35 Burst results for "Sonia Sotomayor"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June gross from Bloomberg radio. In a clash that pits the rights of same sex couples against free speech, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court appear ready to side with a website designer who says she has a free speech right to refuse to create websites for same sex weddings because of her Christian faith. Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor said that a decision allowing the designer to turn away same sex couples would be a first. This would be the first time in the court's history. Correct. That it would say that a business opened to the public, a commercial business open to the public serving the public that it could refuse to serve a customer. Based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. But several of the conservative justices focused on the designers stated intention to create customized wedding sites and the difference between businesses engaged in expression and one simply selling products. Here's just Brett Kavanaugh. How do you characterize website designers? Are they more like the restaurants and the jewelers and the tailors or are they more like the publishing houses and the other free speech analogs? My guest is constitutional law expert Michael dorff, a professor at Cornell law school. Under Colorado law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation. How is freedom of speech involved? So the petitioner argues that her web design business is inherently expressive because when clients come to her and say they want her to design a wedding website, she puts various creative efforts into it to fashion a, bespoke website and in so doing, she is creating speech, thus speaking, and if the government tells her she must create same sex wedding websites, it is forcing her to espouse a message, the tacit approval of same sex marriage that is inconsistent with her beliefs. Tell us how the justices responded to this claim. Some of them were skeptical of whether they're really was any expression at all here. I think justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most skeptical. She wanted to know how this is speech by Laurie Smith, the owner of the web design company, given that it's essentially for the couple, right? Part of the point is that it's not speech endorsing same sex marriage at all. It's simply saying things like, here's the date of the wedding. Here's the venue, your directions. Here's a registry. Here's how we met, et cetera. So there's skepticism that it's the web designers speech at all. And then there's a question of whether it's speech that endorses this particular message. So that's on one end. At the other end of the spectrum you had justice Alito and some of the other justices who seem to just accept that, of course, this is expressive and they gave some hypothetical examples where you pretty clearly would have expression, for example, if you had to put on the website, either the web designer believed that God blesses this marriage or even just God blesses this marriage. I think some of the justices had the view that there certainly is expression here and it could be understood as expression, endorsing same sex marriage and then the question is, does the state get to override that? Because they have a public accommodations law. There were a lot of questions and hypotheticals about discrimination due to race or disability. For example, what happens if an architect or a photographer whose work is expressive, refuses to work for black customers. I mean, right. None of those were answered sufficiently. I think that's right. So I think it's very tempting to want to go where David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU, went in a brief that the ACLU filed at a New York Times op-ed that he published under his own name, which is to say that none of these claims really should get off the ground. Of course, you have a right to free speech, but when you go out into the marketplace and offer your services, you're going to have to take some lumps because otherwise everybody in virtually any trade or craft is going to say that there's some expressive element, right? Think about a bartender. Sure, bartender just provides drinks, but we know that part of being a bartender is talking to the patrons at the bar and you might not want to engage in certain conversations with certain people because you'll have to express views that are polite and therefore could be taken as endorsing their lifestyle or whatever it is. So if the court goes down this road and wants to say, well, there's some occupations, some services, some goods that are more inherently expressive than others. It's going to have a lot of cases for a long time trying to draw those lines. Why do you think that justice is took this case over the rights of same sex couples at a time when there's so much concern that the court will reverse the right to same sex marriage just as it reversed the right to abortion? I mean, that's the reason for the same sex marriage bill. I think they took it for at least two sorts of reasons. One is that the timing is somewhat accidental. This was an issue that they did want to address in 2017. They punted then and it sort of been around since then. And that was from before the court's decision overruling roe V wade and thus raising the possibility of the overruling of other cases, including obergefell against Hodges, the case recognizing the right to same sex marriage. The second reason, though, I think, is that especially the conservative justices on this court, want to limit the scope of LGBTQ+ equality. At least insofar as they see it infringing on conservative religious lifestyles. There is a line in justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the obergefell case in which he says that many people oppose same sex marriage based on honorable and decent religious or philosophical principles. Now, when justice Kennedy wrote that, just Alito in dissent, mocked it, is saying, well, sure, you're saying that they're entitled to have these principles. They're just not entitled to act on them, but since then, he and some of the other conservative justices have sort of taken that up as a banner to say, well, if it's decent and honorable, then people should be able to opt out that wanting to oppose same sex marriage is not the same thing. It's not morally equivalent to race discrimination. And so they want to sort of carve a hole in anti discrimination law. How do the conservatives make a carve out that doesn't characterize this as inviting business to be exempt from civil rights laws? They can't control how their decisions are perceived. But I think this court has shown that they're not all that attuned to or concerned about how the public perceives them. I mean, chief justice Roberts seemed more concerned about that early and his career and maybe still is, but he's lost control of this court. What do you see as the result here? I think it's likely that three two three creative and miss Smith, the owner of the web design company, will win. I think that chief justice Roberts will either write the opinion himself or try to assign it to one of his colleagues likely justice Barrett or justice Kavanaugh, who he thinks will write a somewhat narrow opinion that doesn't open the door to the complete gutting of anti discrimination law, at least not initially, but exactly what distinctions they draw is hard to predict at this point. You know, depending on how they write it, this becomes a question that's going to be litigated over and over, isn't it? It's opening the door. Sure. For the most part, claims like this have lost in the lower courts, but if the web designer wins in the Supreme Court, even in a relatively narrow way, there will then be a large number of cases of this sort, posing all sorts of difficult questions, right? One will be about our florists like web designers. If they're not, what about bakers, what about the difference between a bespoke website and one off the rack, right? So there are very many questions that will be left open and as Alexis de tocqueville pointed out in the early 19th century when he visited America in America the open questions become legal questions and they're all going to be litigated. That's certainly seems to be true. Thanks so much, Mike. That's professor Michael dwarf, of Cornell law school. Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show, the Trump organization is convicted of criminal tax fraud. We'll look at the trial and the likely sentence. I'm Jim Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Global
Bloomberg Radio New York
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Speech, the Supreme Court's conservative justices showed support for a Colorado website designer, who says she has a constitutional right to refuse to create websites for same sex weddings. During oral arguments, the courts conservatives suggested they would carve out what some of them characterized as a narrow exemption from anti discrimination laws for businesses that engage in expressive activities. My guest is constitutional law expert Michael dorff, a professor at Cornell law school. Under Colorado law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation. How is freedom of speech involved? So the petitioner argues that her web design business is inherently expressive because when clients come to her and say they want her to design a wedding website, she puts various creative efforts into it to fashion a, bespoke website. And in so doing, she is creating speech, thus speaking, and if the government tells her she must create same sex wedding websites, it is forcing her to espouse a message, the tacit approval of same sex marriage that is inconsistent with her beliefs. Tell us how the justices responded to this claim. Some of them were skeptical of whether they're really was any expression at all here. I think justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most skeptical. She wanted to know how this is speech by Laurie Smith, the owner of the web design company, given that it's essentially for the couple, right? Part of the point is that it's not speech endorsing same sex marriage at all. It's simply saying things like, here's the date of the wedding. Here's the venue, your directions. If there's a registry, here's how we met, et cetera. So there is skepticism that it's the web designers speech at all. And then there's a question of whether it's speech that endorses this particular message. So that's on one end. At the other end of the spectrum, you had justice Alito and some of the other justices who seem to just accept that, of course, this is expressive and they gave some hypothetical examples where you pretty clearly would have expression, for example, if you had to put on the website, either web designer believed that God blesses this marriage or even just God blesses this marriage, which was an example that actually justice Kagan first proposed. I think some of the justices had the view that there certainly is expression here and it could be understood as expression, endorsing same sex marriage and then the question is, does the state get to override that? Because they have a public accommodations law. And what about the argument they're making about expressive works? Oh, this is hardly new. So a very similar case was before the Supreme Court in 2017. Also from Colorado. That case involved a baker, the so called masterpiece cake shop case, and there too, the business owner objected to providing services for a same sex wedding on the ground that he opposed same sex marriage. In that case, the court had before it the same argument that has here, but it also had a claim of religious discrimination and a majority of the court decided the case on that ground without addressing the free speech issue. But I should say that these arguments go back as far as the 1960s when Congress enacted the 1964 Civil Rights Act that includes title two with a public accommodations provision. And some business owners during the sort of tail end of the Jim Crow era said that it would be inconsistent with either their religious or speech views, to serve African American customers either at all or in an integrated setting and the claims then were pretty quickly rejected by the courts. The justices are considering only her free speech arguments, not her religious rights arguments. Did the justices jettison the religious rights part of the case so they'll be able to say, the conservative justices, well, this is free speech. Not free exercise of religion against same sex marriage. Well, I'm not sure why they decided not to take the religion question. But it was apparent throughout the argument that even though as a technical matter, they're not going to decide and can't decide the case on religious freedom grounds, this is understood to be religiously motivated speech. And of course, everybody understands that's part of what sets this up in a conservative liberal ideological space so that the conservatives come in sympathetic to the claimant and the liberals come in sympathetic to the state, that might not necessarily be the political valence if we imagine they very different law under very different circumstances with different speakers. But the religious dimension of it, I think, is below the surface, if not expressly part of the case. There was a lot of discussion about race discrimination here. The liberal justices expressed concern that this argument would open the door to discrimination on the basis of race or disability. Justice Sotomayor said, how about people who don't believe in interracial marriage or about people who don't believe that disabled people should get married? Where's the line? That is a question. Where is the line here? Yeah, so that's right. There were a whole series of hypothetical examples. One that justice Jackson gave, which I think was intriguing. Was she imagined a Santa Claus in a mall who takes photos with children? And the Santa Claus takes photographs with children of all races, but says that there's a certain kind of photograph sort of it's a wonderful life kind of photograph that he only takes with white children because it's got a sort of nostalgic element and that's part of his artistic expression. So it's not that he doesn't serve African American children, but he excludes him from that. And presumably a Colorado style public accommodations law would say, well
AP News Radio
Justices spar in latest clash of religion and gay rights
"The Supreme Court is in its latest clash over religion and gay rights in the case of a Christian graphic artist who objects to designing wedding websites for a gay couples. Lori Smith says ruling against her would force artists of all types to do work against their beliefs. The high court's conservative majority sounded sympathetic with Neil Gorsuch describing Smith as someone who will and does sell websites to everyone. But she won't sell a website that requires her to express a view about marriage that she finds offensive to her religious beliefs. The big question from Sonia Sotomayor and the liberals. How about people who don't believe in interracial marriage? Or about people who don't believe that disabled people should get married? What's where's the line? Colorado and most other states have a law saying if a product is offered to the public, it must be offered to all customers. The high court has sided with religious plaintiffs in a series of cases, Sagar Meghani, Washington.
AP News Radio
Sotomayor denies NYPD detective's plea to block vax mandate
"A New York City police detective will not be granted an injunction after refusing to be vaccinated against the coronavirus Detective Anthony Marciano is more than one of a thousand New York City employees who didn't qualify for a medical or religious exemption from getting the coronavirus vaccine claiming natural immunity he has a lawsuit pending in federal appeals court to keep from getting fired On Monday Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor who oversees emergency appeals for the region made no comment as she denied his request for an emergency injunction while the case is being resolved The city's law department says it's happy with the ruling but Marciano's attorney says she'll ask the entire Supreme Court for a review I'm Jennifer King
Bloomberg Radio New York
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"June brusso from Bloomberg radio The Supreme Court is a secretive institution but this term the curtain seems to have been pulled back a bit with not only the league draft abortion decision but also signs of tangent and distrust among the justices The strains of the ideological shift in the court seeped into the public in December from comments by justice Sonia Sotomayor during the abortion arguments Will this institution survive the stench that this creates In the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts I don't see how it is possible And just as clarence Thomas posed a similar question a few weeks ago after the leak I do think that the what happened at the court is tremendously bad I think I wonder how long we're going to have these institutions at the rate where it undermining them Beyond the drama there's the question of just how productive the Roberts court really is When the justice is rise for their summer recess they'll have handed down only 59 decisions in argued cases the third year in a row they fail to reach 60 decisions You have to go back to the Civil War to find such a small docket In fact until 1988 the court used to decide more than a 150 cases a year So what happened Joining me to answer that question is constitutional law expert Steven vladic a professor at the University of Texas law school Steve many court watchers have pointed out that justice is slow pace In handing down decisions this term But in an opinion piece you point out that for the last few years the court has been handing down fewer decisions than ever before sort of the incredible shrinking docket Yeah I mean I think this is to me almost as big a story maybe even a bigger story than the fact that the court just happens to be behind this particular term I mean when all is said and done when the court does eventually rise for summer recess it's going to have handed down probably no more than 59 science divisions and argue cases Last term June it was 56 the term before it was 53 whereas before three years ago the court had to dip below 60 of these signed merit decisions since the Civil War And this is part of a broader trend where as recently as the early 2000s the corpse of 85 to 90 cases a year in the 2010s it was still 75 to 80 cases a year but really since justice Kennedy's retirement the Doc it has fallen into the low 60s now the high 50s And I think there are plenty of folks who would say great like if this court has less to do that's not going to bother them But I actually think that there are some longer term problems with the Supreme Court stock continuing to shrink in this respect In 1988 the court used to hear more than a 150 cases a year which seems astonishing right now So what happened to drop the number by about 50 cases almost overnight So by the mid 1980s there was still a large chunk of the court's appellate jurisdiction that was mandatory meaning that were cases that the justices had to pick up especially appeals from state courts And largely at the justice's own request Congress in 1988 revisited that and gave the Supreme Court just about plenary control over its docket Congress in 1925 had really expanded the practice of what we call certiorari of discretionary review when the Supreme Court was reviewing the lower federal court In 1988 Congress expanded that to encompass most appeals from state courts as well and overnight We saw this shark drop off from a 150 cases a year to about 90 That was a direct response to what Congress had done What I think is really interesting in writing is something Congress has stopped paying attention to is that since 1988 Congress hasn't looked at a finger to touch the court's docket And yet it is this term going to be probably around 60% besides of the court's docket in the first years after the 1988 act And so I think there's a question worth asking about whether it's healthy not just for the court as an institution but for the court system for the Supreme Court to be decided until a few cases So besides that congressional action or inaction what else is causing the court to take so many fewer cases We don't know I mean as part of the problem here is that because this is all discretionary and the causes you know the court never tells us why it is taken or not taking cases We're left to speculate But I do think there are a couple of fairly obvious at least circumstantial explanations One is as we've discussed before the court is doing more and more stuff through these unsigned unexplained emergency orders on the shadow docket that that's ticking up more of the court's attention each term I think also since it takes four votes to grant certiorari Well since justice Kennedy retired in 2018 I think the conservatives now can be more confident about which cases they do and don't want to take Since justice Ginsburg died in 2020 the liberals now don't have enough votes to force a grant if they're sure already on their own And I think what I do as the negative implications of the court here in fewer cases that there are fewer cases articulating a new legal principle that there are fewer cases establishing law that can then be used in damages suits are in habeas petitions Frankly I think the current majority probably isn't much bothered by So if you add all these things together I think just some of the pressures that used to lead the court to take more cases Have evaporated at the same time as there are more and more demands on the justices time from other parts of their caseload You point out that the drop into the 60s 60 cases a term and now the 50s is a phenomenon entirely of the last decade So since chief justice Roberts has been chief justice for longer than that can we place the blame in any respect on him There's a temptation these days to blame Everything But I think on this particular one the answer is no I mean I think insofar as anyone agrees with me that it's a problem that the court is hearing so many fewer cases I think that responsibility lies with all of the justices equally And I think especially with justices who repeatedly have a majority IE the conservatives But I think the larger problem here is not one of the court's own making But rather of Congress's application that what the 1988 statute was an example of was this long-standing consistent historical pattern where there was this ongoing dialog between the Supreme Court lower federal courts and Congress where Congress was regularly invested in studying the dacas of the federal courts and figuring out where there was too much where there was too little in tweaking things here and there And since 1988 Congress has basically left all of that alone So much so that there are a lot of folks today who don't think it's appropriate for Congress to be having conversations about regulating the Supreme Court's docket which would be quite a shock to the 200 years of judges justices and Congress members who had exacted that conversation So the key to me is that folks agree that there's something problematic about not just the drop in the court's case load but the control it leaves with the justices The answer is not for the justices to change their behavior The answer is for Congress to think about whether there are categories of which the Supreme Court's jurisdiction really should be mandatory Where the court should have to take up appeal It is hard to see Congress stepping in and telling the Supreme Court what to do these days Thanks so much for your insights as always Steve That's professor Steven vladik of a University of Texas law school Coming up next why president Jimmy Carter is stepping into a legal dispute in Alaska This is Bloomberg.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Monday the Supreme Court by a vote of 6 to three struck down another campaign finance law adding to a line of rulings throwing out campaign finance restrictions Republican senator Ted Cruz had challenged the $250,000 cap on candidates using political contributions made after an election to recoup their personal campaign loans The decision was along ideological lines and chief justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion finding that the provision burdens core political speech without furthering an anti corruption goal Echoing what Roberts and justice Amy Coney Barrett said during the oral arguments There isn't a sufficient corruption anti corruption interests of the sort of up to 250,000 but then all of a sudden there is It says that this doesn't enrich him personally because he's no better off than he was before It's paying alone not lining his pockets But in a blistering dissent just as Elena Kagan riding for the liberal justices said that it doesn't take a political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption from donations made after a candidate has won and can quote return the favor by a vote a contract and appointment Here are justices Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor If I have a debt of $10,000 and somebody comes along and says you're doing such a good job I'm going to I'm going to pay that debt off for you Isn't that a financial benefit to me Of course It's a gift But you just said the magic words to make a contribution to the winner Not two a campaign and for instance but for the pockets of the winner My guess is Richard bra fault a professor at Columbia law school So the court struck down another campaign finance rule are you surprised at all Not at all both based on the oral argument which pretty much telegraphed where it was going to go And more generally based on the court's philosophy over the last ten plus years the court has been pretty hostile to campaign Finance law I don't think it broke any new ground in this case It kind of deep in the ground that was already there Tell us about the reasoning and the chief justices majority opinion for the conservatives So basically the chief justice reiterated ideas he's put forward in the past is that although some contribution restrictions can be upheld they present a First Amendment problem because they make it harder for candidates to raise money That this rule in particular was a problem because by creating the possibility of a limit on the repayment of a loan it makes it less likely candidate will make the loan which means it will be less money for the candidates campaign So he emphasized that there is a First Amendment burden posed by this restriction on loan repayments And then he basically dismissed the arguments that there was any special corruption danger coming from post election contributions In his view the other rules dealing with contributions the fact that no donor can give more than $2900 on the federal contribution restrictions and that any contribution that is made would be disclosed that those are enough to deal with the corruption problem Justice Kagan wrote a blistering dissent saying the donors know as they paid him so he will pay them Well she basically says that the special corruption potential for donations given asset election is over when the donor knows who the winner is And that's going to be used to repay a loan made by the candidate So it's going basically directly back to the candidate She says that the special corruption potential there is self evident that it's obvious that there's a real problem here And then she actually goes and finds examples Basically news accounts as instances in states in the past hasn't happened federally because the law is prohibited until now to instances in the past where you had particularly sleazy situations of donors giving money to a candidate's campaign after the election And then basically getting some kind of reward from that candidate a governor who's able to steer certain contracts in certain directions She basically says that the potential for corruption gear is obvious that there's evidence to support it And she also returns to a team she's used in the past which is in trying to figure out whether something really does present the corruption danger You should defer to Congress Be sure to refer to the politicians They have a better sense of whether something is likely to read a corruption problem than the court which is removed from the political sphere Is campaign finance an issue that always divides the liberals and the conservatives and if so why It's certainly been true for about the last almost 20 years Further in the past I think it was more complicated And you did have some of the Republican appointees in the past famously justice O'Connor who's been an elected official Sharing some of the concerns that support campaign finance regulation And you've had some liberals in the past worried about the potential for limiting the ability of nonprofits and independent groups of campaign But it really has solidified in the last 20 years along a conservative liberal divide The Supreme Court that upheld the bulk of the McCain feingold campaign finance law in 2003 was a very different court I just wonder if they would do it now Oh this court's almost certainly would not And I think one of the interesting things is I mean some of those restrictions remain in place There are less effective because of other developments like the rise of independent spending and Congress says it changed the laws in some respects But there were still in place restrictions on donations to political parties and so called soft money restrictions as well as older restrictions like the limits on direct contributions to our candidate So there are some elements of the law that are still in place But yeah the current court that was a 5 four decision back in 2003 just O'Connor wrote much of it And it seems very likely that if elements of that case came back they would probably be struck down today Thanks rich That's professor Richard rafal of Columbia law school Coming up next a case that could mean the difference between staying in the country and being deported This is Bloomberg.
WABE 90.1 FM
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on WABE 90.1 FM
"I have a very hard time after all these interviews I just sit in my room and my wife was like I need to come just to recompose myself but it's very important I feel bad There are stories that get told people don't forget and hopefully something happens to prevent this from occurring again A federal investigation continues into what caused the collapse but he says no amount of money will make this okay It's a little conflicting because they all agree that they'll make the payment but they're not going to admit any fault or any liability for 98 people losing their lives Pablo Rodriguez and the other families will soon have to fill out a claims form making the case about their loved ones and how much they were worth They'll also be able to tell their stories in person The judge once families to receive their portion of the $1 billion settlement by September For NPR news I'm Veronica zaragoza in Miami The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that state prisoners have no constitutional right to present new evidence in federal court to support their claims that they weren't properly represented at trial The vote was 6 to three along ideological lines and pure legal affairs correspondent Nina totenberg reports In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that when a state court substantially interferes with the defendant's constitutional right to be represented by counsel the defendant with a new lawyer may seek an evidentiary hearing in federal court to show that he was denied his right to effective counsel back then the majority was 7 to two with justice clarence Thomas in dissent Today Thomas wrote the majority decision hollowing out that 2012 ruling on behalf of the court's new 6 justice conservative supermajority He said the federal courts may not hear new evidence obtained after conviction that shows how deficient the trial or appellate court lawyers were in state court to allow such evidence to be presented in federal court he said encourages prisoners to sandbag state courts depriving the states of the finality that is essential to both the retributive and deterrent function of the criminal law Writing for the three dissenters justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision perverse and illogical The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial she said today however the court hamstrings the federal court's authority to safeguard that right University of Michigan law professor Leah litman sums up the decision this way So basically you can have a federal court Here's a claim You just can't present any evidence to support that claim because Congress greatly restricted the availability of evidentiary hearings Kristina swans is executive director of the innocence project This opinion leaves innocent people in the nightmarish position of having no court to go to for justice She points to one of the cases before the court as illustrative Barry Jones was sentenced to death for the brutal sexual assault and killing of a four year old girl but his court appointed trial lawyer didn't investigate the facts of the case Arizona law does not allow the first post conviction appeal to raise the question of ineffective assistance of counsel and on the second appeal The lawyer didn't raise the question either only when federal public defenders were brought into the case for a federal court hearing did they examine the medical evidence and consult experts who later testified that the injuries inflicted on the child occurred not when the prosecution claimed but at a time when Jones was nowhere near the child and could not have inflicted them The federal judge hearing the case found that both the defense lawyer at trial and the appellate lawyer after that had provided ineffective assistance of counsel As swines of the innocent project seize things Arizona has not raised the pay scale for court appointed lawyers in some 30 years They have inadequate resources and the courts often waive the lawyer qualification requirement in order to get lawyers in the door to represent those who can not afford a lawyer on appeal We know at the innocence.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh Likely to Vote for the Affirmative Opinion
"The University of Washington Supreme Court database is amazing They are an incredible repository of information for Supreme Court decisions over time And so being analytics based I go to the scorecard One of the things that surprises people we do tend to think of the court in ideological terms more than it is Did you know just a little factoid here over 70% of the Supreme Court's rulings are actually consensus rulings It's just that it's the most controversial the most prominent issues often that end up gaining attention And that's where we see the ideological splits but actually most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous But anyway when you start getting into those that aren't and the ideological split at the court if you take a look at the current court we have voting records we can take a look at in overall decisions And we know what justices are most likely to vote for what The first thing is the justice that is most likely just to vote for whatever is Kavanaugh You see that he's very much a which way is the wind blowing kind of guy He has voted in the affirmative opinion 93% of the time in the current court The two justices lace likely are clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor They each have voted with the majority on decisions only 49% of the time
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Go ahead Wouldn't it be great to have a black woman talking about these issues How about the discussions about affirmative action We learned from justice Sonia Sotomayor where she described herself as a perfect affirmative action baby Those years ago describing it unapologetically of the gains and the benefits that she's pushing for quotas and affirmative action Which obviously is purely race and ethnicity based regardless of your race and ethnicity Which are now being used to prevent Asian Americans from attending certain schools So why not just have plebiscites Why have a court at all And people will just vote so everybody's represented This is a court It's a court where everybody on the court is supposed to take an oath to uphold the constitution It's not your personal view on abortion based on what you believe a particular community thinks or doesn't think It is your best academic intellectual effort to comply with the rule of law She's illegal analyst When people go before the courts whether it's the divorce case or contract case or trespass case or a monumental case they don't want their decisions based on the ethnicity of the judges And she should know that Because if that were the case perhaps minorities would lose far more than they lose now It's trying look beyond that And do what's right If you want to be an activist conservative activist Marxist activist a liberal activist the courts the wrong place for you Go ahead A race conscious admissions process Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a black woman in that position as well I want to be wonderful to have an Asian woman in that position as well Who might have a counterbalancing point of view If that's what we're doing here When these court cases are written she's illegal Laura Coates They're not written Clarence Thomas didn't say from a black person's perspective or a briar doesn't say from a male's perspective or Sotomayor doesn't say from a Hispanics perspective and Kagan doesn't say from a woman's perspective they tell you what they think The laws Isn't this what we're supposed to do When police officers stop us we don't want them to say from my perspective as of this or that and your perspective as of this or that you're under arrest What are you talking about People want a fair shot They want to be treated like individual human beings They want an adjudication as fair as possible Not based on external factors physical factors of the justice the ethnic factors the religious factors of the justice No Go ahead What their holdings will be But I am assuming that they will be She says would it be wonderful to have a black woman in that position I'm not assuming what their holdings will be Because she realizes that's what she's doing Because if your perspective is that people from certain communities whether it's faith or race or whatever it is have a certain perspective and so that perspective needs to be on the court Well then of course you're talking about influencing their holding Go ahead Be with them And we will be better for it All right There you go Now they're also trying to redefine Stephen bryer Andrea Mitchell of course is up for the task as news busters points out Cut 7 go One thing that Chris to me is that he was rather conservative or moderate if you will or more nuanced than many progressives might have liked on big economic issues when they hit the court But on the core issues like which big economic issues are you talking about Andrea What are you talking about What in the world are you talking about Do you even know what you're talking about Which case are you talking about Wouldn't it be what case watch cases are you talking about But on the core issues of personal liberty and freedoms go ahead Liberty and freedoms and same sex marriage and guns and choice on abortion He was completely insane with Ruth Bader Ginsburg Atlanta cake and Sotomayor Right Yes justice breyer was a reliable liberal when it came to those kinds of corporations Of course she knows everything Go ahead Cases He was the one at Pete used the word pragmatist And I think that's the way people tend to do it And you know what This just shows you the utter ignorance of these analysts When you talk about the court in these cases it's not about a pragmatist it's not about a conservative It's not about a liberal These are political terms applied to political situations and political people When you're talking about the court and analyzing decisions you're talking about the approach that a person takes The approach that a person takes That's why I'm saying Laura Coates was kind of talking out of both sides of her mouth So when they say he's a pragmatist how can you be a pragmatist when it comes to the constitution You either uphold it or you don't Or if there's an ambiguity you either do your best to discern what was intended or you don't You're not a matter of being a pragmatist You're not a centrist You're not any of those things This is the problem with chief justice John Roberts There's no discernible principles None More when I return Much love in On 77 W ABC The.
Mike Gallagher Podcast
NPR Stands by Report as Three SCOTUS Justices Refute Gorsuch-Sotomayor Feud
"Do you see how NPR lied about the Supreme Court? NPR's Nina totenberg reported that justice Sotomayor is having to be forced to work remotely all because of the stubbornness of justice Gorsuch. Sotomayor, according to the report, has asked Gorsuch to put his mask on as the Supreme Court is in session. He is reportedly refusing forcing the. Immunocompromised Sonia Sotomayor to work from home. That's according to NPR. Turns out, they're all denied. All of the parties involved said it's absolutely false. It's a blatant lie. So to my or denied it, Gorsuch dyed it, denied it, they're all denying it. They're saying it isn't true. What an NPR do? Double down. They stand by their reporter, because after all, Nina totenberg has been around for a hundred years and she wouldn't make something like that up. Another reason to hate the mainstream media and to despise the fact that you and I help fund
Dennis Prager Podcasts
More False Claims From the Left
"When justice Sonia Sotomayor made up the statistic of a 100,000 children in hospitals for COVID. How could she say that? Because she's an ignoramus. Most people on the left are ignoramuses. She is she's a Supreme Court Justice and doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. They make up things. Russia collusion was made up. Donald Trump is a dictator is made up. The man was president four years. How was he a dictator? He got a chance to be a dictator. How come he wasn't? It's one thing to say he will be a dictator in 2016. It's quite another to say he was a dictator after 2020. Really? How so?
Mike Gallagher Podcast
The Left Defends Sotomayor's COVID Misinformation
"This week, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor literally said on the bench of the Supreme Court, we've got a 100,000 children in hospitals with COVID, many of them on ventilators. And the whole world laughed at her because that's a lie. That's what they used to call COVID misinformation. I guess if you're a Supreme Court Justice, you can lie and get away with it. I guess if you're a radical wise Latina activist Supreme Court judge, you're allowed to say things like that. Where's her apology, by the way? We don't have a 100,000 kids in the hospital with COVID. We don't have kids on ventilators. The fraction of kids like 0.000001%. She lied. Do you know that the left is defending her? Here's cut 7. Listen to sunny hostin, one of the big mouths on ABC TV's the view defending Sonia Sotomayor's COVID misinformation. Well, first I just want to reframe this a little bit about justice Sotomayor because while she may not be accurate for current hospitalizations in children, she is correct that we have more children in the hospital now more than ever before. And it certainly reflects the current cases in children. Right now we have 82,843 children sick with COVID, more than a thousand children have died from the virus. And in addition, about 7.8 million children have caught COVID since the pandemic started. And so those are just the numbers. And so while fewer than 83,000 kids have been hospitalized with the virus, we have kids sick with COVID more than we ever have before. And so that's a real thing and those are real numbers. Can you believe that that woman makes probably 7 or 800,000? Maybe a $1 million a year to have a show on national TV and defend the
The Larry Elder Show
Jake Tapper Calls out Supreme Court Justice's Disinformation
"About the assertion that justice Sonia Sotomayor made by the way I met the wise Latina comment because she gave a talk one time before she got confirmed and said that she believes a wise Latina would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't had her experiences. Not too racist. Here's what Jake tapper said about her assertion of 100,000 children seriously ill, many of whom are on ventilators. And Joan, I heard some assertions made by the Supreme Court Justices today that were simply false. One example, justice so to my said, quote, we have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before in serious condition and many on ventilators. That's just not true. There are fewer than 5000 miners hospitalized with COVID right now, seeing their on the right were showing the figures. Not a 100,000. And that includes minors who were admitted because of COVID and ones who tested positive, but had been hospitalized for other reasons. What do you make of this? Again, this is CNN, Jake tapper, as you well know. I'd love to use left wing sources in order to advance my position.
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Well there's this clip of audio about remote learning from doctor adish I hope I said that right And Doctor John JH 8 He hits the nail on the head here because remote learning I'm going to venture to say based on my not peer reviewed journal none of that But this is just my anecdotal survey of people I talk to It doesn't work as well for the entire group of people That it's intended to serve Listen to this Meantime we also have this issue with the schools going on right now Parents understandably are having a hard time dealing with remote learning so many parents have to work teachers and others who work at schools are saying but wait a second We're just not sure that it's safe and we don't have the staffing right now because omicron is spreading so widely How do we handle that How do we balance that out Yeah so first of all remote learning has been a disaster for America's kids And I think we have to acknowledge that And we have to do everything we can to minimize any further remote learning Look I understand teachers frustrations a lot of school districts did not put in I did not use the billions of dollars that they had gotten to put in improvements in ventilation and other upgrades So the question is can you still have school in the middle of a surgeon The answer is you can because if people are vaccinated a teacher should be all vaccinated and boosted If people wear high quality masks even without those other upgrades which I would like to see it still is safe for kids and teachers be back in school So I think at this point there's really no good explanation for having remote schools Well there you go That's doctor Jean And I think doctor J J I think he's hitting the nail on the head And I'm going to tell you because you combine that with bad policies even though the CDC has reduced their policies They continue these policies of
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"It's almost impossible to counter attack riddle Ridiculous excuse me So when associate justice Sonia Sotomayor from the boogie down Bronx the land of AOC all our crazy When she spreads misinformation to the masses on COVID and she doesn't face any ridicule what are we to what are we to surmise from that That we're not making them live up to their own book of rules Here's another quote from alinsky He says you can kill them with this For they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity Now it's fascinating how he makes these comparisons because he realizes that you know Christ is perfect Christians aim towards the perfection in Christ And it's that walk that people aim towards that redemptive walk Yet this isn't all about religion This is everyday life and that's how they apply it Because they know that people are going to fall short And the left uses that against each and every one of us every single day The communist knows that Americans want to be left alone To raise our families to mind our own business maybe take a vacation or two And they use that against us They use it against you They use it against me against all of us that don't want to be involved in their status pro crime progressive movement They know that you and me are not on attack mode all the time We just want to live our lives Live and let live And that's how they get us That's why when Pelosi says that oh you know while making money on insider trading you know here in the house that's just the free market Because that's in effect what she said She's trying to make us live up to our own book of rules because a conservative wouldn't dare come at Pelosi for trying to make money in the free market would he And they have perfected this because they study this stuff And that's why I'm grateful when I started working with O'Keefe back in the day And he gave me this book and he said make sure you know this And you know I'd seen it in college but I'd never really drilled down And it's important that you do And the great one brings that up and he's brought it up a lot of times Where when he was in the Reagan White House that was one of the first things they gave him They found these boxes of these books that they were given out to schools and they said you know what We all have to read this And becoming familiar with these rules for radicals I think is critical because you're going to see it in so much of what we see every single day Just like when we see AOC all out crazy when she blames everything on inequity They know that inequity gets everybody fired up I don't have what she has They're not giving me enough of that one This is you're against me because of this that and the third It reminds me of a parable from the Bible where the farmer hires three different guys the three different times of the day and then pays them all the same And then the guy who came very early in the day gets mad that the guy who came late in the day got paid just as much as he did And it's that inequity that we all suffer from in human nature that the left uses against each and every one of us They expect us to accept what they're selling Instead of making Them live up to their own book of rules we give them a pass and we can't We have to make them live up to their own book of rules Like the saying goes the best defense is a great offense It's not about punching back It's about punching first throwing the first punch and punching up And I don't mean that physically I'm not talking about violence but I'm talking about figuratively You can't wait till they come at you You've got to constantly figure out how the left's coming to get you because they use the same playbook every single time and the good news is we have a copy of this playbook Remember it's not about punching back It's about punching first and punching up Anyway I am rich valdes valdes with an S and I am in for the great one Mark Levin If.
Rich Valdes: One Rule That Stands out From Saul Alinsky
"So much of what we see today it's the radical left It's playing everyone against everyone else playing them against themselves One of alinsky's rules that stood out to me was a rule that I used a lot when I worked with James O'Keefe at project veritas back in 2014 2015 I ran the national field operation for James I was his director of special operations And making left wing radicals live up to their own book of rules was a big part of that work One of the alinsky rules is make the enemy live up to his own book of rules Here's a quote from alinsky Ridicule is man's most potent weapon There is no defense It's almost impossible to counter attack riddle Ridiculous excuse me So when associate justice Sonia Sotomayor from the boogie down Bronx the land of AOC all our crazy When she spreads misinformation to the masses on COVID and she doesn't face any ridicule what are we to what are we to surmise from that That we're not making them live up to their own book of
The Dan Bongino Show
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky Forced to Acknowledge Sonia Sotomayor's False Claim
"Here's Rochelle Walensky forced by reality to accept that Sonia Sotomayor is full of crap Check this out We have over a 100,000 children which we've never had before in serious condition And many on ventilators We can find from Friday suggest there are fewer than 3500 current pediatric hospitalizations from COVID-19 Is that true Yeah but here's what I can tell you about our pediatric hospitalizations now First of all the vast majority of children who are in the hospital are unvaccinated And for those children who are not eligible for vaccination we do know that they are most likely to get sick with COVID If their family members aren't vaccinated So the most important thing we can do for those children to keep them out of the hospital is to vaccinate them and to vaccinate their family members around them Understood but we also have a 100,000 It's roughly 3500 in hospitals Yes there are and in fact what I will say is while pediatric hospitalizations are rising they're still about 15 fold less than hospitalizations of our older age demographic
The Dan Bongino Show
Laurence Tribe Warned Barack Obama About Sonia Sotomayor in 2010
"Now we were warned about Sonia Sotomayor By even the lefties No no joke not kidding Politico Josh gerstein October 8th of 2010 You know lefty lawyer Lawrence tribe from Harvard big lefty right He told Obama when Obama was thinking of a nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court He said quote bluntly put she's not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is Tribe said Sonia Sotomayor had obvious benefits in terms of personal history and demographic appeal That's them saying it on us He's acknowledging the woman's not very smart and this is a demographic play That's their own they lefties talking about Sonia Sotomayor This is what we're doing
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on WLS-AM 890
"From COVID-19 Is that true Yeah but here's what I can tell you about our pediatric hospitalizations now First of all the vast majority of children who are in the hospital are unvaccinated And for those children who are not eligible for vaccination we do know that they are most likely to get sick with COVID If their family members aren't vaccinated So the most important thing we can do for those children to keep them out of the hospital is to vaccinate them and to vaccinate their family members around them Understood but we also have a 100,000 It's roughly 3500 in hospitals Yes there are and in fact what I will say is while pediatric hospitalizations are rising they're still about 15 fold less than hospitalizations of our older age demographic This is how you can tell this is being done out of any sense of goodwill It's not that rachelle walensky wants to face the truth and have a day of reckoning with Sonia Sotomayor and the misinformation campaign that a 100,000 people are in the hospital How can you tell what's the tick What's the tick they all have She doesn't say she doesn't want to give anyone a soundbite and just say the simple fact right Do you notice this Jim She doesn't just come out and say yes sona show to my over is wrong There are not a 100,000 kids in the hospital There are roughly 3000 and they're not all there because of COVID many are there just with COVID Meaning they're there for different reasons and they tested positive for COVID She doesn't want to say that because she knows that sound bite will go everywhere So she has to break the delusion a little bit because she knows they're being mocked even on the left So she lets Sonia Sotomayor down easy but still has to keep a bit of the hysteria going Just letting you know too that you know kids can be infected by this virus and very serious stuff and they have to keep the delusion going that this is some huge enormous problem for kids She doesn't want to take the mask off totally If she wanted to do the right thing she would just come out and say that's a lie Yes this is a serious virus Obviously killed a lot of people But when it comes to kids thankfully I'm a crime seems less deadly not just for adults but obviously for kids to and kids seem to be very resilient to this disease and it's something we're going to have to learn to live with That's the right answer She can't give that right answer She's gotta respond to the mockery so they maintain some semblance of credibility While still not ripping off the mask all together 'cause she doesn't want to humiliate Sotomayor and give them a sound bite Folks said that all this stuff we told them this stuff all of what we told them They're now starting to slowly in a creeping matter slowly admit trickle out Drop by drop bit 5 bit Next they're going to admit masks were a scam the whole time We're a total mess The face diapers And soon they'll have to admit that Ivermectin that they talked it down that there may be some promise there You watch It's all coming More on that coming up next including a warning we were given about Sonia Sotomayor Even from the left we should have heeded that warning I'm there by Gina will be.
Sonia Sotomayor's Incoherence at Oral Arguments About Biden's Vaccine Mandate
"We are now having deaths at an unprecedented amount Catching COVID keeps people out of the workplace for extraordinary periods of time And there have been proof in certain industries like the medical industry that when vaccines are mandated And there's no mandate here for a vaccine There is a masking mandate no difference It's not even coherent when there's vaccine Did she not say when there's vaccine mandates but there's no vaccine mandate here mister Bruce And masks what's the scientific evidence that mass work You won't get any straight information at a Fauci or the CDC They've backed off even now Go ahead When we tell people that if there are sparks flying in the workplace where you have workers have to be provided you have to wear a mask So that's no different in my mind than this Yes but it's very different Because osha has nothing to do with medicine there are not medical experts of the sort that you have in other aspects of the federal government and the private sector In osha Go ahead Well this is not a vaccine mandate There are cost and deaths and other things countervailing to the fact that there might be one to 3% of workers who leave Absolutely incoherent in every respect And her approach is thoroughly contrary to the responsibility of a Supreme Court
Sonia Sotomayor's Job Is Judging Constitutionality of Vaccine Mandates, Not Making Policy Arguments
"Go ahead Look at the hospitalization rates that are going on We have more affected people in the country today than we had a year ago in January We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity No we don't No we don't Another lie Go ahead People is severely ill on ventilators We have over a $100,000 That's a lie Go ahead Which we've never had before Now we don't have a 100,000 children in Go ahead Serious condition And many on ventilators No we don't That's a lie Go ahead So saying it's a different variant just underscores the fact that without Some workplace rules with respect to vaccines or encouraging vaccines because this is not a vaccine mandate And requiring masking and requiring isolation of people who have tested for COVID Because none of you have addressed that part of the ETF That's right here So she's making policy arguments based on lies That's number one What is her job What is her job she's a Supreme Court Justice Her job is to determine whether or not the president has the power to impose these mandates And under what authority not to make policy arguments and by the way stupid arguments based on lies
Mark Levin: Sonia Sotomayor Is the Dumbest Among the Supreme Court Justices
"But one of the things that's also frightening is when you have justices on the Supreme Court who are absolute ignoramuses And the dumbest among them is Sonia Sotomayor Sonia Sotomayor I might as well be the first one to point it out People dance around it She is dumb She sort of the AOC of the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor at oral arguments today says all Macron is as deadly as Delta not anybody who has spent three minutes looking at this nose that's BS And every single government knows it's BS But we have a justice on the Supreme Court who doesn't know and could care less Could care less Let's listen in part to what she had to say cut fired go Counsel those numbers show that all Macron is as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as Delta did That's a flat out lie Absolute flat out lie and everybody
WABE 90.1 FM
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on WABE 90.1 FM
"That the Supreme Court may be ready to overturn roe V wade And just last week we heard the 6 conservative justices on the court suggest their open to overturning that landmark abortion rights ruling in the Mississippi case that's also what the Supreme Court How do these two cases fit together Right the larger issue looming over all of this is that Mississippi case which is a challenge to a 15 week abortion ban that case could overturn existing precedent guaranteeing abortion rights prior to fetal viability president that this Texas law seems to obviously violate and a decision in that case is expected next year Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her descent yesterday in the Texas case quote the court should have put an end to this madness months ago And the fact that the court has repeatedly now been given opportunities to block this Texas law and has not done so would seem to say a lot about the mindset of the conservative justices Sure The 6 week abortion ban took effect in Texas months ago and you've been covering what it means for women there What do you foresee now that the law will stay in place for the moment Really we're going to see more of what we've been seeing since September 1st when this law took effect women traveling hundreds of miles to seek abortions at clinics and neighboring states and beyond Those clinics are trying to accommodate everyone but they say they're struggling to do so And abortion rights advocates stress that there just is not the capacity to absorb everyone from Texas I mean this is a state with close to 30 million people even if it were feasible for everyone who wants to travel out of a state for an abortion to do so which of course it's not because of cost and other barriers like work or child care So the bottom line is there are women in Texas who are going to have no alternative but to carry pregnancies to term.
The Dan Bongino Show
Jenna Ellis Analyzes Supreme Court Justices During Abotion Case Arguments
"Jenna Sonia Sotomayor came in I don't even know It's so unprepared or I don't know She's not bright I mean I don't want to attack the woman's intellectual capability but the questions were so ridiculous and believe me I'm trying to I am an avid supporter of life I am a pro lifer through and through But I really tried to listen calmly and objectively her questions were bizarre I mean at one point she seemed to imply that the child in the womb feeling pain was not an indication of life And I'm thinking to myself wait what Did she just say that So you have a child in the womb recoiling in pain from a procedure but don't worry that doesn't mean that child is a lively That's kind of a ridiculous thing to say in it It's insane This is the same left that if you found one cell on Mars would claim oh my gosh we found life right They're so full of it This is them trying to bend themselves over backwards to not answer the moral question which is what justice Alito got at very well The moral question of when life begins And it is philosophical of course but just to say that viability is somehow more workable and that there is no advance in science since 1973 Clearly factually false And no the left doesn't have any arguments And justice Thomas raised a very good question He asked okay what right is really an issue here Because the left is talking point saying that there's a right to abortion is absolutely false that is nowhere in the text of the constitution or even implied And so what right is really an issue And what counsel for Jackson health argued is that this is a right to liberty that's found in the Fourteenth Amendment and he went back and it was so brilliant because he said okay so at the time that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted what state constitution or statute actually provided for a liberty interest in abortion The answer of course is
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on AP News
"The university's tallied more than 2800 instances of alleged sexual misconduct decades ago by the late team doctor Richard Strauss most of the cases came to light between 2018 and 2020 I'm Jackie Quinn a P news The Supreme Court declines to block New York City's COVID vaccine mandate for public school teachers and other staff Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Friday denied an emergency appeal from a group of public school teachers under the mandate rules the roughly 148,000 school employees had until late Friday to get at least their first vaccine shot Those who did not face suspension without pay when schools open on Monday and the mayor says substitute teachers who are vaccinated will fill their spots until they get the shots an attorney for the teachers who filed the appeal say they are disappointed but the fight will go on Julie Walker New York The British government has extended an emergency Visa program for truck drivers as few shortages are showing a few signs of abating particularly in London and the southeast of England In an announcement late Friday the conservative government said temporary visas for nearly 5004 in truck drivers it hopes to recruit would run until end of February instead of expire on Christmas Eve as originally planned The short duration of the program announced last week drew widespread criticism for not being attractive enough to entice foreign drivers The government said 300 fuel drivers would be able to come to the UK from overseas immediately as they until March London Welcome.
AP News Radio
Supreme Court justice axes appeal of NYC school vaccine plan
"The Supreme Court declines to block New York city's covert vaccine mandate for public school teachers and other staff Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor your on Friday denied an emergency appeal from a group of public school teachers under the mandate rules the roughly one hundred and forty eight thousand school employees have until late Friday to get at least the first vaccine shot those who did not face suspension without pay when schools open on Monday and the mayor says substitute teachers who are vaccinated will fill their spots until they get the shots an attorney for the teachers who filed the appeal say they are disappointed but the fight will go on Julie Walker New York
Latina to Latina
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on Latina to Latina
"I met up with her and i asked her like. Wow this is great. How can i help. And so she put me on the board and she put me to work late. You put my money where my mouth was was like. Okay you want to help. Then get on the board and you're going to do some work around it. And i just kind of really fell in love with it. I've always been very vocal about being pro choice. And i really love the work that i do and being able to help my community in this way then oh what did i miss. That is a good question. I think it's really important for people to have these uncomfortable conversations to say the word abortion you know. Don't use euphemisms like say the procedure. Whatever say abortion. you know. it's not a dirty word. Abortion is health care people get abortions for different types of reasons. And we shouldn't have to you know. Bring up things like oh. They didn't even make exceptions about raper incest. Like it shouldn't matter the reason. Somebody has an abortion. It matters that this is what they want. This is what they've decided for themselves and for their families and they should have the right to have access to an abortion if they so need it and it should not be the responsibility of other states to take care of. Texans texans should be able to take care of texans for themselves santa. I know this is a very very busy time for you. So thank you so much for taking the time for us thank you. This was fun instead of offering. You might take away from this episode. I'm instead going to read you a bit of what justice. Sonia sotomayor wrote in her dissent. The court's order is stunning. She wrote presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineer to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny. A majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. The court has rewarded. The state's effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute enacted in disregard of the courts precedents to procedural entanglements of the states on creation. The court should not be so content ignorance constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women but also the sanctity of its.
WBZ Midday News
Barrett writes first majority Supreme Court opinion in FOIA dispute
"And Supreme Court Justice Amy Amy Cockney Baron has delivered her first majority opinion for the nation's highest court. This is a case involving the Federal Freedom of Information Act, a PC's Elizabeth Scholesy with more from Washington, in her first opinion as a U. S Supreme Court Justice Amy Cockney Barrett rights on behalf of a 72 majority, saying federal government agencies can refuse to disclose documents related to internal deliberations. As part of an exemption in the Freedom of Information Act. The case involved the environmental group Sierra Club trying to obtain documents from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Steven Brier were the two dissents. Elizabeth Halsey. ABC NEWS
Judge says lawyer who killed her son also tracked Justice Sotomayor
"The lawyer who killed her son and seriously wounded her husband. Also had been tracking Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Breaking news and
KLIF 570 AM
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on KLIF 570 AM
"Raise your right hand and repeat after me. I Joseph Robinette Biden Junior. Do solemnly swear I Joseph Robinette Biden. Junior do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States the president of the United States and will to the best of my ability will to the best of my ability, Preserve, Protect and defend, preserve, protect and defend. The Constitution of the United States Constitution of the United States. So help you God So help me God. Congratulations, Mr President. And we like all Americans pray for the success of the president when he protects our rights and for his failure when he does not protect our rights, in effect invades those rights that same standard for all presidents, Republican or Democrat. It is pretty incredible on a personal level to see a man who's been striving for the presidency since he was 30 years old finally achieved the presidents of the at the age of 172 s O. That is That is an amazing accomplishment. Joe Biden is older than every ex president who attended his inauguration. Every single one. Right. He is older than Bill Clinton. He's older than George W. Bush. He's significantly older than Barack Obama. So there's that Kamila Harris was also sworn in and I will say this was kind of hilarious. So Sonia Sotomayor was the Supreme Court justice very much on the left. She swears in Kamila Harris and proceeds to botch her name. Now I was informed by our mainstream media. If you botch Kamila Harris his name. It's called Kamala as opposed to comma. That is a It is an element of racism. They said. This about Tucker Carlson. They kept saying, Kamala, who's I guess Sonia Sotomayor is racist now, so here's a racist wearing in common areas. Hi Kamala. Davey Harris do solemnly swear I come live baby Harrison's song with sweat that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States that I will support and defend the Constitution of tonight against all enemies, foreign and joints. Oh, he's born and already searching for.
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on WTOP
"Biden became the 46th, president of the United States. Today, the new president's 21 minute speech focused entirely on the need for unity in the country. We must end this uncivil war. Pits Red against blue. Mr Biden said the events of the past few weeks have proven the fragility of American democracy. And he listed what he sees is the country's foes, anger, resentment and hatred. Extremism, Lawlessness. Violence disease. Jobless isn't Hopelessness United, he argued. Americans can overcome them all. We can see each other not as adversaries, but his neighbor's Steven Portnoy CBS News There were not the thousands, usually in attendance because of the pandemic. It was star studded issue. Jennifer Lopez, their Supreme Court Justice. Sonia Sotomayor administered the oath of office for Vice president Kamila Harris, with her hand on the Bible held by her husband, CBS is Margaret Brennan on Harris being the first black and Asian American vice president. Be fascinating to watch what she does with this position, given how much of historical weight is on this since she is a barrier breaker. What does she do for women in this role, given how hard hit movement have been from? Cove in particular women of color. What does she do for them in the economy? I'm gammy McCormick in his first hours is President Joe Biden is expected to sign 17 executive actions, ending construction of the border wall and the so called Muslim travel ban rejoining the Paris climate Accord and the World Health Organization. Mr. Biden is also expected to revoke approval of the Keystone Pipeline also happening today, a White House press briefing said to take place in about four hours, the Trump White House had all but Abandoned the practice of briefing reporters daily. I'm Steve Dorsey on Capitol Hill as the Senate prepares to begin an impeachment trial of former president Trump. Ah, powerful Republican South Carolina's Lindsey Graham says it runs counter to President Biden's message. If you bleed President Trump did something.
WTOP 24 Hour News
Kamala Harris sworn into history
"Can see Lady Gaga singing the national anthem. Shortly thereafter, Joe Biden officially became the 46th, president of the United States. This Is America's Day. This is Democracy's Day Day of history and hope of renewal and resolved. Mr Bind addressed the nation that it's after Vice President Kamila Harris was 1st 14 by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Kamala Davey House Do solemnly swear. Come little Davy Harrison solemnly swear she is the first woman in person of color to become second in line to the presidency. Former President Trump earlier
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on KTAR 92.3FM
"To our first African American, Our first Asian American and our first woman vice president Kamila Harris. It is my great privilege to welcome to the inaugural stage, the first Latina to ever serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Okay, here, Ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing for the love of all those followed by musical honors. Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I Kamala Davey has to solemnly swear baby Harrison's song We swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States that I will support and defend the Constitution of the united against all enemies. Foreign influence born in Vanessa. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that I take this obligation freely that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, that I will well and faithfully discharge that I will well. Faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, So help me God. So help me God. Okay, that was the swearing in of the vice president, United States. It is official Camel. Harris is officially the vice president of.
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on WBSM 1420
"Uh, Sonia Sotomayor, my or the Supreme Court justice, and Obama, Right, the wise Latina woman. She's very angry about what's happened here. Put it in a historical context, she she wrote. The federal government executed more than three times as many people in the last six months than it had in the previous six decades. Thank you, President Trump. It's not like they executed any innocent people here, did they? On Wednesday. Lisa Montgomery 52 was also executed in Indiana, known as the Womb Raider. Montgomery, a Kansan was convicted in 2007 of strangling Bobbie Jo Stinnett before cutting out her unborn baby. She was the first woman executed in the United States in the 1953. I'll bet that was Ethel Rosenberg. That was Julius Rosenberg's Wife, the atomic spy, but those but they were all but it was Ethel Rosenberg was the last one executed. And then, uh, Previously there was the guy who killed the seven people. He was a drug dealer in Richmond. He was executed last week. He too, had Cove it but the cove it was cleared up immediately upon his his lethal injection. Before President Trump took office on Lee. Three federal executions had taken place since 1988 when the federal death penalty was reinstituted by the Supreme Court. All of those were carried out by former President George W. Bush when he was with George Bush was governor of Texas. Remember, he executed every ordered the execution. He signed the warrant for the execution of a least one woman. Remember, he supposedly was making jokes about her when she went on 60 minutes to try to save her life. Again. I got no, that's that's not one of my big complaints.
TalkRadio 630 KHOW
"sonia sotomayor" Discussed on TalkRadio 630 KHOW
"Brings the barriers Police and National Guard troops surrounding the federal district in Washington, D. C to ensure domestic extremists won't disrupt the inauguration of President elect Joe Biden. Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger, Sadly, 25,000 troops it seems like overkill. But given the threat, I'd much rather be in a place of overkill, then have under predicted what the real threat is. Where the first time in more than 150 years an outgoing president will not attend the inauguration of his successor. Sources say President Trump will leave earlier on Inauguration Day wanting a red carpet in a military band playing is he departs? Coronavirus, claiming more than two million lives around the World America logging three million new coronavirus cases since the start of the year. Scattered vaccine shortages across the country, hampering efforts to speed up the pace of vaccinations. Governor is outraged after the entire supply of second dose reserve that the federal government promised states turned out to be distributed last month. This is ABC News on Inauguration Day, along with Joe Biden becoming the nation's 46 president, Kamila Harris, poised to make history and she's drawing on those who helped inspire and paved the way for her vice president elect Kamila Harris is ushering in history as she gets ready to take office as the first woman and woman of color to be elected to the position and we're learning. Harris will be sworn in by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She is the first Latina Supreme Court justice at the swearing in. There will be two Bibles used. Harris has chosen one That previously belonged to a family friend and the second Bible that belonged to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, One of Harris is inspirations for her career path. Michelle Friends and ABC News. We could use a little bit of extra money. Nearly a billion and a half dollars are now on the line. ABC is Brian Clark has some details on that. Nobody had the right combination of numbers to win the $750 million mega millions jackpot Friday night, so the prize for the next drawing Tuesday is increasing to an estimated $850 million. This is ABC News. The success of Janet's Meal prep business is keeping her from keeping up with customer appetites. Can you prep meals? This is Janet. Yes. You just reheat. Well, we actually have a weightless currently. Okay?.