18 Burst results for "Sotomayor Kagan"

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WGN Radio

WGN Radio

07:24 min | Last month

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WGN Radio

"The bob surratt morning show. All right, welcome back it's the Jimbo hannon show I am rich valdes at rich valdes with an S on all of the social media give us a follow there. And the phone number 8 6 6 5 O 5 four 6 two 6 8 6 6 5 O jimbos, the phone number, our guest is former deputy chief of the criminal division at the Department of Justice in Long Island, New York, Doug burns former federal prosecutor. Welcome to the program, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it. Always a pleasure. So I wanted to get into a couple of things with you because obviously today we had this big decision on the reversal of this New York law and the Supreme Court decision and a couple of other things we're going to get to in the next segment, but I want you to hear a clip of audio from CNN with poppy Harlow and Jim sciutto. Listen to this. The decision from the Supreme Court was enormous implications for this country as it relates to gun rights, reactions to gun violence, including the one we see underway on Capitol Hill right now and whether those attempts to regulate guns enhance or broaden gun safety measures could survive court muster. Poppy that says enormous enormous implications. In north enormous implications, this court wiping away any distinction between having a gun in your home for self defense has decided in Heller and now carrying it outside of your home also which we'll discuss throughout the day here on CNN, Jim, as you know, this court has now changed the framework of how courts going forward have to look at gun rights and the Second Amendment no longer the two part framework looking now at text and history, which means a lot of the current gun laws could be reheard and relitigated and challenged or exactly right right. All right, so I wanted to get your perspective on that. Legal perspective on that because it's my understanding that once this thing gets so returned all the rest of these laws, whether they're going to have legal challenges or not, they're going to have to kind of fall in line because they have to meet up with the Supreme Court decision, right? Or no. Yeah, absolutely right. Here's the thing. Law and politics really don't mix. I've been saying that for years doing legal media. And the two concepts don't mix. And it's an important starting point. So the point is, when politicians come out with all kinds of over the skis rhetoric, very unfortunate governor hulko and my state New York remain just coming out. This is a total disgrace what they're doing. I mean, it's really not productive. And not for me to tell politicians how to behave themselves, but they really should stop doing that. Because that is not productive on any level. The case is a serious legal case, very interesting situation. You start with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So that's the text of the Second Amendment. In fairness, many scholars over the years have said, well, wait a minute. It starts with a well regulated militia. So isn't the right limited to the militia context. That's a perfectly reasonable way to think about it. But the Supreme Court in the Heller case in Washington, D.C., held that there is a constitutional right to bear arms for self defense in your home. That was then extended in the McDonald case in Chicago because keep in mind the Heller case didn't apply to the states because Washington, D.C. is not a state. It's a federal territory. So in McDonald's, they said citizens have a right to bear arms and keep them for self defense. Under the Second Amendment. In New York, under the Sullivan law going back to, I think I heard it was 1913, rich. The point is, is that you are allowed to, if you applied for and got properly licensed, you're allowed to have a gun in your home for self defense, but this particular law, which was clearly in the minority in terms of the states in the country, said you couldn't take it outside the home for self defense. And today, the Supreme Court in a decision which I happen to agree with legally, no politics, no cultural points, illegally, my reading of the constitution is that it is a totally artificial distinction to say, you can defend yourself in your home, but you can't defend yourself outside your home. And that's the simple way to look at this opinion. Now, when you start factoring in the politics, they want to mix apples and oranges. Apples is what I just explained. The straight constitutional jurisprudence Second Amendment, you have the right to bear, keep and bear arms fine. The political thing is in the dissenting opinion today, it was really quite remarkable and unbelievably disappointing. The three justices, justice Breyer, Sotomayor Kagan, they start going on and on about the recent spate of gun violence justice Alito ripped them in his concurrence, brilliantly saying, those are perfectly fine social observations, political observations. They have nothing to do with the case that's before the court. Right, the interpretation of the constitution and this context. Exactly. Right. Yeah, I agree. And that's my layman's terms. You're the attorney here. But I thought it was interesting that they made this distinction because it seemed like from what I understand that this was based on the Heller case saying that you're allowed to have it in your home and then they built on that saying, well, there's no distinction of one protecting oneself, one's life wants property. If you exit the home, you don't lose your Second Amendment right to that protection. But let me give you one I'll give you a little finer point on the pencil though. What happened was, first of all, the people involved here are being licensed by New York State and they're being extensively vetted. There's all kinds of paperwork to get a permit on a license. Okay. So that's another area where the political discussion is crazy. My dentist very silent citizen he's got to carry permit. A veterinary and I know these are not people who should be characterized as, oh my God, everything's going to be so much less safe now. It's just not that's completely disingenuous political rhetoric, okay? And so the fact of the matter is, though, you had to show a particular need. There was a term of art. I wrote it down proper core cause proper cause. So what that meant was real simple riches. Not only did he have to establish the licensing board that you had a normal level of a need for self defense, you had to articulate something above and beyond that. And that doesn't make sense. And that's what the court shot down. Yeah, exactly. Now I'm thinking putting legal analysis had on again, I'm guessing now, and I'm using my political hat. If I'm the politician and I say, well, you know what? I don't like the fact that your dentist and your veterinarian are going to walk around with guns when they go to Walmart or where they walk their dog around the block. I'm going to say that, you know, because you

Supreme Court Heller bob surratt Jimbo hannon rich valdes jimbos Doug burns poppy Harlow Jim sciutto New York CNN Washington, D.C. Department of Justice McDonald Capitol Hill Long Island justice Breyer Sotomayor Kagan Jim D.C.
Unpacking 'The Supreme Leak' and the End of Roe

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:28 min | 3 months ago

Unpacking 'The Supreme Leak' and the End of Roe

"Reported that the Supreme Court was poised to decide that roe versus wade was going to be overturned. Now this is an unprecedented development because Politico received a leak. Now we're used to leaks in Washington, D.C., leaks happen all the time in leakers are rarely ever held accountable unless the leakers of course are leaking on Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. And so what appears to be a Supreme Court Justice clerk will get into that later in this program of who we think it is. They leaked a draft of the decision composed and written by Samuel Alito by justice Alito. Now the significance of this is, is that the decision is not done yet, is that the justices meet right after they hear oral arguments, they start to draft opinions, and the final decision, the final vote will be done based on how the opinion is written. And so based on the draft that looks like Amy Coney Barrett, clarence Thomas, justice Gorsuch, justice Alito, and justice Kavanaugh, 5 of them are going to vote against the four would be briar Sotomayor Kagan and Roberts saying that roe versus wade will be overturned. Now mind you. We'll get into the technical aspect of this. Does not mean that abortion will be outlawed as much as I'd like to see that happen. That just, it's simply means that states will be able to determine their own abortion laws. It will

Washington, D.C. Samuel Alito Supreme Court Wade Politico Amy Coney Barrett Hillary Clinton Justice Gorsuch Barack Obama Justice Kavanaugh Sotomayor Kagan Clarence Thomas Alito ROE Roberts
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

03:27 min | 6 months ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

"Feet 8. We need to have a short guy on the court. The court just doesn't look like America because after all, there are some guys who are a little bit underwater, so to speak in the country. So let's find some guy who's like 5 5 or below. Or perhaps a midget, but, you know, people would be like, what? What is this have to do with being a justice? Now, Tulsi Gabbard goes on to say, and I think this is a little more. She's almost turning the screw. Biden chose Harris as his VP because of the color. Her skin and sex. That's worked out. Non qualification she's been a disaster. Yeah. And now ironically, there are some people who have actually suggested putting Harris on the court and sort of moving her out of the vice president. No, I've seen this. I've seen this from. It's crazy. Well, it's kind of a way. It's kind of a way to get rid of her as the potential successor. So it's true. If you thought that she was gonna be great, you now realize that she's a liability. Right. What better way to deal with her than to sort of move her off stage and put on some black robes and then so that's a possibility. Apparently though, well, I was thinking back to the Reagan years and when Reagan nominated justice Scalia. He did say, he said, I'm happy to be nominating a man who will be the first Italian American to the Supreme Court. So I don't want to imply that there's something that's so shocking about ethnic politics that presidents don't take into account that there is some significance to this sort of thing. I think the problem here is just simply that everybody knows that Biden is going to go for an ideologue. Yeah. Now, Lindsey Graham, interestingly enough, is pushing for him to pick a woman from South Carolina and her name is child's CHI LDS. She's evidently a judge on the district court for South Carolina and she's a nominee to go on the D.C. Court of Appeals. But apparently a gram and House minority whip, this is Clyburn from South Carolina. They're pushing chiles to be Biden's nominee. I don't know if it's going to happen. Is this woman? What kind of politics does she? Because you know, as you know, picking women or men, liberal, on this court, is actually picking an activist for their side, whereas when we do it, that's not the case. So it's important that people understand that, that they are picking an activist. Well, I think they're looking for someone who's more in the Sotomayor Kagan mold. Because there are activists. Yeah, but breyer was too, but you could tell that with breyer that was a certain moderation of temperament. He was a little more old school. He was a little more old school. He was willing to side with the conservatives on certain key issues. I think religious freedom being a notable one, whereas I'm not confident. Now I don't know a whole lot about child. My guess is the fact that Lindsey Graham is pushing her to me suggests that maybe she's not a complete radical. Now obviously Clyburn would not support her if she wasn't on the progressive side..

Tulsi Gabbard Biden Harris justice Scalia Reagan South Carolina D.C. Court of Appeals Lindsey Graham America Clyburn Supreme Court Sotomayor Kagan breyer chiles House
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

WBZ NewsRadio 1030

07:08 min | 11 months ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

"Midst of the 9 11 weekend and the commemoration, there was a pretty interview very interesting interview. With United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Now for those of you that follow the Supreme Court. Stephen Breyer has been on the court for a long time He was nominated by Bill Clinton. It is first year uh as President 19. 90. Well, 1993. I'm pretty sure that that was the year that, uh, that he was elevated to the court, so he's going to be on the court. Um, close to three decades. At this point, um 28 years, I guess long time long time and over the weekend, Um Chris Wallace from Fox, uh, had a rare interview. Supreme Court justices don't do a lot of these interviews and the question with what with Breyer at this point. It is. Whether or not he's gonna believe he's 82 years of age. Um but very, um, well preserved 82. I might add. And a member of and it's been a pretty consistent member of what's considered to be the liberal wing of the court, which at this point Is comprised of 33 justices on the court. Sotomayor Kagan, Uh and Breyer, Uh, they generally vote in the block, and there's a lot of pressure on him. Coming from the Democrats that maybe he should, uh, resign. Um most Supreme Court justices, Well, they do want to do things that other die as Supreme Court justices, or they resign. Ah, and and their replacements are chosen. Uh, some of them. Um And I think of Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia. Uh, stayed on until the end. Uh and we've had some very acrimonious Supreme Court nominations over the years, particularly in recent years. Lot of Donald Trump was fortunate enough or in the ice or some people misfortune, uh, to be able to nominate three justices to the Supreme Court. Um Which for one term president, uh is is is quite a quite an honor. I can't say it's an achievement because it it comes to the president's desk. Not through anything that they do, but it has it came to his desk. It just so happened that there were, uh three members of the court who who, for one reason or another decided to move on. So now You have Breyer, who is being questioned by Chris Wallace. Uh, over the weekend. And the backdrop of this is that the Democrats who want Breyer off the court So and certainly off the court. Before President Biden's term expires in the event that President Biden is not reelected. Uh, Republican then would be able to get You know, maybe if bright if Brian did not last for another eight years, um the Republican would be able to appoint him. So Breyer was asked about. By walls about this. This concept of court packing President Biden has appointed a commission of, um distinguished jurists who will Report back to him. As a matter of fact, I think that report is due back if not already any day now as to what should happen. The Supreme Court since 18 69 is comprised of nine members, nine members. Uh, Franklin Roosevelt and probably one of the dumbest things that he ever did as president proposed packing the court back in the 19 thirties, and that was a miserable flop in a failure for President Roosevelt so Breyer. Um Echoes the thoughts of um Ruth Bader Ginsburg about packing the court. He's opposed to it. Please play cut for please Rob. Weigh in on possible reforms to the court. What do you think of the idea of increasing the number of justices on the court? No one party could do it. I guess another party could do it. The more thing I mean, surely surface on the surface. It seems to me you start changing all these things around and of People will lose trust in the court. So, Dad, I think is the key question and that and I think Justice Breyer, um, has identified the key question. Which is, um, how much trust Do we have in the U. S Supreme Court? Oftentimes we hear Your network commentators refer to the Supreme Court, um as a or a certain justice as a conservative justice, or a, uh, a liberal justice, Republican justice or a democratic justice and oftentimes. The votes by the judges of the justices of the Supreme Court do reflect the political viewpoints of the president's who nominated them. Um, And that was the concern with Amy Coney bruh Barrett, the most recently, uh Oh, affirmed member confirmed member of the U. S Supreme Court. Um, she has spoken of very strongly, uh and it's written very strongly on the event on the abortion issue. Much to the concern of people who are pro choice and, um, to the delight of those, um, who are pro life. So I think Breyer, um, has identified the key issue and that is In my view, the court is nine justices should remain as nine justices and that the vagaries of presidential elections in the vagaries of retirements or all the health of Supreme Court justices. Intoning Scalia. Um Who died unexpectedly. Very unexpectedly. Um, uh, had been asked about that by the same Chris Wallace, uh, back several years ago, uh, and as an interesting exchange between Chris Wallace, Uh and and and Scalia. This is the voice of in tone. It's incident. Scalia, who was the Leaving conservative jurist on the court for many years for Well, it was almost 30 years on the court, and this was a and exchange that, uh, that Scalia Judge Justice Scalia had with Chris Wallace back in 2012 about this. Very issue..

Bill Clinton 2012 Brian Donald Trump Chris Wallace Franklin Roosevelt Ruth Bader Ginsburg nine members 82 years 1993 Breyer 28 years Sotomayor Kagan 82 U. S Supreme Court Republican 18 69 33 justices eight years Amy Coney bruh Barrett
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

05:27 min | 1 year ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"App and the Odyssey AP Everybody. Charlie Kirk, your email US your thoughts. Freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. As we predicted. The Supreme Court has ruled that Joe Biden acted unconstitutionally by signing a continuation. Of the Biden administrations Eviction moratorium. Last night, the Supreme Court on rather predictable lines. John Roberts actually did the right thing ruled 6 to 3, Clarence Thomas, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito. Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh on Amy Coney Barrett 6 to 3 against Sotomayor, Kagan and Brian. Supreme Court ruled that Quote. If they federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue. Congress must specifically authorize it. Congress was unnoticed that a further extension would almost surely require new legislation. Yet it failed to act in several weeks leading up to the moratoriums expiration. An unsigned eight page opinion. Now the three dissenters, it tells you exactly Where the American left on their regime is they said, Well, now the cases are going up so we can make our own law. That's what they said. They said. This is a This is a massive issue, and it's going to get kind of Covered up because of the more important stuff happening in Kabul. But this is a This is a preview of where they're going, They are going to be able to create their own laws. In the future. Because They justify the need. This is what they said. The three justices said Covid 19 transmission rates have spiked in recent weeks reaching levels that the CDC puts as high as last winter 150,000 new cases per day. This goes to show the power that propagandist media has over our courts. So if Joe Biden signed an executive order into law, saying that driving is illegal Because 36,000 people plus die on the road every single year with the Supreme Court allow that to happen If Joe Biden came out and said, I am now going to say no more fossil fuels because climate change is killing so many people Just make up some number. Forget what the law says. It's what the need says. And the need, according to these justices warrant the abolition of private property in the ability to evict people. Now. Thankfully, thanks to President Trump. We have seats on the U. S Supreme Court that checked this ridiculous executive order. The White House said it was disappointed in the ruling. Write. The Byte Administration is disappointed. The Supreme Court has blocked the most recent CDC eviction moratorium, while confirmed cases of the delta variant are significant across the country. Can someone tell me what kicking someone out for? Not paying their rent and the delta variant why those two things are somehow tied together. I thought the vaccines work. I thought masks our future. So then why should it matter that some bum is not paying his rent for 18 months? As a result of this ruling families will face the painful impact of evictions and communities across the country Face a greater risk of exposure to covid 19. Oh, I see so kicking someone out for not paying rent. And schlepping around and literally stealing money from somebody else's property. Is somehow arrest to the community for Covid 19. Do you see where this is headed there going to be able to do whatever they want to do to confiscate guns. If they get enough seats there will be An executive order signed one day saying gun violence is such a pandemic. I am signing an executive order to confiscate all weapons and justice will say yes, look, it's look at the numbers. You see, this is the difference between a living constitution and an activist justice like Sotomayor, an originalist like Clarence Thomas Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Who believe the law is what it says. And it's unchanging. It's called textual is, um Biden administration said the delta variant of the coronavirus had propelled a new surge of cases justifying the new extension. The trajectory has since changed unexpectedly dramatically and for the worse Seven day average of daily new cases, not deaths cases. It's a case Democrat now nearly a 10 fold increase over the rate when the court ruled in June Wait, so vaccination rates went up dramatically since June, and yet cases have gone up tenfold. Those two things related. We're not allowed to ask those questions, of course. The real question in a couple seconds remaining of this hour. We're going to talk about this in the next hour. What if Joe Biden ignores it? What's the Supreme Court going to do? As Andrew Jackson famously said in Worcester v. Georgia in 18 32. Let Marshall send his army. What if Biden defies? John Robertson says, Let Robert send his army. Joe Biden illegally signed the executive order. He even predicted the Supreme Court would rule against him. How far is he willing to push this? After the news in Kabul. I don't know if Joe Biden's willing to push a domestic fight while he has foreign chaos as well. Joe Biden and his regime have already said they don't care.

Neil Gorsuch Clarence Thomas Alito John Robertson Andrew Jackson Clarence Thomas Joe Biden John Roberts Samuel Alito Amy Coney Barrett Kabul Congress Brett Kavanaugh 18 months Kagan Robert June Brian U. S Supreme Court Marshall CDC
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

10:19 min | 1 year ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Y. C. W N. Y c independent journalism in the public interest, 93.9 FM and AM a 20 NPR News and the New York conversation. Mm hmm. Random error on W. N. Y C as we're nearing the end of the Supreme Court's term and traditionally when the rulings in the most contentious cases get announced in late June. We cover them with our legal editor, Jamie Floyd. There are a handful of cases were following and yesterday the court ruled on one of them the First Amendment rights of students off campus. We're also looking at when police can follow a fleeing suspect into a home without a warrant and a regulation that requires agricultural employers. To allow union organizers onto their property to speak with their workers. The off campus student speech rights decision just came down and with us is Jamie Floyd W. N. Y. C senior editor for Race and Justice and legal editor. Hi, Jamie. Hello, Brian. And let's start with, um I don't even know how you say your name. The name is it Mom, Muhanna Muhanna to Hanoi. It's actually a Native American name because it's the county in Pennsylvania, where the school the public school important that it's public is located. So it's Ma Hanoi versus Brandi Levy, cheerleader. Brandy Levy. They should have let her onto the varsity team. Brian. All of this could have been avoided better known as the cussin cheerleader case, right? What was the claim? Well, she tried out for the squad she did not make the varsity squad made the junior varsity squad. And she was unhappy about that. Brian went off campus and at a nearby fast food joint decided to snap about it or Snapchat as we older folks call it about it and use quite a few profanities. She didn't have a big following. But of course, it went viral anyway in the school community, and it got back to the leader of the faculty leader of the cheerleading squad, and she got suspended for the year. And so she took it as we say, Brian all the way to the U. S Supreme Court. Uh and she won, she won. This is an important First Amendment case because Couple of questions. She wasn't on campus. So can a public school regulate speech about the school when that speech is not on campus, but there are also important issues about what happens online Justice Breyer delivered the opinion with Robert Sotomayor, Kagan Gorsuch Kavanaugh and Bear it all ruling for the cheerleader, so a very interesting majority. Thomas and Thomas dissension, Alito wrote a concurring opinion, but the bottom line was that she won and the majority and Alito Completely ignored the question about whether or not student speech rights change when it's an extra curricular activity, But they did firmly rule that she has free speech when she is not on campus grounds. That was really the fundamental question and not a big surprise. I think the big surprise would have been If she had lost and you know her message was very vulgar, but she didn't make it on campus. And so she won. And this is the first time in over 50 years that a high school student went all the way to the Supreme Court. That's right, where the free speech case and one can you remind us about the 1969 ruling? Known as Tinker versus Des Moines Independent Community School District, right, that is the case that they were relying upon in this case in 1969 Tinker versus Des Moines, that other public school In that case, the Supreme Court allowed students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. I would say a much more sort of serious form of free speech about a more serious issue, saying that the students had not quote shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. But the important thing, Brian is that disruptive speech, at least on school grounds. Could be punished. In other words, if the speech is going to cause some trouble, the school, of course, has a right to step in and say, Hey, you can't start a fight. You can't wear a shirt that might have offensive language on it. You know, racist language or or pornographic language. The school can step in at that point, but generally if you're making a political statement, or, you know, wearing your armband to protest the war Uh, the school can step in on schoolhouse grounds, and that's what this case is largely based on the the lower court had ruled for Levi, the cheerleader in this case, but they had disagreed about the rationale. And so it made its way up to the U. S. Supreme Court and Justice. Breyer agreed that the cheerleader had the right to speak. She wasn't on campus, nor was she directing any violent action toward anybody on campus. She wasn't suggesting that anybody do anything disruptive. She was just expressing herself in what everyone agrees was a vulgar manner. There was FSF. That's right, Um, and Grayer's majority opinion did draw Similar line to what you just described from the 1969 case. But in contemporary context, it's if you're off campus, but online the school still has some authority over you. If you do things like bullying, right, right, Well, you know, the court had to get its head around what's going on now online And so, he writes. Quote, serious or severe bullying or harassment, targeting particular individuals, threats aimed at teachers or other students, or even the failure to follow rules concerning lessons or the writing of papers or the use of computers, etcetera, etcetera things that the school can still regulate under this opinion. With a student off campus. Those are the lines that go all the way back to the 1969 Tinker decision that the limited regulations that public institutions do have over students. Serious sense of your bullying. We know now Brian happens online. I actually was on a panel yesterday about that very topic. And a school could step in at that point, but that's not what this was. This was just speech. Another case that's been on our list to watch is Lang versus California. It's also known as the hot pursuit case, and it has to do with when police can follow a fleeing suspect into a home without a warrant. What more specifically was that issue and how to turn out. I love hot pursuit. It's one of my favorite topics in law. You learn it and first year law school hot pursuit is when the police are in what hot pursuit of evidence or a suspect and the hot pursuit generally means that the Fourth Amendment falls away Fourth Amendment which gives you The freedom from search, unreasonable search and seizure again. We're talking about the state action. In this case, it's the police that all falls away because they're in hot pursuit. They don't have time to go get that warrant. And the court says generally, that's okay because you were in hot pursuit. The ruling here was unanimous. Brian that hot pursuit warrantless entry into the home is not Categorically allowed in a misdemeanor case. This was a misdemeanor case. So, Kagan said the question presented here is whether the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect always or meet more legally, more legally put categorically. That's what we say in the law qualifies as an edge isn't circumstance, so an exigent circumstances? Oh, my God, we have to go in hot pursuit because he's going to flush that cocaine down the toilet. That's that's the classic hot pursuit. But in a misdemeanor case, we're talking about small things. You know you didn't you didn't show up for your ticket that you were supposed to just throw up Foreign court. Misdemeanors are the kinds of things lawyers practice when they first get to the public defender's office. Very small infractions. That's other kind of thing. The police need to be in hot pursuit about that's why they're misdemeanors. So, she says, a great many misdemeanor pursuits involved exigencies, allowing warrantless entry. But whether a given one does so turns on the particular facts of the case, calling any offense, a misdemeanor. Limits prison time to one year or more. She actually sites one of my favorite law professors or are in Kerr, who's at Berkeley. Uh, and so we can't categorically say that the police can always dispense with the Fourth Amendment. In every misdemeanor case because so many misdemeanors just don't require that kind of hot pursuit. They're not important enough, frankly, is what she's saying for you to be running into somebody's home without a warrant. Remember a man's castle, right? It's a man's castle. The Fourth Amendment is most about your home your right to privacy in your home. So this is an important case. I wouldn't say it's not surprising because here we have a unanimous ruling. I mean, even the two most conservative justices, Brian Uh, yeah, Alito and, um Thomas signed on to this one. So if they're signing on, you know, Thomas rarely signs on with the others. It must be It must be, uh, you know, pretty clear cut case. Well, I want to ask you about that larger trend. And before we get to the one final case where today Cedar Point Nursery, a union case, um You know, this is supposed to be The epically divided 54 or 63 Supreme Court era, But it seems like all the cases that you and I have been talking about over the last few weeks..

Robert Sotomayor Jamie Floyd Jamie Brandy Levy Brian Thomas Brandi Levy Pennsylvania Alito Kagan Vietnam War U. S Supreme Court U. S. Supreme Court Kagan Gorsuch Kavanaugh one year late June yesterday Levi Kerr Grayer
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on CRUSADE Channel Previews

CRUSADE Channel Previews

01:37 min | 1 year ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on CRUSADE Channel Previews

"Believed. Justice Sotomayor Kagan. Were incredibly qualified women. Of great character. Disposition and integrity. And I believe the same about you. So. Let's talk a little bit about yesterday Abam Care. This hearing has been more about obamacare than has you abam care is on the ballot if you want socialized single payer healthcare that's on the ballot. Wide a mini of US subject to Obamacare it was written. In passed on a partisan line. Thank on Christmas Eve. Most. Big changes in society have more buying than that. You're talking about one fifth of the American economy and as I said, yesterday from a South Carolina point of view, this is not worked out. Well, we started with five exchanges were down to one. You have one choice for rural hospitals have closed. Premiums have gone up not down by an average of thirty percent. And when you look at the formula used by the voice of Senator Lindsey Graham here on the Mike Church show, we are monitoring this I can understand I'm just waiting for Amici Coney Berra to give some kind of an opening statement here this morning. So that's why we're listening in on the hearing of began live twenty two out sixteen minutes ago. And we're about six minutes on tape delay. If you're watching US somewhere going like sure blaze your behind we had the pause for the news and the commercials..

US Justice Sotomayor Kagan Abam Care Senator Lindsey Graham Amici Coney Berra obamacare South Carolina
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

06:26 min | 1 year ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

"Technology we use every day is built using thousands of lines of code, , some of it written decades ago. . Now, , the Supreme Court is deciding when that code is free for others to use and when it is not back when Google was creating android, , the company decided to make it work with the popular programming language Java. . So it would be easier to make APPS for android but to do that Google Use Java code that is now on by Oracle Oracle sued and now a decade and several trials. . Later, , the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. . Yesterday Mark Lumley is a law professor at. Stanford . where he teaches copyright and Internet law and has been following the case I think this has tremendous implications for the way software is written and for the structure of software markets I think Oracle wins its case. . It's good to make it much harder for computer programmers to write programs that work with other programs I. . Think it's GonNa, , make it much more difficult for anything from cloud computing to video games to a number of non software interconnections to Inter operate or work together with machines. . The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in this case, , anything stand out to you on either side. . Yes, , I, , think what's remarkable especially given the background we've just talked about is that Oracle's argument seemed to get a lot of traction with a lot of the justices chief justice Roberts compared Google writing its program in a way that made it into operate with Java to. . Cracking safe codes and number of the justices seem to think that the facts that Oracle had written this code even if this code was out necessary to make programs work with Java meant that it was the copyright owner and had an entitlement to protection. . So based on that, , do you have a sense of which way the court might lean? ? It's it's always hard to predict from oral argument but I guess, , I came out of the oral argument thinking that at least on the question of is this copy writable at all many maybe most of the justices were inclined to take oracle side and to say it was copyright -able justice. . Breyer and maybe justices Sotomayor Kagan were more skeptical of that claim. . If Google prevails think it might prevail not on the grounds that you can't protect this information at all. . But on a narrower ground that the court was wrong to turn the jury's finding of fair use that Google's particular use of this was permissible or at least that there was a factual dispute and the jury could legitimately it permissible? ? As you mentioned this case has been around for a decade. . Now obviously a lot has changed both in the companies themselves and in the makeup of the court, , how do you think that could affect the outcome? ? I think the world has changed for the Internet. . and not necessarily in a in a way that's good <hes>, , and if you had asked people what they thought of Google, , what they thought of the Internet and openness in two, , thousand, , ten, , I think you would have gotten much more favourable responses <hes>. . Then you get in two, , thousand and twenty I don't know that that's going to affect the outcome. . But the concern that we're going to significantly impede the way we write software and innovation in Silicon Valley I think resonated a lot more when this case began then maybe it does today. . As for the court. . One significant factor is obviously the absence of Justice Ginsburg. . She was a very pro copyright voice on the court her absence I think sort of both takes that voice away which <hes> which maybe isn't great for Oracle <hes> but also means that <hes> there's a prospect that as the court did twenty four years ago and Lotus versus Borland. . We could end up with a forty four split and no decision why couldn't google just create its own code? ? Google could create its own code infects. . Google did. . So one of the things that's notable here is not only is all of the rest of android code something that Google didn't copy but even the so-called applications programming interfaces themselves, , which are the way the programs connect with the Computer Google didn't Copy Java's code, , it wrote its own implementing coat but there. . Are Some things you have to copy because they are signals that allow things the two programs to work together. . If we want interoperability, , we want somebody to do what Java said was going to be possible, , which is quote write once run everywhere then people have to be able to copy the bits of code that are necessary to allow you to run Java. . I want to ask more specifically what do you think might happen with software creation? ? If Oracle, , wins this case I mean, , how could it affect the kinds of programs we have in the future I think if Oracle wins, , it means that the era of openness and interoperability comes to an end and we retreat even further than we already have into walled gardens if you're on an apple device, well, , , the only. . Thing, , you're going to be able to run or things apple has approved. . If you're on a google device, , the only thing you're able to run or things Google has approved <hes> but the long term payoff might be that it's harder to dislodge the apples and googles and facebooks of the world in a world where we can't write software that works with there's which side do you see working best for consumers? ? <hes> I think there's very little question but the Google's on the side of consumers here right? ? Because it is allowing people to create interoperable programs to use things across platforms I think that both leads to cheaper products and it leads to a wider array of potential products. . So consumer choice benefits Mark Lamley is a professor at Stanford Oracle argues that a ruling in its favour helps consumers by promoting innovation saying companies will be reluctant to make big investments if a competitor can copy their work without paying for it. .

Google Oracle Supreme Court Oracle Oracle Stanford Oracle professor Mark Lumley Justice Ginsburg apple Stanford justice Roberts Mark Lamley Breyer Sotomayor Kagan
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

WBZ NewsRadio 1030

03:47 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

"The GOP held Virginia house of delegates cannot challenge the lower court ruling which around eleven Virginia congressional districts were drawn with race as a primary factor. The decision ended the challenge in handed to win Virginia Democrats, finding the new district maps must be used leading into the twenty twenty raise justices. Clarence Thomas Neal, Gorsuch cited with liberal justices, Sotomayor Kagan and Ginsburg in the ruling Serena Marshall, ABC news, Washington. Now, the court also took a stand, when it comes to the so-called, double jeopardy, case justices ruling today defendants can be charged in both state, and federal court. For the same crimes. Embassies Pete Williams reports the justices ruled against man from Alabama but was charged under state law. Got a year sentence, and then under a federal law for the same three year sentence he appealed. But the supreme court today declined to change that long standing rule. Now the case has implications when it comes to the president's former campaign chief, Paul Manafort right now, he faces state charges that he claims are just too similar to those crimes. He was convicted of in federal court Manafort, right now, serving a prison sentence for tax and banking fraud, long Capitol Hill. Progressive Democrats growing more frustrated with house speaker, Nancy Pelosi as she continues to hold off impeachment proceedings against the president near congresswoman Alexandria, Akhazia Cortez. For example, says now is the time continues to come in, and I believe that with the president now saying that he is willing to break the law to win reelection. Transcend partisanship it. Transcends party lines now about the rule of law. She tells ABC the decision on impeachment should be Nate made not for political reasons, but. Because it's the constitutional responsibility of congress. Meantime, speaking of the president, he's back on the campaign trail this week, this time in Florida leaked polls from his own campaign showed that, that is one of the critical states where right now. He's trailing democrat. Joe Biden, Mr. Trump fired. Those pollsters later on calling the numbers fake, CBS, Zhang says the president has a big rally planned tomorrow night in Orlando. Festival throughout the day. And then a make America great again rally at night and he's already touting the number saying that more than one hundred thousand people have asked for tickets for just twenty thousand seats and it's going to be historic as he describes. It local media in Orlando already reporting people have been staking out spots in front of this arena, since yesterday, actually, trying to get in get a ticket for this rally and the human rights group is now urging Egypt to look into the death of former president Mohamed Morsi today. The sixty seven year old collapsed in court where he was being tried on espionage charges. It was later pronounced dead at a hospital in the Middle East director of amnesty. International says, more death is raising some serious questions about how he was treated in custody. Former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected president in Egypt's. First free elections back in two thousand twelve one year later he was overthrown in a military coup for a wait time to see how things ship out on Wall Street today. It's time for Bloomberg business. Here's Jeff Bellinger, coal. There was a bit of a shaking out ahead. Of the closing bell. Stocks ended modestly higher off their best levels of the day. The Dow Jones industrials up twenty three points, the NASDAQ up forty eight the s&p five hundred up about three. It was a good day for big tech. Shares of Facebook, apple Netflix and Delfa bet all closed higher. Targets shares fell three quarters of a percent. All of the discount chains. Checkouts were knocked off line by a technical failure for about two hours on Saturday and Dunkin has begun. The nationwide rollout of delivery service through grub, I city to get it is New York. I'm Jeff Bellinger, Bloomberg business on WBZ. Boston's NewsRadio keeping an eye on this situation. Developing in Toronto right now a possible shooting at the Toronto Raptors celebration parade. We're getting reports from Toronto police. At least one person might have been shot an clear on the injuries. At this point. We're keeping an eye on that more on sports with Tom Cuddy coming.

president Jeff Bellinger Mohamed Morsi Virginia ABC Paul Manafort Nancy Pelosi Nate Bloomberg Egypt Toronto Orlando Zhang GOP Mr. Trump Toronto Raptors Clarence Thomas Neal Sotomayor Kagan congress
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WBSM 1420

WBSM 1420

01:48 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WBSM 1420

"Iran today announcing it will soon surpass uranium stockpile limits, that out in the international nuclear agreement, ABC's, Tom rivers is at the foreign desk. The announcement is being seen as a sign of Tehran's determination after the Trump administration pulled out of the thousand fifteen nuclear deal last year and reimposed tough economic sanctions on Iran spokesman for the country's atomic agency also warns that Iran has the need for uranium enriched up to twenty percent which is just a step away from weapons grade levels. The Trump administration responding today State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortega's should not yield to nuclear extortion, by the Iranian regime. But Democratic Senator Patrick layhee says the president's decision to pull the US out of the nuclear deal. Makes it harder for this country to say much. Now these court issued a number of rulings today, including one about gerrymandering in Virginia, a five four decision. The supreme court has ruled that the GOP held Virginia house of delegates cannot challenge the lower court ruling, which. Found eleven Virginia congressional districts were drawn with race as a primary factor. The decision ended the challenge in handed to win Virginia. Democrats finding the new district maps must be used leading into the twenty twenty raise justices Clarence Thomas and Neil, Gorsuch sided with liberal justices Sotomayor Kagan and Ginsburg in the ruling. Serena Marshall, ABC news, Washington. Black couple in Arizona are suing the city of Phoenix police violated. Their civil rights issue Harper and her fiance, Trayvon Ames, who was on video seen having his leg kicked out from under him by Phoenix. Police officer who already had aims hands behind his back say, they do not accept apologies that have been given by the mayor of Phoenix and the police chief. Apology. They want the officers involved fired that was ABC's Alec stone developing story in Toronto..

Virginia Iran ABC Phoenix supreme court Senator Patrick layhee Tehran Trump Tom rivers Morgan Ortega extortion Sotomayor Kagan Serena Marshall Clarence Thomas Alec stone US Arizona GOP officer
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on KOMO

KOMO

02:36 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on KOMO

"And the Ad Council. KOMO Seattle KOMO FM Oakville. Twenty minutes of nonstop news starts now. Coming up on KOMO news after we check in with ABC Boeing in Paris apologizing instead of bragging. I'm Corwin Hake with the tight rope executives are walking plus traffic and weather every ten minutes on the fours. I live ABC news. It's one o'clock. From ABC news. I'm Scott Goldberg awarding from Iran today, announcing it will soon surpass uranium stockpile limits set out in the international nuclear agreement. ABC's Tom rivers is at the foreign desk. The announcement is being seen as a sign of Tehran's determination after the Trump administration pulled out of the twenty-fifty nuclear deal last year and reimposed tough economic sanctions on Iran spokesman for the country's atomic agency also warns that Iran has the need for uranium enriched up to twenty percent which is just a step away from weapons grade levels. The Trump administration responding today State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortega's should not yield to nuclear extortion, by the Iranian regime. But Democratic Senator Patrick layhee says the president's decision to pull the US out of the nuclear deal. Makes it harder for this country to say much. Now the supreme court issued a number of rulings today, including one about gerrymandering in Virginia a five four decision. The supreme court has ruled that the GOP held Virginia house of delegates cannot challenge the lower court ruling, which. Eleven virginia. Congressional districts were drawn with race as a primary factor. The decision ended the challenge and handed to win Virginia. Democrats finding the new district maps must be used leading into the twenty twenty raise justices Clarence Thomas and Neil, Gorsuch sided with liberal justices Sotomayor Kagan and Ginsburg in the ruling. Serena Marshall, ABC news, Washington. Black couple in Arizona are suing the city of Phoenix saying police violated their civil rights issue Harper and her fiance, Trayvon Ames, who was on video seen having his leg kicked out from under him by Phoenix. Police officer who already had aims hands behind his back say, they do not accept apologies that have been given by the mayor of Phoenix and the police chief of I guess a half apology. They want the officers involved fired that was ABC's Alec stone developing story in Toronto. Police say a woman's been shot at the parade and ceremony celebrating the NBA champion raptors. You're listening to ABC news. Stay connected. Stay informed. Komo midday. Good afternoon. Komo news time one zero two. I'm Taylor van Cise. Top stories from the KOMO twenty four seven news center, top executives at.

KOMO ABC Virginia Iran ABC Boeing supreme court Phoenix Ad Council Corwin Hake Taylor van Cise Seattle Senator Patrick layhee Scott Goldberg Oakville Paris Trump
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

WBZ NewsRadio 1030

03:31 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

"Here's what's happening unless sixteen year old is now facing assault and attempted murder charges in Whitman after a stabbing last night, the victim was a sophomore whitman-hanson high school in police believe that the two had been in an argument on social media that got out of control. WBZ's James Ross has been covering the story today from Whitman he caught up in one of the victims friend running boat because the, the suspect didn't get invited to the victim sleepover. And, you know, they were talking smack back to back and he was like how come the house right now? Like like I'm done talking like this is stupid like each want to fight me. And I guess, the suspect was, like, if you come to my house. So I'll come out and the incident is under investigation with the suss. Specht already arraigned at Brockton juvenile court today and has since been released to his parents any more developments on the story. We'll be following it here on WBZ will the supreme court making a ruling in gerrymandering case ABC's. Serena Marshall has more from Washington at five four. Four decisions. The court has ruled that the GOP held Virginia house of delegates cannot challenge the lower court's ruling, which found eleven Virginia congressional districts were drawn with race as a primary factor. The decision ended the challenge and handed to win Virginia Democrats, finding the new district maps must be used leading into the twenty twenty raise justices Clarence Thomas and Neil, Gorsuch sided with liberal justices Sotomayor Kagan and Ginsburg in the ruling. Serena Marshall, ABC news Washington at twelve thirty one elsewhere the supreme court granted a petition on a same sex marriage versus religious freedom case, not making a ruling, however, they are sidestepping the issue going in this direction, the case at hand involves an Oregon bakery, owner claiming that the state drove them out of business because they wouldn't make a wedding cake. For a gay couple Oregon said they violated anti discrimination laws in ward of the couple of hundred thirty five thousand dollars. But the supreme court has now scrapped the appeals verdict in his telling you lower court to reexamine that case. Well, the United States broke off from the Iran nuclear pact, and from an outsider's perspective. They've agreed with most of the agreement's rules, thus far, however, that does appear to be changing more from ABC's Martha Raddatz spokesman for Iran's atomic agency, saying just a short time ago that in the next ten days, Iran will break the uranium stockpile limit that was set by that twenty fifteen nuclear deal with world powers. This is a first that Trump administration already withdrawn from the deal. But Iran has stayed within the limits. And of course, President Trump has warned that the US will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon in the United States has blamed Iran for a recent attack onto oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman will be talking about that. Also in about ten minutes with CBS news military analyst, Mike lions fashion, icon, socialite. Gloria Vanderbilt has died. Ninety five Gloria Vanderbilt was a child. Newspapers called her. The poor little rich girl. Because the air. Was at the center of a lurid child custody battle between her mother and her aunt. Dealt? She'd be famous for four marriages, while her memoirs detailed flings with the likes of Marlon Brando and Frank Sinatra not content to be just a socialite that build had careers as an actress artist and designer she even appeared in commercials for products bearing her name. Denim jeans, and in recent years. She'd be known as the mother of CNN journalist. Anderson Cooper Deborah Rodriguez CBS news..

Iran Brockton juvenile court ABC Gloria Vanderbilt Serena Marshall United States Washington Virginia Whitman James Ross Oregon assault Marlon Brando CNN Anderson Cooper Deborah Rodrig Specht CBS Martha Raddatz
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

News 96.5 WDBO

01:57 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

"News ninety six point five WDBO. Listen on air in the news ninety six point five WDBO and now on your Amazon echo, ninety six point five WDBO. But we got some wet roads out there. So be careful if you're taking I four, especially in the attractions area where we have some pretty heavy rain. Otherwise, if you are seeing rain in metro Orlando, it's pretty light. It's some heavier stuff starting to pop up, along Markham woods and Longwood. But again, none of these cells are that particularly big so they should be over momentarily. We've got a supreme court update coming up right now. It's twelve ten on our land. Does news at noon? Good afternoon. I'm Darrell Moody supreme court has made a ruling in gerrymandering case now five four decision. The supreme court has ruled that the GOP held Virginia house of delegates cannot challenge the lower court ruling which around eleven Virginia congressional districts were drawn with race as a primary factor. The decision ended the challenge in handed to win Virginia Democrats, finding the new district maps must be used leading into the twenty twenty raise justices Clarence Thomas and Neil, Gorsuch sided with liberal justices Sotomayor Kagan and Ginsburg in the ruling. Serena Marshall, ABC news, Washington. I'm Jamie Dupree in Washington in a case from Alabama the justices ruled that states and the federal government can bring charges for the same crime, and that it is not considered double jeopardy under the constitution that was. Seven two ruling. The high court still has twenty decisions to make with more expected on Thursday. Statewide? Amber alert is out for missing fifteen year old from Sanford. Lisa looking for fifteen year old Alonzo Morales. Rows was reported missing by her parents and was last seen at her home on Saturday, around seven pm, Lisa. She may have run away from home, and that she is with a man, she's black hair and Brown eyes. Anyone with information is asked to call police, Laura Lee news ninety six point five WDBO also seeing this just coming down on Twitter, fashion designer actress and artist. Gloria Vanderbilt has died. She was ninety.

WDBO supreme court Lisa Virginia Gloria Vanderbilt Markham woods Jamie Dupree Amazon Darrell Moody Orlando Laura Lee Longwood Washington Serena Marshall Sotomayor Kagan Twitter Alonzo Morales Clarence Thomas federal government Sanford
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on KOA 850 AM

KOA 850 AM

01:53 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on KOA 850 AM

"Would you give up one day of your life in health to her silly dangerous? We again, I ask who is it that thinks this way leftist weirdos think this way, this is pure make believe this is pure fantasy. And for what I mean, what is even the point. Oh, yes. I would find ten thousand people say what have you accomplished what have you done? So the next question. What explains the obsession with Ruth baiter Ginsburg? It's a good question because she's only one of four liberals on the court. You have briar you have sorrel by or you have Kagan, and you have Ruth buzzy Ginsburg am I leaving some ago? The th that's it. Navy? If you want to throw the chief Justice in there because he now fancies himself the Kennedy swing vote, but those those other three Sotomayor Kagan and are not sick. There's no danger that they might be leaving the court, no imminent. No apparent danger. No opportunity for Trump to nominate another cavenaugh type. But with Ruth buzzy Ginsburg, why the unspeakable and the unacceptable maybe on the verge. And that is Trump getting another chance to nominate one a his judges. So that's why they have this. There's more to it than that. But that's basically the explanation for this. And it's really not so much about Ruth, Bader Ginsburg. It's it's about maintaining abortion as constitutional it. It's a really it's about a paranoia. Related to that coupled with the. Fevered hatred. They have for Donald Trump quick time out here, folks, we'll be back and continue moments..

Ruth baiter Ginsburg Sotomayor Kagan Donald Trump Trump Kennedy one day
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on KTOK

KTOK

02:54 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on KTOK

"If just ten thousand people did this. It would add twenty-seven productive years to her life. Of ten thousand liberals would volunteer to die a day earlier than they are scheduled to whatever that is. And somehow that day of their life could then be transferred to Ruth mater Ginsburg. She would live at additional twenty seven years. And so the tweet is if you could do this would you would you give up a day of your meaningless rudderless and irrelevant life. So that one of the giants of American liberalism could live your day because you living. It doesn't help anybody. You living one day of your life doesn't advancing your up. But loser would you give up one day of your life in health to her? Silly dangerous. Again, I ask who is it that thinks this way leftist weirdos think this way, this is pure make believe this is pure fantasy. And for what I mean. What is even the point? Oh, yes. I would find ten thousand people say what have you accomplished what have you done? So the next question. What explains the obsession with Ruth, Bader Ginsburg? It's a good question because she's only one of four liberals on the court. You have briar you have sorrel my or you have keagan. And you have Ruth buzzy Ginsburg. Am I leaving the? That's it. Maybe if you want to throw the chief Justice in there because he now fancies himself the Kennedy swing vote. But those those other three Sotomayor Kagan and Brian are not sick. There's no danger that they might be leaving the court. No imminent. No apparent danger. No opportunity for Trump to nominate another cavenaugh type. But with Ruth buzzy Ginsburg, why the unspeakable and the unacceptable maybe on the verge. And that is Trump getting another chance to nominate one a his judges. So that's why they have this. There's more to it than that. But that's basically. The explanation for this. And it's really not so much about Ruth, Bader Ginsburg. It's it's about. Maintaining abortion as constitutional. It's a really it's about a paranoia. Related to that coupled with the fevered hatred. They have for Donald Trump quick time out here, folks, we'll be back and continue the Rush Limbaugh dot com.

Ruth mater Ginsburg Donald Trump Trump Sotomayor Kagan Limbaugh Kennedy Brian one day twenty seven years
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on NewsRadio KFBK

NewsRadio KFBK

02:54 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on NewsRadio KFBK

"If just ten thousand people did this. It would add twenty-seven productive years to her life. The ten thousand liberals would volunteer to die a day earlier than they are scheduled to whatever that is. And somehow that day of their life could then be transferred to Ruth mater Ginsburg. She would live an additional twenty seven years. And so the tweet is if you could do this would you would you give up a day of your meaningless rudderless Fetig and irrelevant life. So that one of the giants of American liberalism could live your day because you living. It doesn't help anybody. You living one day of your life. Doesn't advancing your up pathetic loser. Would you give up one day of your life in health to her? Silly dangerous. Again, I ask who is it that thinks this way leftist weirdos think this way, this is pure make believe this is pure fantasy. And for what I mean. What is even the point? Oh, yes. I would find ten thousand people say they do one of you -ccomplish what have you done? So the next question. What explains the obsession with Ruth, Bader Ginsburg? It's a good question because she's only one of four liberals on the court. You have briar you have sorrel my or you have Kagan, and you have Ruth buzzy Ginsburg. Am I leaving the? That's it. Navy? If you wanna throw the chief Justice in there because he now fancies himself the Kennedy swing vote. But those those other three Sotomayor Kagan and Brian are not sick. There's no danger that they might be leaving the court. No imminent. No apparent danger. No opportunity for Trump to nominate another cavenaugh type. But with Ruth buzzy Ginsburg, why the unspeakable and the unacceptable maybe on the verge. And that is Trump getting another chance to nominate one a his judges. So that's why they have this. There's more to it than that. But that's basically. The explanation for this. And it's really not so much about Ruth, Bader Ginsburg. It's it's about. Maintaining abortion as constitutional. It's a really it's about a paranoia. Related to that coupled with the fevered hatred. They have for Donald Trump quick time out here, folks, we'll be back and continue the Rush Limbaugh.

Ruth mater Ginsburg Donald Trump Sotomayor Kagan Trump Limbaugh Brian Kennedy one day twenty seven years
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on 600 WREC

600 WREC

02:05 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on 600 WREC

"Would you give up one day of your life in health to her? Silly dangerous. Again, I ask who is it that thinks this way leftist weirdos think this way, this is pure make believe this is pure fantasy. And for what I mean, what is even the point. I was fined ten thousand people say they would do it. What have you accomplished what have you done? So the next question. What explains the obsession with Ruth, Bader Ginsburg? It's a good question because she's only one of four liberals on the court. You have briar you have sorrel. You're you have Kagan, and you have Ruth buzzy Ginsburg, am I leaving some th that's it. Maybe if you want to throw the chief Justice in there because he now fancies himself the Kennedy swing vote. But those those other three Sotomayor Kagan and Brian are not sick. There's no danger that they might be leaving the court. No imminent. No apparent danger. No opportunity for Trump to nominate another cavenaugh type, but with Ruth buzzing Ginsburg, why the unspeakable and the unacceptable maybe on the verge. And that is Trump getting another chance to nominate one a his judges. So that's why they have this. There's more to it than that. But that's basically. The explanation for this. And it's really not so much about Ruth, Bader Ginsburg. It's it's about. Maintaining abortion as constitution love. It's early. It's about a paranoia. Related to that coupled with the fevered hatred. They have for Donald Trump quick time out here, folks, we'll be back and continue the Rush Limbaugh dot com.

Ruth buzzy Ginsburg Bader Ginsburg Sotomayor Kagan Donald Trump Trump Limbaugh Brian Kennedy one day
"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on Newsradio 1200 WOAI

Newsradio 1200 WOAI

02:02 min | 3 years ago

"sotomayor kagan" Discussed on Newsradio 1200 WOAI

"But Fetig loser. Would you give up one day of your life in health to her? Silly dangerous. Again, I ask who is it that thinks this way leftist weirdos think this way, this is pure make believe this is pure fantasy. If for what I mean, what is even the point. I would find ten thousand people say they've what have you accomplished what have you done? So the next question. What explains the obsession with Ruth baiter Ginsburg? It's a good question because she's only one of four liberals on the court. You have briar you have sorrel by or you have keagan. And you have Ruth buzzy Ginsburg. Am I leaving some? That's it. Maybe if you want to throw the chief Justice in there because he now fancies himself the Kennedy swing vote. But those those other three Sotomayor Kagan and Brian are not sick. There's no danger that they might be leaving the court. No imminent. No apparent danger. No opportunity for Trump to nominate another Cavanaugh type. But with Ruth buzzy Ginsburg, why the unspeakable and the unacceptable maybe on the verge in that is Trump getting another chance to nominate one a his judges. So that's why they have this that there's more to it than that. But that's basically. The explanation for this. And it's really not so much about Ruth, Bader Ginsburg. It's it's about. Nain -taining abortion as constitution. It's a really it's about a paranoia. Related to that coupled with the fevered hatred..

Ruth baiter Ginsburg Trump Sotomayor Kagan Kennedy Brian one day