gets less powerful when you don't allow them to dictate the terms of engagement. We said nothing wrong. In fact, rereading the tweet 5 or ten times and you look at it very closely, we were probably overly politically correct and how we created the tweet. Everything we said was factual, that Levine spent years as a man, and then transitioned to a woman. That's factually correct. In fact, we were probably overly generous in this. We were careful to use the past tense nothing about our tweet and violated any of their silly rules. In fact, we should have and could have just tweeted Rachel Levine as a man..

Charlie Kirk Twitter Tucker Carlson USA Sierra Pacific mortgage Antonin Scalia Charlie Todd Andrew White House Tucker Levine Rachel Levine
Ketanji Brown Jackson on How She Approaches the Constitution

Mark Levin

01:25 min | 11 months ago

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

Jackson Brown Jackson Biden Sam Alito Scalia Rehnquist Clarence Thomas Gorsuch
Republicans Are Guilty of Putting Awful People on the Supreme Court

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:02 min | 11 months ago

Republicans Are Guilty of Putting Awful People on the Supreme Court

"Republicans have been just as guilty at putting awful people on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor, not exactly someone who was an appreciation, was a fan of the unborn. John Roberts as well. Someone under George W. Bush. Anthony Kennedy, who was okay on some decisions, but was also a Reagan appointee. Now we've had some phenomenal conservative justices over the last 20 or 30 years, justice rehnquist was phenomenal. Scalia was exceptional. Gorsuch looks to be one of the best we've ever had. Alito is terrific. And the jury is still out. Get it on Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. But this radical left turn where we don't really care if they're qualified. We don't care whether or not they love the constitution. We want fundamental transformation. What happened more explicitly and more transparently under Barack Hussein Obama than any other president.

Sandra Day Gorsuch Anthony Kennedy John Roberts U.S. Supreme Court Connor George W. Bush Amy Coney Barrett Reagan Scalia Alito Kavanaugh Barack Hussein Obama
"scalia" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

01:36 min | 1 year ago

"scalia" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Over the years His district includes waspam And so the introduced me to a friend of his Jonathan S Mitchell former solar general for the state of Texas So they all hop on a conference call And as three looked at this together Jonathan is a powerful well connected attorney He clerked for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia worked in the administration of George W. Bush and volunteered for Trump's transition team Abortion isn't his only issue He's fought unions affirmative action and same sex marriage He said he had an idea of how to allow for this wask a more debt to survive a legal challenge that make it safer for the city of wasco to pass This is where that strategy of private citizens enforcing abortion bans comes into play Jonathan's idea is to write the ordinance so that the government isn't responsible for enforcing the ban Instead private citizens would be able to sue anyone who quote aids or abets an abortion So the doctor clinic employees even the Lyft driver who take someone to an abortion clinic could all be sued And citizens would be awarded at least $2000 in damages It almost sounds like this ordinance would be creating a core of abortion bounty hunters What happened from there is the private enforcement was added to the ordinance And the rest is history.

Jonathan S Mitchell Justice Antonin Scalia Jonathan George W. Bush Trump wasco Supreme Court Texas aids government
Rep. Mike Johnson Reflects on the Appointment of Amy Coney Barrett

The Doug Collins Podcast

02:07 min | 1 year ago

Rep. Mike Johnson Reflects on the Appointment of Amy Coney Barrett

"I think it's an interesting, maybe not beautiful's word, but I think it's very proper that the architect of the strategy going back to griswold then roe and others was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And the seat that Ruth Bader Ginsburg hill, which was a pro abortion seat because of her views, was taken by Amy Coney Barrett, who we know fully understands is not if I were right. It's sort of a cosmic karma about that. Don't you like that? I think God smiling there. Well, I think he is. And I spent a lot of time with president Trump on Air Force One. During his term, he went to Louisiana 9 times as a sitting president. And I think I went on most all of the trips, but a lot of the conversations I had with the president was about the Supreme Court because as a former constitutional law litigator, I understand the greatest longest lesson legacy of any president is who that individual puts on the Supreme Court because they sit for life, right? All their federal judges appointments, but particularly the Supreme Court. And he had already had Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but we anticipated because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in frail health that there was a chance that there might be another opening before the end of his first term. And so each time we were with him, I would try to pivot back to that point and I would always bring up Amy Coney Barrett because I've known Amy since we grew up together in Louisiana. I've known her since high school. She's from the New Orleans area down south Louisiana. I'm from Shreveport northwe, but we would meet up at these nerd student leadership camps around the state and we came fast friends and so when she was on the short list, I was very excited because I've known her, you know, we turned 50 this year. I've known her for almost a half century. 40 years or more, and I've known that she has always been intellectually consistent. She's always been a person of deep moral character, you know, genuine faith in God and very subtle principles. She was a law clerk to justice Scalia, and as I told president Trump, she'll be the female Scalia, sir, you know? And so when she finally did get the nomination, we were

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Amy Coney Barrett President Trump Supreme Court Griswold Gorsuch Louisiana Kavanaugh Air Force South Louisiana Shreveport AMY New Orleans Scalia
"scalia" Discussed on The Adam Carolla Show

The Adam Carolla Show

01:34 min | 1 year ago

"scalia" Discussed on The Adam Carolla Show

"Not like in half. Oh yes sixteen. Twenty nine famous italian explorer. Scalia road briquet to happen right this has to be the first time that anyone has ever written scapula on a ping pong ball. So here's the thing about scapula's we guys all know. What a scapula's now that's where you put your arm behind your back and it makes you weird shoulder thing poke out i may have broken my scapula. Actually when i was playing pop warner football. Now that i think about it i'll get to that story but from age about six and a half to age. Thirteen guys are fixated with their scapula's. You notice that like your skinny and you take your shirt off and you put your hand. But she used to do that when your kid like. Look look it's poking out look at spoken out as like a full seven years of just walking around on. I'll skinny with your shirt off. It's going sideways in front of the mirror. Going look at my life. That i got a wing. I've gotta check away. Wing is a full. That was all of my childhood. Who's got a chicken wing and then at some point at age thirteen and a half you spring puma care and you go. oh shit. I got a dick. I think i'm gonna change my focus. Gonna take that he and this wrapped around the back pulling.

Scalia football
"scalia" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

02:03 min | 1 year ago

"scalia" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Get you killed. Scalia is the host and co producer of Blind Spot Tulsa Burning from the History Channel. W N Y C. K O s U and Focus Black Oklahoma. Thanks so much for joining us. Thank you. You can catch the full interview at the takeaway dot org Recent poll suggests a majority of Americans are against cash reparations for the descendants of enslaved people. Why there is I think an underlying belief that if African Americans as a group are given reparations, given cash payments that this would be wasted by the community, the public perception of reparations on the next all things considered from NPR news. Today at four on W N. Y C. This is the takeaway from W. N. Y C NPR X in collaboration with WGBH radio in Boston. I'm Melissa Harris Perry and we're back on the takeaway. We just spoke with Talia, the host of blind spot Tulsa burning And I wanted to make sure that you all had a chance to hear some of this wonderful work. So here is a portion of Episode three. The two wars mm. Throughout the early 19 hundreds white on black violence wasn't limited to physical attacks. It touched every aspect of African American lives from where they could go to how they got there. There are certain ways that as a black person, you are to act around white people, you know. So stepping off of a paved sidewalk, um, averting your eyes, particularly if you're a man and you're in counting a white woman. Again. This is make a Mark Alani of the University of Texas at Austin, and that kind of structured people's daily activities. They did not want to, um do something that was going to incur her the attention unnecessarily of whites, and definitely they.

Mark Alani Melissa Harris Perry Boston Talia University of Texas NPR Today early 19 hundreds Scalia W N Y C. Austin NPR X History Channel Focus Black Oklahoma Episode three dot org two wars African American Blind Spot Tulsa Burning WGBH radio
"scalia" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

04:24 min | 2 years ago

"scalia" Discussed on KQED Radio

"And by the listeners and sustaining members of KQED. I'm day frame and good morning 7 22 now. It's morning edition from NPR News. I'm Rachel Martin. And I'm Tanya, mostly as the U. S nears, 400,000 confirmed Covert 19 deaths essential workers who can't work from home struggle to stay safe. Deborah Berkowitz is a former chief of staff and senior policy advisor for OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. She served in the Obama administration, and she's also the worker Health and safety program director for the National Employment Law Project. Ever welcome. Thank you for having me. Yes, Absolutely. So your career encompasses work with unions that represent frontline workers like grocery employees and meatpacking workers. As you look out over this blue collar and white collar landscape. What concerns you the most What keeps me up at night. Is that still you know, nine months after the beginning of the pandemic that there are still no specific requirements. That as a nation, every business that has employees has to implement to mitigate the spread of cove in 19, so among meatpacking poultry workers, you see it in supermarkets. You'll see it in other retail stores. You're still seeing the spread of covert 19 among workplaces. Well, Debbie to your point Last spring, we heard a lot about viral outbreaks in work places like meat packing plants, and the Trump administration actually intervened. Back Then those employees became essential workers and company said. Would actually institute precautions and restrictions. Did they actually do that on any scale, or did we take our eye off the ball? This administration totally took its eye off the ball and completely failed to protect workers. The secretary of Labor under President Trump, Eugene Scalia, decided there'd be no requirements and just let employers do what they want to do voluntarily. Some of the plants put in these flimsy plastic barriers between workers where there's like 500 workers in a big room, working shoulder to shoulder that even the CDC said to them does not protect workers unless you have social distancing 6 ft apart. And I think what you saw, which is really stunning is you saw the administration come in to protect an industry so that they would have to protect workers. I mean time and time again, CDC weakened its guidance when the meat industry asked them to so they could keep making a profit. But it spread like wildfire. OSHA, the agency that's in charge of keeping workplaces safe and healthy is turning 50 this spring. It doesn't sound like there will be too much time for celebrating. What does the agency need to do right now to make workplaces safe from the spread? That's a great question. Because OSHA has been AWOL. I have to say, I you know, helped run that agency for six years and at the beginning of that pandemic in the middle of March, when I got calls from meatpacking workers, health care workers, I said, just call OSHA and OSHA actually told workers. There's nothing we can do. We're not inspecting. I mean, usually OSHA during the last nine months would have done 10,000. Maybe 20,000 inspections. They did a couple 100. Sounds like you're waiting for this new presidential administration for any changes to take place and therefore a new OSHA. But time is of the essence. What do workers need right now? So workers really need to have employers follow the basic CDC guidance of You know, social distancing masks notification when their cases and also they need to be able to speak up when they know that they're unsafe conditions. And not be retaliate against. You know the bottom line. I think what you find out in this pandemic and the public should realize is worker safety rights right now are really weak and maybe this pandemic will cause us to rethink this ability of workers. To protect themselves, which right now they really don't have Former OSHA chief of staff and advocate with the National Employment Law Project. Deborah Berkowitz. Thank you so much. Oh, thank you for having me.

Occupational Safety and Health Obama administration CDC Deborah Berkowitz Tanya NPR News National Employment Law Projec Rachel Martin chief of staff KQED Trump Debbie President Trump Eugene Scalia secretary program director senior policy advisor
"scalia" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

08:37 min | 2 years ago

"scalia" Discussed on KTRH

"Trey Yingst 2020 also took Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September. The alien justice passed away in the midst of the presidential election. Ah, contentious fight to fill her vacant seat in the Supreme Court began almost immediately. Eventually, Ginsburg would be replaced by President Trump's nominee, Amy Cockney. Barrett. While America was still mourning the feminist icon, we look back at Justice Ginsburg's deep decades long friendship with the late conservative justice. Incident, Scalia Christopher Scalia, Justices, Scalia son told the Fox News rundowns Chris Foster how the inspiring bond between the two began. Their friendship went back really, to the early eighties, when they were Judges together on the D C circuit Court of Appeals, which is kind of like the second most important court in the country, and they had a good working relationship that which really started back then. They would help each other revised their drafts and their opinions that apparently the other judges on that court really didn't like getting advice about their writing and how Improved the clarity of what they were writing and the force of their arguments. But justice Ginsburg liked getting and receiving that kind of advice, and so did my dad, and they formed what he called a mutual improvement society during their time on the court there. And, uh, it and they had other things in common. They were. They had similar backgrounds that they were. Both New Yorkers grew up in in New York around the same time, different boroughs but around the same time and shared a love of opera. Good wine. Uh, Eating good food. Both of their spouses were excellent cooks. Marty Ginsburg, in particular, is kind of a legendary cook, who would put together wonderful meals every New Year's Eve and they would celebrate New Year's Every every year is well. So you know, despite all their differences, and all the many things they disagreed about, including a number of opinions in this collection, um They had a wonderful friendship when they were able to kind of focus on the things they had in common. Your dad and Justice Ginsburg. I don't know the statistics on how often they concur, dissented on cases. But I imagine that they disagreed. Maybe as much as any two Recent justices have my right. Yeah, I think that's that sounds right. I don't know the statistics, either. I think people would be surprised by how often they agreed with each other. But on the real hot button cultural cases, they often disagree. Um, you know, one of her most important or most famous opinions was Virginia Military Institute case from the mid nineties. And my my father wrote a dissent to that case, which is in this collection, The essential Scalia and it was hey actually gave her the draft of that dissent a little bit earlier than one usually does just so that she would have more time to kind of Deal with it, and gravel grapple with his arguments. And, yeah, some of his most stinging dissents were in response to opinions. She didn't necessarily right but but joined, And I think that's probably true. Vice versa tell the story about the big bouquet of roses she got from him. Well, my dad would get her roses for her birthday and I guess the, uh, I think the last time he did that so the year before he died, one of the editors of the essential Scalia Judge Jeffrey Sutton was visiting my father in chambers on Justice Ginsburg's birthday. And he saw that my dad had two dozen roses for Justice Ginsburg And, uh, Judge sudden started teasing dad saying, you know, I haven't even gotten my wife two dozen roses over the course of our entire marriage. Um, why would you do this? And besides, when was the last time she cited with you on a really important 54 decision? You know, he's poking fun, You know, not not really being serious, but my dad Davis. Serious answer, which was some things are more important than votes, and I think I just kind of a great encapsulation of there. Of their relationship of their friendship they had they had Very different opinions of politics and of their jobs as judges and of what laws meant what the Constitution men but Uh, how they voted wasn't the biggest factor in their relationship. It wasn't that those opinions didn't matter. And it wasn't that they compromised their beliefs for each other. But they didn't let those very strongly held beliefs undermine their very deep friendship through a collection of Supreme Court justice incident. Scalia's writing sort of like a greatest hits album. It's opinions and other writing about the law and the Constitution again called the Essential Scalia. Yeah, you must be awfully proud and happy just to have this stuff all collected in one place for posterity. This is really just a collection of his greatest legal writings, Opinions, speeches, essays and they, you know, collected together, give a really good Uh, sense of why exactly. He was such a significant um, Supreme Court justice on it's It's there, you know, having in one collection really makes it tangible for anybody toe understand that we'll just is illegal reference work. You've got to think it's gonna end up being bought by or four Ah, lot of lawyers and judges. Yeah, no absolutely. And law students, I hope You know that? He he wrote. Clearly, he wrote, hey, had so many memorable phrases and his opinions. His logic was so strong and convincing. That people just kind of they often went to his opinions first. And so it's good for people to kind of have that as a resource. Christo keep going to those opinions, even even after his passing a lot of times if he had a vote of personal vote on how a case would turn out it may or may not. A lot of times did align with how he ruled, but sometimes it probably wouldn't have right. Yeah, I think that's true. And that's especially true in one example is when he sided with the majority in the flag burning case. The majority ruled that Um, it was constitutional. Sorry. Burning the flag was constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment, so prohibiting that in the state law was unconstitutional, and my father often explained that he did not like The idea of flag burning. If he were a king, he would ban it. But it clearly to him falls under the protection of the protection of the First Amendment, and a lot of conservatives to this day do not like that opinion. But my father thought the Constitution was clear about that. There are many examples in this collection, the essential Scalia of instances in which he stands up for the rights of the accused defendant's rights. There's a famous case in here where It's search and seizure cases as well there a couple of those in here where he just thought, you know the police did not have authority, for example, to use scans of houses, Tol identify Merrill who was growing marijuana without that was an illegal search examples like that s so if he could just pass a law that was one thing, but Um, you know, actually started there couldn't be even be lost for that because they so clearly violated the Constitution, even though obviously he wouldn't have approved of those particular actions. Sure, hey, was also notice a talker during oral arguments, he asked, asked a lot of questions. And clearly. Sometimes, though, they weren't really questions. They were just arguments he was making to his fellow justices. Now, do you think he went into most cases with his mind made up based on the briefs and the president? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but that usually the case. I think that the justices, you know, I can't say for certain, but my hunch is that they often have go in with a pretty good idea, but I think for the most part, they do ask questions, not just tow. Not just to be heard or not just to make arguments, but because they want to really engage with the arguments that the lawyers are making in the forward to this collection, Justice Kegan first of all, very happy that she agreed to write this beautiful forward, But she she says that she says just that. No dad would ask these questions because he loved argument and kind of loved mixing it up. It wasn't just kind of wasn't just for show though he did. I think you're right. He was very kind of an engaging speaker and There was some study years ago that found he was he was the funniest justice By the standards of that he drew the most laugh right from from the courtroom during oral arguments, which you know, obviously isn't the most important thing to do, but just shows how much he He enjoyed that process to that love.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Scalia Christopher Scalia Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg And Marty Ginsburg Um D C circuit Court of Appeals Justice Kegan Trey Yingst America Barrett New York Virginia Military Institute Fox News President Trump president Chris Foster