36 Burst results for "Scalia"
Fresh update on "scalia" discussed on Deep Background with Noah Feldman
"Which case they're in the majority and they could still get a great clerkship but it's not gonna be simple. There's a ton of competition and if there are very brilliant student are pretty conservative. I actually rest easy. Because i know that this person is going to get a great clerkship. Just as a statistical matter there are not as many at elite law schools students in total and certainly it therefore a percentage of the total number of top students. there are fewer conservatives. There are fewer federal society members than there are kind of mainstream liberals. And so you know part of the reason that there are fewer law. Professors is not just what people choose to do but just the raw numbers are smaller. There's probably some of that and there's also been some change over time because there was quite a period of time where i think in the early days and the federal society federal side students had a tough time getting good clerk ships for some of the same thing. You're saying they're doing very well right now. They were fewer conservative judges. And now there are lots of conservative. Not so that. That swing wasn't because many many judges don't pay any to political philosophy and higher in many others pay some. It's a real ranch. Yup but yes. We'll be right back No one wants to cut corners on a good night's rest so why sleep on sheets. That are just good enough if you dream of comfortable sheets at a price that won't keep you up all night. Look no further than bollandbranch. Bollandbranch makes the softest organic sheets on the market using one hundred percent sustainable raw materials as the first fairtrade certified manufacturer of linen. You can feel as good about your sheets as they feel against your skin. There signature hemmed sheets are made from lightweight organic cotton they get softer with every wash and they come in seven colors from twin up to california king. Best of all bollandbranch gives you a fair price and a thirty day risk-free trial with free shipping and returns so experienced the best sheets who've ever felt only at bollandbranch dot com. Get fifteen percent off your first set when you use promo code sleep at checkout. That's bollandbranch b. o. L. l. a. n. d. branch dot com. Promo code sleep so often the false information maybe from in the anti-science brigade or people who are anti vaccine. It really triggers emotions of disgust or hate or anger and those masses analyses on fritter as what those tweets even have words like disgusted. I am so angry. They're the ones that get shed a lot. That's doctor seema. Yasmin an emmy award. Winning journalist poet medical doctor author dr. Yasmin served as an officer in the epidemic intelligence service at the centers for disease control and prevention doctor. Yasmin is now a trusted voice. During the pandemic helping debunk myths and misinformation about the corona virus. Be mindful of that when you not much good life advice i take a breath and be like why. Why am i feeling misled. And then do your due diligence before you like shaft onion. Send it to all your. What's out family group chats. I'm justin beck. Founder and ceo of contact world listened to contact world the podcast on the iheartradio app. Or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's talk about differences of opinion which you mentioned gene as among. Federalists and i know many people told us in the course of the research for the podcast and the book that some of these disagreements were there from the beginning but broadly speaking it seems to me that most members of the federal society or a close affiliates share the commitments that justice scalia. The latest scalia had to three core ideas originalism in interpreting the constitution texture lysm and interpreting statutes and judicial restraint as a kind of overarching guideline for judges avoiding reaching out to strike down statutes when it can be avoided and trying to do as little as possible as judges unless the law or the constant squarely mandates that they do otherwise. Do you think that those three principles remain the overall or overarching core of the judicial philosophy. That is roughly associated with the federal society in the broadest. Since a reasonable state. I would say the traditional restraint. Part is the dyson three. There's been a split along on that. Libertarians be much more dubious about and the turn remains dic- term. What does the judge supposed to do. Judge thinks something's unconstitutional. He's in the last ten things that have come before. All he thinks are unconstitutional is supposed to s- after his return five of them the next sparring more restraint. And that sort of one of the questions that could come up for judge so i think that's less crystal-clear although it's definitely a factor that would be considered i think the originalism is not universal. An element of it is in our statement of purpose but it's certainly not universally not universal amongst members but it is widely believed and probably textiles in the same basic thing is true but once again their degrees both and there's also lots of battles within originals it's now And as it becomes very clear in some of the court cases that come up. What for example bostock. Well let's talk about us. That's a perfect example. That's the case. Decided by the supreme court in the summer of twenty twenty about the meaning of the title seven the antidiscrimination provisions of the civil rights act. That says there may be no workplace discrimination because of sex and in that case a six to three majority of the court in an opinion written by justice. Neil gorsuch a trump appointee and joined by chief. Justice john roberts and then the other at the time for liberals on the court held that the words because of sex incorporate discrimination against gay and trans people and on the other side. The three dissenters were very very pointed in saying that they thought that this decision was a betrayal of justice. Scalia principles of following the text of the statute and for his part justice course. Such in his opinion said pretty clearly. I'm just following the text of the statute. I'm just reading the words. So that was an example of a deep disagreement among conservatives. What's your sense of. How that what are the reverberations of bostock right now. Not just in the federal society circles but more broadly in conservative thought. I'm going to take it more broad than just bostock that coming up periodically and i think you're gonna see differences amongst originals periodically. I mean the two strongest originals on the court. Thomas and scalia definitely differed on occasion rare occasion. I teach a handful of cases where they were. They disagreed writing well. They're they're interesting. But i'm just saying even even those two. You're going to see that from time to time but one of the things. I'm actually going to jump here to what i was getting to in your place things in your book which i can enjoy lots of but the sort of theme you have about well the federal sized on these various things but right now heading into this period of a lot of tension and possibly breaking up to some degree and the two themes that seem to me being developed. One is the theme. The federal society has touched on a little bit in your thing that maybe it's gotten more interested in results than nyunt is or something.
Biden to name former Obama Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland as his attorney general
"Today. President like biden bait and other cabinet looks like judge merrick garland will find we get his congressional hearing. He earned the nod over other candidates. President-elect biden was considering including former deputy attorney general. Sally yates and ex-senator don jones garland is best remembered for being president obama's pick to replace the late supreme court justice antonin scalia senate. Republicans denied him any consideration. If garland is confirmed he would lead a justice department facing racial tension policing global cyber threats and perhaps an investigation of the incoming president son
"scalia" Discussed on Mysterious Universe
"And he was so kind of lewd by it that He. was with a friend they're doing OUIJA board session and the the friend said, hey, doing wages stuff. Do you WanNa say something really cool. Everyone was like yeah man. And he's is rolled into the back of his head and this we'd French cost auditory through him. I started channeling this weird French spirit was like, would you like some cross wholesome Mega Som-. Some superpowers and that's what happened to everyone will hit this guy. The story was about the guy that was telling the story. He said Yeah I'm totally interested in Hey, started channeling this entity as well. and. Amazingly he started to have abilities like he shooting croissants. Could walk into a room and pick up what people were thinking He started to be able to have these real psychic impressions and he thought he was getting real power from this now. Amazingly. Lucky. Because he had a really old school grandmother and he's old, school grandmother was. Doing your daily with the devil. This is all. GonNa pay for this Sunday and he come that's old school like come on. Yeah. See this attitude if I audited. What are you giving up these trading something ridiculous. This is my spirit guide and she was like it's not the applauded spirit guy that's obviously last site on. And he is stupid grandma. She doesn't know what she's talking about but he started a notice that they had these abilities. But he started to blackout. Had these moments of missing time and at first it was like ten minutes here and there, and he's like was I just in the kitchen? Why in the bathroom why my pants on what's going on these weird moments where he would just. Lose a tiny tracker time and it kept on building kept on building until one night he's friends called him up and said Hey Dave you WANNA come out. We're going to have some drinks it's bill is getting married. Yeah we're GONNA have this. and. He's like a con guys. I've got to get to work really early in the morning of I'm so sorry I gotta to get really get some good night's sleep and I'll go to work like five am so he's okay man you pussy sale. So he goes to bed at like nine o'clock at night. He comes to in-and-out Club at three in the morning chatting up some guy. With like a little mutt. and He's wearing some crazy outfit. He doesn't even own and he's like where the fuck him I am it's a nightclub. and. He actually starts fighting this guy. He starts Pu- suzy's aware of where he is. He just watches he's arm go. Boom Punch this. The entity. Now he's he's gotten control out of it over. It's like. He came in accidentally like that taken over his body. Any he came in accidentally now as soon as this fight starts in this nightclub, he's perception goes. And shoots back like above the scene watching but it's like it's interesting. The way he describes it he says it's like watching through binoculars that have been turned back to. Front. So you can only stir paypal. Yeah. You can only say this tiny paypal and this is something that analysts said in her case she told one of the price that when she was. She actually got a view of some of the exorcisms she said it was like looking through a k. hall. So this is a consistency that a in these cases, but he watches himself beat the crap out of this huge guy in this nightclub and eventually hauled him up by his neck with a single hand and throwing them across the room. And he gets kind of ojected from this not club and gets control of himself. Again, he's just shaking like what the Hell Happened Anybody Nassif getting turned down. Top response he realizes he has to go to work in a now. Now, it eventually gets the point where he starts hearing voices, right. And the voices. Arguing about WHO's GonNa. Get Him for the night. Renting body you'll hear these voices I it's my turn to nineties mind tonight I'm going to the race track. Voice nine. He's mine tonight. I'm killing to Futon flag. That's when he realized that he's grandmother was right. The these these entities that he's spirit God's. had. Just tricked him. It was all a trick and they had. The story because you know again, it's written from a Christian perspective you basically drops to his knees and Priced Gaudin he converts to Christianity and it's eventually resolved. Lesson Yeah. I mean there's a whole hip away at it doesn't have to specifically be religious wise although that is one way of utilizing it but airborne referred to them as spiritual loan sharks, oh? Yeah. Because it's what they do they come in as a learn shock might get really what you think is a really good deal but ultimately it's a learn shock you paying it back at two hundred percent interest. And you run up your gambling debts and you spiritual gambling debts and you pay it off who would want to hear other people's thoughts anyway my gone on that would be the worst that would be like having to. Use anyone. You just gonNA listen.
"scalia" Discussed on Mysterious Universe
"The church don't believe anymore and those interviews. You'll see if you pick up the ball, can you read off the court case the interviews with some of the you know the head bishops of the Church. You can tell they don't believe anymore. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying every atheist is a raving lunatic at all but what I'm saying is is that there's this push into into science which is fine but in doing so I'm becoming more materialistic wear ignoring. The spiritual that in doing. So with potentially leaving us all vulnerable to something that we don't understand. Yeah and this this is weird connection though I wanted to follow up on that priest stumbling into this record of the thirteenth century. Parishioner who was a horrible PUTT or Jeddah ended up being one of these demons that was possessing a obviously this isn't just a coincidence. Like. Maybe, the priest was meant to find those records maybe he was directed because he did say he's attention was widely drawn to this one entry in this old thirteenth century record. Is something pushing him to see that because she was already possessed by this Fleischmann character or had the entity somehow pull that information out of his mind and used it to kind of increase the deception with the case he's a width theory maybe these entities need people to believe to be able to manifest here. So in steering him in that direction and giving him some proof. It caught facilitates more people believing that they may exist. Yeah that's a good argument. They they don't want people to believe that's the kind of dichotomy of their. Thrashing about and their their existence, and this is one of the questions that's asked by the price at one stays like onto you just making people believe. All of this because your being so crazy in white leave this poor girl's body and gear at whatever. Walk I mean they deem it. So they just do things that we understand. Well, I it reminded me of this unique case from the demonic foes book again by the psychiatrist. Richard Gallagher. And we covered this on a plus show I mentioned one of the early cases with this young woman involved with some kind of weeds satanic cult that's sacrificing fetuses to Satan that was a fun episode. Was a fun. I went into some of the light of cases and this is really fascinating. One on. Catherine. And he wrote that this was one of the more intractable possession cases of come across. She'd been working for many months with his father Jacques? Who was the program involved at all of this and follows Jacques decided that gallagher had to meet her because it was one of these cases that have been going on for years I mean like analysts had just dragged out some cases are resolved with one exum and stop the person. Of felt in someone's face problem solved, give them a banana, the end dump, and this was different and and Father Jacques thought the Gallagher really needed to say this. So this is the case of Catherine she lived in the small town West Virginia and Father Jacques Tixx Richard along. Main fiction was that the demons damaged her senses. And she said, he said while hearing looked perfectly during normal conversations she couldn't hear anything of a religious nature. She couldn't hear woods or phrases that in any way related to spiritual practices and beliefs, and it basically made it impossible to have any discussion with the woman. That was about what was happening to. So, for example, the priests would Oscar I'll have you been able to pray Catherine and should be like what do what? An. In response to a question, like have you been to church and? Received the Eucharist lately, her response would be to the where received the wash. She's like so she got selective hearing she's like. Religious Laura's cannon. She's delores hard of hearing but only when specific religious things a mentioned if you just having a normal conversation with a hearings perfect not not a problem at all. It was this. We'd selective specific loss in a hearing and in addition to the nose and throat specialists she's over the years she'd seen a psychologist as well. They all concluded. That along with the physical examination, the psychological examination. She was fine. No problem at all nothing wrong with her Harry's nothing wrong with her is at all she was fine. She wasn't psychotic. And before Mating, Catherine, Gallagher, had obviously suggested to Father Jacques that she might be suffering from some kind of psychotic depression. But as he was interviewing her, he became more and more convinced that. These bizarre symptoms, these paranormal symptoms shoes experiencing Couldn't be accounted for by any kind of psychiatric diagnosis and remember this guy is a psychiatrist with nearly thirty years experience. So, Dr Gallagher try to technique to kind of TESTA. He tried to intersperse neutral questions with others of a more spiritual nature. So we would start chatting to earn a really relaxed way like he would Oscar children and you know how what's your car out there? Like Oh you do you drive at much? Ice Pickup Tropic of that has one of those and. What did you cook today? That's nice. I. Looked like he made some nice cakes and What do you think of God's help? And she's just like what? WHO WHO said Wash? Have you been able to will confide and you'll pasta hurry ask able to do what? I don't understand confide in who She just it was really bizarre and he didn't think that she was faking. He didn't get the sense that she was acting in any way. She genuinely didn't understand what he was saying like she couldn't quite pick up the words he was making out with his mouth. A few months later he visits with another psychiatrist. He brings a colleague of his along says, you know you go check out this lady. Selective hearing is bizarre can't explain it and with his colleague they figured out a system again to kind of test her, they decided to have this casual normal conversation. And then write down about six or seven queries on paper. And get her to respond with a pen or pencil. Uh so obviously it's on it's about her hearing. It's about her rating. Yes. It's just general comprehension to the questions. So like written down, what was he die like? How you children? You know that hand these questions on a piece of paper and she'd write down her response. And this final two sheets of paper one has the question have you been praying to God and the other has a question? Are you going to attend mass later and received the Eucharist any hands of these pieces of paper? And she looks at him and she's like. Is this some kind of trick I didn't get it. There's nothing on the PIPO. Yeah. She constantly for she can't see the question. Like. Why showing me these blank pieces of paper? Is this some kind of weird psychiatrist trick Now again, he said, I've found no evidence.
"scalia" Discussed on Mysterious Universe
"The different demons could be identified. Again by the way they spoke, he said the tones of voices, their expressions, their character traits revealed. Lucifer spoken is majestic way it was always intelligent and quick to the point. When Hitler spoke, he just balked it's all about it. Dog Oh nine just nine, nine, nine, nine, which basically makes sense although the voices and express since changed he said the words were always in places native Franconian dialect and when she spoke she spoke loudly these altered guttural voices again completely unlike a normal reserved self but remember one of these characters that came through was this mysterious Fleishman like he thought Judas. Lettering Buddy, Lucifer who's this Fleischmann guy? It was hayes he just a hanger is he just hanging out with this crowd? He just turn up. Have guys. But. Now, father also told this story. He'd been the posture of this parish in this little town called Attleboro. And because the church he was looking after was in such bad condition he started searching through these old church documents because he wanted to discover who was the building authority for the church because apparently I don't know if it's still the same but apparently in the nineteen seventies in Germany, those no separation between Church and state. So the site might have been responsible for looking after the church. But anyway, he's going through these documents to try and find the information he needs in the village repository. Now, this is amazing because ever since sixteen forty six, this is the Germans, foyer they records of Bain. Meticulous Very Joan and while he's going through all these old records trying to find the the documents that talk about the origin of the church, he finds documents from the parish. Dated Twelve. Eighty eight. I mentioned funding thirteenth century documents just lying around in the village repository. That's the years that this parish was founded and as he's going through these old papers, he comes across a file of priests who had been pastas in this town in Italy been. Since about the thirteen hundred. And, as he's glancing through it. For some reason he doesn't why he's attention is drawn to this tree this notation. On this Pasta Fleischmann. Now this stage he's only just got involved with Emily's case and he obviously hasn't heard the name flash from before but he's so kind of drawn to this entry for some reason, and it's this kind of womanizer. This old pasta who was known as a womanizer he must've been alive maybe the late fifteenth century because there's a gravestone, his daughter Martha from the sixteenth century that still in town. And he was also known as a drunk. Could he had four children was a brutal bully essentially this was a notation to. Point out that this guy was massive jerk. And Alive Jerkin death. Well, it says one day he beat a man to death right in the parish house so he was a murderer. It was also reported that he had battered a woman. So fiercely that for weeks and months you remained in the care of Bob in Wolfsburg. Now. This is all around the fall of nineteen, seventy five when he's visiting annelies. And just in this casual conversation while he's in the house, it's not during an exorcism or anything he's visiting her. There's another priest there and one of them. Randomly, how he's going with the church. And he kind of jokes about it's paused. And he just casually brings up the name or the record of this pasta that had killed someone in the fifteenth century those actually Pasta from the town that was a murderer. And as he says this without even mentioning the name. Analysts is in the room starts screaming. Just this horrible, guttural howl of pain. And it scared him so much. He actually had to leave the room. It was really really terrifying. Why would it respond to that though because it's being found out? Is that why would behave that way? We'll a few days later he kind of during one of these excesses obsessions, he confronts the entity he says Why did ANALII? Start screaming when I mentioned Fleischmann why did you get so excited and he writes in his diary for the first time. I saw how she struggled against it how she smiled than her face contorted and she smiled again face contorted and she went on screaming. He said she quickly kind of snapped back into a cell phone and bicycle said, please forgive me please forgive me I can't control I can't help but then And that evening you know you couldn't get an answer out of it but that evening Waldo. XS them. This sixth bad spirit comes through under the name of flash men. Announcing himself saying that he was the fallen priest of men who would kill man and he gave all these details, none of which this father had mentioned in anyone's presence. Now when skeptics of written about this case, they say all annelise must've read this chronicle from that town in Edmund. But why would you spend your time as a sixteen or seventeen year? Old Guy Reading Chronicles from the thirteenth century. In some random town. Yeah in old English. And all those details came spontaneously obviously but. Hey said at the time while they were doing this and while. You know while analysts was with this case. Those files actually went in that village anymore though with an August in Wolfsburg because he had found them. So interesting, he said we've got a little cough today's any possum to an August. So there's actually no way she could have gotten that information is no way it could have come from her reading, those documents and spontaneously comes out low the racism being maybe a cynic would say as that perhaps maybe her parents have somehow gone and read that information previously and then giving it to a why would they be going? Thing Oftens Ratatouille. So of course, the demons they give prophecies of doom to all present Lucifer starts talking about this curse that took place at this old village and. Lucifer's saying how the modern securing the church and how no one believes any more, and there's a famine coming the world's going to end. But this mention of curse is intriguing because it turns out that analysts's mother. Had An affair with another man. In there all in her old village before she married her current husband and before analysts was born, she had this affair with this woman and then sorry share this with a man and then.
"scalia" Discussed on Mysterious Universe
"Soundboards. Of course I could not include that is the classic crow. The Classics Storm. Kalisz let's stories come up in the show. Yes. and. Demons. Yup. That's just the classics. Zona go overboard. That's true. You don't WanNa do that. Yes I found some amazing stuff on demonic possession. God. To what? I found some stuff that kind of tied in with that Amazing Book Looking at from Dr Gallagher a couple of weeks ago on a plus show demonic foes. Yes. That was the psychiatrist at twenty five years of experience and kind of slowly roped into going along with a price i. think he's name was Father Jacques, and at first he was examining these cases of so-called possession obviously thinking the patient is just psychotic. But he he went along to so many of these in Seoul. So many unique cases that he actually started to take it very seriously and realize that there was something to it. It was more than just people having delusions or you know being a psychotic go having epilepsy or something like that. So I'M GONNA go back into that book and have a look at a couple of cases from there but I want to look at a classic which I don't think we've ever fully covered on the show never really spoken about this case it's analyst Miquel. In other German case from the nineteen seventies was this made into the film was the conjuring is that? Is probably a bunch of films that are based on this case. One of the famous ones is the exorcism of emily rose aw that's probably what I'm thinking off. Yeah. Heavily based on this there's also analyst the excesses types as a German films cold requiem, which is by Saunas well, obviously, there's a ton of Hollywood additives and I think we've played some of the order because the price that we're doing exorcisms almost pullman they found. So shocking eighth all we have to record this we have to put it on tight. Yeah, and initially these types were kind of held close to the chest. You know only the research is in the family had copies of them, but eventually I started to leak out. and. Because we'd never covered this I thought this is great opportunity being Halloween's coming Halloween. Yeah. Definitely. This this woman analysts, Mikhail she was born in Germany on September the twenty first nineteen, fifty, two and Joseph Mikhail Wha parents she came from hardworking traditional Catholic family and the michaels they lived in a comfortable.
Senate to confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee a week ahead of Election Day
"Later today if you Senate majority leader Mitch, McConnell's predictions proved accurate the US Senate will vote to confirm amy coming Barrett to the US Supreme Court Bar will be the judge that the Republican Party has been able to put on the bench during President Donald Trump's term, and while she may not be the controversial of these herself her. Confirmation is the Republicans have breezily disregarded the convention which they invoked for years go to keep a barrack Obama nominee from even having confirmation hearings on joined with more on this by Christian mcnichols news editor and Claude Harrington associate professor of American politics at Montfort University. Claude first of all is this now actually a done deal is they the remotest chance at all Barrett doesn't get put on the bench? I think it's. All bots jail she seems to be there I. IT's. It's quite staggering to see how fast. The process can move when people actually wanted to unlike 'em time round as you mentioned just a moment ago. So yeah, I would say unnecess- some unanticipated and catastrophe she's had. Chris, the Republicans hypocrisy here is mildly staggering MRIs, of course, the same Republican Party that four years ago clutched polls and affected vipers at the very idea of even holding confirmation hearings for Merrick. Garland who Barack Obama wished to put on the court in the last year of his presidency they going to do this about a week out from a presidential election. But this isn't what justifies the trump thing in the as far as the Republican establishment is concerned absolutely I mean I think the issue is if you look at this from a purely political perspective taking out the the hypocrisy argument if you will Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate have achieved. What they wanted to achieve and they have, they have given people who voted for Donald Trump essentially what they wanted I think you can divide those who voted for Donald Trump in two thousand sixteen obviously into many different camps. But there were there were those who voted for trump himself. But then there were many who simply voted for a Republican with this in mind with the idea in minded, they would be able. Influence. The Supreme Court for decades to come remember as you said at the beginning Obama was denied I'm nominee that meant that there was a vacant spot open right when Donald trump was elected president, which was then filled and that in itself would have been a dramatic swing in the other direction. So we shouldn't forget that it was a very conservative Justice Antonin Scalia who had passed away or shortly before the two thousand sixteen. Election. So we have seen a dramatic shift in the court compared to what would have happened if Hillary Clinton had been elected president and so in that sense. Yes. From a purely political perspective, the Senate Mitch McConnell who is a traditional Republican was You could argue very much power political individual who was willing to stomach donald trump and some of his politics because he knew that this is what he would be able to achieve. At once amy conybeare. At ease confirmed, that will give the Supreme Court, a six three conservative majority. Now, that's not absolutely set in stone Supreme Court justices have been known to have minds of their own from time to time, but is it possible from distance to assess what difference that could make to American politics for as Chris quite rightly points out potentially decades ahead of us. Yes I think that that's absolutely not an overstatement to to to to say how significant this is. You know what they did. There would be an ideological. Conservative majority from this point on and. There's a couple of things I suppose one is. What it might mean in terms of what's coming before the court you know in the short to medium term I mean there are. Big issues coming down the road to do you know things on climate change on immigration and other major. Political stumbling blocks the one that's coming soon as I really am the one that's going to get the most attention for the moment is a vote on the for care act and that is coming before the courtroom, November and it's about rather than the the. Statute in its entirety is to be deemed unconstitutional or can can parts of it be on picked now? Komi Bats. Take on. This is going to be enormously important because if there is a possibility that's M obamacare in its entirety could be undermined and that's that's a fairly enormous moment. I think for the country not least when it's in the the grip ave, a public health crisis. Chris at the top of the show, we did play a quote by senator. McConnell which struck me as slightly all I don't know whether he misspoke or just found himself saying the quiet out loud. But he said a lot of what we've done over the last four years. We'll be undone sooner or later by the next election is that Mitch McConnell assuming or perhaps even hoping that trump gets beaten next Tuesday It wasn't interesting remark wasn't it? It's it's hard to say I think there might be a little bit of that in in his remarks you can read into it I do think more importantly though his comment related to what I was saying earlier I would argue that he is making this case almost a gloating case to say you can undo whenever you win whether it is in November as the polls suggest. Currently or not you can. You can undo much of what we did in the four years in electoral terms in legislative terms I should say, but you cannot undo what we've done on the court that will remain that will remain something that stays for a long period of time. The one thing I just wanted to say on that as well. I think it will be interesting with this conservative majority To really see how aggressively they go after that to to Mitch McConnell's point if you will things like the affordable care act they were passed by Congress if there is a Democratic president with Joe Joe Biden becoming president, they will have an opportunity to pass laws to to to change laws as well. Of course. So the question really will be to what extent this cord goes after laws declaring things. Versus giving Congress an opportunity to sort of legislate when it comes to things like healthcare as well. There were some interesting remarks I just add for Amy Coney Barrett on this in the past, he's talked about the idea of precedent the idea of who legislates when when you overturn precedent and she did have a little bit of a line to say she will own the overturn precedence. If there is still controversy in a certain issue. So if it is something that is divisive and it has not been decided if there is an overwhelming public support for something, she also believes that it's not the courts job to overturn it, and so that I think will be a key thing to watch going forward if we have say a democratic President Democratic majority but a conservative court. Claude if next Tuesday is a big win for the democratic. Party. As Senator Mitch McConnell appears to think it's going to be the not completely without options are there is the possibility as has been floated off expanding the Supreme Court but do you think a democratic administration would be willing to spend political capital doing that? Yes. It's interesting to see how the the the kind of the tightrope that Biden has been walking in his language on this topic and you know any mention of packing the court does. Bays alarm bells, I think in causes some concern people start talking about FDR on his efforts back in the day. I would say, maybe there might be an possibly needs to be a conversation about reforming court gets in its current. Is. Having become such a punishment killed body and it's certainly not what the framers set out to be, and the does probably you know some serious conversations that need to be had I suppose as one other point as well. Maybe just more. And immediately, is that the last male liberal on the court Stephen Prayer is the HVAC too. So. I. Mean He seems in relatively good shape put. It's quite likely that whoever is President the next four years, we'll have the opportunity to put. A new justice on the court. So that's just something to think about in terms of the balance clothes. Harrington Christian. Thank you both for joining
Amy Coney Barrett & The State of SCOTUS
"So the topic I want to go to now is on the question timing the fact that this nomination is coming rather late in the fourth year of a president's term has made it controversial in fact, timing of just. Nominees to nominations to the supreme. Court has been controversial now for four or five years for a variety of reasons. So that's the first question. I would like each of you to tell me your position on on the question. Should the Senate be voting on a nomination to the Supreme Court right now sire you yes or no on that? I. Mean Yes. John All right cy you are yes. On the same question Irwin should the Senate be voting on a Justice of the supreme? Court now yes or no no amy honeybear bear should not be confirmed at this time. All right. Thank you I. Want to go first use for your reasons. Why are you a? Yes on the on the question of the timing of the nomination right now well, on the question of timing I think the Senate has the authority to consent the president is nominated someone. I don't see any reason why the Senate Caq Senate is doing other things it's it's considering thrown a virus relief. Of course, it can legislate until the members leave. and. So nothing nothing prevents the president from nominating someone nothing prevents Senate from acting upon that nomination and I think there three positions John. I think one position is you must vote on the nomination I. think that was Erwin's position for years ago. A second position is you can vote on the nomination, but you shouldn't that might ear ones position today and I the the middle position, which is you can vote on the nomination and you should. Thank your ticket back to you. So what I hear size saying is the Senate has every legal and constitutional right to be doing this now. They, certainly have the legal and constitutional right to do it, but they shouldn't do it. This is stunning hypocrisy by the Republicans for years ago Senator Mitch McConnell said, the American people should have a voice in the selection and the next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancies should not be filled into we have a new president. Antonin Scalia died in February two, thousand sixteen. President Obama named Mira Garland for that seat in March of two thousand sixteen. There was eight months before the election was to be held in the Republicans wouldn't hold hearings or wouldn't hold about Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September eighteenth of twenty twenty, and already the Republicans are looking to fill that seat. There is historical precedent. On October twelfth eighteen sixty four chief justice Roger Tawny died the president Abraham Lincoln didn't try to fill the vacancy in the month before the election or nineteen fifty-six Justice Sherman Minton resigned from the court but President Eisenhower didn't try to pick the successor instead an October fifteenth. He made a recess appointment of a Democrat William Brennan. So whoever won the election would pick the successor? Alright let. Let me jump in because I I WANNA give cya chance to respond to some of what you're saying. So so I think we heard from Irwin saying that. eight months. was enough of a lead time and they were talking about the case of Merrick Garland back in two thousand sixteen. But that one month one and a half months is too short and he sites precedent of other examples where presidents had more of that timeframe. So what's your response to that? I think are ones making a slightly different point I think if. They. Can See had risen eight months ago I think are only making the same exact point, which is what's good for the goose is good for the Gander. So it's not really a question of timing. There's plenty of time as Irwin and other people now there there's GonNa be a vote in the Senate. The point is about equity I. Think the point is about precedent in Irwin has some precedents would, of course, you can go back to previous administrations in sight other presidents. John Marshall was appointed days before John Adams left the Presidency Steven Briar was nominated and appointed to the circuit court after Jimmy Carter lost. So there, there are precedents obviously for acting after the election. Let alone before I understand there's some raw feelings about what happened four years ago and I understand that people have flipped Irwin. Himself is flipped a apparently senator McConnell may have slipped as well. I think. It's unfortunate. This game of delaying nominations has gone on for quite a long. I have a colleague who waited two years before she withdrew for circuit court position because it wouldn't allow vote. That's just sort of power politics on both
"Amy Coney Barrett is is talking to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She's not saying much One thing that's clear from her hearing is that Amy Perez, shifty Amy Kuney Barrett is smart amy. Barrett is smarter than Brett, Kavanagh like of the. Smarter. Than Bread Kavanagh her confirmation hearing significantly less irritating on its face is it's got less screaming in it but do you think that her being? More, pleasant. Than other. Nominee his I'm specifically talking about Brad. Kavanagh, has lulled into a false sense of complacency. No, I don't think. So I really don't I think that we all probably learn a little bit more because we listen because we're not being shouted out about shouted out about making beer and squeeze in some calendars. You know I, think that we in some ways. I can't tell you a ton. From my memory of like policy questions that Brett Cavanaugh answered right like we were really put off by his temperament and everything sort of fell from there. But with her I think that senators have asked very good questions of her I think she hasn't answered most of them I, that that tells us a lot you know. I. Think especially because she is you know for someone who says that? It's my job to not forecast or say how I would vote if I were on the Supreme Court but you know she tells us that she has told us a lot. She's a very Christian she's pro-life and she brings her kids everywhere and I say this because she's a woman but I don't understand why people bring their small children to confirmation hearings it no sense. Have you seen? Pictures from Antonin Scalia is confirmation hearing He brought his entire big family. There's something to me read like sort of hat tip to her mentor Antonin Scalia who she clerked for Oh interests during okay I. did not know that during his hearing. He had like I. Think he has nine kids or something like that, and they all were sitting there in the chambers and he was. Confirmed during a time where things were a lot less contentious I mean bork already happened but he was things were a lot less contentious when he was confirmed and so there was a lot of like it. It's super weird to revisit that now because there was a lot of like people on the committee complimenting his big family and it was it was very, very strange but I think one thing that you know her family life is pretty irrelevant to. Her capacity as as a judge and her being a nice lady doesn't really have anything to do with her capacity as a judge what I was disturbed by that like. These hearings always to me seem just like an exercise and gas lighting. We know what she thinks about Roe v Wade we know what she thinks about it it is. We know and so she spends. Days pretending that we don't know and that her views are somehow something that she's going to rule on without input from her like she signed onto a letter that was written on behalf of a group that believes in vitro fertilization is manslaughter. Anyone asked her about that I didn't not yet. Did they somebody did on Tuesday they asked her if she felt like that and she said that she just signed the letter her way out of church or something I. Did hear that part that's fucking nuts i. just I hate how were being gasoline here I I it here's my question for you. Do you think because you know there are a lot of people who think that Democrats should have boycotted the hearing to show what a sham it was. I don't know how I feel about that. What do you think? I don't know I feel like the the right thing to do is. I think the platonic ideal of a member of the Senate Judiciary for this has been amy, Klobuchar Amy Klobuchar who the good aiming the good amy as you know as as she was running for president, she wasn't somebody that I whose candidacy I was enthusiastic about She's somebody who falls to the right of me on many issues. But as a member of this committee, she's done a really good job of asking pointed questions that seemed to have simple answers but that Amy Coney Barrett the bad, amy. Has Been Dodging.
Questioning continues on Day 3 of Barrett hearings
"News Special Report on Day three of confirmation hearing Supreme Court nominee Amy Cockney Barrett is still answering Democrats questions about whether she'll help kill Obama care If she's confirmed. It is the answer. Yes, and you're a little fish are all these questions you're suggesting that I have animus or that I cut a deal with the president was very clear yesterday that that isn't what happened. Barrett has long expressed her admiration for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was her mentor. But when I said that justice Philosophy is mind. Tio. I certainly didn't mean to say that every sentence that came out of justice. Scalia's mouth is one that I would agree with questions or continuing this afternoon. The hearing continues tomorrow instead of Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham is calling for a vote tomorrow. This is the first time in American history That we've nominated a woman who's on its family, pro life. Embraces her faith without apology. And she's going to the core CBS News Special Report. I'm Peter King and continuing
Barrett faces questions on Day 2 of Senate hearings
"Barrett, questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Day two of her confirmation hearings, a case that could determine the survival of the Affordable Care act is scheduled to come before the court next month, and Judge Barrett reiterated that she has no agenda regarding the case. I have said repeatedly under oath that I had no conversations with anyone in the White House about that case. And I'm not sure they sent. There's a suggestion that I have an agenda that I want to strike down People's protection for pre existing conditions. That's just not true. Judge Barrett similarly handled questions on abortion, gun rights and other hot button issues more generally, she said, she admires the late Justice Antonin Scalia, but quote You would be getting justice Barritt
Amy Coney Barrett: Trump Supreme Court nominee sidesteps questions
"Judge Amy Cockney barrettes getting a lot of pointed questions. For members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let's go live to Capitol Hill, W. GOP's Mitchell Miller today on the Hill, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the committee, fired off several questions on major legal matters, including abortion. Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that row was wrongly decided, if I express a view on a precedent, one way or another, whether I say I love it or hate it. It signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case, And in response to questions from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, Barrett made it clear she's had no discussions with the White House about how she might rule in cases involving the affordable care act or the upcoming election. It would be a complete violation of the independence of the judiciary for anyone to put a justice on the court as a means of obtaining a particular result. Republicans have praised Barrett during the hearing, which is now in a brief break, Senator John Cornyn pointed out. She has no notebooks in front of her, except for a small white pad. Is there anything on it? That letterhead that says United States Senate that Zim president reporting live on Capitol Hill, Mitchell Miller. W T O P
Amy Coney Barrett won’t say if Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, says ‘I don’t have any agenda’
"Marathon session on Capitol Hill, A Supreme Court nominee, Amy Cockney, Barrett is facing 11 hours of questioning. Democrats grilling her about her stance on Roe v. Wade and Obama care. It presented her approach to the law. As conservative and fair. Judges can't just wake up one day and say I have an agenda like guns. I hate guns. I like abortion. I hate abortion and walk in like a A royal queen and impose their will on the world. Barrett invoked her mentor, the late Justice Scalia, but declined to answer whether she agreed with Scalia that Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided, actually be wrong and a violation of the cannons for me to do that, as a sitting judge. A committee vote on her nomination is expected next week. Aaron Carter Ski ABC News, New York
Barrett faces questions on Day 2 of Senate hearings
"Day two of the confirmation hearings for Amy Cockney Barrett with the 10 o'clock report. I'm Sarah Elise Breaking. Now It's the second day in the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Cockney bear it to the Supreme Court. But the first day of direct questioning Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, starting the questioning, asking if there it could clarify her beliefs. As an originalist. I interpret the Constitution as a law that I interpret it's Texas text, and I understand it tohave the meaning that it had. At the time People ratified it. That meaning doesn't change over time, and it's not up to me to update it or infused my own policy views into it. While Barry says she's an admirer of her mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, If I'm confirmed, you would not be getting justice Scalia You would be getting justice Barritt. Pointing out that even originalist can disagree in their interpretation of the Constitution and of law. It's looking to be a long day in the committee room. Each of the 22 senators on the committee will get a half a hour of questioning time. Dave
Amy Coney Barrett: Trump nominee testifies in Supreme Court hearing
"Hearing Spirit, portrayed herself as a disciple of Justice Antonin Scalia and pledged to decide cases based on the law, not personal views. A judge must apply the law as it is written. Not as she wishes it were. Democrats like Cory Booker pointed to her record and that of the president who nominated her to argue she could undermine same sex marriage, The Affordable Care Act and abortion rights. President Trump has explicitly stated That he would on Lee put up Supreme Court nominees that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Hours of questions proceed a committee vote next week. Aaron Carter Ski reporting Their Facebook is expanding its hate speech policy to
Amy Coney Barrett set for Day 2 of confirmation hearing
"The Senate Judiciary Committee returns this morning for day two of Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Cockney Barrett. On the first day. Yesterday, we heard opening statements from members of the committee. Republicans made the case for Barrett's confirmation. Here's Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham. There's nothing unconstitutional about this process. This is a vacancy that's occurred there tragic loss of a great woman. And we're going to feel that they could see with another great woman. Democrats, meanwhile, said they're Republican colleagues are rushing this effort, and they tried to paint Barrett as a threat to the affordable care act. Now today, members will get their chance to ask her questions directly. We've got NPR Congressional reporter client great solace with us this morning. Hi, Claudia. Hi, Rachel. So what did each party the members of the committee Democrats and Republicans? What did they try to accomplish in the first day hearings yesterday? This was an opportunity for senators to frame her nomination. They did most of the talking. After all, Republicans painted bared as a worthy successor to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but in the mold of barrettes mentor and that's the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Democrats underscored the rush to confirm Barrett in the midst of a pandemic. Remember Two of the GOP members tested positive for the illness this month, and one Mike Lee of Utah, showed up yesterday, less than two weeks after his diagnosis. He also showcased what at what's at stake. Senator Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, who also sits on the committee dialed in to participate. Let's take a listen By replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who will undo her legacy. President Trump is attempting to roll that Americans rides the decades to come. So Democrats highlighted concerns that barrettes nomination is being rushed so she could be seated in time if there's a dispute tied to the presidential election and to rule on an affordable care act case that will come before the court next month. So they shared worries that she could limit the A or abortion rights tied to the landmark case. Roe v. Wade. Republicans, meanwhile, tried to portray Democrats is anti Catholic, even though not one raised the religious belief issue right so yesterday was all about opening statements, and Barrett herself gave her statement what we learned for that. She said. Although she was nominated to succeed Ginsberg, no one could ever take her place. She said she closely followed Scalia's judicial philosophy. She clerked for him. Let's take a listen. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written. Not as she wishes it worked. Sometimes that approach met reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say that we have a government of laws and not of men. She also noted that the courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, but that policy decisions are better left to the legislative branch. So today, the official questioning begins, right and presumably, we're going to hear a lot of what we heard yesterday on the affordable care act, but in the form of questions to Judge Barrett, yes, members will question Barrett on our position on a lot of these key issues such as health care, an abortion rights. Each senator will get 30 minutes to question Barrett. So with 22 members, this could prove to be a much longer day. Republicans will use this to highlight her conservative judicial record. While Democrats will grill Barrett on conflicts of interest and how she'd rule on future cases will press her again recused herself in some of these instances, such as the day or if there's a dispute with the election, But as she's done during private calls with Democrats, you'll likely declined to make such commitments or share how she might rule on these issues
Amy Coney Barrett vows to interpret laws as they are written
"I'm Anthony Davis. Supreme Court nominee Amy Kuney Barrett's declared on Monday that Americans deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets constitution and laws as they were written encapsulating her. Approach to the law that has Republicans excited about the prospect of her taking the place of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before election day. Barrett spoke about her judicial philosophy, her experience and to launch family at the end of the first day of her fast tracked confirmation hearings that Senate Democrats are using to try and brand her a threat to Americans healthcare during the coronavirus pandemic. After sitting in silence through nearly four hours of opening statements for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee the forty eight year old federal appeals. Judge laid out her approach to the bench, which she has likened to that of her conservative mentor. The late Justice Antonin Scalia. Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law which is critical to a free society, but courts are not designed to solve every problem. All right. Every wrong. In our public life Barrett said in a statement she delivered after removing the protective she wore for most of the day. She told sentences that she is forever grateful for Ginsberg's trail-blazing path as a woman on the court. Yet said, it's coma Harris Democratic, presidential nominee Joe. Biden's running-mate said the courts often the last refuge for equal justice and the Barrett number seven puts in jeopardy. Everything GINSBURG fought to protect barring dramatic development Republicans appear to have the vote to confirm her a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. If she is confirmed quickly, she could be on the court when it here's the latest challenge
Amy Coney Barrett: Trump nominee testifies in Supreme Court hearing
"Court nominee Amy Cockney. Barrett is said to begin taking questions in the morning after only playing a bit part Monday when her confirmation hearings began. There was silent as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee made opening statements for five hours. NPR's Nina Totenberg reports When it was time for Barrett to speak. She again said her judicial philosophy was modeled after the late Justice Anton's Clia. Scalia was a conservative icon known for his fervent dissenting opinions when the Supreme Court upheld abortion rights, gay rights and obamacare But Barrett, in her opening statement, said courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong the policy decisions and value judgments of government. Must be made by the political branches elected by an accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so. And courts should not try. That sounds easy. But as judges of all ideological stripes recognize one person's policy choice is another's UN constitutional law.
Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings begin Monday. Here's how she'll open
"Supreme Court nominee Amy Cockney, Barrett will make her opening statement for her confirmation hearing beginning tomorrow, Barrett will tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that policy decisions should be left to political branches of government. That's according to opening remarks obtained by The Associated Press. She will tell senators that courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in public life. She also will say that she has resolved to maintain the same perspective as her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and that no one will ever be able to take the place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Trump nominated buried after against for died My camp in Washington. Barrett, who previously clerked for Scalia will deliver the remarks before the panel tomorrow. It's the first day of a four hour four day hearing rather on her nomination. On Friday night, Barrett submitted supplemental paperwork to the committee, listening to talks she gave Two anti abortion student groups in 2013 in her capacity as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. At a news conference, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says the opening statement of the Supreme Court Doesn't mention her positions on the affordable care act or abort nothing in her opening statement allays the concerns America has that she will overturn a And hurt people's health care, and she will act to undo Roe v. Wade, an
High court nominee Barrett to tell senators courts 'should not try' to make policy decisions
"Supreme Court should not try to make policy. That's what Supreme Court nominee Amy Cockney. Barrett will tell senators in her opening remarks this week. She instead believes policy decision should be left. Political branches of government and opening remarks from her confirmation hearings obtained by The Associated Press Bear. It also says I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg seat, but no one will ever take her place. She also says she plans to have the same perspective as her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Who was in her words devoted to his family, resoluteness beliefs and fearless and criticism.
"scalia" Discussed on The Michael Berry Show
"When when you're interpreting the Constitution and it's called Textual Ism when you're interpreting a statute. So that seems obvious but there's something else called the living constitution approach which basically says. The. Constitution evolves it's a living document and its meaning changes with the changing values and norms of a society, and that sounds great until you recognize who's in that situation who decides what the norms and values of a changing society are. In that case, it's unelected judges who are basically lawyers So that's a problem because it's really up to the people to decide what what values and norms they want to guide them but people through their elected representatives not judges what originalism and textual ISM guarantees is that judges are much more limited and applying their own values and beliefs, and instead interpreting the laws and the Constitution at according to the meaning that they had when those when they were ratified and passed, and therefore we're. Really. Kind of expressions of the people will people's will. So for people who say well should I be afraid of Coney Barrett. As a judge is, is she going to understand? My plight if I'm black and the Constitution was written in an era of slavery or I'm a woman and women couldn't vote at the time or on and on what do you say to those people? So. The the point isn't that the point of originalism isn't that the constitution cannot change can't change and there are steps. In the process to make sure it does steps within the constitution, but that's up to the Congress and the people to change the constitution. Not The supreme court and originalists don't believe that the constitution is infallible either they they kind of recognized that I again, times do change and our values do change. The point is not up to judges to make those changes. It's up to the people to make those changes through through their elected representatives and you know what you just described is it pretty common kind of argument against originalism? Well, my father always pointed out is that while people always think that the living constitution only gives more rights that. Approach to interpretation only grants more rights. It can just as easily take rights away from people in cases of, for example, rights of the defendants and the accused originalism is very, very accommodating to the rights of the accused because in that regard, the constitution would be what we now consider Liberal the second amendment is another great example. If if you're an originalist, you're more likely to agree with my father and one of the opinions in this collection. The Essential Scalia that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms whereas living constitution says, well, times have changed so much. It's up to US justices to kind of limit the second amendment. Rights. Very. Well, said I was taking notes. I have about two minutes left in this segment but your father's friendship with the now late ruth. Bader. GINSBURG surprised a lot of people but it was deep and abiding on both sides. Can you talk about that? They became friends in the early eighties when they were on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals together, and they They had a good working relationship even though they didn't agree very often on the merits of a case or on their opinions, they would help each other out because unlike other judge on that court at the time, they liked to getting feedback about how to improve their arguments and they like giving that same kind of feedback. So they they helped each other out with their opinions even when they were on.
Examining the Record of Amy Coney Barrett as Nomination Fight Heats Up
"President Trump's nominee to the supreme court appeared at the White House over the weekend. Judge Amy Conybeare at pay tribute to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who seat she is hoping to fill. Should I be confirmed Will be mindful of who came The flag of the United States is still flying at half staff and memory of justice. Ruth. Bader Ginsburg to mark the end of a great. American. Life. Justice Ginsburg began her career at a time when women were not welcome in the legal profession. But she not only broke glass ceilings she smashed them. But there are many ways their philosophies are quite different judge Barrett's legal career. We'll be under the microscope in the weeks ahead. So this is a good time to talk with our justice and judiciary editor, Vivica, Novak, Vivica good to have you here. To be with mark, I want to start out with the basics just who is judge amy, coney? Barrett and why are conservatives so enthusiastic about her nomination. She is a known conservative. She was a clerk for Justice Scalia and has often spoken of him very admiringly. She's been a lot professor Notre Dame and she has continued to teach while she has been on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in general the anti-abortion groups feel very confident that she would be a vote in their favour whether she'd Overturn Roe v Wade is is unclear, but she is generally not a fan of abortion. Obviously abortion is getting a lot of discussion in this conversation, but this is a court that could. Rule on many different areas including health care even the twenty twenty election would her presence mean on the court? Well, she will be the person who gives the conservatives a six to three majority on the court, and even if Justice Roberts who has occasionally sided with the liberals even if he does that in the future on on certain cases, you know they will still have five votes, five conservative votes. So that's that's one important factor here. She will be probably not a vote in favor of upholding the affordable care act and that's one of the. First arguments. The court will hear it's coming up in November is a challenge to Obamacare and Justice Roberts a couple of years ago in another court challenge to the care he voted with the Liberals and she has actually said in a speech that she believes he voted wrong in that case in fact, he wrote the opinion she believes he was wrong. So that's one important issue coming up, and of course, the election none of us really wants to relive the two thousand election I don't think which was turned to the Supreme Court but it. Could happen it could happen, and if it does, you know there are some trepidation about the six three makeup of the court being certainly not in favor Joe Biden, we have election looming around the corner Republicans are moving forward planning to hold hearings the week of October twelfth in the hopes of confirming her before Election Day. So who will motivate more? How will this affect the election really good question conservatives generally in the past have been known to be more motivated by the prospect of putting more people on the federal courts including the Supreme Court. Democrats this time though are going to be framing things I think in terms of issues they're going to be talking about the affordable care act which most Americans are in favor of most Americans like it. They'll be talking to some degree about abortion probably not as much. They'll be talking about the election though and what could happen there. They will try very hard to peel off a couple of Republican votes. It's GonNa be tough hall, and Right now it looks like Mitch McConnell has. The votes and there isn't very much the Democrats can do about it. There may be a few procedural things that can slow things down, but it is really stretching to think that the Democrats I think could could slow this down, push it after the election, and then perhaps kill the nomination that's really pie in the sky. At this point it seems both parties feel a sense of urgency here as this is a lifetime appointment here and particularly her being so young, she's only forty eight. Could be on the court for a good long time and it's unclear. You know there are some other justices who are not that young but there are a lot who are actually not that old. So you know president trump has made it a point to name. People who have probably a good couple of decades at least on the court. Are Movements now to, for instance, put term limits on justices even if that were to make it through Congress and that's that's going to be hard to do. But even if were to make it through, even if a president were to sign it, it probably wouldn't apply to justices who are already on the court. It probably would be applied going forward. There are also people who talk about expanding the court. Some people call court packing that's kind of a derisive term, but expanding the court to add two more justices or more. That's really a tough lift but these things are being talked about more than we've heard in quite a long time. VIVICA Novak. Thanks again. Thank you.
President Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett as Democrats threaten to slow down the process
"News in Cleveland. We're live on the campus of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland Clinic, the site of the first debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden moderated by our very own Chris Wallace, who is preparing today. A Supreme Court vacancy. President Trump's third and his selection of Judge Jamie Cockney Barrett as his nominee. At a new twist to Tuesday night's debate will begin with Fox team coverage. Marc Maron is at the White House and Jackie Heinrich and Woman Delaware. Let's start with the latest on the president's Supreme Court pick and what we know about the timeline for a confirmation process, Mark President Trump hopes to fire up his base with his new Supreme Court nominee. But with election day fast approaching, the White House knows getting Judge Baird confirmed by the Senate will be contentious. It is a very proud moment. Indeed, lead Saturday, President Trump made it official. He's nominating seventh Circuit Appeals Court Judge Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution. A favorite of the conservative establishment is a practicing Catholic graduate of Notre Dame and former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. History, social philosophy is mined to a judge must apply the law as written. Democrats are outraged. Republicans air pushing barrettes nomination Ford just five weeks before the election after Republicans blocked President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for the same reason in 2016. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says Democrats are concerned with Barrett's record on abortion and religion. I will strongly strongly strongly oppose his nomination. Two GOP senators say they will not vote on the nominee before the election. But the majority of Republicans appear ready to hold hearings and Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham says his committee old four days of confirmation hearings beginning the week of October. 12th. The president told reporters last night he thinks Barrett's confirmation will move fairly fast and that he believes the confirmation vote. Britt will happen before Election Day. Marc Maron is reporting for the White House. Thank you, Mark. Now let's turn to
RBG in Her Own Words
"Hi It's no rouse and Judith Rosenbaum. And this is, can we talk the podcast of the Jewish women's archive where gender history and Jewish culture meet in this episode we're honoring and mourning the loss of Supreme Court. Justice. Ruth Bader GINSBURG. The first Jewish woman to sit on the nation's highest court Justice Ginsburg died on the eve of Russia China after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. In the days and nights following her death the steps of the Supreme Court have become an impromptu memorial. Thousands of people have gathered to express both grief and gratitude leaving flowers, writing messages and chalk lighting yard site candles. Some have even blown show far in her honour Ruth Bader GINSBURG was not only unapologetically Jewish but she and her experience as a jewish-american really guided her work. The Biblical Dictum Setback Sabatier Dove Justice Justice. You shall pursue adorn the walls of her chamber and the Word Setback Justice was embroidered into one of the lace collar. She famously war with her robes though tiny person justice GINSBURG was larger than life a Jewish hero and an American and feminist icon she stood for gender equality and racial justice and modeled fighting steadily for what you believe in. Her famous friendship with Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia showed that you can disagree and still get along. She was a role model for so many people, but it's important to remember that she had role models to in two thousand and four justice Ginsburg spoke at a Jewish women's archive event marking three, hundred, fifty years of Jewish life in America. She talked about some of the Jewish women who inspired her. One of them was Henrietta sold. Zolt was born in eighteen sixty in Baltimore and like Ginsburg was both visionary a doer who faced in overcame many obstacles as a woman. She founded DASA and helped build the social service infrastructure of what became the state of Israel. So here's ruth. Bader. Ginsburg one of our heroes talking about one of her heroes, another inspiring Jewish woman from history. In my growing up years, my mother spoke of glowingly. Though new had to say no. Better than any other person whose words I have read. Sold had seven sisters. And brother. When her mother died the man well known for his community spirited endeavors. Hi, imperative. Offered to say the codfish. The mourners fair that Ancien customer instructed to be recited only by men. Zone responded to that carrying offer in a letter dated September sixteen. Nineteen sixteen here Kuenssberg reads the key passage of the letter Henrietta sold wrote in response. It is impossible for me to find words in which to tell you. How deeply I wish touched by your offer. To Act as. Well my dear, mother. What you offered to do is beautiful beyond thanks. I shall never forget it. You will wonder then that I cannot accept your offer. I know well and appreciate you say about. Jewish. Custom. That only male children recite the prayer and if there are no male survivors. A male stranger may act as substitute. And Jewish custom is very dear and sacred to me. Yet I cannot ask to say after my mother. The cottage means to me. That the survivor publicly manifest. His intention to assume their relationship to the Jewish community, which is parents had. So that the chain of tradition remains unbroken. From generation to generation. Each adding its own link you can do that for the generations of your family I must do that. For generations of my family. My. Mother had eight daughters and no sun. And yet never did I hear a word of regret. Past, the lips of either my mother or my father. That one of us. WAS NOT, a son. When my father died, my mother would not permit others to take our daughters place. In saying the cottage. Until I am sure. I am acting in her spirit. When I am moved to decline your offer. But beautiful you offer remains nevertheless. And I repeat I know full well. That it is much more in harmony with generally accepted Jewish tradition than his might while my family's conception. You understand me don't you. Flee or celebration of our common heritage while tolerating indeed appreciating the differences among us. Concerning religious practice. Is, captivating, don't you agree?
"scalia" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Rick just for some commemorative. This is a family is a family, don't do it. So I wanted to ask you a ridiculously fanciful question that occurred to me while I was reading, you're really, really marvelous book. And if it's too fanciful, just say, you can say the f. word Dalia, but what do you think Antonin Scalia would think of President Donald Trump. So we do have a little bit of information about that because there's another book that came out recently by Brian garner who's a language guru and friend of Scalia co, author of a book called reading law, which is kind of like a recipe book for stetch to interpretation. And he said that Scalia was intrigued by Trump, and we know that. Scully as widow had Trump signs out on her lawn. So you know, I think there'd be some things that Trump has done, which would be abhorrent to Scalia, but they were many ways in which he really fulfils a kind of populist nationalist vision that Scully offered. So could you separate Trumpism from Trump, he'd probably fairly happy with a lot of Trumpism. Maybe not so happy with Trump the person and the, you know, if you think about one of his last dissents in a case involving Arizona's immigration law. The quotes from that about hordes of immigrants coming over the border in taking Americans jobs and threatening violence. It really could have come out of Trump's mouth and said, there were a lot of things that they had in common. School was very strong for the death penalty believed that enemy combatants who are not American citizens were really not entitled to very much protection under the constitution. He was against expansion of rights for people. In many ways, his program was Trumpian program, even if he might have found Donald Trump to be repulsive. In certain ways, rate Cassen is Fisher of law and political science at the university of California Irvine school of law. His book is the Justice of contradictions Antonin Scalia and the politics of disruption and his election law blog is a must read all the time, Rick. Thank you. It's always have you on the show to explain the oppression in gerrymandering. It is nice to have you here to explain the inscrutable Justice Antonin Scalia thank you for joining us for. And that about wraps it up for this Scalia edition of amicus. Thank you so much for listening in. If you.
"scalia" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Are there friendships across the aisle, and she talked about Scalia and going hunting with Scully and all of that. And then the follow up question was, what about other justices? And her response was I really liked Justice Scalia. That set a lot. Although you did have just soda my or suggesting recently that you know she felt some ways closest to Justice Thomas, which is interesting because they both come from poor minority backgrounds and maybe they can relate to each other on a personal level, even though they're jurisprudence could not be further apart. It does suggest this compartmentalization that some justices are able to do, which I think many of us today in this hyper polarized era have a hard time doing. It's interesting I was there at that speech wins sort of my or said that, and one of the things that she highlighted was that Thomas is that his persona on the benches so controlled and closed down, and you know he's more or less onscreen save for every oral argument. And yet in the, you know, walking through the halls of the court and walking through the cafeteria. You know, he's this gregarious beloved charming character. And I think that one of the things at least one could say about Scalia his, he was a exactly the person on the bench that he was at a dinner party or at a speech. I mean, he was incredibly consistent in so far as his demeanor. His public and private demeanor were exactly the same. The, I think that, you know, at least from. The way it appeared. I, I should point out. You mentioned this. This is not a biography. Never interviewed the Justice. This is not kind of trying to delve into his psyche. What I'm trying to do is kind of give a geography of his ideas or kind of an intellectual history and ask what his legacy is going to be and long after people forget his persona on the bench. What's going to live on is his methodology and his kind of the roadmap he set for de legitimizing what his opponents were doing. And so I think some of some of what was admired about Justice Scalia is likely to fade before the more controversial parts of Justice Scalia are likely to fade. And if you think about, will he be remembered as a great Justice, the way some people might think about, you know, John Marshall or Oliver Wendell Holmes who despite versus bell and some other cases seeing pretty good light these days. I think because when we're in central. Polarized time, it's going to be that he will be loved or he'll be hate it depending on people's political views, but he would not. He's unlikely to be universally admired the way some of these other justices were. I think that's probably true for Justice Ginsburg as well. You know, the Justice who are the heroes on one side are really the villains on the other. The fully luck away from your Kulturkampf and you're sort of animists discussion. I wanted to give you a chance to respond to the fact that it seems to me. This is almost another way in which Scalia becomes a very. Very sort of pre Trumpian Trump character in that is in part, you know, I think you were very honest just now when you said I, I don't know if he bore animus..
"scalia" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"I don't think there was any kind of recognition that what he was saying was would be seen by people in those communities and others as disparaging same with gay rights when he would talk about the homosexual agenda. And you know, one of the things I explored the book for, which I think it is hard to reach a definitive conclusion as did Scalia have animus towards these groups. Did he have animus towards gay individuals? And when he made a statement in. At Princeton in. I think it was two thousand twelve few years before his death where he says something like. If I can't have if we can't have moral disapproval against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Again, as he had an earlier case compared laws against murder and two laws against beastie -ality and laws against. Day sex it what? What he, what he does there is, I think, not just decides cases as a judge, but is engaging himself in the culture wars and is in some ways denigrating the groups that should be getting dignity before him. And so I talk about how one year he had a counter clerk who tried to get him to tone down. We think because the counter clerk can't exactly admit to what he did when he was on the court, get the county clerk, apparently got to tone down some of his anti gay rhetoric. In one of his cases, the idea that you would need a clerk to do this does suggest at the very least kind of insensitivity. He was someone who was part of the culture wars who said he listened to talk radio who couldn't read the Washington Post anymore because it was so shrillest shriller liberal to quote him. It was. This was somebody who was both a polarizing figure. And a creature of polarization says, an interesting academic study which came out after my manuscripts was in, which basically says that this is a Lawrence Bom new book. If you're if you're trying to understand where the judges come from the where the Justice get their views, you have to recognize they are products of a certain elite and they listen to the other elite lawyers and they basically are exposed to the same things, you know, got a Fox News, Justice and MSNBC Justice now because they're also consuming media in a much more partisan way and that affects their their outlook. I think you hear it in the questions that compare what Justice soda. My your asks at oral argument to what Justice Alito as if they're on different planets. When you hear the kinds of questions they ask. And so I think you know this all goes back to the question of. How do you as a judge disentangle yourself from this polarization and Scalia said he did so, but in some ways he was least able to do so among all the justices. Well, so so so one quick thing and I, you just mentioned it, but it's worth saying, I think Justice Scalia did go out of his way to have counter clerks and that became rare to have clerks who didn't agree with you. He also had this much much vaunted friendship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg that transcended ideology. I mean, there were not a lot of and I think you mentioned Elena Kagan to in that French, there are not a lot of deep friendships at the court that transcend the MSNBC FOX dialectic. You've just posited that has to speak well for him that he wanted to constantly exposed himself to diverging viewpoints. Right. Well, I don't know that he wants to expose themselves to diversion viewpoint. Counts as much as he wanted to be able to have socially amicable relationships with people who had different political views. I don't know how much he Ginsburg talk politics. I'm guessing not very much. It was interesting. I was at a dinner after a talk that Justice Kagan gave at Chicago Kent back in. I think it was back in October, and someone asked her about the, you know..
"scalia" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"I mean, I really can't imagine cake and what have written that if it were not for Scalia. So I think that you have now highlighted this paradox which I find in the book in generally in my coverage of the court, which is what Scalia was selling was incredibly attractive. Right? It was the neutral umpire. It was the person who the minute he puts his robes on the Minhaj. She puts her robes on they become a machine and everything they were before, doesn't matter. And they're utterly predictable and also utterly neutral because they're using the tools of textual ISM original public meaning originalism, whatever you wanna call it, and that's unbelievably comforting in a branch of government with life. Time tenure and with no ability to to check them. And so I think that he taps into innings Ziouani about unelected judges running amok, you know, all the language he uses about elites who are superimposing their view of the world on the masses, and he taps into that anxiety and the paradox, Rick. Tell me if you agree, is it in so doing he becomes kind of larger than life so that the very neutrality that he's promoting. He's trying to answer this question of public anxiety about judges as sort of big personalities who dominate the space rather than fading back. He actually becomes exactly that and not only that, I think you've just made this point. So what am I or is that now and and you know, Ginsburg is certainly that now, and I think in some ways he blazed the trail to say, oh, don't worry about us. We're perfectly neutral. But also jazz hands and that's where we live now. No, I think that's right here. He was on c. span being interviewed by his friend, Brian lamb and talk about how his bobblehead is the most requested bobblehead from the green bag. That's kind of like a Trumpian boast. Isn't it? You know, my bobbleheads, the greatest, you know, nobody. Nobody wants any other Justice besides me, and he really kind of mugged for the camera all the while and he's complaining to Brian lamb that you know, he didn't ask for the celebrity, but he's been. His arm has been twisted that he should go out there and sell his jurisprudence and sell his books to just to fight back against the Scarlets comments that were made against him, but seemed to me that he loved it and he loved being out there. You know, you can see it an argument. I would say he's mugging for the cameras, but there were no cameras, but he was always going for the joke and he was always interrupting in order to show off and being showman like that and get claiming the judges job is this job to be kind of a neutral craftsman of the law. There was definitely a huge disconnect there between what he said he was doing and what he actually did yet. Another one of these great contradictions of who's Justice Scalia was. So that's a perfect segue. Rick for your chapter about Kulturkampf and you know how Scalia. Positions himself, particularly, I think on the question of gay rights and the ways he writes about, you know, again, liberal elites and the professor class and the reality where he lives on the ground as he portrays it. And I think in that chapter and I know you've gotten blowback. I think you're trying to make a version of the point you just made, which is for somebody who is purporting to just neutrally apply the constitution. He sure had a lot of inflammatory things to say over his career about some of the disadvantaged minorities who came before him. Right. Well, you know, I'd say his biggest comments that or his most controversial comments were comments about race and about gay rights. And so one of the things he said and you pointed this out, I think he became less temperate. In his final years during oral arguments in one of the cases involving the constitutionality of a part of the Voting Rights Act, he's trying. He's trying to explain why he shouldn't defer to congress. Congress passes the Senate passes the Voting Rights Act, renewal ninety eight zero. And he says, this is somehow suspect. And the reason it happens is because of what we call the perpetuation of racial entitlements. Look it up. And then an argument involving affirmative action in higher education. He talks about what we should do about the really competent blacks and the less competent blacks and just just kind of the way he talked..
"scalia" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Style very clever turns of phrase before the rest of us were in in a sense. I think it was also Trumpian. Right? I think that's absolutely right. Although he's much more talented than. Trump in terms of turning a phrase. You know, let's take the most popular opinion of Scalia among those on the left which is Marcin versus Olsen about the special counsel statute. That's where Scalia said, this wolf comes as a wolf as opposed to a wolf coming in sheep's clothing. I mean, that is memorable that I mean, I think that's great writing as much as it may disagree with me on the general point because often the language was used as a bar against someone else, but you're right. He didn't know how to turn a phrase and this is how he changed the view of the Justice. So the Justice, no longer being cloistered and unseen, although they're still unseen because there or large uments are not recorded for video and broadcast, but he was out there as a public intellectual in a way that no justices worse. So before this, they were justices in the nineteen sixties like Justice, Douglas and Justice Goldberg. That would give speeches, but they weren't talking about the court's business. They weren't talking about jurisprudence. They weren't saying things like, I like my constitution dead dead. Dead or about Bush versus gore the case that ended the two thousand Florida election get over it. I mean, these are soundbites. These are literally soundbites of things that can be recorded and played on TV. I mean, this is what he was doing and I actually blame Scalia for what I consider to be Justice. Ginsberg's very unfortunate comments in the summer of two thousand sixteen argument against the election of Donald Trump to be president. I'm sure that it's, I think it's fine for her to have those us. But as a sitting supreme court, Justice who could have been hearing cases involving Clinton versus Trump where they would be calls for her recusals and there would be good grounds for accused based on those statements that were made. I really think that it was Scalia setting the path of the in temperature digital remark that that blade the groundwork for something like what Justice Ginsburg did. And I hope that that trend doesn't continue. I'd much rather see the justices out there in a more temperate way. Still educating the public still doing things about civics education, but not being the gladiator for their side. We have our justices. They have theirs are just as a show up to this conference. They're just this show up to that conference in ours or smart, and there's evil. I mean, that really seems to be the way the tone of conversation is these days. First of all, I have to completely concede that like you. I got through law school, reading Scully, opinions, and just doubled over in mirth. Enjoy that. Anyone could write this way. So I, you know, I two Cup to the fact that I loved it. It is eminently readable and imminently clear. And you know, when you're in the morass of jargon to have somebody write crisply in clearly is charming. I would note that Elena Kagan does the same thing with fewer punches in the mouth. But I think she have some. She definitely has some punches the mouth, which I think that Scully was responsible for. So in one case the the Arizona camping. Case from a few years ago, the majority says it's found a smoking gun indicating on impermissible intent. And and Justice Kagan says this this the majority says, it's found smoke here, but the only smokers, the kind that goes with mirrors..
"scalia" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"I'd hide my head in a bag and he said that you know the the language of the court had moved from the great writings of Justice story in Justice, Marshall to the aphorisms of a fortune cookie. I couldn't find any evidence that he ever lost a majority because of this. And the example is often given as a case called Casey, which is a abortion rights case. Then all you've talked about on other episodes. But the question is what he had gotten more. Important five to four decisions. If he had used Honey instead of vinegar to catch his flies hard to know, I don't know, but I think that's not how Scalia looked at. He wasn't looking to be the Justice Brennan. What's it? Gonna take to make a deal to get the five oats. He was writing for the future. He wrote his sense. He said, so that they'd be read by law students. So that law professors like name would say, oh, I can't bore my students reading this long election law case with a Justice briar nine par test. I need to put in there a Justice Scalia called a possess dissent from Justice. Scalia something perky that's going to get their attention. He wrote for the future and now that's coming back to roost. And I think we shouldn't over emphasize the the the room within which originalists and textualist argument moves. Yes. That leads to some surprises as in the criminal procedure cases I talk about in the book. But most of the time, as I show Justice Scalia's originalism and so far, Justice Gorsuch is originally leads to conservative results in a vast variety of cases and Justice Thomas's originalism. So you'll get, you'll get the occasional surprise. But the general trend is in a very politically conservative direction and in a direction that allows the court to be more polarizing than I think the court was in the past. I mean, even looking at oral argument which another point I making the book before Scalia was on the court or argument to the supreme court was pretty sleepy affair where someone could speak for ten or fifteen minutes without getting interrupted. Now you have chief Justice Roberts playing traffic cop, trying to let everyone get a chance to speak. And I think Scalia and and I should say the polarizing nature of of the times really contributed to that change. And so it's a different court now and Scalise influences likely to be greater because. Now that we've stripped out some of the problems with what skelly has done, and we're left with kind of the essence of the person and the basics episode methodology. He's going to further be a fide and his methodology is going to be used by conservatives to lead to conservative results in most cases, and I should just point out what Scalia did was offered relatively simple sound bite like solutions.
"scalia" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"And I think that that leads to your exploration in the book of how influential can you really be if a everybody now claims to be an originalist, but they're doing different stuff than you and be if you can't get five votes because you're elbowing everybody all the time. So let's engage with those one at a time. I think that you're right, and I agree with you that you know, the famous expression is were all originalists. Now in Elena Kagan his originalist and Steve Briers and originalist, but it just doesn't because it's not as rigorous as Scalia would like it to be because even skinned Thomas don't agree what's in the toolbox and how to deploy it. Maybe it doesn't matter that we're all originally snow is that is that in fact where you come down on this? Well. You know, I think the statement that Kagan made was that we're all textual now. I don't think she's claimed that we're all originalists now and you know you have. Judges on the court Justice on the court who are very conservative, like Justice, Alito, and chief Justice Roberts were not originalists. And yet if you look, I I think I take the two thousand thirteen term that were sixteen five to four cases and fifteen of the sixteen Alito and Scalia agree. Even though we does not a an originalist in only one of the sixteen do Scalia and Ginsburg agree. And so I think a much better predictor of how a judge is going to actually vote is not whether or not they call themselves in original store textualist, but whether they were appointed by democratic or Republican president. So in that sense, right, originalism doesn't matter. You see, for example, Justice Stevens in citizens United to the case involving corporations, campaign money, or in Heller the gun case involving the individual right to bear arms Justice Stevens makes originalist arguments and Scalia just rejects them as bad originalism. So so in some ways, the you know, the originalism is not doing the work, but what I think this goes back to my point about the justices contradictions. I think. Scalia did more than anything else is give conservatives a cuddle, give them a tool to be able to say, if you're not following my way, not only are you incorrect, but you are illegitimate. And this goes back to the very first point you made about the kind of Neo Trumpian aspect of Scalia it. His aim he said was syllogism, is the court by giving the court neutral tools of interpretation, kind of take the judge's personal views out of the equation. But in the end he used his masterful Nashville use of language to harshly.
"scalia" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Hi and welcome back to amicus. This is slates podcast about the courts in the law and the rule of law. I'm dial with wake. I cover many, if not most of those things for sleet. And as we contemplate the shape of the court in late of Justice, Kennedy's retirement. There's been an awful lot of speculation out there that Donald Trump supreme court. Nominee me bear a remarkable ideological resemblance to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. So with that in mind, I wanted to bring you a conversation about the legacy and intellectual history of Justice. Scalia with the caveat that we tape this a little bit before Justice Kennedy made his announcement that said, this is an incredibly useful way to think about this Antonin Scalia sized hole at the supreme court that Donald Trump will be trying to fill the September. Rick. Hassen is a friend of amicus and he's appeared on this. Show to talk about voting rates in gerrymandering many times he teaches law and political science at UC Irvine school of law, but this conversation is not about voting. It's about the mind of Antonin Scalia and it is from his latest book, the Justice of contradictions Antonin Scalia and the politics of disruption which was published this past spring. So welcome back to the putt, gastric acid. Thank you. It's always great to be with you. So I, I love the premise of your book which is that sclera kind of prefigures Donald Trump in a lot of important ways. He's a disruptor. He comes in and he reshapes the whole judicial branch with his whole name calling bombastic anti elitist populist thing, and he was doing it long before Donald Trump made it cool. That's the premise, correct? Yeah, that's one of the premises. I must say the other one is that he was the Justice of contradictions you picked up on the disrupts. Point, but that he often said he was going to do one thing and for one reason or another didn't follow through and I ended up doing the opposite, so so let's get to that in a second. But I want to, I think I want to ask you this question. I think your book really captures something, and I think you and I even talked about it after Scalia died, which is in the days and weeks after he died, the the commentary tended to be all Yager Affi from accolades on the political, right, and real. I think sometimes vicious crave dancing from people on the left and people like you and people like me who were trying to find a seam between those two things into, say, on the one hand, singularly important, much loved on the other hand, took some positions that made life in America, less good for people we tended. I think trying to do that middle space work to get shelled from both sides. And I wonder if your book which is very much in keeping with that spirit of, I don't wanna talk about cartoonish versions of Scully. I want to talk about the man himself. Are you taking it from both sides as well? No, I don't think so. I think I'm taking it much more from the right than the left because what's happened with Scalia since his death is that all of those rough edges, all of those countries fictions have kind of fallen off for those who admire him, and he's become even more admired and just look at Justice Gorsuch and look at many of the lower court judges that Trump has appointed. I mean, they really looked to say Sculley had found the holy grail. He had found the method for interpreting constitutional cases his public meaning originalism. He'd found the holy grail for understanding texts and he had done so in a way that was the only right way. And the only way that is really permissible under the constitution for judges to act. And so any attack any nuance aimed at Justice Scalia is really an attack on the new orthodoxy among those judges and justices on the right. Well, I think you know the perception on the left is yeah. Yeah, there were things about Scalia that were worth admiring. For example, he was a good writer, but urban Marinsky. For example, my former gene and a good friend didn't find any of scully's riding delicious the way I did, but yeah, but that's much less of a critique than the kind of very bitter critique that the book is getting by those on the right..
"scalia" Discussed on Progressive Talk 1350 AM
"They repudiated anthony scalia his he's dead now so they just took a whole bunch of knives in the grave israeli to read this decision and as i'm reading it i'm thinking about anthony scalia saying guys you're totally missing it and they just anyway this so he's dead we can put knives in his bag now they totally repudiated their legend antonin scalia right thirty three minutes into the hour every wednesday krista and michael our heart and soul of our crew they get all the credit and they have mad skills and we every wednesday now thirty three minutes and we're playing these two minute montages that we put on the stream only now everybody gets ear ache looting our friends in the bay area san francisco real talk nine ten so this one's really appropriate for today so let me say this right up front a trump administration guns are christian haired we'll be cherish protect defended like you've never seen before most importantly i brought my bible i have great relationship with god i have great relationship with div anjelica lls we have people coming into the country tried to come in we're stopping them but we're taking people out of the country you wouldn't believe how bad these people are people these are animals and we'll take him out of the country love charity and fake built this nation grabbed by the believe me after i saw that i said it's him shouldn't be doing that very unethical great relationship with god have you can tell themselves so how can it be that our media treats people of faith so poorly people animals this guy that includes religious liberty you see somebody getting ready to throw tomato knocked the crap out of you seriously the punch him in the face i'll tell ya religious our christian heritage boom boom will be cherished if some of those wonderful people had gun strapped right here right to that waste all right to their ankle this comes out and such and one of the people in that room the habit and goes boom boom that would have been a beautiful beautiful site folk president obama is trying to make terrorism into guns and it's not guns fox has it is not guns honestly i hate to see that there you go that is i don't know where that music is coming from that's okay can is music account like the generic jazzy jazzy i but thirty three minutes into the hour every wednesday we do look now when you got to admit you're laughing come on that was funny and we need laughter today is going to go down in history because public sector unions they are trying to take you out all right one triple eight three two one six thousand one it seems to me the unions public and private sector have only one choice now they've got to go on a sales pitch and i don't mean big splashy expensive tv ads i'm talking about you gotta go explain yourself you gotta go reintroduce yourself to buy american people and resell the notion of of unions why we have unions i'm here to help you i'm.
"scalia" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Scalia case in this case deportation can you summarize what the court decided today and why they needed to have a second round of oral arguments so this case was originally heard i believe it was in january of twenty seventeen in the midst of the twenty sixteen seventeen term that was after justice scalia had died but before justice course which was confirmed this was during that lengthy fourteen month period when we only have an eightmember member court and it was one of two cases at the end of the term in june that was not decided basically the court puts at one sentence that indicates they're locked up so this was a case where clearly and you knew this from oral arguments the liberals were siding with the lawful permanent resident and the conservatives were siding with the us government so it was reheard in october with justice gorsuch on the court and at that time he was pretty clear as you heard during some of the tape that you just paid played that he basically feels that laws need to be quick clear and that if they're not clear to defendants or immigrants or whoever the laws being used against that they can be termed unconstitutionally vague and that's basically what this says it's a portion of the immigration and nationality act it describes crimes of violence it calls the crimes that this man committed aggravated felonies but what he basically did in two thousand and seven in two thousand nine is he burglarized residential homes there was no violence involved the law basically says well if violence could be involved then it's a crime of violence and the court basically said well that's not a standard than any common person would understand and therefore it's unconstitutionally vague and can't be used to deported and richard wolf as you point out in your story available tonight at usa today dot com handing.
"scalia" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Scalia case in this case deportation can you summarize what the court decided today and why they needed to have a second round of arguments so this case was originally heard i believe it was in january of twenty seventeen in the midst of the twenty sixteen seventeen term that was after justice scalia had died but before justice course which was confirmed this was during that lengthy fourteen month period when we only had an eight member court and it was one of two cases at the end of the term in june that was not decided basically the court puts out one sentence that indicates they're locked up so this was a case where clearly and you knew this from oral arguments the liberals were siding with the lawful permanent resident and the conservatives were siding with the us government so it was reheard in october with justice gorsuch on the court and at that time he was pretty clear as you heard during some of the tape that you just paid played that he basically feels that laws need to be clear clear and that if they're not clear to defendants or immigrants or whoever the laws being used against that they can be termed unconstitutionally vague and that's basically what this a portion of the immigration and nationality act it describes crimes of violence it calls the crimes that this man committed aggravated felonies but what he basically did in two thousand and seven and two thousand nine is he burglarized residential homes there was no violence involved the law basically says well if violence could be involved then it's a crime of violence and the court basically said well that's not a standard than any common person would understand and therefore it's unconstitutionally vague and can't be used to deported and richard wolf as you point out in your story available tonight at usa today dot com handing.
"scalia" Discussed on WPRO 630AM
"In accordance with how the words that law were best understood at the time that it became law and in so doing justice scalia believed you were minimizing the opportunity for judicial mischief not not getting rid of any opportunity it of course judges have always been clever um but by interpreting the law in accordance with this outside criterion of of the original meaning of the law justice scalia believed the judges and courts would minimize their discretion of it's important for for me to understand this the judge judge scalia justice scalia was concerned that people use value judgments in the place of interpretation of the constitution is that commonplace adam if i have a prejudice for example against a certain class of conduct is that a value judgment that has no place in the law do i am i asked in law school to examine my prejudices and and rid myself of them well i think the ideal for all lawyers and judges is to interpret the law that's written but in terms of value judgments so many judges especially those who believe this is just justice scalia kirk riot but the constitution today living document and that meaning changes over time lots of judges and lawyers professors and others believe that the constitution doesn't have a real fixed value of the terror fix meaning at the time of its of it uh enactment of ratification and that future generations are largely free to reinterpret the law in accordance with their own values to their own understanding of what the worked in the law ought to me as time progresses now of course all all work or judges has value judgement could i don't think justice scalia would disagree but just the school years value judgments were underneath all of this and that his value judgement was in favor of a limited role but judiciary maximum opportunity within the limits to the constitution four policymaking bar elected representatives in order to restore maintain a truly republican government in the lower are sensible word or were a government that ultimately uh ultimately driven by majorities in the long run there's the puzzle for me adam as a nonlawyer someone who didn't attend laws called justice scalia was always in the news always controversyl uh the fingers are pointed at him i remember bush versus gore gore versus bush but always pointed at him and yet in your presentation at national fares he seems a reasonable.