17 Burst results for "Seila"
"seila" Discussed on Relevant Podcast
"Of us like the band. We had some, but it was A. He was in A. Folder on the dropbox court out out of the box, which is like a? Cell to less to field. You know we would like. Another is GonNa work clear. How To? Even, make sense of how is GonNa. Take this in the direction that self. Responsible and then I think. the music as well as. Polarizing, and so we like. Let's put a dropbox over here. When it came to making the album will, maybe we should try one sunlight that and tried so. I. Kind of had set it up like this probably isn't GonNa work thing. I Sung at East group, and they just took the The cries took the course, and they wouldn't stop singing it over and over and over again so that we've finished song. And like you speak would get ditch. Keep saying over the so we have to get back up again and played. It was actually out something out of a movie. But it's never happened before for us as a definitely still like that moment, the actually came. On, wall no Dow's. Only. John Freeze meant to be. Is this use kind of expression of weather ship and this exciting live experience in a thinks three you was. It was quite different was very. There was much more. In Seila. Soft and it was, it was. It was important at the time, but we definitely like neck gone for something more ball into something that to work lives lots of energy. And so we went with that briefs.
"seila" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"'cause you, you'd have a better perspective than me, but also think that the industry. Has Come to live with the agency. Especially, especially, the major players, banks and mainstream players, not the bottom, not like the. Fringe players, right and and what what those people and institutions want is regulatory certainty. They want to know what the rules are, and so the idea of. You know messing this all up by going in and having Congress fight over the structure of the agency. After this case I I don't I just don't see that happening. While I. Don't see it happening either. I thought at one point. There might be some hope the the industry I agree with you, they. I don't hear any Hue and cry to abolish the agency. really haven't heard that in the longtime, but the industry I think. Does not like. does not want the agency to do one eighty degree. turnabouts every four years. I mean right. It's nuts by you know, have one director promulgate certain regulations and have other director Undo everything that the other director did and we have a pretty good example of an agency. That's avoided that kind of. turmoil resulting from the change of administration, namely the FCC Five Commissioners. Majority under the. Control of the whoever is. In charge of the presidency at that time, and seems to work pretty well, and that's originally the way that the bureau was supposed to be structured at least when the the bill passed by the house, it called for five member commission, and that it got changed in the Senate. That's true and. I think. In retrospect lease, my belief is that. That was not a wise idea that it was very. At the time recognizing that Obama Democrat was going to be in charge and was GONNA pick the first director, but you see what happened. you know after Obama's term is over I. Think the thinking is for an agency like this given the power of the industry in question given how much political power it has in its ability to capture. Any regulator. We recognize. There might be some periods where it's not gonna be as effective, but at least let it be good in the good years it least let it have someone. The possibility that there is someone who's who's going to be aggressive. And is going to. Do the kinds of rulemakings that need to be done and not just. A seed to whatever the industry wants. So you know I, think it's a it's a tough question about institutional design, and it's hard to know empirically. Better, but there are a lot of examples of regulatory agencies that are incomplete stasis. Because they are multi-member bodies that do nothing like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or actually the the Federal Election Commission the some of these agencies they're basically are incapable of doing anything and so there is a kind of paralysis that can set in what looks like balance can also ended up being paralysis. Whereas in the CFPB's case the way it's set up and I still think this will be true after the Supreme Court's decision. it is capable when it's in the right hands of doing a lot of good and it did know knits for several years it stepped into a marketplace that was badly in need of of being cleaned up of marketplace where there were practices that were so. Harmful to consumers that they didn't just harm. The consumers affected. They actually threatened to cripple the united. States economy in intern, the global economy and so something something had to be done..
"seila" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"I don't think was nineteen thirties. There was a case that raise the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission the way they were structured because they are under the Federal Trade Commission Act Commissioners that. It was a five there. Five commissioners supposed to the sole director of the CFPB. But they were removable by the President. Only for 'cause language similar to what's in the consumer financial protection at and the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality. Of the Federal Trade Commission Act against a similar kind while it came up in a different context, but and so, how did the Supreme Court get around that case? In order to reach the conclusion that they did they they, they clearly didn't overrule that case. It's and the the name of the case I know has the word as stated in it's. It's humphries executive. Resist executive right so Humphrey's executor is kind of the cornerstone of the administrative. Right it's been around since the new deal and it's it's how we can have. Independent agencies where the the heads of the agency are protected by four 'cause removal, and so that was a really big question. In this case, this was the court going to overrule or chip away at a Humphrey's executor. And if it had you know, that would be a real threat to agencies like the FTC. All these multi member commission that we've come. To rely and expect as as part of the administrative state, and and there are many conservatives. Who are not fans of Humphrey's executor, who really want to roll back the administrative state to before the new deal? So how? How did the Supreme Court addressed the issue? Basically what the Supreme Court did is. It sidestepped the issue distinguished. Humphrey's executor. And you know, there are several obvious ways to distinguish it. First of all Humphrey's executor was about a body of You know expert heads. WHO. Are Multi member commission. It's not a single director, and so this difference between. A multi-member body of Of experts who deliberate consult with one another at least in theory that's supposed to work I and a single director of the the CF PB with a five year term guarantee. Is Pretty Different in the court's view. And then they also say that that The the CFPB director has powers that are that are different. They have sort of quint is the court calls it quintessentially executive power. Including the ability to unilaterally issue final decisions that award of legal, legal and equitable relief in administrative adjudications. And the ability to to to seek daunting monetary penalties against private parties. The court says that basically the structure of the agency and the powers vested in the director. Make it fundamentally different from from the FTC. Okay so It a distinguishes Humphrey's executor. Although some people I've read, some accounts that say it doesn't really do that Clear job of distinguishing yet in that the FTC today is different than the F. T. C. in nineteen thirty and it may possess it. It doesn't of course have the right to supervise institutions. It's got enforcement power I guess it can get monetary penalties initially if I got for someone has to violate a consent order before they can get the monetary penalties, but in many respects and it end doesn't quite issue.
"seila" Discussed on en(gender)ed
"Yeah I think if you there have been moved vets to bring in the specifically, Turkey, they call it, the Dion, at which is sort of the religious body of the government that is the control things in makes a lot of statements. There have been members were part of the past two will sorry fight. You who have basically? Said things to condone violence against women, but in those cases even the president aired. One will come out and condemn it, so you know the one thing that Islamic feminists than even the the women working to government. Pretty much across sector agree with is that women should not be beaten their Suri. That is un-islamic and I think. But, but then implementing. What does that mean over the question that I? have been asking feminist today in Turkey when I was preparing for this talk has has there been any discussion about restorative or reform like instead of throwing these men in jail, which they're not I'll give you an example a few years ago during the me too movement, there was one very well-known case here in Turkey. A well known musician singer named Seila, accused her boyfriend, beating her, and ended up taking him to court, and it became a big case that everybody's watching internationally well. He was convicted, but nothing happened to him. He wasn't put in prison. He was basically. Basically slapped on the wrist and said. If you do it again, then we'll deal with you, so the the justice system doesn't do much for women here and even if these men did go to prison..
"seila" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"Spirit is the commitment the earnest or earnest money down payment to Seila bargain. It's the down payment of their inheritance and glory. That's what the Holy Spirit is. Each believer has the spirit of Christ. We're going to see that hammered and Romans eight when we get there every one of you even if you're not speaking in tongues that's a footnote about check prescriptions twelve thirteen and fourteen but move on and is in dwelt by the Smith. You if you are a believer in dwelling you. There may may not be a lot of evidence to that. You may be very successfully throttled fraud. Alling any outward bowing that but it's there and you got to do with it. There is a shakeup coming. We need to have our priorities straight. Not with our eyes on the world one of the things. We emphasize in the inner cornea suit is the car track. We have the track. We studied the word of God. Exposition verse by verse. That's the backbone of it but the track is where we try to understand like the sons of his car. Understand the times the tools. There are very different because not dealing with truth like the Bible. We're dealing with disinformation misinformation bias. That's inherent in the information. That's available to us. Nevertheless through all that there are two in. What really is true really happening and as we do that we WANNA do that. For Stewardship on the one hand on the other. Want to be very careful as we do that. Not have is on the world but on him. Anyway getting back. Persecution is a catalyst Christian growth and the body of Christ is going to have a tremendous opportunity for growth. In the next few years the complacency and the apathy that has characterized few decades is gonNA evaporate before our eyes for lots of different reasons and people who have been apathetic or complacent are suddenly going to be.
"seila" Discussed on Myths and Legends
"Seila on the deck of the ship when it after something in the. What's that captain looked out? Stone coffin wrapped in iron bands How's that thing floating and why hasn't the Iron Rusted in the water? What's avoid it? Remember Your Dad said about well all the horrible things out here in Slavic folklore. Nothing good ever comes from lending a coffin hitch a ride seal. The pursed his lips. And how would the captain feel? If his coffin was floating in the open ocean unable to be buried. The captain blinked. He thought he would be cool with it. Because he'd be dead. Look seal was the boss unless mutiny anyone no he was getting a lot ahead shakes for now so CEELO was the boss but this seemed like a horrible idea. Seila said that that was noted and directed the men to pull over to the coffin and drag aboard the captain's side as it was dragged aboard the stomas scraping the Finish and Oh nice. It was covered in Arcane gibberish. This was all very okaying good. He looked up. And there's a tempest fun. They barely made it through the storm. But when the skies finally cleared nearly a day and a half liter they found themselves off the coast of a land that none of the Sailors Taoist Seila ordered that they put ashore the coffin buried and that everyone set up camp. He was going to do some questing and if he didn't make it back they were free to leave without him. The captain stepped away from the men. Digging a hole for the body inside the stone coffin to talk to Seila who was getting outfitted for his journey. Okay but how long should they wait? Would he be back in a few days? Weeks seal thought about it maybe a bit longer. He didn't want them leaving without him by accident. How about two years? The captain wasn't quite believing what he was hearing two years like we have families back home. What are you worried is going to happen? You captured and end up in a dungeon or something seal gasp. He hadn't even thought of that. He would need time to slowly work his way up in the prison hierarchy in order to organize an escape better for three years. You always thinking ahead. That's why your the captain. Ceelo left speechless sailors and ventured off into the woods. He wasn't quite sure what his destination was so it didn't really matter where he was going. He had an provision for a few weeks a sort he had only used in training with his father's guards and no idea what he was going to do or where he was going to go. The should go. Well just then hear the sound of something. Someone rushing toward him in the forest. He drew his sword. His adventure started now. The man dressed in all white approached him and dropped to his knees. Sealers smirked. Smugly I battle one. So should he killed a man now or the man though was Kissing Silas feet. Same thank you thank you thank you see. The said that he probably didn't do anything. We're thinking that much. What was going on? The man laughed. Yeah most people don't expect the dead derise. The princess sailor sure didn't when they pried open the coffin to give him a proper burial but if the prince didn't rescue him from the ocean he would have been stuck floating there in the water forever. Seila introduced himself and said it was nothing. It was what he would want someone to do if he were floating on the waves but the man was alive. How the stranger in his mid forties dressed in all white look to the ground he was not alive not truly he was a wizard. Seila. His name was vodka. He came from a different time and his own mother. She said he was an abomination. A threat to mankind because of his magic of she said this after her men ambushed him and stuffed them in a stone coffin. Has He laid their suffocating. In the dark feeling the waves pull him farther from home. He knew what he had to do. Before death took him he preserved his last bit of life he would live and then has the minutes turn to hours and the hours turn to days. He realized just how disastrous that decision had been. He lost track of time floating there in the waves drifting in the dark. He couldn't die until he gave away that spark of life but he couldn't live. You couldn't move more than a few inches. Sweet floated there in that limited allstate waiting for someone anyone to save him and Seila saved him that one basic kindness has saved a vodkas life and he will forever be in the prince's debt. Giving Ceelo all the help that was in his power to give. He almost started the question but he asked. If a certain Ma'am was still deserve Russia. Seila grimace that was his great grandfather. It looked like a varsha trapped in that coffin for over one hundred years. Ivanka swallowed hard one hundred years his wife his father all of his friends dead he nodded. There's work to be done me at a debt to repay. Now he was back in the world he could see things. A lot had changed but there was still a family near here. Interesting of Oshkosh. Trailed off and still had to rouse him from thought he blinked. Did SEILA WANNA get married? Princess Trudeau was beautiful and Santa more. Yes Seila said point me in the direction of her castle. He gestured with a sword. Wizard Mentor and now. He was seeking a beautiful princesses hand. Now this was a quest.
"seila" Discussed on Myths and Legends
"Does our sat down. What does youngest son? So you WANNA go out there fight monsters and see the world like your two older brothers. The young man grinned more than anything desire to get deep breath. Look when I was a kid I love the patriarchal system or firstborns get to be the king with no qualifications whatsoever. I was all about it now that I'm on the other side of it though. Oh so many problems like think about it. I'm supposed to hand off my kingdom to someone who has never had to work for anything ever and just hope everything works out for the best and I was one of the lucky ones. I had three sons and I had one who is smart hardworking wise and most importantly good empathetic you brothers. The ones that outranked you for the Throne. Have all left. Non-dangerous quests who knows when they're GonNa Return noticed the wink look bizarre continued. I know you WANNA go out there and win. Glory and all that stuff. That doesn't really matter but slog legends. They're brutal. There's a woman who lives in a house on chicken legs. Who if you manage to escape her house without being alive you'll come back with a magic skull that will set me on fire? You don't want that I certainly don't or maybe you want to go up against the crazy. Evil Wizard who rides around the countryside naked and is known for his inability to die. Look you're a good kid? You have nothing approved and you don't need to follow the paths of your brothers. The conversation being over the czar rose but the conversation wasn't over not forsee la the youngest son he grew up on the stories of old the Prince Ivan and the firebird Prince Ivan and Vassileva or Prince Ivan and. Bulat the brave. Wow somebody at some point you pick a different name for a protagonist but the lesson remained the same. Seila had leave to know. He was worth his position so he got things. Ready and secret commissioned to ship picked his bags and on the morning of his departure when he was gonNA set out in the world to fight all manner of monsters which is nude wizards. He found his father standing in front of the ship does our had his ways of finding things out and he knew his son was leaving. But when seal vowed that he would leave with or without his permission whether on a ship on horseback on foot czar side having a child that was smart driven relentless in the pursuit of his goals was a double edged sword and as I could see that he had lost this battle even before it began. His son was his own person and be who he was going to be. In the best thing he could do was just get on board and support him as much as possible but not literally get onboard. The ship he still had kingdom to run so the czar side and stepped out of the way provisioning the ship even more and telling the sun that when he had found what he needed to find out there to. Please come home. There will be a kingdom.
"seila" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"The actor the Senate's use me to remove the officer in question and without that consent the president had absolutely no power at all. Humphrey's executor involves a situation in which the Congress or even the Senate has no role whatsoever once the statute was enacted and by the way signed by the president. In this case Obama into law and the only restriction is that the president may not fire the director at will but must have some good reason for doing so and I think that this is an area where the court has said when we have limitations on presidential powers case called Nixon against GSA involving the residents of authority over his papers and Morrison against Olsen involving the independent counsel where the restrictions do not go to significantly impair the president's constitutional authorities then those limitations by Congress in a statute or constitutional. So here. It's not as though the president cannot remove the director at all. It's at the president has to have good reasons for doing so. And just because the president doesn't like the policies or wants to replace the current director with one of his political favorites That's not sufficient reason that seems to be to be the kind of limited restriction that Supreme Court has authorized in other contexts. When Congress makes that determination that it's necessary in order to achieve other ends in the statute in this case assuring a significant vigorous regulation of the Financial Services Industry for the benefit of consumers. Let me take you to a place where I don't think you want to go but let me try to. I'M GONNA make you go there Allen and that is you lose that argument to you lose on standing and case or controversy and the core could clues that the statute is unconstitutional. The court teed up another issue that had not been teed up originally by the parties namely so what? What's the remedy? What happens next? Do you have an opinion on that? Well I yes I do. And it's that that The restrictions on removal would be held to be unconstitutional but that the rest of the powers of the agency would go forward as the solicitor. General makes clear in his reply brief. The creation of this agency was very very important to Congress and at the time President Obama and the notion that if they knew that it was unconstitutional to have restrictions on removal that they would have not simply not created the agency but they would have wanted everything to go back to. It was before almost all of these powers of given to the CFP were powers that were dispersed in other agencies in the government and then they were made more specific and given greater potency The notion that Congress would want that entire creation to be unraveled and people sent back to agencies which they either never were or haven't been in a number of years seems to be that the government is plainly. Right that there this was intended to be several of the Supreme Court has made it clear in a number of cases that If there's an unconstitutional provisions it does not destroy the entire statute unless I believe the court has said it's clear that Congress would not have wanted to save the parts that were constitutional without the parts. That were unconstitutional. So there's clear several ability language as a little. There's several of the I believe it's in the entire bill But but the not in the particular title in which this is found so the seal argues. Well THEY THEY. They only met that if the if the CFP were unconstitutional wouldn't bring down the entire rest of dodd-frank which is an even more extreme position. A but I I think that even the absence or presence of ever ability clause has has the court said. Never been dispositive on this issue. Okay all right. We're Drawn to the end of our Podcast and Obviously You know you you you have. I think a as I mentioned earlier. A compelling argument to be made I think on a standing and and Tila lesser extent case or controversy. But I think they're both pretty good arguments and you know as I thought about the this case. I originally my knee jerk reaction when I heard the Supreme Court granted cert was all. They're going to do justice. Cavenaugh did his. They're gonNA follow his dissent in the P. H. Case they're gonNA find it's unconstitutional and then they're going to sever however the more I think about it. I think there was a pretty good chance. It could be unanimous opinion. Where the all the justice get together and pump the case. Either say that cert- was improperly granted. I don't think they'll do that either. Because it'll just another case I love right there but that Probably all the justices could get together and might be able to gas. Probably the only part of the case where there might be unanimity of opinion. That do you agree that you think it could be nine nothing on that. But I I. I only wish that you had a vote on this case That would be very helpful Second as I say often when I'm asked about these things I'm a litigator not a bookmaker and the odds of nine and nothing are not all that great. It's certainly possible of the the people who want to stain. The limits on removal would vote for any way not to avoid the merits and ironically the people on the other side that is would most tend to favor. The president are the strictest on the question of standing case or controversy and so appealing to that side of their Jurisprudential Mode. Maybe we've got the votes on that on that side. It's also an election year and this would be a very explosive issue on top of all the other issues the court has got and and I think it's right. I think our basic principle of we should not we. The court should not decide constitutional questions unless they're absolutely necessary should prevail here If the president and by the way the next president may say you know maybe that's right but I think that on balance the country is better off with the president not being able to fire people because after all if I put my people in now the next president could fire my people and I I would just as soon have them stay and having this kind of stability is better for the government as a whole. That's why Congress put it in there and I think that Congress has judgment on what's a fair tradeoff ought to be honored so they may never have to decide this. This question among other reasons because of many director of this agency if asked by the president to resign new president comes in rather than go through a big fight and a lawsuit and worry about getting paid not getting paid and looking petty does say all right. I'll I'll resign and you can replace me and guess what the country will go on without having a firm resolution of this constitutional question unless it's absolutely necessary Of course I know. You're not a a politician either Allen but in a way I was hoping that the outcome of this case might result in The Republicans and the Democrats getting together to amend the relevant provisions of dodd-frank to create a five member commission making it similar to the FTC But I rather doubt whether Whatever they might do here could result I it could end up with that result. I know I read in maybe one of the amicus. Briefs that Somebody argued that the court ought ought to find it unconstitutional. And then not decide on the remedy but give Congress appeared of six months to amend the statute to make constitutional and people were thinking that might be the thing that resulted in Congress. Going back to the five member commission that originally was in the house. Bill of Dodd Frank and that Elizabeth Warren supported. But do you have any view on that before we wrap things up till I have two observations on that I if the president had been interested in having a meaningful five member commission he had the power to get that through the House and the Senate in the first two years of his presidency and no one even propose that let alone try to enacted second? I doubt that this Congress can't agree on anything of significance these days. They're paralyzed except for cutting taxes and passing a blow through the roof budget and flashed is. That doesn't the problem because after all if seal is right that everything is void of. What's going to happen to everything that's happened before now? And what's the agency going to do for the next six months until Congress may be decide something and remember we're going to have an election This will come down in June. We're having election November. Does anybody really think the congress is going to do anything? And and then we're talking about a new Congress and maybe a new president of the same president That is a recipe for the ultimate disaster Leaving it to Congress in this situation is the worst kind of punt And I certainly hope the court doesn't do that right. Okay well Alan Will very much look forward to the oral argument and in particular The decision of the court. Which will we know? We'll have by the end of June when they convene for their summer recess. So thank you very.
"seila" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"And it was now issued with a director who who concedes that. She is Because she was appointed by this President. Removable at will. Would anything be any different? And I think the answer is clearly not and it's only because the CFP has not to withdraw the prior Demand issue another one that we even have this case in court. So I I guess unless the court is prepared to say that Anything that the CFP did is void illegal and of no force and effect from the beginning. I doubt that the court will buy the void argument. Okay Let me ask you another question that I gleaned from reading some of the reply briefs. You seem to argue that because only the president can be injured by the removal provision to the extent it limits his ability to faithfully execute the law. Only the president can set up a case in which the constitutionality of the provision is challenge such as by firing director cramming. Or how do you respond to Ceelo Laws? Argument which is made in response to Paul Laments. Right does argument that a private party has the right to raise separation of powers issues because such structural principles not only protect the president but also protect individuals and in fact every action taken by an unconstitutionally structured agency. I would begin by agreeing. In part that separation of powers principles are not meant just to protect other participants in the government? In this case. The president That argument was made and rejected in a case. I argued I N S V Chara involving the legislative veto. And it's clear that with respect to the proper appointment private parties have the right to object. That's a separation of powers kind kind of issue. A bad in a situation in which Example the Congress stepped in as did in a case involving. The Washington Metropolitan Area Airports Authority and tried to run the airport by by use of of congressional delay tactics. Spring Court said no private parties have the right to object to that but those provisions are there to assure that properly. Appointed officials are carrying out the law. This is the back end. This is a prevision which by the way there is nothing in the constitution giving the president the power to remove officers to begin with but everybody agrees that the president has that power yet. Nobody believes that that power is there to protect private parties. Except obviously CEELO think so here and it's all about it if you read the merits portions of the brief about the power of the president's to do this the power the president to execute the laws the notion that the power of the executive branch is vested in the president. None of those are injuries or writes that in any way have to do with private parties so a it would be a big stretch. I think to say that private parties have these rights. I guess I should also disclose to the audience that this standing argument was not made in several recent cases in which the court did reach the merits of removal restrictions. And the court could would have to say that Those cases are are distinguishable because they also involved appointments or the court could also say well we didn't that was a drive-by jurisdictional ruling. Nobody raise the issue now that somebody raises the issue. We have to face the question of whether private parties can and invoke a part of the constitution that is beneficial primarily if not exclusively to the president right. Well Let. Let's turn now Alan to the second issue that You mentioned namely is there a case or controversy that is a requirement under the constitution That cords don't give advisory opinions and you argue that there's no actual controversy here because the parties namely CEELO law and the government agree on the merits of the constitutional question. They both agree that the statute or this particular part of the statute is unconstitutional. So how do you respond to seal a laws argument? That's made in response to Paul. Clements moutainous argument that there is still controversy because the CFP be while acknowledging that the statutes unconstitutional it hasn't withdrawn the C. Ide- it's going full steam ahead to try to in connection with its investigation of CEELO law. How do you reconcile that? Well I think we reconciled in this way that this is entirely within the control of the CFPB. Now they could withdraw that. Cid Tomorrow and issue a new one instead in which the with the director who now concedes that she may be removed without a cause and the chosen not to do that. they you. They have in essence setup a case it's just as if the president went to court and said. I wanted to clarify Tori judgment that I can fire. The the director at will in a case called rains against bird the supreme court was faced with the kind of the opposite situation in which a member of Congress went to court seeking to declare the LEGISLA. The line item veto unconstitutional. The court said that the members of Congress had no standing because they would be in effect asking for an advisory opinion and in that very case the court said it similarly the president could not ask for an advisory opinion which is in essence. What he's he's doing here. I also cited my brief a case from just a few years ago called United States Against Windsor. That was the case involving the defense of marriage. Act in which the claim was that the plaintiff in that case had paid three hundred fifty thousand dollars or so in a state tax because the statute did not denied rather The marital exemption in the estate tax for same sex married couples while granting it to opposite sex married couples the government originally defended the action In a similar case and then switch positions and by the time the case got to the Supreme Court the Government is one hundred percent aligned on the merits with the plaintiff of and the Supreme Court. Ask for it. A meekest to argue the case that there was no case or controversy and the case could not be decided because of the agreement between the parties the House of Representatives who ironically somewhat was represented in that case by. Paul Clement had intervened in the District Court to argue that the statute was constitutional. The court by a vote of six to three decided that it had a sufficient case or controversy to reach the merits although the similar case arising from California's prop eight. The court said it did not have sufficient case of controversy. Because in that case the governor and the Attorney General agreed that they propagate was unconstitutional. Those cases are very similar to this one. And while in Windsor the Doma case there was a very pragmatic considerations involved. There were eleven hundred. Federal Statutes affected by. Doma was no other way that the case could be decided if the court had not reached the merits and all the parties asked the court to reach the merits. And so and even in that case it was a vote of six three one of the votes in favor of it was by a Justice Alito. Who said it was alright because the house had become an intervening party. There IS NO INTERVENING PARTY. Here in this case so And by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas Join Justice Scalia's opinion on the lack of case or controversy And and I think that given the readily easel easy way for the president to get this issue decided The courts say no. We're not going to decide this case. And whether they refuse on standing or case a controversy grounds we are not going to a in effect Decide a friendly lawsuit. Yeah I mean your legal arguments I think are quite compelling Allen but there's a practical issue that I find troubling and that is that I mean we know that president trump is not going to try to remove Kathy Kranenburg. He appointed her and he appointed her probably because he knew that she would run the agency the way he would like the agency to be rung. So he's not GonNa do it Now I suppose if we have a Democratic president that gets elected in November that Come after he or she gets sworn in At that point that president might try to remove Kathy Kranenburg but I would guess based on what Kathy chroniclers already said namely that she believes that she can be removed at any time by the president. I doubt if she's going to change her mind when it's a Democratic president there I don't think and so it's got to be very hard to get this case litigated. I think It would've it may have been I agree with your point that while Cordray's serve for ten months While trump was in office and he considered removing Cordray but he never did and could have done it. But that's sort of that's water over the dam but looking forward we have all these challenges that have been made in the context of I think practically every enforcement preceding that the CFPB. Pb has been involved in Sense Kathy Kranenburg has become director This constitutional issues raised all the time. Don't you think they'll be some sort of Feeling on the part of the cord call it a practical concern that maybe we ought to get to the merits and and move on well. I'm sure there are some people who will argue that. We want this constitutional issues decided but I refer you to justice. Scalia his dissenting opinion in the Doma case in which he makes it very clear that that's not the job of the courts to decide cases unless they have to decide them especially momentous constitutional issues. Like this but you know maybe even there are other agencies headed by single members Social Security Administration is one of the the the Federal Housing Agency is is another. Maybe the president could find another person to fire there. In addition as I think you may know the arguments in this case are a that. The case of humphries executors involving the Federal Trade Commission is distinguishable in in the for cause removal there because it was a multi member agency. But even if it's not distinguishable those cases argues the government and Seila are wrong and they should be overruled. And if the president wants to fire somebody. He's got plenty of hold-overs of Democrats in multi member agencies around the government. And if he wants to fire somebody enough to pick a fight about that he can do that Indeed one of my arguments on the standing argument is that if CEELO law has standing here so does every single person organization company. That's been affected by any order of the SEC the FTC the NLRB The Federal Communications Commission the Federal Election Commission. If it ever issues any other orders and any other multi member agency with four. 'cause removals anyone can challenge any action on that grounds and everybody under seal. Us Theory would have standing. I think that ought to be a pretty scary notion for the court to allow that kind of standing to go forward but if they believe that they have standing and they believe that the law should be interpreted that way. The president does have other opportunities. But you know this is not a debating society this is the Supreme Court of the United States. And it's not supposed to decide hard questions of major constitutional importance unless they're DESA. -sarily presented a necessary to be decision. Okay so I if it turns out that the court disagrees with you on standing in case a controversy and it gets to the merits I understand your position. Is that the statute as written is constitutional right at correct. Although my brief does not focus on that particular issue right right but I agree with that proposition and you base that. On the case you referred to Morrison's estate Humphry. Stay Humphries Humphries. Yeah yes What was involved in that? Case cases from nineteen thirty five involve President Roosevelt's a decision. To Fire Mr Humphries as a member of the Federal Trade Commission the Federal Trade Commission had similar restrictions on route to what's involved here and President Roosevelt said. He wanted somebody else who was more in line with his views. Humphries was fired. He passed away. His estate sued for money. Damages and the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that. The limits on the power of the president to remove in that case in that statute were constitutional. And that is the that and some other cases as well In which the court upheld limitations on removal that would the house and poke lament argue in their briefs are strong support for The restrictions here. So you don't buy the distinction that is made by Ceelo law and the CFP to the effect that they FTC was a or is a five member commission. It was a five member commission. At the time that Humphries State Was decided here. We're talking and IT'S A. It's a bipartisan commission. where you know where the argument goes that Things cannot be done by one individual by fee out It it takes. It takes a village. You've gotta get all five commissioners you don't have to get them all agree but you gotta get three of them to agree and that makes it different than the situation here where you have one individual who basically can do whatever he or she wants to do subject to laws of course but yes Well I guess the first question is where is that distinction in the Constitution and the answer is no place second The court has recognized that the original case on which the Solicitor General Steel rely case called Myers against the United States in which there was a very very long opinion by former president and chief justice. William Howard Taft in which he upheld upheld the president's firing in that case a but the important point about that case as the springboard is recognized subsequently is that the limitation there was that the president had to get the approval of Congress..
"seila" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"And if you like our podcast please let us know about it You can leave as review on Apple. Podcast Google play or whatever other platform. You use for your podcast. So let's turn to today's subject and it's a timely indeed Today I am very pleased to be joined by professor. Alan Morrison Allen is Associate Dean at the George Washington University Law School where he teaches constitutional law and civil procedure. He has extensive litigation experience in the field of separation of powers. Which is the subject of what we're going to be talking about today. That is we're going to once again. I really on the eve of the oral argument in the. Us Supreme Court in the seal log case. We're GONNA DELVE INTO THAT. Case and ED by the end of the PODCAST Hopefully you all have a better idea of what you think. The court may do to resolve the case. First of all. Let me welcome you. Professor Morrison. And if you don't mind we'll call you Allen says I can call you Allen you can call me Alan. Okay good and we're going to confuse our audience today with two Allen's On the show okay So let's do a little bit a level setting here for those in our audience Allen who may not be as familiar with the seal a law case as certainly you and I are so tell us what that case What the issue is and what the procedural history in the posture today. Well it's a little bit of a wind up so let me go back to the Dodd Frank. Act in two thousand and ten in which The congress was trying to deal with problems arising out of the great recession. And as part of the Dodd Frank Act Congress enacted an idea that was now senator Elizabeth Warren's brainchild to consolidate all the financial services regulation of consumer financial matters into a single agency the House of Representatives originally put that into the bill and had it as a multi member agency that it was headed by. I believe three individuals all appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate subject to removal. Only for 'cause when the matter got to the House we got to the Senate. The Senate changed the form of the Agency. But not its mission. It turned it into a single member agency headed by director also appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate and also subject to removal only for cause in addition the financing for this agency was set so that the money came directly from the Prophets of the Federal Reserve System in Congress. Didn't have anything to do with it. And it had very few other limitations on the ability of the director to carry out the mission in other words. Caguas wanted this job done. They wanted a financial regulator not tied to the banking industry who would regulate on behalf of consumers. This idea was subject to a lot of criticism not specially at the time of the legislation but as soon as the law was passed and people started to realize that there was going to be a new tiger in town that would becoming after a financial institutions in ways that had not happened before and shortly thereafter various challenges were were brought to actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as it came to be known and one of those cases went to the DC circuit now justice and then judge. Cavanaugh was one of the dissenters who believe that the arrangement for the organization was unconstitutional. And I'll get to that in just in just a minute. That case did not go to the Supreme Court But meanwhile other cases were winding their way through the court including now Seila Law Seattle began with a demand by the CFP. Be as it's known for certain records and certain other information and a seal. Aw gave them some. But then resisted and so the CFP be went to court in the CA- in California a federal court to enforce their demand and seal objected on among other reasons on the grounds that the agency was unconstitutional. There are two aspects of potential agency unconstitutionality. A here a one of which is not in the case which is a fairly common challenge and that is to the appointment of the appointments clause of the constitution sets up principal officers and inferior officers and then below them our employees and there has been a fair amount of litigation over the status of those officers. Everybody agrees that the director here is a principal officer and that he now a she was properly appointed what the dispute is about. And this is the issue before the court is whether the limits on the ability of the president to remove the director except for cause is unconstitutional restriction on the power of the president. When the case was filed in the District Court the Bureau was allowed by statute to represent itself and it defended the constitutional challenge on the merits. When the case got to the Court of Appeals it agreed and the night circuit agreed that the law was constitutional largely relying on the DC circuit case. That upheld it over a divided. Vote a seal. Aw then filed a petition for Sharara and after taking an extension the government came in now represented not by the bureau but by the Solicitor General on behalf of the president who said that the restriction on the removal was unconstitutional as a limitation on the power. The president to take care of the laws be faithfully executed at this point in the briefing. The government suggested that the court appoint a an make us to argue in favor of the constitutionality as soon as that happened. The House of Representatives filed a motion for leave to follow NECAS. Brief out of time saying it would defend the constitutionality and I filed amicus brief at that stage arguing first that because of the agreement between the parties on the merits there was no active. Case or controversy in the court should not decide the case and in addition that brief argued that the seal law had no standing to object to restrictions on the power the president that only the president could act and that the proper way to get that issue before the court was the president to fire somebody in this case the director of Seila and if that person contested as it happened in two earlier cases then the president could have his case. Controversy in the court could decide the case properly. The court has now appointed an meekest. Paul Clement a former solicitor general and one of the top advocates in the Supreme Court to defend the law I filed an additional brief amplify my prior arguments at the merits stage and the House of Representatives has also come in to defend the case both the House and Park lament have argued that there is no standing here. The case is not in the proper posture for this challenge and they urged the court not to reach the merits of they do not embrace my somewhat larger argument that there's no case or controversy In this case as well so that's where we stand and the argument is all set for the third of March right Okay Thank you Excellent job in Succinctly summarized in where we are today wasn't I'm sorry it wasn't more succinct but there's a lot of procedural steps that. Oh Yeah Yeah. There's certainly is so Let's dig a little deeper into Into the case and let's focus first on standing And your argument And the argument that Paul Clement has made that. The House is made that there is no standing and I like you to explain that in more detail. Sure the law standing which is in particularly in this court a quite restrictive law that is it generally does not a wide ranging set of issues that allowed people to challenge actions by the government focuses on whether there has been an injury to the plaintiff from the unlawful or unconstitutional. Act of the of the defendant in this case. The director usually comes up. This case is a little bit odd because the standing issue arises with respect to a defense that has been raised by Seila law a Nazia laws original claim and the argument is very simply that a person is not entitled to rely on a constitutional defect here the method of removal of the director unless that person is injured by that constitutional defects and in our view. The only person who is harmed by that restriction is the president of the United States and that Seila law has can show no connection between the harm suffered by the president and any harm that hit. It has suffered in the in this case. This is not a case in which they're claiming director was not properly appointed. See Look concedes that the director was properly appointed and that would be a claim for which it has standing but we argue that the court only has standing in a case in which someone has been fired and the president argues that the firing was lawful and the president of the employees or the officer argues that it was unlawful because the statutory restriction the president then counters and says that restriction is unconstitutional among other things. Of course it assures us that we have all the facts and circumstances of the firing to see whether in fact there might have been caused whether it otherwise complied with the statute and we honor the principle of constitutional avoidance which is that we courts especially the US Supreme Court should not decide cases if there are adequate other means of deciding them That do not raise a standing problems such as we have here. Okay so Let me let me push back a little bit. Alan on that So you argue. Seila law doesn't have any standing to challenge the removal provision because it hasn't suffered an injury resulting from the fact that the director couldn't could be couldn't be removed at will by the president. How do you respond to seal a laws argument that it did suffer such an injury because any action taken by an unaccountable director was void? And it doesn't have to show that a hypothetical accountable director would have taken a different action. Well one of the things about sealers. Brief I it's only in their reply. Brief that you find that and by the way the government doesn't say that seal is that the CFP B.'s. Actions were void governments. Very careful not to say that but void is a very capricious term and. I don't think that everything that the director has done since. The beginning of time is unconstitutional. And therefore no matter whether anybody objected or not No matter what the action was that because there is this defect in the removal provision. That everything that's happened is illegal. That's a very far out position and I don't believe it's warranted. The court has been very careful in other contexts to be sure to not use the term void except the most extreme cases. And it's hard to imagine that that this action has been taken is void in the sense that the court has used it I think what they're doing is they're saying well yes. We can't show any connection but we don't have to show any connection and I don't think that the courts requirements of traceability and redress ability are met understanding doctrine in this case either and that the injury is only to the president. A perhaps it'd be better better example. Suppose that today of the CFP be withdrew the.
"seila" Discussed on Cal's Week in Review
"Klebb. Seila numani. Can you believe I write this stuff for myself? I can't make it harder. Anyway. All the plants tested, white oak, tulip, poplar, and the devil's walking stick or shown being Hibbitt the growth of all three bacteria while the plant in kill the bacteria. They did make them more susceptible to antibiotics. Researchers found that the use of these plants as a topical treatment likely save some lives then and could potentially help do. So now, just now the reason to keep her woods and waters healthy moving up starting now. The real interesting quick, hitter, Boone, and Crockett club, just recognized or ram taken from hells canyon, three years ago as the biggest ever killed Naito, but the state of Idaho is refusing to recognize it as an official state record. This. Be too surprising because there always seems to be some tension around records where the issue is juror comes from is the fact that the hundreds of member of the nez, perce tribe, and was hunting on a treaty. Right. Not with an idea of g issued lottery, tag, the hunter who killed the ram in question has been hunting bighorns in hells canyon since the mid seventies in his killed ten rant nine of those ranks has trophies by Boonen Crockett standards, this last one landing at number twenty six all time, the Boone and Crockett club has no problem entering this ram into the record book. It will be interesting to see if Idaho fish and game changes tune. I personally wouldn't mind if they did records, are made to be broken. Coming out. We've got tasty songbirds pigs invading from the north some monkey-business, bad news black bears and sharks. But I I'm gonna tell you about my, we took advantage of the long weekend to drive seven hours, without leaving the state of Montana medical, some friends to attempt. To fresh water, spear fishing expedition to four-pack reservoir. If you've never heard a four-pack that's fine. But you should know is the fifth largest man made lake in the US and sports. More coastline than the state in California on top of that for held. The title is the world's largest earth dam until the late seventies. That's not ringing a bell. You may wanna reference grandad's pile allies, magazines, the dam spillway, made the cover back in nineteen thirty nine the amount of effort that went into the structure in a place that many would call the middle of nowhere is just amazing. However, you may never go to four-pack as I didn't catch or Spearfish fifty degree water full sediment, de produce much opportunity. And as my buddy, Matt Grenell will tell you the fishing is always slow. And if you were to ask him about the just general recreational boating virginity on fort pack. He may respond with the pecker can get a bit choppy. That's a reference to eastern Montana wind and four-pack wave action. Of course, keep mind despite the rough roads series lack infrastructure. I think it's a beautiful spot, and you probably want to take information from large man with the small corgi under his arm with a grain of salt anyway. Moving off folks in Vermont or enamored with a Donut loving bear, I was naive enough to hope that the in question that taken advantage of a dumpster behind us semi-rural Donut shop that sadly being my best case scenario, this female black bear. Ursus American is on the slow train to euthanasia conducted by us people joke, Malian, the Latin name contains both America and anus kind of almost as, if our coddling of wildlife is making an asset of our critters. I'll admit I've got a soft spot for the American black bear. I found the black bear them often. Underrated, but amazing critter. Walk. Fortunately or not. They can make a good living. And what we call the urban interface there Lia where trees grass and solitude collide with pavement in parked cars. This is where the black bear fines trouble in the form of garbage cans, bird feeders, and as in Vermont intentional and deliberate feeding this type of human behavior. Frequently leads today bears as bears make the connection between people and easy meals are tolerance for these urban encounters go down one broken bird. Feeder was a neat way to observe a bear, but not too broken bird feeders or as sometimes happens, a blackberry. Your garage going through your stuff or maybe in your actual home. According to two thousand fifteen study released by US fish and wildlife. The American black bears. The most abundant bear species on plant populations currently at their highest level in the past one hundred years with the North American population estimated at about seven hundred thousand eight hundred thousand as humans expand into bear habitat more. Conflicts arise, a huge factor in what becomes a problem here is human indifference, and then human perception, simply put if a bear keeps knocking over a bird, feeder, or trash him feeder trash Cam needs to be removed. Not refilled, if seeing bare in the backyard or on your street is reported as threatening not just a bear on the move. That bear could be lethally removed or killed as us heathens scholar in Colorado. A woman was bitten by a black bear while hiking near ask the details aren't real deep on this one yet. But from the sounds of it the hiker and her husband were being respectful of the bear by moving off the trail as the bear came through as the bear past came in and bit the woman on the side, then apparently went about its day. The bears reported to be two hundred to three hundred pounds and the hiker is on harmed before I go on I do wanna point out. This is the same state. That the trail runner, mountain lion attack came out. We talked about that one of the week in review that cat was initially reported by news outlets as one hundred plus pound mount line later, it turned into a twenty four pound outline kitten, I make this point because there is no need for exaggeration when it comes to animal attacks as wild animals can do serious damage it any size even as juvenile's a two hundred to three hundred pound black bear, like we have in this case is not a juvenile animal and mates for very serious. Encounter. Colorado parks and wildlife have called in US Wildlife Services to help trap and kill the bear as the bears demonstrated aggressive behavior. I don't wanna seem like I'm overly protective as I love to eat these bears and one mind. Nice black bear to throw over the back of the couch even, but I obviously have some questions here like how, how is this lady on hard? If that part's true, I've had. Much smaller yellow labs in this bear with much harder mouths, if our hiker who, again, appears to have tried to keep a respectful distance. Didn't get hard. It seems as if this bear demonstrated incredible restraint, and don't you hike in the woods for a bit of that? Who knows what the heck could happen type of feeling for comparison in Yellowstone, National part, our last grizzly bear caused hiker death was August of two thousand fifteen in this incident. It was determined that the bear attack couple hiking, because they were too close to her and her cubs. The husband took the attack, while the wife went on hard Yellowstone National Park officials decided that in this case, the humans were at fault. The Sal and cubs reacted in a natural way. And we're left to continue being grizzlies in one case you have a bear, that kills a man another a bear that bites woman in a way that leaves around hard and the case, the human death, the baron her younger allowed to go about their lives. The case of the bite and round trained professionals or attempting to trap and. Kill the bear. There are some differences national part. I national forest maybe proximity to town, the similarities, however, are humans bumping into bears, just being bears, moving on, scientists from Germany recently discovered up particular band of chimpanzees and Gabon. They have adapted a unique eating habit. Smashing tortoises against trees, and scooping up me. These findings may promote new fields of study regarding distinctive subcultures of primates their use of tools and ability to pass those skills down to future generations, but it's also just straight up fascinating and probably a bit more gruesome than many great ape levers can handle one of the authors of this study. Tobias DeShaun or had this to say they see this as a hard shell object with some interesting thing inside and need to crack it open and other monkey news..
"seila" Discussed on Data Engineering Podcast
"It's multiplexing all of those through one till s connection that hits the gateway basically. So you need to find a place for that gateway that. Has ingress from where the client needs to go, and then has a accessibility to ultimately to the target data stores. So a common place to put that might be adjacent to whatever bastion or jump host. You have on your network put our gateway there, if you had an interior sub net, you could have another hop you'd have relay so you can actually chain these proxies together, Charlie deep, and once you've got that set up. It's just a matter of importing data source definition. So you do that through Seila. You can do bulk import if you have hundreds or thousands of databases you can just click around in the interface at it. And then really just in a few minutes, you can be you know, if you've got a single on in place than whom your your whole team can be on the can be clicking publicity versus dropdown. They can click on the data source. They know in love and use every day and and they're off to the races. And in the beginning of building this product and embarking on the process of building a company around it. There There are are certain. certain set of a sumptiousness that you have in mind that you are looking to fulfill and in the process of building the product and growing the company and interacting with your customers. I'm curious which of those have been disproven, and which have held true in your overall journey through building this company. Sure, I I definitely have an answer for that. And it's actually I'm not sure if it's I'm not sure if it's been disproven or if it's held true. I think maybe they're both sides of the same coin. And that is a net is about what data stores people actually tend to use. So I feel like a few years ago. We had a really interesting bloom of innovation in industry. So we had a lot of new open source databases. That were created some hybrid open source in some pure commercial new data stores that were created. And I feel like a, you know, starting to shake out now, and we know which ones are sort of long long-term, which ones were maybe experiments that that that ended. But when when all say is at the time that we were founding the company it wasn't clear how much staying power, I guess, really the traditional our usual suspects would have. So it turns out post grass isn't going away. And it turns out. There's still a lot of reasons to use my SQL as well. You know at the same time. It also turns out that like there are a lot of shops out there that continue to love their mcso sequel server, there are certainly more modern dinosaurs. That are that are heavily in use depending on their degree of specialization. They might be in use for a specialized part of the business model in perhaps the data converges onto something that that has a more traditional data model..
"seila" Discussed on Relevant Podcast
"If you listen to last Wednesday's episode, which if you didn't all Corriere references would be very much over your head. So please go back. Listen to talking about kind of odd quote, unquote, celebrity sightings that we've seen in real life. You know, I live here in Orlando. I talked about seeing Chris Kirkpatrick. Gene short, sedimentary Gulf place and an amendment Motown at the gas station and carrot top writing his Vespa around Winterpark as he does as he does in a tank top completely orange with Eddie saw the guy from police academy at the grocery store, Winslow eating breakfast or something. You know. Anne's in Nashville, just riddled with Seila celebrities. You know the talk of the town here with here in lover. Land was. Yeah. This weekend? I was. I was at the gym at one point, people are people were buzz and they're like, hey, did you hear who's at the cavalier who stay at the hotel right on? Like who? Kim and Konya. Cam the town for the push tea's wedding? Yeah, Trey, Songz kid Coty. Ferrall was the best and push got married, talk of the town talk to the Facebook to for some reason, I have friends that are around there. I guess that were part of the photography like the the photographer and the second shooter and all that stuff. And so I saw the pictures, it's amazing. Jesse's feels like a situation where like, I don't know, we might be staying in the hotel. Were number of NBA. Celebrities would be staying playing craps on night and instead of going down engaging or even seeing the famous players you choose to go to bed at nine thirty as this is to leave for the airport at four thirty beaches taming..
"seila" Discussed on KFC Radio
"So you know, it's our new series of excuses to drink what I'm gonna call it. That's what we should really just call the link like excuse to drink volume three. Because the idea was everyone go see this movie alone because that's, you know, another one of our initiatives and. We were going to do, like I said, do the podcast and then this and that, and then really will realize that we got together with a bunch of people from our podcast who liked to hang on drink, and we chitchatted here and there about the movie, but not really. A lot of people didn't go see now a lot of people I was like, so did you watch the movie? And they were like. Oh, I don't care. I was actually just asking you because I thought that was the gimmick. We could just drink. There was one girl who was like she was kind of standing there. There was there was one girl and we're talking to steal the shirt Detrick in Seattle, drastic park shirt on. Oh yeah. She drastic park shirt on the original cover and just said, clever girl. That is great. Seila shirt. That's very good. She did. She was standing in, you know, one of those bar circles, you know, circle breaks off and all of a sudden you find yourself in a little pow and I'm talking and we're all talking that can't happen in us. I know John said John goes, we need to other system. I've been separated for far too Long. John, we're working the room separately. It was. It was very uncomfortable. I was like, well, where's John people actually came up to me, they were. They said they were like, it's very clear that you would do have table socially. Somebody did say, like, I tried to go over to John his face with just buried in his phone. He was not. He was not looking to talk. It was and it. It's it's, it's true, but also I, it's very clear that you had. I'd had multiple people come to say that, but it was it'd be there was for the first half hour. We were there maybe fifteen twenty minutes I was. I was attacked because I lost you right away. I attached to will act you, are you gotta help me man. You know when they when they like when you're when you're like rescuing someone and they forced the person's rescuing to drown, they're flailing around like poor will was drowning. This sitting there in the corner too, so nervous and then I have to dreams. So weird. I know. I know we are the most like technically like outgoing people in the world based on what we do and drop you in a bar and it's like. Don't like this. I get nervous sometimes. I don't know. I wish I did just for anybody, whoever accuses us of like stick or whatever, like, no, this is John. On his really crippled over there on the corner crying over there. That's. That's. But anyway, this girl did. She was kind of standing there quiet and then like the the conversation lulled and she was like. We're talking about the movie the okay, if you know we, we can talk about it, but what I, what we realized is that people went to the movies alone and they came to the bar loan, which is something I didn't expect the unexpected group within it makes well, maybe I, it makes perfect sense..
"seila" Discussed on Omnibus
"And they had just never eaten a good carrot straight from the fields right to a little city market since they were kids because an american now we have these big woody carrots that stack and ship while they were just delighted to find a care of the tasted like their childhood carrot but they had to go across the world my brother for decades was an orchard est in in seila washington growing apples and cherries and pears and and back in the seventies you know you could pull a right prude off on one of those trees and take a bite of it in fall backwards onto the would literally kill you who'd be so good so good as someone people died so unlike anything you could buy you couldn't for any amount of money find an apple like that as far as i can tell but we also have the opposite issue where for our generation people grew up with the beginnings of this trend just eating the easily ship abol fruits which were all gross 'mushie red delicious apples for example delicious right it's a misnomer and whereas today we've discovered the food gm honey crisp and all these apples that are actually better than our machine childhood apples but not not as good as the like the originators the rhyme animals in all this thicket of fruits oh you were gonna say they all taste it about the same i think that's true i i mean i'm not a connoisseur either there's a real difference between a raspberry and blackberry sure but when you get into the the breeds of black band the multiplicity berry cultivars they're they're there does become kind of an anonymity like just a sort of general berry which is not unpleasant i like general berry i'll eat any berry i mean that's what sells i mean it's the same reason the tv and movies get dumbed down you know what appeals to the most people a super sweet super inoffensive tasting pleasant vary is going to sell better i had an experience recently.
"seila" Discussed on KKAT
"I guess i i dunno waving a bigot leaving a big at cain it's my choice on the press so if you had to choose between oprah and an roseanne who would you pick now i'm asking you that who would i pick on huh josh oprah or roseanne i dunno if i had to choose between those two you're right this kind of the lesser of two evils so i dunno i would go with roseanne on that one i probably would go through them amount if she can convince me that she was more towards the character of her show in the tv show roseanne i'd be i'd be about it i just think there's a lot of racial queues in a lot of unnecessary racial division within oprah candidate vary so you're actually go with oprah no i'm go with rows hagar is an okay interesting what about you what about um i think i'd have to go through an just because they can't stand the identity politics stephanie can't stand zucula now i just i don't know it would be a choice between at that'd be an insane choice if you had to choose their st what would you pay uh i'm grown with a third party march even that's what i'm gone let's not a choice you yet pit between you satisfies oprah or roseanne seila uh if i had to hear some one using their voice over the airwaves for four years i overs voices more soothing than roseanne's really yeah i would that's a threat is the true statement so you're going to go on that just alone on the in here i need your facts but for that yes now we're not giving you faxes this is a new era steve this is the nothing about substance you have to make a decision totally based on emotion road there's you know how murugan politics works gosh i think he did with the whole voice i can be like i can be convinced but i'm brought oprah now but i can be convinced so let's let's wait till let's wait till next year so seve just north oprah just for everybody to now he's in the democrat now to see hours going to get that out there have been at.
"seila" Discussed on KOMO
"And neighboring grech county burning six thousand acres and as a new fire at about six hundred acres burning outside of seila in yakoma county several people to the hospital after an apartment fire overnight in federal way here's komo's denise whitaker neighbor tells us they ended up hearing them mothers screams a family affects all trapped by follows him either he ran out garage got a medal mattis they just had the other guys to open the open though in the great when you're open in order to get that family at six that had been trapped out of the apartment between the neighbours in the dad they made it happened fire officials now tell us that all four children ages two two seven on their parents suffered theories smoke inhalation they are all now being treated by doctors at the hospital no word yet on what sort of that fire at the pavilion apartments of 1900s was campus drive in federal way the us senate delayed the vote other republican health care bill until after the fourth of july coach charlie harder says local hospital leaders are voicing their concerns about the measure republicans say they were elected on a platform to repeal and replace obamacare and that's exactly what they intend to do the pierre caused they're rising unsustainably and premiums are too expensive for many but providence saintjoseph healthy yo dr rod hoffmann says replacement bill in the senate would send his hospitals reeling he tells the puget sound business journal in an exclusive interview the plan would in his words basically eviscerate medicaid and cost his hosby beatles in washington four billion dollars over the next decade he says these eased cause for concern in says they would have to make plans for substantial cuts charlie harger komo news washington us senator patty murray on cnn said she's preparing now for a burst of backroom deals of the senate over the health reform bill having a period of a couple more days another will for this administration by offer full senators by having a pure twenty two perry who chaired compromise that will work for the american people senator patty murray once again speaking on cnn and fbi agents accused of lying about firing at robert lavoix finit come in 2016 with officers arrested leaders of.