14 Burst results for "Steve Briers"
"steve briers" Discussed on The Oath with Chuck Rosenberg
"To review applications for counter intelligence and counter-terrorism a secret court, non Article Three Court to review this and there some greater. Greater transparency that process quite limited and people clearly don't trust it to include the current administration that has been very critical of the FIS court process in the context of the investigation of Russian interference. So we have these systems and they're failing us. So the question then becomes how do we preserve the ability to do what must occur in secret, but still have the. The American people think this is both worthwhile and it's being done correctly and I think we're GONNA continue to struggle that and part of it is also simply a growing distrust in government that doesn't help. That's obviously the environment. But there are specific pieces here which I think have to strengthen in order for people to have greater faith and ultimately support these missions. No, having grown up within the system. I instinctively trusted. I, mean, that's my bias. It doesn't make me right or wrong. That's where I come out. philosophically, it's painful for me to see that trust road. So many good hearted, smart, thoughtful, civic, minded people. They've seen abuses and whether it's real abuses or perceived abuses or frankly made up abuses that are now amplified through. Partisan often one-sided or misleading media lenses. It's hard to combat that because Gosh got my my story about how we have transparency blah. Blah Blah Blah Blah I mean that. That's like bullet number six on a powerpoint slide. It's not the title, and if the title is they're out to get you and no, one can be trusted or that's what gets amplified. That's what grabs people and it takes awhile to explain what are legitimately complex problems and complex systems, and how are you gonNA protect against the abuses and how are you still going to accomplish the mission. It's so much easier for people to fall into the conspiratorial trap. And I'm not saying there's never a conspiracy, but my experience and the vast majority of the time. It's not conspiracy. It's incompetence. It sloppiness. It goes right back to our discussion of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Nobody was sitting there saying. Let's tell them. They've got biological weapons. So we can go invade where they doing a lot of dumb things that allow that to happen absolutely, and even through data experience, we still haven't really figured out in this country, how to maintain security while also promoting the transparency and trust we need to preserve which are not mutually exclusive. You can have both I absolutely believe you can have now. You can't have both. If. People who are responsible for the systems continue to undermine them and attack them in their own legitimacy. You can't have members of Congress. Say. Certain people here. The other side always are just a bunch of partisan hacks. If they say that then enough people will believe them that no one will trust when the outcome is real and serious. If you have members of the executive branch who are constantly attacking the Pfizer, court and the systems for oversight inspectors general, then you can't have trust because you will undoubtedly undermine the faithfully some segment of the population. So the people who run these organizations have sacred trust both to create systems that work. And then to encourage trust and faith in those systems, are you an optimist? Mike absolutely I? I learned from Steve Brier. If he could come back day after day being on the short end of the five to four stick. And say, we just have to do a better job. I am absolutely optimus I. Think. That I think, they'd all these issues of public choice, public education understanding these issues are critical to getting us to a better place and I think there's somethings working against us. I think the media cycle and how people largely only review news. Conforms to their pre existing notions. I. Think that's a real challenge. It's no different once again from the intelligence community getting it wrong on weapons of mass destruction. If what you're looking for, what you've concluded is that there are weapons and you'll find the dots to connect the point to weapons. If what you've decided is the cases, everyone is corrupt an awful and conspiratorial. You will find the dots whether or not. They should be painting that picture. Picture that paint that picture I. Think we go through cycles country. This is probably not the best periods for Syria civil discourse reflection to say the very least. But we have been here before and Chuck. I wouldn't be on this program talking about any of this if I were a pessimist. So yes, I'm still optimistic no Mike. You've serve this country in. So many ways as a firefighter as an emt as a naval flight officer. As clerk on the first circuit, and the Supreme, court as a federal prosecutor on the WMD Commission. And of course, as the director of the national counterterrorism, center. Always with dignity and integrity and kindness and civility. I hope whether or not. You share my hope that you serve again chuck although these specific lines of of work experience might be a little bit different I would say the exact same thing to you. So thank you for having me. Thank you for the. And thank you for doing this. Thank you, Mike. Thanks. Thanks to Mike Lighter joining the on the Mike had an extraordinary public service career from emt to naval flight officer from Supreme. Court clerk, the federal prosecutor from the weapons of mass. Destruction. Commission to the national. Counterterrorism, center, Mike's deep knowledge of the US intelligence community and its work, its successes and its failures are fascinating timely. This episode, please let us know by leaving us a five star rating on whatever APP you used to listen and ask your friends to subscribe. We are available on Apple Podcast,.
"steve briers" Discussed on Boston Public Radio Podcast
"Welcome back to Boston Public Radio Jim Brady more. Dragan Johnny the line for another edition of Law and Order Andrew Realm and reform ourselves county. Sheriff Former Secretary of Public Safety, and is now the CEO of Sin Hello Andrea Cordero. Hello to you both. Hello and Jake abroad good to talk to you as always. Let's start with. The Supreme Court. Clearing the way for the first execution in seventeen years, the man who was executed this Daniel Lewis Lee I mean gruesome, gruesome crime, apparently tortured and killed a daughter A. Little Girl mother father through a lake I mean awful situation, but when you read the story, you realize it, even the victim's family didn't want this to happen because he didn't want to go to a penitentiary in the middle of Corona, virus. The guys lawyer couldn't be with them either so it does seem odd that we plowed ahead in the middle of a pandemic to execute someone. Of course we are one of the few nations on earth. It's still us and all. Well. It's odd. Unless bill bars the G. and and I think that that's really the key to it. The fact that William Bars. The Attorney General is really the what connects. The haste. To resume. by the DOJ, and it's fairly typical of everything and the administration which is. Largely focused on. Suffering and death or violence, it really is and so it's so troubling that he's the attorney general. And the desire to resume executions. you know he always couches it in terms of the need for the need for justice, but there was a fifteen year hiatus. On federal executions, so that wasn't just during the Obama, administration. That was during the Bush administration's well. And here comes bill, Bar, and twenty twenty or really in two thousand nineteen, because that's when they really started to wanting to wanting to resume them. Saying that they need to be done, and the reason that the executions were stadium in this particular defendant was really one of five. that were the subject of a case that came up through the Court of Appeals. And the reasons that that the lower court ex stayed, the execution had to do with the nature of the lethal injection, and whether or not it constituted cruel and unusual pain and suffering mad, actually taken they had. That actually did there've been challenges around both what is used to for the lethal injection and the manner of administration those two things in combination causing what? Might constitute under the. Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, so that was what had been stayed and then the. you know Scotus? lifted it. There were some dissenting opinions obviously, but the majority. Lifted the temporary injunction, and then even in that, even in the context of the Skoda's lifting the injunction. Bar was in such a hurry to get. These executions resumed that this happened you your point. At night! During a pandemic. When the victim's family and they, they sort of seemed to be split. There are some members of the victim's family that that. Didn't want the execution to happen at all. which just kind of against executions? But others that wanted to be there and couldn't be there because of the pandemic, and even his own lawyer to your point couldn't be there. And they went forward with it and. That's that that's now opened. What what Bar was trying to get at was to open. The door was to have that first. One done so that the others can follow, and that's exactly what we're going to say. You know I think I've said this before when we've discussed the death penalty but that. Not Man I am opposed to the death penalty, but as long as the supreme. Court can still considers it to be constitutional and Steve Brier. From Cambridge, one of the associate justices would like them to take up that broader issue about whether or not. It is still constitutional and twenty twenty and a twenty twenty world. said to before the fact that someone could have the state take their life on a one vote margin was the five to four vote to allow the execution proceed to me. is also agreed and in my opinion. Supreme Court should establish a rule for as long as there is a death bound in this country that if an appeal makes it as spring court, it's got to be anonymous for to proceed or doesn't proceed. That's one to Emily Rooney. I've talked a lot about this with Margaret. Course on the air on. Emily are both advocates for public executions. Andrea and the reason being. These people are executed are name. These cases are United States or some jurisdiction, some governmental jurists jurisdiction against Jane Doe or John Whoever it is and. A. That we should at least have the opportunity before savagely to see what our justice system in our name is doing. Do Sports at our no. Well, my fear is I understand your reasoning. My is that people would not be at all horrified and that they'd be a significant portion of the population. That would look forward to it. You might be sadly right. You know and if that to backfire on. The kind of scale that I think it might backfire. You know then what kind of rushing headlong into the handmaid's tale so. Yeah, no, it's. It's unfortunately true, and as you said we will I think you've mentioned that. Assuming that continues his way, there will be. More people executed in the next month. By our country then we're executed in the fifteen years. Prior to the last executions country, so there's obviously a they're hell bent on. Doing this and by the way we should say you always have to say in these circumstances. Always I feel I have to say which is absurd, but I feel I have to do it I mean this guy says he didn't do it. Even his dying words were I, didn't do it. It's a mistake. He was convicted and he was convicted of unbelievably horrible crimes. This is not an argument for him. Being released next week in going into a Rehab program, it's an argument from spending his life in jail, and not being executed in our name. That's all it's nothing at least from me. Nothing more than that. We're talking to enter Kabul. So intricate Bra this story is about a teenage girl and her mom. Single mom close relationship. It kind of went off the rails a little bit when she was a teenager about who hasn't been there as a teenager themselves or as as a parent. Unusually, harsh punishment for this kid in the middle of the pandemic. Tell us about this teenage girl grace. Yes it just for context You know I did what I. I started out as Mississippi. D., A. I did juvenile cases. And I am not aware of a single other case..
"steve briers" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"Meaningful was this decision yesterday well it's pretty important because it hadn't gone the other way it would have been a serious problem I mean the what basically what was at issue here is hand cut does Congress get to decide how many bites at the apple and your legal alien gaps who's trying not to get the port because what happened here is acting ninety six Congress said Europe illegal aliens sneak across the border you say the magic words of asylum you get several bites at the apple they said you know a asylum officer with your your your case and what he does is not here the asylum case you don't get to apply for asylum this is basically applying to apply for asylum sort of the first the very low bar even under trump seventy five percent of people pass that first but it's to weed out people who think Mickey mouse's persecuting them by taking their cheese or what I mean I'm exaggerating but it's clear out the obviously false case right the law that Congress passes look you get to make that case who is Saddam officer and then if it's a no his supervisor gets to look at it so we have two pairs of eyes on it and you can't you can go to an immigration judge which this guy did which is a Sri Lankan illegal immigrants snuck over the border which to me suggests the whole thing was arranged you know with lawyers to begin with if the judge says no you don't have what's called a credible fear of persecution Congress says that's it you're handed back they send you home no you know no more appeals what happened in this case intake guy went to federal court eventually the ninth circuit which is the most liberal part of the federal judiciary said no no that attempts by Congress to limit the number of bites at the apple is unconstitutional with spring court said is sorry no when it comes to deporting people were you know don't leave here due process is whatever Congress says it is that's been the standard for generations and what like I said what's important here is if the Supreme Court had gone the other way that would have been as you read this blow to the possibility of controlling the borders so it was this was more important than this one illegal aliens from three lakh the from what I see here though because he did not say that he he feared persecution due to his political beliefs race or any other protected characteristics was was his mistake here so doesn't this just say to the people who are coming here illegally because they all are coached on what to say that they just make up a story and say oh yes it's because of the you know the family that I belong to or yet for for whatever reason my political beliefs and now they know what to say in order to now get that second bite at the apple no no no this this guy did say he feared persecution that's the whole point if you don't say that then none of this ever happens he was dealt with it's called expedited removal in other words you're deported into expedited way and V. challenge here in this case and again from the facts of it I'm just speculating here but I think the whole thing was arranged ahead of time with them in tight quarters lawyers in the United States the the point of this is that if you do say the magic words of asylum you're persecuted because of whatever this guy was a camel from Sri Lanka but it turned out he had he was he was being persecuted if you do say that you only get V. bites at the apple that Congress has specified in the law and you don't get any more Congress has the power to make that decision and the Supreme Court if it gone the other way like I said everybody would have just said yes I am persecuted they would've made up something right and we're already seeing that but you would have gotten even worse so market one of the things is interesting about this decision yesterday is how overwhelming it one seven two two justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth better Ginsburg siding with the V. are Republican appointees are the majority yeah alternately in this case seventy two and saying okay yeah you the law is what the law is and you can check these guys out of the country I based on the law expeditiously justice is Sonya sodomite or and Elena Kagan both Obama appointees we're the only ones who dissented yesterday suggesting that this somehow was a threat to the to the judicial rights due process rights that illegal immigrants would have coming into our country is I mean can you explain their opposition and and why that's good for the law you know how to sleep I mean basically they're challenging the one of the bedrock principles of immigration law which is that Congress has plenary power over immigration that still it's called the plenary power doctrine and what it means is that when it comes to the question of whether people are allowed into the United States or not and people who just got in whether they're going to be deported this guy only got twenty five yards into the United States before they grab them on what the what the plenary power doctrine says is that in those matters not whether you're arrested for murder or anything like that but in those narrow issues of do you get to come into the United States Congress has total control they decide what due process is not the courts and I'm surprised only two of the democratic justices you know do you want to get rid of that bedrock principle of immigration control just think about it if that's not the case then Congress doesn't really have the ability to control the borders in the United States doesn't have it all of the judges everything ends up going to the courts is already pretty bad in that respect this would make it very much worse well Steve Brier just justice Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed as you says Vincent with majority but in an opinion that was written by justice Bryer they've made it clear that they believe the ruling only applies in this particular case that it does not violate the suspension causes constitutional command but only in this case so I think that will probably be revisiting this down the road you're almost certainly I mean they were trying to like you said the kind of narrow the extensive this decision but the Republican justices said no this is you know this is the this they made a more sweeping point that Congress generally has the ability to decide right what do process is illegal aliens yeah I'm not even sure how you can make the opposite point yeah this is a weird one I mean it was almost a breath of fresh air I was like wow this to print course sided with the trump administration seven ten two yesterday I was I was floored by that I'm glad you can help me break it all down and stand up again thank you mark Krikorian conversions and mark thank you all right seven fifteen now WMAL traffic.
"steve briers" Discussed on School Colors
"It's impossible to deny that there has been a decades long assault on organized labor in this country but teachers unions in particular suffered from the reputation that they protect teachers at the expense of children and stand in the way of innovation. Their reputation has fueled the charter school movement. And at least in new Pity that reputation owes a lot to what happened in ocean. Hill Brownsville. If you haven't heard episodes two and three of his podcast let me briefly recap Oceana Brownsville just southeast bed stuy. It was the site of an experiment and community control of schools. The Teachers Union believed the local school governing board had abused its power so they went on strike citywide and the fall of nineteen sixty eight this. This was seen by many as a strike not against management against students and families of color when the dust settled the union mostly came out on top but as historian. Steve Brier says the Union. May they have won the battle but in some ways they lost the war. The failure community control fractured the very real connection between teachers and communities particularly communities diesel colored Humpty dumpty. That's never been put back together again. The residue of bad feeling about the union and its relationship to the communities is still there whether they remember the specifics of Ocean Brownsville. It's a kind of collective consciousness about what happened. The question is have they changed in the immediate aftermath of Ocean Brownsville. The Union worked to build bridges with communes of color or to co-opt the movement depending on you ask by bringing many of the parents who had worked in community controlled schools into the unionist school aides para professionals. Today there are many more black teachers and black leaders in the union than they were back in the day and district sixteen has a higher percentage of black teachers in any of the district in the city and yet the union has never been able to convince a lot of black families that they're willing to fight for them and that's partly why they haven't had the popular peeler strength to successfully fight back against the spread of nonunionized charter schools. After repeated attempts known from the United Federation of Teachers would agree to talk to us for this podcast Best seems pretty telling what we heard now reporting was the unionist top heavy and simply not interested in supporting popular organizing at the school level by their teachers. If teachers felt empowered to fight for what they in their kids need in the classroom and not just for leadership senses in the Union's interests. Maybe already could start to be rebuilt. That's what we've seen in recently in Chicago where the Teacher's Union went on strike not just for their own wages and benefits but calling for affordable housing for the students. This is extremely relevant in New York City where one out of every retain students citywide has been homeless in the last year but what unified the charter. School movement wasn't just hating on the Teacher's Union. Many of the schools at the vanguard of the charter movement and shared a common culture often referred to as no excuses on paper excuses. Sounds all right. No excuses for failure. No Oh excuses for letting kids down but the flipside of no excuses is that there are no excuses fidgeting no excuses for not conforming to this one particular way of expressing yourselves. No excuses for being late to school again. There's nothing inherent in the mechanism of charter schools. That says they have to be this way. But because the first generation of charter schools broke out the gate with high test scores stories. Using this model there were a lot of copycats. No excuses clearly does have a strong appealing long history in this community if you see the stress in chaos of black urban life as as the impediment to school learning tough love is a natural response. Take the example of Frank Mickens. The legendary principal fetched is boys and Girls High School which was never more more popular than when Mickens uses no nonsense approach along with a hammer and belong to enforce strict codes of conduct. Anita Greenwich grew up in bed Stuy and attended a public school in district. Sixteen but when she became apparent she did not want to public. School is on because I went to public school and kids used to run them up. I mean you had your teachers who cared and then you had a lot of teachers who really didn't care so she put her on Jalen and a charter. School and most schools in New York are nonprofits. But this one happens to be part part of a national network run by a for profit company and tied to a billionaire friend and ally of trump's education secretary betsy devos but Anita and her husband didn't know about any of that they thought maybe there's more structure is still has the feel of a public school setting but it's a little bit more. I don't WANNA say strict but Yes and they were attracted to some of the qualities that made it feel like a private school but free or the extra miles that you had to go to try to get in and all. You're on a waiting list in this in that I just felt like exclusively of charter school in what they had to offer will be better than I thought it would be better. I thought Jalen struggled with reading so eventually he was placed in a special early morning reading program with a new teacher She is Caucasian and she was very mean actually liked her in the beginning. Because I said okay. She's not going to play with the kids. They're going to do what she says but she started to pick on. My Son Mini Charter schools. In the tortuously strict about punctuality putting high standards on students and their parents alike sometime. We will be late to school and he had to be as you know the charter school. If you're one minute late they're closing the door. You have to go around this way and do this and do that backflips. The backflips didn't stop at the doors to the building. They continued in the classroom. He would come two minutes late one minute elite and she would with him. She wouldn't mess with him. One of the principals assistant principal. She noticed my son walking down the hallway with his head down and and she said Jalen. Where are you going with what happened? He said I can't get in the class and she said well why not and he said well I'm late so she won't let me in ultimately the teacher will let him in. But then you have to sit in the back. He can't raise his hand because he was laid into the and it just really pissed me off so she got a meeting with this mean Caucasian reading reading teacher and she was like while like I told you before if he can't be in that class on time. This is a special class for children that I've created. I will never never forget. She said that and I was like who do you think you are. And the principal was looking at me and was like calm down calm down. I said I'm calm. I'm trying to stay as calm that I can be. I said but she feels like she runs the school because she created this little program in the morning for the children who are struggling. I guess she was trying to push it to me the and say well like you are not doing your job and I was like I'm doing everything I can. I'm looking for tutoring. I'm looking for free. Tutoring paid tutoring whatever I can and do so. My son can go third grade. But you're not going to be little me and you definitely not going to be little him so at that moment I was done. She left that school and went to her neighborhood public school. What happened there? We'll find out in the next episode. The long story short she nelson's onto a different charter school or the different network. It's a nice school. It makes you think that Oh my God this is so nice and beautiful and yeah but he tells me everything is literally on a time schedule. MOM like if we don't eat our food and time and he's a slow eater. He looks through the food. He sifts through the food they will dump it and his face like Garbage garbage garbage. Come on. Let's go we gotta go. And she's noticed something that almost all the teachers there have in common. Everybody's probably younger than me or my age. What's happening like everybody literally just graduated from College? That works there. She thinks the age and inexperience of the teachers has something to do with the emphasis on strict discipline happen to me. The teachers go in implementing like rules rules rules. Because they don't want they don't want to deal with bad kids they don't want to deal with that. My son Kenny. Any GonNa maybe I very well suspended attack on the table. This is nick. Juan Maclean President of the Community Education Council for District Sixteen. He's the leader of the official parent body for traditional public schools in this district and even he tried putting one of his sons charter school. This is a brilliant man. Now see why he was tapping because he plays every instrument it but because they didn't tap into that and they wanted tend to walk on the street lie. This is a student that ever since he took a test has been a level four four level three level four but wasn't given an opportunity because they claimed was wrong with him because he was tapping on on the desk. Actually I've experienced this kind of thing myself when we couldn't get into the public middle schools of our choice my wife and I N- inactive desperation enrolled our older son manoke in a brand new independent charter school. Well we didn't realize was that the young white staff was experimenting with the kind of zero tolerance approach on on a student body. That just happened to be ninety. Eight percent black and brown including many from public housing for instance. They had an elaborate system of hand signals for proper volume in the Hallway on Oak talked too loud once and boom. He got detention when someone pulled a prank. In the school known confessed why no KKK and his entire cohort of boys. were all held responsible and punished so barely two months into middle school. My son who had never been any trouble before or since faced attention attention three times I swear it felt as though my ten year old was getting primed for the cost rule system..
"steve briers" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"These are people who were brought to the United States waits before age fifteen. They're under thirty. They're either currently enrolled in high school or college or are serving in the military or graduate and been honorably discharged. They have no felony conviction or no conviction for serious misdemeanor and President Donald Trump announced that he was rescinding the Doctor Program. This was challenged three different. Federal District Court said that he violated the administrative procedures Zack in doing so the ninth circuit firm the District Court here on the West Coast and the Supreme Court granted three different cases though there brief separately they will be consolidated for argument in hurt on November twelfth and what the challenges say is that in order to comply with the administrative procedures act there has to be a reasonable legitimate justification president trump said he was rescinding Daca because it was illegally adopted by President Obama and with the lower quits as Daca was lawful it was part of President Obama exercising prosecutorial discretion but who did report or not the board. It's estimated there eleven million undocumented vigils United States it most the government deports about four hundred thousand a year in this was president us an Obama saying we're not going to put our enforcement priority into putting these individuals in the lower court said since the reason that President Obama gave was legitimate. It wasn't illegal the justification offered by the trump administration doesn't meet the requirements of the administrative procedures act on the other other hand with the trump administration is saying spring court is presidents have broad discretion with regard immigration president trump's exercising this discretion to rescind Zindaka. There's reason to believe that Dhaka was illegal but even if it wasn't president trump should have the ability as president to end the program. Anna Anna comes before a court that remember in June of two thousand eighteen trump held the Muslim travel ban in spoke chief. You've Justice Roberts majority opinion of the broad discretion of the president in areas immigration and it's probably also worth saying if listeners are having having flashbacks spring in the census case that in so many of these administrative procedures act cases. We have courts who are asking the question. You're asking why why did you do it. Why did you do this way. we know that became a problem for John. Robertson the census case in a weird way. This becomes yet again. Hannah Litmus test of how much John Roberts is willing to defer and to defer to protect your arguments that he kind of can see with his own eyes are pretexts exists. I think you're right to link the DACA case to the census case in the end of June Department of Commerce New York because there are chief justice. Roberts conjoined by the liberal just said that the justification given for adding the question about citizenship was a pretext there was no legitimate reason offered offered for doing so and likewise with supporters of doc are saying it no legitimate reason was given for ending the DACA program now subsequent to ending the program the trump administration change the justification they broaden the justification and the question is will that makes it different from the census case from west June. I WanNa ask you about one last case that I know you can speak to and that again is a case where the court can golddigger coast mall or go home. The case I've got in mind is Espinosa versus Montana. This is a follow on to Trinity Lutheran a case that allowed a program that provided rubber playground materials to schools to sweep in religious schools in effect saying you can't give benefits only to secular schools. Trinity Lutheran was carefully cabin by the court they said it goes this far and no further Espinosa's a chance to go way further right. You have separate Spinoza Montana Department of Revenue Involves a Montana law tax credits for parents who send their children to religious or secular private schools. The seemed little doubt from the legislative history that it really was about supporting parents with the financial assistance of tax credits. If they sent their kids to religious schools the Montana Supreme Court struck down the program is filing the Montana Constitution the Montana the constitution prohibits the state from giving direct or indirect aid to religion the Supreme Court granted cert. If the court were to go a big broad as you say the issue before the court is is the government constitutionally required to give aid to religious institutions whenever it gives them to private secular institutions. This is the question. Is You say that the quote avoided in Trinity Lutheran which Chief Justice Roberts and footnote three said Oh Trinity Trinity Lutheran is just about surfaces playgrounds in no more than that but infinity Lutheran Chief Justice Roberts said whenever the government denies benefits to religious solution that it provides to secular stations the government has to meet strict scrutiny Chief Justice Roberts concluded Opinion Trinity Lutheran by saying it's quote odious tonight benefits to religious traditions that provided the secular ones does that suggest thirty five votes to hold whenever the government gives aid to a private that seconds it must give that aid to religious on the other hand. This case is a strange vehicle for approaching that question the Montana Supreme Court struck down the entire Montana program so under the Montana laws now exists. No one not secular private private institutions or religious titians receives benefits. What would it mean for the Supreme Court to reverse with the Supreme Court. You're saying Montana has to have this law again so I think there's a strong argument that made a mistake by taking this case to reach this issue in maybe after realizing that the court might dismiss. Suchard William Providence granted you opened by saying the court or at least John Roberts himself as the steward of the court was incredibly mindful all of the courts public estimation and respect and he was careful in his stewardship to make sure that post Brett Cavanaugh hearings the court didn't detonate as the rest of the country did and I wonder if it's fair to say some of what we saw the end of last term wasn't wasn't liberals versus conservatives but purists versus the compromisers and so- Elena Kagan and Steve Brier on the left Justice Cavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts on the right trying to consolidate some kind of minimalist small non dramatic opinions rather than shifting doctrine in a big way and then very angry Clarence Thomas Very frustrated Sonia Sotomayor or Ruth Bidder Ginsburg saying no what are you doing. There are these are important issues. We have to deal with them and I wonder if some of that anxiety that undergirds Kurds all of that which is the court worrying so much or parts of the court worrying so much about what the public thinks is going to increase increase as the court really is now. It's going to be the epicenter of other happenings on Capitol Hill. John Roberts is going to be presumably the overseeing a Senate impeachment trial. Does the fact that the rest of the world is on fire mean that the compromisers might have to do more compromising his his term or do you have this sense of this is just a smash and grab where well everything has gone nuts on Capitol Hill. people are going to get what they can and and the pretense last year that you know we're all friends. We all get along. and we're certainly not partisan falls away. There's so much in that question. Ashton let me start with sometimes last term you saw the effect of justices like Roberts cavenaugh brier Kagan compromising housing but sometimes she didn't think of the GERRYMANDERING case Richaud versus common cause that was just a flat out five four and ideological lines Robert saying saying partisan Germany can never come to the federal courts in Kagan writing a truly blistering dissent. There was no compromising going on there now on the other other hand in the big religion case of the term American Legion versus American Humanist Association evolving the Forty Foot Cross on public property and Prince George's County Maryland. I think you we did see compromising. I think Alito was trying to write an opinion to reach out and get Kagan and Briar go along and they did GINSBURG would have none of it. I think it's a fascinating question of what will be the effect of the impeachment drama on the Supreme Court this term. Some of the cases don't lend lend themselves to compromise. They're either going to allow president trump to rescind DACA with. They're not they're either. GonNa say Sexual Orientation Discrimination Employment violates that a seven or they're not and I can go through other examples like that and so it may be that they've painted themselves in a corner in the matters that before them this term just aren't going to lend themselves to compromise in the same way. Irwin Shimransky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of law or when thank you very very much for your time. It's always such a pleasure and I hope to talk to you sued. I wanted to let you know about a very exciting live. Show that I'm going be participating in this coming November November twentieth which will be a year ahead of the two thousand twenty election. I'M GONNA be onstage at the Bell House in Brooklyn with slates amazing roster of female journalists for a live off the cuff deep dive into the twenty twenty election. We will be tackling into particular order candidates the myth of likability policy proposals media coverage. I'm guessing that Ukraine may pop up so let slate women's plane this election action to you. That's November twentieth at the Bell House in Brooklyn. Go to sleep dot com slash live for more information and we'll see that ooh on Friday morning the Supreme Court announced that it will be hearing June medical services this term. That's a case that will force the High Court to take a position on the continuing validity of Roe v Wade. This appeal is a challenge to a twenty fourteen Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges ETA local hospital that admitting privileges requirement is functionally identical to the rule that the court struck down in two thousand sixteen in whole women's health versus teller step now because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals functionally just nullify the whole women's health ruling when it upheld the provision in two thousand eighteen it more more or less forced the US Supreme Court to make a decision as to whether whole women's health is still going to be good law the only really crucial legal fact that distinguishes languishes judy medical services from women's health well. Anthony Kennedy was on the court in two thousand sixteen voted with the Liberals in whole women's health he has since been replaced by brick cavanaugh and so all eyes will be on Justice Cavanaugh as this case makes its way to the High Court joining us to discuss this is Nancy northop artha she's president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights and represents local provider Hope Medical Group in this litigation Nancy welcome to amicus. Thanks for making taking time today glad to be here to talk about this important case so I think it was widely expected that the court would have to take this case and in some sense a this isn't a surprise Friday's decision but were you surprised in some sense that they stacked it onto a term full of so many other blockbuster cases wasn't the Supreme Court trying to lay low before the twenty twenty election will. You said they had to take the case because Louisiana is in open defiance of the Supreme Court's whole women's health versus Heller Stat decision of two thousand sixteen the laws are actually identical indeed indeed the lawyers for Louisiana during the course of this litigation when they thought the Texas was going to win there many privileges case which they did not they ultimately ultimately lost since front court but the Lord's Louisiana admitted that the law was identical and they admitted that in court and it's identical not just in the language language the law this requirement that doctors have admitting privileges within thirty miles of a clinic but also the impact if anything the impact in Louisiana is even more drastic then the very drastic impact that the Texas law had which which is a closed half the clinics in Texas and Louisiana. We're down to just three clinics in two thousand and one there were eleven in two thousand and eleven it was down to seven and now it's down to just three clinics and that leaves more than ninety percent of the counties in Louisiana without any abortion provider at all and as a district court found there would just be one clinic open and just one doctor providing should this law go into effect and Nancy. I know this is weedy but it's important. I think to understand the issue because I think viscerally folks think what's wrong with admitting privileges is it just ensures that if there's a catastrophic emergency in the midst of an abortion procedure. Dr Can get a patient admitted quickly clete to a nearby hospital so it sounds safe and I guess sane it does have the effect as you said of shutting down clinks but can you explain in why it is that you at least put admitting privileges under the bucket of trap laws that are really purport to be advancing women's. It's health but in fact just close clinics yeah admitting privileges laws are just underhanded ways for a state like Louisiana Hannah to prevent women from having abortions not by they can't do it under Roe versus Wade by just outlawing abortion right Alabama. Try that this year and they were swiftly swiftly told no roe versus. Wade is still the law but what they try to do is have what is a unnecessary and very burdensome regulation that ends up shouting clinics and the reason why they're not reasonable supreme court found so in whole woman's health and the District Court right here also as court did make clear that they don't advance health and safety because first of all abortions one of the safest medical procedures in the United States complications are very rare so you don't even admit patients to hospitals It's very rare for that to happen and hospitals don't doc grant admitting privileges to doctors don't admit patients so it does not have any kind of you know good housekeeping seal approval credentialing function so so would do nothing to advance women's health it's not the standard of what is required in the state of Louisiana..
"steve briers" Discussed on School Colors
"Thanks for listening to school colors. I know we've given you a lot to think about these first few episodes so if you're in New York and you want to join the conversation we're going to host a series of discussion groups at the Brooklyn Movement Center the first is coming up on Thursday night October Seventeenth starting at six thirty and they'll be childcare. Tell us you coming by writing to contact at Brooklyn Deep Dot Org if you can't make it in person remember remember you can always share your thoughts with us on social media TAG BE K. L. Y. N. D. E. P. If you ask a lot of New Yorkers of a certain age my generation for example people in their seventies historian Steve Brier what they remember or about thi strike in nineteen sixty eight you will often get a national like isn't that the strike where there was all that Black Anti Semitism. That's how they remember the strike as opposed to offer for all the other reasons that needs to be remembered block anti Semitism from like ask you Semitism Black Anti Semitism Negro bias against the Jew is a true throw that the school decentralisation five in New York City Israeli a fight between Black Powell Jewish Paula Rarin Oliver. What about the business of anti-semitism what has happened to Jewish Rush Negro Relations Jewish people would ask me? Why are we trying to put them in Elvas? So was their all black antisemitism. Was this a fight between black power Howard Jewish power and if not why is Ocean Hill Brownsville remembered that way it wasn't Anti Ju it was anti miseducation Paul Chandler handler was a local community activist. One of those young men Rhody McCoy was talking about who would go around the neighborhood picking up kids who were trying to play the hook they carry is that the virus that was destroying our children would teach is now Bernardin Jewish. That's how I fell and not just the notion Brownsville the majority of teachers across the city where Jewish but it wasn't off because they're jus. They're doing this. I don't think that was even a question and I think the miseducation came. That was part of the the system. Besides Paul says most people in Ocean Hill Brownsville weren't even thinking about who is Jewish and who wasn't among the general wash of white people in power. They were just worried about their kids. That's why I'm saying to you. No one ever walked up to say you Jewish are you a tiny. I Rec- get my point. Another significant point out of all the young teachers who came to Ocean Hill Brownsville to replace those who are on strike seventy percent of them were white and half of these were Jewish like Charlie Isaacs most people I think in New York City maybe in the country believe that junior high school to seventy one was headquarters orders for black antisemitism and the reality was exactly the opposite I never experienced even one reference to it. Uh Not an insult not an attack now that anything it just wasn't part of the fabric of the place even. UFT President Al Shanker admitted twenty years after the fact that antisemitism had not been a major factor in Ocean Hill Brownsville Anti Semitism was not an certainly had nothing to do with starting strike. I had nothing to do with keeping strike going and had nothing to do with a settlement. It had an awful lot to do with how people came to see the strike and public terms. It's unbelievable to hear him say that because of any one person is responsible for how people came to see the strike in public terms. It's Al Shanker another word you as teachers in the union said they had been verbally harassed antisemitic comments both on the picket lines and when they had tried to go back to school between strikes two and three this man was standing next next to me yesterday evening at Livingston Street and he and his followers we're launching an anti Semitic diatribe after another and I can cite chapter and verse of some of the things things they said I think it was utterly. Revolting should be permitted to happen in our city. Now what positions did the people making those statements hold what what is there at least sympathetic authentic to the governing board of the Ocean Hill where they black yes they were give me the gist of their comments. Heil Hitler and Shankar could also point to problematic editorials toreadors published by the Afro American Teachers Association and some other groups now of course Otieno Brownsville was not responsible for what was put out by these groups except that usually if you have somebody supporting your who makes racist remarks should repudiate them were there instances in the black community of antisemitism disembark. Yes historian Steve Brier was there antisemitism in New York City in a bunch of communities absolutely did it disappear in our own time. No although it's diminished compared to what it was like in the nineteen sixties the worst perpetrators of Anti Semitism where the WASPA- lead who kept Jews out of places like Colombia and in and the end the private clubs that dot the upper east side that was you WanNa talk about Anti Semitism focused on that Shankar did not focus on that real with those black people who are prominent in this particular community is this a district that's gonNa run on the basis of prejudice and discrimination is is this part of how the governing board up right Shankar took every minor incidence of antisemitic attitudes and gin them up to be something much larger than they were most notoriously with the use of one incendiary leaflet. The union claimed that this leaflet leaflet had been placed in teachers mailboxes to threaten them. I never met a teacher or heard of it teacher including from those who were on strike whoever actually as we saw one of these original leaflets fact the first time Charlie ever saw it was when he got package in the mail from the UFT with a handwritten note saying please distribute you to your Jewish colleagues. The anonymous leaflet talked about quote the so-called liberal Jewish friend with his tricky deceitful maneuvers the Middle East murderers of colored people the money changers and bloodsucking exploiters who were responsible for the serious educational retardation of our Black Children Yikes to this day. Nobody knows exactly where the original leaflet came from but half a million copies were reproduced on mimeograph machines at U. F. T. Headquarters and distributed around the city to me. It feels like this is the nuclear option. Why did they take it? Here's Leslie Campbell with the cynical answer. At the end the Ocean Hill Brownsville the Teacher's Union look bad. They look like the aggressive they look like the United States Army in Vietnam you see so they needed to change the image and one of the ways that they sought to change the image was to bring up this issue of Anti Semitism Taksim and say that this was the reason why they will against the district because the changes that we were demanding antisemitic the less cynical answer is that Shankar and his union members really believed that Black Anti Semitism was a threat and these two answers are not mutually exclusive either way Steve Brier says is that leaflet did a lot of damage. I mean that was a conscious effort to manipulate to create a dog whistle. That's it you know if there was sympathy for the Ocean Hill Brownsville community community control movement. He did whatever he could to destroy that sympathy and at and it worked it was a brilliant strategy and it worked the best way for people make a decision when you've got got a conflict like that is supported all out there. Let people make up their minds and we were in a very tough fight and that's what we did. We put it all out there. Say what you will about Schenker's tactics. They were certainly effective. He changed the conversation instead of talking about systemic racism in the schools or even about workers rights. Everybody was talking about black antisemitism in October. When Mayor Lindsay went to speak at the Jewish center of Midwood the audience wouldn't even let him speak he was heckled until he gave up an escaped out the back door where where five thousand protesters including members of a newly formed paramilitary group called the Jewish Defense League were waiting to kick and throw things at his cars drove away Jewish? Most Teachers Emotional Brownsville tried to fight back. They published a letter in The New York Times sing it they had never witnessed any anti Semitism on the job but it didn't seem to make any difference I ask Charlie is while he thought so many Jewish New Yorkers were so ready to believe the union side of the story. It was a campaign of fear the union claimed claimed the lives of these Jewish teachers had been threatened. They claim that if community control was allowed to exist the black governing boards would.
"steve briers" Discussed on We The People
"But when they say citizens are the same subject, they mean for the purpose of birthright citizenship, not for everything else. Yes. Citizens vote in a Republican subjects in oh. Inherent, crowns. Yes. I'm. In in Britain. You can't basically divorce the king you can't divorce a Britain. Even if you want in America, you can leave those are key differences between the American Republic and the Brit in relevant to the question at hand. Which is are we gonna have in fact law of the soil like Britain or law of blood like a lot of European countries? And what the judge in eighteen forty four cents is we're gonna have citizenship not subject to but citizenship and announce -able by soil, and that's what bay says in eighteen sixty two. And that's what the Republicans say in their statute in eighteen sixty six and the constitution. They're saying the same thing not different things on professor earlier. I don't think they're saying different things. They're saying the same thing. And that's what won Kim arc says. Well, they're all of peace and an end and repeat the two differences. You can renounce your citizenship. That's what makes Erika great and. Your citizen and not subject, but it's a birth right idea with the same exceptions as the English half for ambassadors and concrete, armor, armies and America at one more. We've got tribes within our our country or quasi sovereign nations in a way that Britain doesn't here's what want him arc sets after I could a lot enough. I'm the fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule a citizenship by birth within the territory. So you say, yes, they are saying we're applying English rules to be American context. And so just as we're gonna have a new exception for Indians, we're gonna call it citizenship and not subject could we're gonna make it renounce -able. But in this deep point about law of the soil rather than law the blood where firming the eight the fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the Tara. Tori, including all children here. Born of resident aliens with the exceptions. Or qualifications as the old rule that self of citizens of foreign sovereigns or their minutes. Addicting children foreign sovereigns that would be kings, or their ministers or board on foreign public ships, or of enemies with an enduring hostile occupation. As part of our territories, that's all the Blackstone references all the rest, and with the additional with a single addition exception to just like the Brits in their subject here citizen. There is not renounce -able. Here is just like the Brits with the same exceptions for foreign diplomats and company. Armored armies with the single additional exception of children of members of Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes the amendment in clear words and manifest. Intent includes the children board with inventory, the United States of all other persons of whatever race or color every 'em every citizen or sub. Of the country while down the side here is within allegiance while blah, blah. So it's we don't distinguish between children of aliens and children's of citizens and that was asked in the fourteenth amendment debate about the Chinese you say, so so watch him arc is saying the same thing as the Republicans were saying in eighteen sixty six unless you miss, you know, interpret what they're saying. Which is the same thing that Bates said, which is the same thing that this eighteen forty four tastes said building on English authorities. So and then the supreme court of the United States has repeatedly reaffirmed this later on in cases, like Plyler versus DOE as you mentioned in in the modern era. So. And the the reason I feel so you Jeff you asked me why feel so confident about the justices is because I did go to law school. I'm locked trained. And I'm in a regular conversation with the justices. I'm actually having a conversation tomorrow with wind them about something I did testify for Brett Cavanaugh. I'm a democrat. He's a Republican constitutional is not partisan. I've co authored with a clerked for one person who was on the supreme court now Steve Brier my co author. In a recent piece in time magazine dot com. Fallibility who clerked for another supreme court Justice, Antonin Scalia. He's a Republican, I'm democrat. But but I'm happy to give anyone. No, I'm happy to take any action..
"steve briers" Discussed on 2038
"That really were in evidence in the last month. And so I think there there has to be some kind of bilateral determination that the courts are different your guessing that if the Democrats do regain control the Senate and presumably twenty twenty twenty, the presidency that they're move might be to reestablish the filibuster rather than say to pack the court with additional justices, which is another thing that people have been talking about. The things that I'm hearing are massive court packing that I am not getting a sense that there's a real stomach for. I think that the more likely thing will be the term limits. I think that we're hearing a lot of zealous defense of the idea that would ever this insane game is where we put on people who are younger and younger, and then hope that they serve for seventy two years. That's gotta be wrong. And so then these eighteen year limits or whatever. And I think question whether you have to actually in the constitution to do that. If that's the case, we have other problems. But I do think that at least at the moment that there is this one question about has something absolutely profoundly broken in the last two weeks, particularly for Democrats. I mean, are they willing to walk away from all of the norms, including how we think about core packing? How we think about term limits? How we think about the court is some magical other thing, or are we all going to surrender to what I think you're accurately describing this Republican mindset right now, which is we did to merit garland. We push through Neal Gorsuch. We then push. Through, yeah, whatever it is. It's just power. And I think that Democrats right now and I cannot honestly tell you what the answer is because it seems to me as though it is still raw. And I think in the next week or two weeks, we're going to see whether this flurry of articles about court pecking about term limits about reinstating the filibuster. All of these things are gonna shake out one direction or another. I will tell you that I know for sure that the US supreme court businesses usual this week. I mean, the degree to which as an institution, they just contracted hunker down swarm in. And then the next day on the bench, asking questions giggling with only a keagan. You know, it's not going to be whatever happens. It's not going to be something that the court gives us a reason to perform on the court is going to do its level best. To become invisible for the foreseeable future. And so then the question is whether I think maybe this is your question, Democrats who really, I think, woke up and said, holy cow, we've been losing in the courts and we've been losing. We thought we were winning because Obama fail, but actually we've lost everything including a right to free and fair elections that we've missed last June. When all those elections case came down, we're really losing. We might continue to lose what are we gonna do? I don't know the answer to that question. I know that there's been a forty year laser focus on the political right around the court. There has been absolute sucking noise on the left around the same issue. And so if the question is, does whatever outrage fury. That manifested in the last two weeks process wise not even put aside the doctor Blasi Ford, but process was how this happened. Does that have any salience in two months that that is the question. I actually don't know the answer to just to you're talking about the discourse of reminds to go back to your production. Which the seems to me correct me if I'm wrong that the basic building block of that predictions, basically, the Democrats are going to come into power shortly and have before them a choice between playing political hardball and becoming or becoming the party of the norms and like restoring the norms, and it seems like you're what you're envisioning is that they make more of an investment in terms unless an investment in like, you know, getting back garland seat by not just appointing the Justice, but maybe even add, you know, but the they're going to become the party that's like in the same way that we want to wash DC of Trumpism. Generally on the question, of course, we want to restore the old rules de member that Obama used to always say to progressive groups force me to do this. Make me make me do that, right? You want trans soldiers in the military. Make me. I think that the same is true in the US Senate. And I think as long as there is zero. Scher from constituents who vote for Democrats to think and organiz around the courts. There will be no reason to think in organized around the courts and so all these hardball tactics now. Okay. That's it. We're, you know, we're gonna. We're gonna. Force term limits or whatever require the electric care. And I think the electorate again, I wanna be wrong about this, but I've been, I've been every day since Justice Scalia died writing. The piece that I think only my dad reads now that is like, you know, when they go low, you can't just say, I'm sorry. But I think that that doesn't. I don't know how that shifts. Unless voters can keep front of mind. The thing that they haven't kept front of mind until last week, which is the court is political institution. The first sort of steppingstone toward your prediction is that we end up with a with a eight member court because we have a, we have a divided Senate and executive branch, and nobody can get somebody through. So what's the point at which the American people looking at a court that deadlocks? I mean, do they care about that? Yeah. I mean, I think it's that's where it's really the interesting problem of. We had a court that was a four, four court for. A year and some and I didn't see Americans going to the polls over it. I didn't see anybody plinking about it. And by the way, there's a version in which that's really a dreamy situation because of four, four court can't do anything bad. The paradox here is this is an interesting thing that I would say Elena Kagan is meticulously careful to never talk politics, which must make her by my metric the most popular Justice because everybody else says staff and she says nothing. And she has started saying that it is now the chief Justice is responsibility to reclaim the legitimacy of the court. The court can do that. The court can render itself. Almost ridiculous. Listlessly non determinative of actual long-term things in that's a strategy. And what just as Kagan is now saying is now it's time for us to do that for a little while it's time for us to do these stutter steps and to not take any big swings at anything. And there is a normative question about whether that's what we want our court to, or part of the question for me is what's the until like until win until politics doesn't exist anymore until we're not. We don't have the same kind of rancor I'm not. I mean, I'm jammed genuine asking what is Kagan waiting for at this point. It's interesting because I think part of the answer is that for very long time, it was a Republican talking point that the court has mistakenly inserted itself into every hot button issue time, right that the original sin is that a court, they used to do a whole lot of nothing. I entry and a half suddenly put itself in the middle of everything. Now. Progressive didn't say that, but now they've started saying, I've heard it in the last week, you know, like, what are they doing? Deciding voting rights? What are they doing? So there's there's two things. There is one thing that is now all voters can agree on the left and the right that the court does too much and it should do nothing. Now that doesn't resolve this ancillary problem, which Democrats haven't figured out how to talk about which is were going to witness the death of the regulatory state, right? We're going to witness, you know, all of the agencies are unconstitutional. We're gonna this, some of this crazy constitution in exile stuff that that, you know Clarence Thomas has been pushing. So there's a possibility that this is going to transcend hot button social issues and become basically what the court just did to voting is going to happen to, you know, federal agencies, I think we're gonna see Democrats not quite cutting onto that happening. It seems one thing about your prediction is that. Repeal off justices wanted time. The supreme court becomes less and less present in people's minds because it'll be deadlocked sometimes and it would be. I mean, a lot of the decision start filtering out to apple at courts and and and just sort of not at the you don't get as many kind of blockbuster, five, four like, you know, knife's edge, like rights, protected or rights denied decisions. So you end up in a position where even as rights are being killed away, even as the administrative state is being hollowed out. People just aren't thinking about pay attention to report. So I mean to me, that's the kind of dynamic of your predictions that by twenty thirty eight. It's that this report basically doesn't matter anymore paper. It's just wallpaper and I think that the court will collude in becoming wallpaper because the alternative is just terrifying to them. And so the justices I truly believe, and I sort of make the joke in part because for that year when the court was four, four and I kept waiting for somebody to give. Speech and say like, it's really bad in here, and they kept saying it's fine. It's all good. And it was really, you know, Steve Brier and Sam Alito we're giving the same speech and and Steve Brier was the one thing we could function with six. We with. You know. And so I thought this is a really it is a bipartisan, non ideological posture that judges have to take. And so then I think that if the alternative is further corroding public trust, they'll go with the become invisible and and I think that the court can go for ten twelve years and not take an abortion case or a gun case. But what happens in the state courts then means that we have a whole bunch of states in this country with one clinic serving the entire state. We know what happens when the supreme court kicks cases away. It's not that it necessarily redounds to the benefit of the public. And so I think which is partly my answer to the sort of Elena Kagan, like if we just, you know, put our hands over our eyes and say, we're not here than the America can public, won't be mad at us, but that doesn't mean that the action that's happening on the lower courts in the state supreme courts isn't really, really unbelievably
"steve briers" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge
"That is the notion of a binding precedent on a five to four vote, close quote by the way, does it strike. On the one hand, the journal this is all from one aditorial. On the one hand, the journal says, can't overrule of Berga fell because it's too recent and then a paragraph liters. By the way, we also can't overrule Roe versus Wade because it's it's. We'll come to story decisison a moment, but so yeah, Kennedy's not on the court during row, but he, he writes, the decision Casey where they had there was an expectation that the court might actually overturn Roe in nineteen Ninety-two. So your argument with Kavanagh as with Berga fell. So with abortion in general, I think that's so closely associated with Kennedy. I agree, I think so. And I think what would happen actually, what you'll see is states will try to limit abortion regulate it more and more tightly, but you're not going to see a state try to outright ban abortion again. And so you'll see. So you'll see laws like the partial birth abortion which Kennedy voted to uphold, which prohibited certain kinds of Boertien Lee and pregnancy. And so you're gonna see efforts to regulate those kinds of aspects of abortion. And I expect Cavanaugh like Kennedy would vote to uphold that. Right to regulation by bet states would. Unless they're really, really stupid states should not try to ban abortion for a number of years until you have this more or graduates. And again, it's because you don't know cavenaugh things. Abortion has no opinions about it has never written or said anything significant about it. All right one nor these special topics judge Cavanaugh and Donald Trump. Another quotation from your favorite? Democratic Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. It is unseen Lee for the president of the United States to be picking supreme court Justice who could soon be effectively a juror involving a case in a case involving the president himself close quote, and by the way. Schumer makes that point in public few days ago. Now, as we record this program and a number of democratic senators have canceled their meetings with judge Cavanaugh. We're not. We shouldn't even to hearing these. We should not even be holding hearings on this nomination. They're doing cavenaugh favor. So what about that painful to sit through those meetings? What about that as an argument. So it's unclear what Schumer's talking about. So it's ugly, does he mean that Cavanaugh would somehow be juror and Trump's impeachment trial? I hope not because that's completely wrong. As the chief Justice would sit as the trial. Judge the Senate tres are the jurors. It was just that doesn't make any sense. So maybe Schumer's trying to make a, I don't know different kind of point, which is a number issue. John Roberts did in a bunker tried to construct this in a way that makes it. Don't get me start on that. I think what Schumer Schumer saying? And maybe other democratic senators are saying, oh, this is an argument that's been coming out just in the last few days. There's something illegitimate about Trump being able to pick having Trump's under investigation. There may be some of these issues. Right? Okay. So one is that's very just typical. Because did anyone say about Clinton Clinton under vest? Gatien during whitewater, he points he points Steve Brier to the court wall. He's under investigation whitewater. He made he pointed, we've baiter Ginsburg when all that starting to come out, do we say Brier Ginsburg or somehow illegitimate justices? It's ridiculous because if you took that argument seriously, then every presidential act is illegitimate because Trump's under- fescue I don't remember any Democrats taking that view during the the whitewater investigations plus let the investigations. My point of view on this is let the investigations continue. Miller do job let it come to an end. But the president is the president until he's removed from office impeachment. His actions are all legitimate under the constitution. Got it. All right. A couple of big ones. I the whole concept of the living constitution. We've touched on it. Two quotations. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, quote, the constitution that I interpret and apply not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it and during it means today, not what the current society much less the court thinks. It ought to mean, but what it meant when it was a Dopp did close quote, Justice, Steven Brier, the court should reject approaches to interpreting the constitution that consider the documents scope and application is fixed at the moment of framing..
"steve briers" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"And I think that that leads to your exploration in the book of how influential can you really be if a everybody now claims to be an originalist, but they're doing different stuff than you and be if you can't get five votes because you're elbowing everybody all the time. So let's engage with those one at a time. I think that you're right, and I agree with you that you know, the famous expression is were all originalists. Now in Elena Kagan his originalist and Steve Briers and originalist, but it just doesn't because it's not as rigorous as Scalia would like it to be because even skinned Thomas don't agree what's in the toolbox and how to deploy it. Maybe it doesn't matter that we're all originally snow is that is that in fact where you come down on this? Well. You know, I think the statement that Kagan made was that we're all textual now. I don't think she's claimed that we're all originalists now and you know you have. Judges on the court Justice on the court who are very conservative, like Justice, Alito, and chief Justice Roberts were not originalists. And yet if you look, I I think I take the two thousand thirteen term that were sixteen five to four cases and fifteen of the sixteen Alito and Scalia agree. Even though we does not a an originalist in only one of the sixteen do Scalia and Ginsburg agree. And so I think a much better predictor of how a judge is going to actually vote is not whether or not they call themselves in original store textualist, but whether they were appointed by democratic or Republican president. So in that sense, right, originalism doesn't matter. You see, for example, Justice Stevens in citizens United to the case involving corporations, campaign money, or in Heller the gun case involving the individual right to bear arms Justice Stevens makes originalist arguments and Scalia just rejects them as bad originalism. So so in some ways, the you know, the originalism is not doing the work, but what I think this goes back to my point about the justices contradictions. I think. Scalia did more than anything else is give conservatives a cuddle, give them a tool to be able to say, if you're not following my way, not only are you incorrect, but you are illegitimate. And this goes back to the very first point you made about the kind of Neo Trumpian aspect of Scalia it. His aim he said was syllogism, is the court by giving the court neutral tools of interpretation, kind of take the judge's personal views out of the equation. But in the end he used his masterful Nashville use of language to harshly.
"steve briers" Discussed on The Lead with Jake Tapper
"Available amazon but you need sixty votes right that's how it was designed right so we could we could really have this this notion of hot teapot that tees boring over into the saucer which is the senate allowing the cool right this is ancient analogy and that was that was a good thing right you need drove more bipartisanship more thoughtfulness in the senate and you didn't have as much of a kabuki dance because you had advice and consent before it got to this point right you wouldn't have and look i know politics this but i think you know when when harry reid moved the rules to lose in the sixty down to fifty one for district court judges that enabled the dike very and there we are today the notion that somehow harran read gave permission mitch mcconnell the senate is poppycock the mitch mcconnell couldn't even allow a hearing on maryland under garland who should be on the supreme court today but this notion of advising i think is interesting i think it's good that these senators from the going he should have president our president call them beforehand right when when president clinton put steve brier on the supreme court he did it with prior consultation and sixty six that anymore yeah but he i this thing i think because you mentioned a abortion a moment ago seventythree percent of independence independence support roe versus wade forty three percent of republicans want to keep rovers this way this is where the democrats will take the fight isn't it but i do think and so on this question of when you talk about roe versus wade there's the question of precedent right this is something that has been a decision that's been around for decades but let's take something that's even more unpopular than overturning roe versus wade preserving citizens united vision that in every poll i've seen you have ninety percent of americans say that they don't like that decision nonetheless if you are someone who says look i wanna respect precedent you walk into a hearing and say you know what on the supreme court because i want to overturn citizens united that would be an inappropriate thing to do and so i think we talk about it as kabuki theatre i don't think that necessarily is i think it's prudent to say i will decide cases as they come to me here the point is that conservative jurists have been saying for for decades that roe versus wade was was decided wrongly that the argument was fully shes and faulty and it's not a secret that the federalist want to have a court that will overturn roe versus wade so why so that's what they do whole lie so so there's this notion my form senator specter inspector who is kind of a stalwart of the dish game eighty and a veteran of many of these of these nominations he put forth this notion of like superstar decisive right paces cases that had been decided over and over and over again which get a little more weight so unlike citizens united roy has been around for so many years amid up held and so many circumstances at almost becomes some sort of some sort of.
"steve briers" Discussed on The Ezra Klein Show
"That does that make some sense i think i mean i think what you're describing is actually you know when i talk about smallness i don't mean to imply that the effects are think the effects are as vast as you've just described i think it's just you know a scope of vision that i'm trying to characterize the small but you know i think what you're saying tail so interestingly with this change in you know sonya sotomayor and ruth bader ginsburg this year become the radical lefties on the court you know we've got only kagan and steve brier time and again trying to find some center at the court making common cause sometimes with anthony kennedy sometimes with the chief and sorta my or and ginsburg peeling off time time time again some of the most extraordinary descents of the term are given to sorta my order right and i think it's interesting what you're saying because it almost feels as though she is taken on the job of saying luke it what i see look at the america that i see look at the you know immigrants in the cases that i see look at what it's like to have brown skin and be stopped by the cops and and it's not that that's new that's been i think her role at the court but it is interesting in light of what you're saying that you almost feel as though there's this kind of you know will ferrell like am i losing my mind year quality where she's like why can't you see all these people that as richest cited to and the ways in which they make up this country and that it often feels as though she's kind of alone on a mountain top making that point over and over again so i don't disagree with anything you just said and i and i also think you know it's very one of the things that's so fascinating to me i think all the time about the role of gender and these justices and i think that there's a way in which the one thing that she and just skins berg and justice kagan bring to the court is what it is like to be an insider in an outsider at the same time you know they've just never been a privileged white men who get to blinker themselves to the america you just described and so i think there's a way in which i've never been comfortable essentially ising about the women justices but i do see this term away in which what she's doing maps onto what you're saying which is the world is you know much bigger than the world in which donald trump's kids work with anthony kennedy's kids and so end of story you know world good people it's it's a really interesting moment and now as i would like you to answer my religion question go so mccrone from arizona and mix right answer correctly i think i probably said it better the first time but what i think i think how did this go you were asking me how we could do better to d polarize in d politicize the conversation around the court and i think what i am seeing in these kind of identity questions around the court is this a very lopsided conversation around religion than the court and.
"steve briers" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"So i don't know why would happen and i also don't know why it hasn't happened let's start by talking about that michael cohen rate it feels like it was one hundred and fifty years ago but in fact it was monday is michael cohen gonna flip is he in enough trouble now that he rolls on the president and it seems to me that the gravity of his legal situation is such that and i don't know if you agree with the theory that the scooter libby pardon is just a way of saying not to worry manafort not to worry cohen you're all good but that's that's what that's what we're wondering right that's what america's trying to figure out is is is is how high you can turn up the heat on michael cohen is he going to go to jail for donald trump so i think there's a few questions there let's hold aside scooter libby for a second because i actually think that may be about something else so one question is is michael cohen in very deep trouble and the answer to that question is clearly yes i the second question is is he going to be willing to flip and that is of course a question that you can't possibly answer without knowing his psychological proclivities he is certainly said publicly on repeated occasions that he is the ultimate trump loyalist he would rather jump out of a building than then turn on trump and you know how much of that is his deepest soul and how much of that is a bravado and how much of that is just signaling to trump for purposes of pardon purposes that he's you know on the team i don't think we know and i don't think we will know until such time as he is squeezed and either capitulates or dozens i i guess i have to pause now in say i have long been an unfortunate purveyor of the steve brier four partners did question and ben you're the first person who's ever called me out for it so in the seven part question that i asked you i'd love for you to circle back to scooter libby.
"steve briers" Discussed on WRIR.org 97.3FM
"Of muslim and arab men is that there doesn't appear to be a way to hold highlevel officials accountable for these types of actions and there's no reason to think that these types of actions won't happen again unless the court holds these men accountable well now i want to go to the speculation that has to say the least been percolating during a press briefing on monday a reporter asked white house press secretary sean spicer about who trump might pick as his next supreme court nominee president trump will live one one i'm sure that will definitely of the strong part of it i can't say that there won't be someone added on or not but then it proved to be very very helpful this the first time so he feels very comfortable at the list but i can't say for certain that there's no one they couldn't get added to a featureless so dahlia left where they're talking about the speculation that anthony kennedy might step down where is it coming from and what what what are you have to say about it this has been a whisper campaign amy that's been going on for months now it's worth saying anthony kennedy is eighty repair ginsburg is eighty four steve briers seventy eight so well it certainly very likely that trump we'll have another justice or even two or three to replace i think that there was this feverish claim that kennedy had a foot out the door and no lesser a person than chuck grassley then ted cruz then president trump himself hinted this spring in the last few weeks that there would be a vacancy effective yesterday and at that didn't happen now as to the question of why all the speculation was being you know center around i think it's because there is clearly feeling i think in conservative circles and the conservative legal movement that trump's one and only big win since he took office was the neil gorsuch nomination and confirmation that he clearly had a spectacular success and what better way to keep highlighting the fact that he could do it again then thing he's going to do it again as early as this summer he's going to have another slot.