19 Burst results for "Steve Vladeck"
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Daily Beans
"Pm pacific seven eastern. You have a very important show. And you're going to be touching on not just the trump colt movement but also potential russian involvement. Not just throwing money at the insurrection but actually physically being there in the capital. And we've we've heard rumors about this. And i wanted to ask you about what. Your thoughts were with regards to You know we all know you. And i know you and i follow the investigation like just so so closely and oftentimes. It seemed that we would have these direct links between people close to the trump campaign or sharing the trump campaign and russian agents for example constant kalymnos and manafort and but also these sort of ancillary connections like all the messaging back and forth between trump junior and wikileaks and roger stone and wikileaks. I remember distinctly assange texting junior in the lead up to the twenty sixteen election. Saying hey if your dad loses you know you should probably do is just pretend like the whole thing was rigged and then you could go after you know the fake news media and he put fake news and quotes and then build your own media empire from from there that would be interesting wouldn't it and and then we you know we've got so roger stone. We've got alex jones and his connections to the insurrection. Of course enrica. Taro reporting in prison today. And then of course we have russia. Russia ron johnson. Who who's been frankly very involved so the signs and signals have all been there right but was there some sort of a. I don't want to smoke and gunman a little more connective tissue. That you're going to be talking about on the show tonight there absolutely. Is you know there's a character that lives out in connecticut Who's you know for all purposes. He's a russian agent. Maybe a little bit more of an asset. But he he knowingly and asset y- connected to lafayette alexandra lafi of the guy who putin trucks with helping the orthodox church do their thing but he's also. The person who was very involved in making ukraine happening the attacker. Crimea was ultimately lafayette's doing and so he's the same connection that is connected to what happened with the insurrection. Through this particular agent that will be exposing tonight at seven o'clock eastern regarding the russian interference in in the indian insurrection does really another interference in the twenty twenty election. Yea it is continuing as part of one giant scheme. And that's what you know a lot of people including myself like what is the department of justice doing about this and i talked specifically to alexander vitamin recently. Who said that you know ukraine. What's going on ukraine with rudy. The biden interference the biden laptop. Operation co vid and the insurrection. And the big lie are all one giant scheme right this one giant conspiracy and i said we shouldn't we add twenty sixteen into that. 'cause we could go all the way back and you know people are a little trepidation to cross too. You know they're they're towing that line with including the twenty sixteen interference and conspiracy to interfere in our elections to more recent election interferences. They're kind of seeing it as two separate things. I see it as one thing do you. As one thing. I see it as one thing but i also think giant disinformation effort out there to try and convince people that anytime someone says russia russia russia. It's a hoax. So that a reason why people are distrusting facts and that but that's because there's disinformation effort and it's very disturbing what it's the same reason we have so many people refusing to take vaccines and the deaths were having these life consequences. He's disinformation efforts Through russia and other people's efforts so you know it is incredibly concerning. But i do think it is ultimately all one thing you know. Russia and her allies is allies as so many dishonest and benign interests around the united states. They really want to destroy america. You know that's they stated. Interest is destroying america and. This is how they're doing it and they've said that to they've said in plain language that they'll use fake news. They'll use summation efforts. They'll use polarization. Those are the things that they'll do to divide america destroy. Its their top general and twenty. Fourteen put together their war book at the gre and wrote. This is our new thing. This is what we're gonna be using cyber-attacks socio you know social media Psychometric psycho graphics. Disinformation not not. The disinformation has anything new to russia but They were shifting from you. Know their spycraft nuclear thing over to cold war over to this new hot. What i call hot war. But that's a different term for actual war that's going on but to just this new concept of warfare and they put it like you said in writing in two thousand fourteen. I i read about it in russian roulette which is an excellent book if anyone has an you know if you're if you've got a bunch of free time and you have some time to pick up a book. I recommend reading russian roulette. But it's to me. It's clearly all linked. And the reason. I brought that to to. I guess anyone's attention who's listening is because a lot of people are concerned about statute of limitations expiring on a lot of these conspiracy crimes and i think that we've talked in you've talked about this. We've talked about the statute of limitations. Clock doesn't start ticking. Until you stop crime ing if the crimes are connected. And that's why i think with the obstruction of justice crimes which i wish the department of justice would pick up all of volume two of the mullahs report. I think that the statute of limitations isn't up. Next year.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Daily Beans
"Stay with us. He everybody it's ag for the beans. Today's episode the pot is brought to you by too-da-loo which is my new favorite thing. Now you can take a bite of bland boring unhealthy trail mix made with chemicals that can harm you and the planet most six. I didn't know this but it's filled with processed sugars and dirty nuts that are dry roasted and toxic refined oils like canola palm soybean oil but not to to lose worlds first all natural totally delicious climate-friendly trail mix packed with plant protein superfoods and adapt agenda herbs like lions main joie gonda To help balance and support your body and might tudela comes in five unique in tasty flavors. Chocolate maple bertel coffee barbecue and hot and spicy. The ancient herbs and each flavor promote a specific function in the body like better skin better gut health or a chill mood. I liked the barbecue flavor very much. It's called smoke show. It has forty two grams of plant protein per bag and has also low in carbs and supports energy flow to fuel your day to louis. Grain free non. Gmo gluten free dairy free processed sugar free and the packaging is plastic neutral and it's the most satisfying and best tasting trail mix. I've ever had and for each order placed totally regenerates one hundred square feet of polluted farmland. Back into rich fertile soil. Nutritious food for you. i didn't cleaner planet. I all so. I've got a special offer for listeners. You get five dollars off your first order of too-da-loo just visit tudela dot com slash beans. That's tudela t. o. d. a. l. o. Dot com slash beans and tudela was so confident levitt. Each purchase is backed by one hundred percent. Best taste guarantee. This will definitely become your favorite to snack seriously. The taste is amazing so visit tudela dot com slash beans and try it today. Today's show is also brought to you by all form. I absolutely love.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Daily Beans
"The problem is that none of those differences got around what has been the stumbling block. Thus far which is that there hasn't been away to block. Sba eight in a way that is effective statewide. So you block one group of plaintiffs one group of so called digital anti plaintiffs from sudan. Another one comes along you block them. A third one comes along and you can't block the state because the state is in the party that has absented itself from enforcement. So you know there are things. Doj can do at the margins. There may even be policy. Oj can revisit about military hospitals but with regard to actually speeding up the process of getting a court to strike down sba. you know. i'm hard pressed to see how the justice department is any better situated to solve the specific problem that the texas law intentionally create which is no proper defendant to get statewide relief from the provider's perspective. That's what has to happen before. I can be willing to open their doors. And so i mean. I feel like maryland's hands are are kind of tied here and in the meantime because you know everyone wants abortion access protected now but it's coming up again. This fall with another. I think is it. Mississippi fifteen week ban is that might do. I have that right. Yes there's kids called dobbs. That's coming out of mississippi. That's on the courts merit stock of the set for wells. Not schedule debt is probably going to be argued in december and you know the mississippi has asked the supreme court in that case to overrule roe. There are ways to uphold the mississippi ban while still preserving him access to abortion prior to the fifteen th week of pregnancy. You know i. I don't know that those are any way consistent with ron casey. But they wouldn't at least completely of this rate the right to pursue abortion but the texas law is not. I mean there's no universe in which is six week ban and any right to provide ability abortion coexist because most women don't even know they're pregnant at the six weeks of pregnancy measuring not from conception right but from the last menstrual cycle and so in that context you know this is a referendum on row where there's procedural crap right that's in the middle and i think the reality is that if there's a way to clear away that procedural baggage than this is the real test case for row not the one. The supreme court's already set to here earlier. this fall. Yeah yeah that's a really good point and my other concern is if congress. Ken somehow codify roe. That it would work. Its way up to the supreme court and i don't know how it would handle it. I mean i guess we would have to see how the law is written. Congress does have the power interception five of the fourteenth amendment to pass legislation that protects rights under section one of the fourteenth. And is that too right. So you know i think as long as row is still on the books even this court i would have a hard time striking down statute meant to enforce row. Of course if ro is limited rather heavily before congress can never get to pass such a statute that. I think the court could say well. You can't expand the right by statute and that's you know. This is the trap that the law creates because every other effort to sort of dramatically restrict abortion access since row has been subject to meaningful pre enforcement judicial review and it's because of the procedural traps this law created. It hasn't been gosh That's our best option right now. I think there are no good options right now. So it's really just about trying to sort of keep pushing each possible lover and seeing which one actually has the best chance of moving the needle. Well thank you very much. I appreciate your time today. Everyone check out the national security law. Podcast follow steve vladeck on twitter. Checkout thread you put up today steve. Thanks for speaking with me there. You everybody stay with us. We'll be right back with sexual love from the narrative. Podcast.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Daily Beans
"The problem is that as these have become larger and larger disputes. That aren't just between two parties or not about an execution. Whatever the supreme court does either intervene were not interviewed him affects millions of people and it affects millions of people even though the court is often issuing these summary orders with very little reasoning because just by tradition that's how does docket management and so we have this tension between the fact that historically these orders were no never mind to the public at large extent to which they are increasingly affected us very very very direct and i think some of these inconsistencies. I remember covering the investigation. And the these sort of cases that were waving their way through the court system like the maziarz requests for mazari's from house oversight or from vance or any anything that had to do with trump handing over his taxes or anything like that. We noticed that the stays were often granted and we would read these rulings in the lower courts with like a stay of relief is very rare thing. It's not a right. it's not guaranteed and a lot of people i feel. We're kind of shocked by how often these stays. Were were granted in these cases but yet not in. This one is kind of what you're talking about with regards to inconsistent. There's even more one here. I mean so one of the things that the abortion providers were asking the supreme court to do was to block. Sba this controversial new texas abortion law while they try to figure out how to challenge it in court while they try to figure out who the right defendants are because texas has deliberately absented himself from enforcement and so on and in refusing to do that. The one paragraph that we've got from the majority on wednesday night cited not procedural obstacles allison but procedural questions like open procedural questions that we would have to answer before we could give kind of relief if we go all the way back to april. There was a case out of california. Where the same five four conservative majority locked california's restrictions on in-home gatherings on the ground interfere with religious liberty completely running over not just a procedural question but actually a procedural roadblock which is that they're not supposed to issue that relief unless the law was already clear and they have to make new law that issue the relief. So it's just the inconsistency is that for procedural concerns were like the majority use those in the texas case the whether the drunk is a lamppost for support for illumination and when they surface in the california case in april it just ignore them completely suggests is that the is actually not following. Its rules internist ruling the way it wants to. And that's you know the usually the way that we insulate against that is they give us thirty forty fifty pages of analysis to explain why this case was different from that one. Well we got on. Wednesday was a paragraph with no mention of the decision from nipple and and it seems that you know religious beliefs one way versus religious beliefs. Another way but of course we don't know because it's not mentioned like you say there's no explanation for why it was applied one way in april and a different way today and even justice. Kagan let me justice kennedy and who's not usually one to sort of get overly caught up in procedure right her descent in wednesday's ruling. I think was actually in some ways. The most important just had the most colorful language accused the majority of burying their heads. In the sand justice roberts wrote about why what texas is doing procedural issues be rewarded. Bruce catered who went after this theme that the court is being inconsistent on the shadow. Docket specifically it away. That's hard to explain in any other way. Then that the court is willing to take procedural shortcuts to protect religious liberty and then hide behind procedural questions to not protect abortion and that's pretty ugly from the perspective of the court's legitimacy and from rep the courts reputation such as it is of absolute supposedly being above these kinds of partisan ideological Yeah and then we have to all the talks. I'm reminded of the you. And i've had about roberts legacy of the court and how he he must be feeling indeed. I mean i think it's i don't think it's unworthy of comment that he descended. Yeah right roberts. Who has never been a fan of roar. Casey right roberts who i think may very well be willing to relegate them to the historical dustbin and yet even he descended from wednesday's order because he couldn't abide the notion that the court would one lead texas got away with these procedural shenanigans but to do so in this kind of you know truncated cryptic shadow docker type ruling. And before i let you go. Merrick garland is you know made a statement on monday attorney. General merrick garland about this being an urgent thing that they're looking at all. The possibilities. I know biden tasked him with that last week but the first thing that he comes out with his enforcing the face act. But that really doesn't do anything here in texas. Is there something else in your opinion that the department of justice could do to protect access to abortion in texas. That's been stripped by this law. So there are three big differences between say the department of justice and an abortion provider the first big differences. The department of justice can bring criminal cases. Elementary there are criminal statutes. Did all the way back to reconstruction about those who are conspiring to interfere in civil rights such as the right to procure a viability abortion. The second thing is that the department of justice can go right to the supreme court using it so called original jurisdiction to speed things up and the third is that texas as a state does not have sovereign immunity if the federal government is the plaintiff states. Don't have sovereign immunity from suits by the federal government. Indeed the case with establishes that proposition helpfully called united states.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Daily Beans
"And welcome to the daily beans for wednesday. September eighth twenty twenty one today the texas governor signs the voter suppression bill and is immediately sued. Internal park police. Emails revealed gun incidents and warnings. Ahead of the insurrection in dc a massive statue. Robert ely is scheduled to be taken down today in richmond. Virginia and governor. Greg abbott says don't worry about sba because he's going to eliminate all the rapes. I'm alison gill. And i'm dana goldberg. Dana so good to know that he could have just eliminated rapes this whole time and just just now going to do that. That's what seems like something you should sit on like if you could get rid of rape in a city you think i mean now seems like yeah perfect. Time to bring it out things pow. Yeah yeah i mean it. It really is just a matter of you know execution up to this point and now he's like no. We got this under control. We only have what six thousand eighty one untested rape kits sitting in texas evidence rooms. I'm gonna go. i'm sure. I'm sure they'll just go through and you know take care of all that And besides a woman's body has a way of shutting at all down anyway orderly. And i mean what woman wouldn't wanna just have to think about that day in and day out after that horrible incident has happened along. Top of every thing else she has to deal with. Yeah i just hate these assholes so much in that. I'm sure that. I mean you know. We'll we'll go in. There won't be a shortage of pregnancy tests in town. Be plenty and and I'm sh- everything's gonna be fine. It's not. But i am talking to steve vladeck at the end of the block today. Who has kind of a way to get this. Done laurence tribe. When i say get this done. I mean actually sue texas over. This law laurence tribe tweeted about it. Let me read you that tweet. Because it's gonna come up in the conversation. With with steve vladeck later. And i want you to have a little bit of context. He says justice thomas and alito have said the supreme court has no way to duct cases in there in its original jurisdiction and what that means is that includes cases brought by the united states department of justice so they can't duck those cases and texas can't claim sovereign immunity in such a suit and then he ends the tweet with just saying so. I think it's something that maybe we could. All start pushing merrick garland to think about if you find that laurence tribe tweet and want to just re tweeted and tag at the justice department. Dp t- and say hey Original jurisdiction that's you merrick. Garland that's you. Trump wanted to use it a few times member when when he literally department of justice to just order the supreme court. To overturn the twenty twenty election. Yes i do it's just so laughable. Yes and then after. I talked to two steve vladeck. Who by the way as a constitutional law nerd. He's awesome. He's amazing if you don't follow him on twitter follow him after after him. We're gonna have zev shalev. The host of narrative live on. We're gonna talk about how. Russia is tangled up in the insurrection. And possibly what's going on in brazil right now which is a kind of a copycat and or dry ron of of our coup depending on how you look at it i guess but steve bannon was down there and jason miller was down there and he was detained by the cop. It's just all very interesting zevon. I are going to discuss that and I wanted to tell you this little bit of good news before we get into the headlines. The largest confederate statue in the united states. Robert e lee is coming down today in richmond virginia. And if it's early enough if you're hearing this early and if you might be able to catch it on livestream. Governor north is going to livestream the removal of that statue. So it's been up there for one hundred thirty years. i think. Small victories will take him. Yeah maybe yeah. He's on a horse. So maybe you know ivermectin could save him. I don't know probably not. We do have a lot.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"That due process applies at guantanamo. So i think it's really hard to handicap beyond bunk dc circuit because. It's really hard to know where the judges who will end up in the middle. We'll come down. I mean the last time the dc circuit her guantanamo on bonk was the second time they went on bonk and the military commission case. And you know what folks remember if they remember anything about that. Was that the sort of the two wings of the dc circuit were very strongly in opposition to each other while judges. Maleta and wilkins both wanted to rest on narrow case specific grounds that deprived either of majority. It's possible that that's where we're headed here where you know. There's one camp. That firmly wants to say due process applies. There's one camp that firmly wants to dozens and there's a camp in the middle. That's going to embrace the biden administration's position and you know that i think is going to accomplish. Absolutely nothing in settling the law if instead we somehow got to a majority for due process applying. You know assuming that they say. Do you process applies. But it satisfied. Ben that puts the by the administration in a very interesting position from the perspective of do they have been asked the supreme court for at that point right if this is hold as opposed to assumes that. The due process clause applies to the guantanamo detainees. But that it doesn't require more than what the jurisprudence has already articulated. whether or not it cert worthy. I'm not sure it's actually surf provoking. We will have to see on that point latiff. I want to close with you. The guy who bears your name has gone home. What happens to him now and and let's use it. as a reflection. On sort of seven hundred people have been removed from guantanamo and sent elsewhere. What happens to them. Yeah the sort of tip to talk about his case. I zoom out a little bit for him. He is very lucky that he has a family to go to a home to go to job to go to. There is a rehab center for torture victims. Basically in his home city of casa blanca. It looks like he. Yeah he sort of has a has a path back to a a stable life. One of the things i. I remember vividly. When i started reporting this with you know this is not sort of my my zone. I got pulled into it because his name coincidence but but my my kind of an assumption i had at the beginning was after being held for so long This man if you didn't have you know anti-american sentiment and urges and and motivations before all of this he certainly would have them after that he would come out. And i kind of i was imagining it. Probably the same way as a lot of these other seven hundred guys that they would come out really pissed and what i found at least in abilities. Case and in several of the other from guantanamo detainees that. I talked to him getting out. He he wasn't or he's not angry so much as from what i can gather from his lawyer and his family. He's tired and he's sad. He wants to have a family. He wants to kind of do the things he hasn't been able to do for the last nineteen years. He has a name picked out for his first born child. And that's kind of a. I don't know it's like a just the fact that this man for whom we had very flimsy evidence. We held him for this long. And kinda now. That's that's the only thing he wants to do. I don't know to me that kind of puts a lot of this. Yes this sort of fighting over over who these guys are like. He has a lot of health. Complications has permanent hearing damage from sensory overload From guantanamo according to his lawyer like he has held his issues he just wants to get back to his family. He wants to be left alone. that's kind of the picture that i'm getting and in this guy's case and you know it's clear there thirty nine other cases where maybe that's not the case but in this case he might be able to just do that so i wanna ask you this precisely because you're not a lawyer you've some. You're just somebody who's engaged the case of this individual with a lot of complexity in a lot of sympathy as i. It's been a while. Since i've listened to your series about him but as i recall you concluded that he was almost certainly more tied to bin laden then his lawyer is allow that the evidence of his engagement in any particular violent activity was not all that strong but he was certainly associated in some sense with enemy forces. Is that a fair summary. Yeah and also i think kind of pivotal pivotally like from what we found that there was no evidence that he had ever tried to harm civilians that he had ever sort of targeted or kahn. After american citizens like those two things to me were like spoke. Pretty what do you think you know should have happened to abdelatif nassir. He was captured by either pakistani or or northern alliance forces and turned over to us forces with a kind of tag on his toe that said al qaeda we're allowed to detain the enemy in wartime nineteen years of detention on. That record seems pretty hard to understand. Like what to you. Would've been justice or a appropriate handling of lot of nassir. I think the situation. He's in right. Now is pretty reasonable. I mean sending him to the fact that he's from a country that is an ally that has you know security apparatus that is able to keep tabs on this guy and you know yeah. Pay attention to him to make sure that in the off chance that he does re engage which the numbers from the obama administration and forward have been very low You in in the case that he does re engage like that he can be stopped. But i think that that situation that he's in right now where it's like sent him home to his family and monitor him. That seems like a pretty reasonable. Uh solution keeping him for nineteen years before. That seems very extreme. it's it's obviously. It's easy for me to say this now Whether if i was the person in charge Right after nine eleven might have been a harder call but right now i think that scenario that seems like a very reasonable scenario. That could have been true. You know even fifteen years ago we're gonna leave it there. Lot of nassir steve vladeck. Thank you both so much for joining us. Thank you and ben. If i can just say one thing which is i just wanted to say. Thank you in series. That i reported you us out so much me and my colleagues and your we're just really grateful for your help supply-sider the.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Transfer of you know muhammad al qahtani so i i think either. You're missing my point. I wasn't clear and my money is on the line. Maybe both so my point is not that they ought to do this at the expense of every other item on their domestic agenda. Because it's not hard to imagine. How every single republican will react. My point is that it is not. We're not gonna get anywhere unless they do. And so. yeah. I mean ben. Do i understand why. Closing guantanamo is administration's expanding any capital. Of course i do. If i were in the administration would feel the same way quite. Possibly that doesn't change the fact that they're the only ones in a position to do anything about it. And that's that's why were stuck now as opposed to why we've been stuck previously. I do think there are things they can do. Short of you know using their razor thin democratic majorities on guantanamo. I don't think for example the video plea deal proposal requires any legislation at all and so in so far. That was something they were willing to. Do you know as long as there were defendants who are willing to acquiesce. Identify could be pursued. I didn't they could really ramp up the efforts to not just get all ten of the pr. Be clear detainees out of guantanamo. But to actually see if any of the seventeen not. Pr be clear detainees might now actually get through the process because that has happened before so i won't be as clear as possible. It is not that. I blame the biden administration for where we are today. I do not. It's that so much of the sort of reasons why we're going to continue to be stock are because of the political factors that will lead the administration to expand capital on the things. It would need to do to actually make meaningful dent in that number okay and this brings us very neatly to al hilla the dc circuit case a to which you referred earlier which involves has actually potentially substantial implications for a lot of people but i think particularly for the remaining detainees who were in abdelatif nassar's position that is people who were pr be cleared for transfer got kind of stuck so Walk us through where where we are with that okay. So is one of a couple of the seventeen detainees who have not been cleared by pr. Bees whose habeas petitions took a really really really long time. These are not like second successive. These are first petitions and al hilo along with stifle a piracha. And there's i think one other. Ms i fully to purchase i. It's it's even hard for me to keep track of all these things. Anyway so al heels case finally got to the dc circuit last year and it produced this remarkably two thousand and nine like opinion because it produces remarkably two thousand nine like panel where you had a three judge panel of judges naomi. Row a raymond randolph. And former judge riffs and for folks who don't have the dc circuits guantanamo jurisprudence committed to memory. Judge ran off is the one who wrote the opinion that was reversed by the supreme court in brazil. He's the one who wrote dependent was your first by the supreme court in hamdan. He's the one who wrote the opinion that was reversed by the supreme court in boumediene and he was the one who worked the opinion that was vacated by the supreme court in piazza has some views on guantanamo. So the three judge panel held a couple of pretty important things but most importantly it held at guantanamo detainees categorically. Do not have due process rights. Judge griffiths separate concurring. Opinions suggest that it was unnecessary to reach that conclusion because as various other panels had done at various other points. One could assume that you process clause applied if one believe that whatever process that detainees had received met due process standards. And then the the detainee. Mr al hilla sought rehearing on bonk from dc circuit given. How sort of one sided a panel. He had received. The disease agreed to rehear the case on bonk. But and here's what technical especially important only the due process issue. There were actually some other important questions that the panel decided about. Whether the scope of the government's detention authority includes the power to detain someone who is not a member of al qaeda or any of its affiliated groups but who provided substantial support to al qaeda affiliates through non-belligerent activity. That's a big deal to that is not what's going before the on the unbound is just as i am the due process question so of course this led to the question of well. What's the biden administration gonna say about the due process clause and again we're back to carol and charlie's report in an according to caroline charlie. There was a huge interagency. Kerfuffle about what the by initiations position ought to be where all three positions were represented. Basically the notion that the due process clause should apply to the detainees and yet was satisfied. Here the notion that the court should not reach whether it applies because even if it does it was satisfied and the notion that the it was not applicable. All three positions were aired. Apparently the middle one one and so the brief that we have not seen as we've been told by caroline. Charlie takes no position on the due process question. It merely takes the position that to whatever extent to process applies the procedures at guantanamo comport with due process. Exactly so and that's an elegant compromise. If you don't think about it that much the reason why. I'm i'm sort of wary of that compromise and the reason why i've been wary of opinions making that point. Go all the way back to. I think it was then circuit. Judge brett cavanaugh. Who was the first. Big argument is because various judges on the dc circuit have suggested that some of the critical procedural rulings that the court of appeals reached in the first round of post boumediene cases ben back nine ten and eleven were informed by the assumption that the due process clause did not apply so for example the notion that the correct standard of of the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence not clear and convincing evidence. Well judge silverman has all but said the reason why you know. They're not troubled by hamdi is because that case of course was about due process so color me skeptical that the dc circuit jurisprudence over the last eleven twelve years would look the same if the due process clause clearly applied to the detainees. But the larger point. And i'm just gonna say working now i'll shut up. Is you know whatever this means. For the habeas cases it has enormous implications for the military commissions because to whatever extent in the government can get away with the argument that the procedures. These defendants are the detainees are receiving satisfied. You processing the habeas context. You know ben courts have a much better idea of what due process requires the criminal context especially in the capital context. And that's where i think. Al hilla could have enormous practical ramifications on the military commissions side answering that question one way or other. And do you have an instinct about how to handicap the bank dc circuit on this point. And let me just make the question a little harder and do you have an instinct about if the on bank dc circuit agrees with you. What the chances are the. Supreme court would regard the matter cert worthy where i have to say. There certainly is not a majority in my view for the idea..
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Martin stepping down but the government filed something asking for an extension and then the government has since filed a very careful a tight rope walking brief where they are declining to defend. Judge a costa's decision but they're not agree on that it's wrong. Basically where they want sort of live to fight this the the the administration's not asking this emc are to affirm. But they're also not willing to concede that a cost to was incorrect so that they can have this issue for a future case if they want it. That seems to be ben. What forced or pushed martin's out whether it was his own or whether it was he was asked to step down by the very few people above him in the chain of command. I only a handful of people know but it seems to be that. The by the ministration insisted on martin's not defending that ruling on appeal. And that was the last straw. So your your inference. Here is that martin's wanted to defend this decision and the biden administration Did not although having gotten rid of him. They didn't acknowledge error. In the case either right did not have knowledge error. What they're basically saying is that they are not that they're not defending basically that they're going to sort of you know stipulate. I think what they've done. They're going to stipulate to sort of a withdrawal of that opinion without considering that it was error that basically there are no longer going to seek to introduce that evidence against al nashiri and therefore the legal issue is moot. moot not necessarily settled. And so you know. I think the the reason why ben i feel somewhat comfortable in the inference. Although it's right to say that there's an inference is because we only got to this point because the prosecutors under the direction of general martin's had pushed for this ruling in the first place and so i find hard to believe it was the other way round right. I find it hard to believe that. A legal argument advanced by general martin's and his prosecutors that pushed gentle martin's out because he was standing by the same argument. If you follow me. Because he wasn't ended by this. I it's usually the most logical inference here is that he wanted the government to defend that decision. The people above him didn't and they just reached some kind of intractable in impasse. So this brings us to the more general point about the proceedings. Continuing in the military commissions are not as the case may be albeit without the chief prosecutor. Unlike latiff if nasser there are these detainees who have pending charges against them including mr al-nashiri and the five nine eleven accused conspirators. Where are we at this point. I mean for those. I would say overwhelming majority of listeners and l'affaire readers who have frankly lost track of the saga of the military commissions. What does it mean that proceedings resumed and is the resumption of proceedings really mean the resumption of a stalling at a different rate. I would say stalling for different reasons right. That as opposed to be installed by cova did. Now we're back to where we were before. Which is with different cases stalling because of various procedural impasses. So you know the reality is. I mean there are ten defendants spread across four trials or at least four cases there. Is you mentioned the five nine eleven defendants alan the sheree hotmail rocky also known as national to mir and then there are the three sort of the so-called indonesia defendants whose cases the least far along who were just only a couple months ago arraigned and there are also to be clear a couple who have clad right so i'll alu. Oslo was convicted and majd conp- lead so there are two. There are two still guantanamo. Who are on the far side of the military commissions system introduced in in sort of post conviction imprisonment. If you will better we could do like an hour on each of the cases and why they're stuck in the mud make a long story short yes. The resumption of prasino's guantanamo means that we will go from zero movement toward trial in. This case is toward the very slow paced movement toward trial that we had seen before last march. You know i still think a twenty twenty four trial date in the nine eleven cases still to me wildly optimistic probably the same violence show because the the wildcard here and the mark martin store is a good example of this. The wildcard here is interlocutory. Appeals and the specter that if the trial courts hand down you know rulings that really tilt very heavily one way or the other. There's going to be time. Spent taking that issue to the cr. And then if necessary the dc circuit perhaps without the trial being able to continue perhaps without further progress in the proceedings. And in the nashiri case when that happened indeed they went backwards three and a half years so there are so many things still to be worked out. There are so many questions still to be answered. And frankly i mentioned ben. The ongoing fight in the al hilla case about whether the due process clause applies at all to the detainees. That's on the habeas salad. Wait man we're getting to that but don't jump the gun. I'm not jumping the gun. I'm just tying threads together which is to say that like what the dc circuit does in that case could yet further either slowdown or throw a wrench into the you know the the incredibly slow march of pretrial proceedings and each of these four cases. I have a quick question. Actually if i could. But in steve this is like i feel like i'm one of those people that ben was saying before is like sort sort of lost a threat to actually hearing you lay it all out like this is very very helpful but the fact that this is like this has been dragging on for so long my my my question is like he's there anybody anybody on any side of this. Who is happy with the way things are going right now not publicly so you know i had thought this is why i took it back to the mark martin story for a second. I mean you know say what you will about general martin's and he and i have certainly had our differences over the years but man if you needed someone to stand up and say you know this is going okay. We'll just have to keep the only way out is through like yes you know. Kip common carry on like that was his stick. Was you know. We're reinventing the wheel. This is gonna take awhile. They're going to be some bumps and bruises but we're marching in the right direction. And so you know to me. At least right. General martin's sort of stepping off stage is just yet another nail in this coffin of like. What are we still doing here. I mean you know ben no i wrote a piece for for l'affaire i just went back and looked at when i wrote. It was april of twenty nineteen titled. It's time to admit that the military commissions have failed. You know here. We are two years and three months later and they haven't gotten any better. And if you wanna symbol general martin's leaving is quite simple and it's not a good one so there may be people out there who still think. Everything's going great with the military commissions. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who says that publicly. I don't think there's anybody. I mean as somebody who defended the military commissions for quite a while. I haven't done so publicly in years. It seems to me they. They have a demonstrated record of failure across all of the axes that justify their existence in the first place. And i don't know anybody who argues to the contrary.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Kind of if you were looking. I say i think from a political strategy perspective. We're coming up on the twentieth anniversary of nine eleven Guantanamo still being there is kind of a reminder of what went wrong. I think to a lot of people and in a way to get people out of there would look like a mic. One time a smaller or to get rid of it Or close it down would be a win for this administration that said they. You know it's it's really hard getting guys out of there abdelatif first of all as you said. He had that sort of transfer package. It was completely done. It was just kind of paperwork that got snarled at the end. Like you know the secretary of defense his signature on a piece of paper essentially and so. That's what was holding him up. But like if you look at sort of his case like he's going back to morocco a country that is a stable country ally the united states. He has family there waiting for a job there waiting for him a house there waiting for him like he he was i think on paper he was the easiest case to transfer one of the folks i talked to who is involved in putting transfer together said that his case was not a low hanging fruit his case was annot hanging fruit it was like it was just right there it was It was the layup that the biden administration could just kind of put in the bucket. So steve how should we understand this transfer. There are fortyish people remaining at guantanamo. How many of them are plausible. Transfers at this point and how many of them fall into this category of really really difficult to imagine what a disposition that doesn't involve continued detention. Looks like there are Often like to think that there are four. categories ben of guantanamo detainees. And you know for folks who haven't seen it. The new york times has a fantastic thing called the guantanamo docket which really is a super helpful breakdown of of all of this including the four categories so with the transfer of missile latif. There are ten detainees who are of the remaining thirty nine who have already been cleared by the periodic review boards. Who you know. Meet the other sort of internal criteria for transfer and so the question is just if the biden administration is going to be able to find somewhere to send them of those tennis. Worth stress in a bunch of them are yemeni and that has continued to pose difficulties on the resettlement question. And just to be clear that because you can't easily repatriate somebody to yemen because of the state of that country so you have to find some third-country country attributing to take the person. At least one of the ten is stateless which raises complications of its own. So those ten. I think it's right to sort of about this the way. Let's put it as no hanging fruit. Said the low hanging fruit are the ten you know who have been cleared in are still there. There are another seventeen who are in detention not in the military commissions who have not been cleared by. Prp's and you know. I think those are the most complicated cases for the administration politically that will be the last nut to crack in the universe at guantanamo. There are two of the remaining thirty nine who are serving sentences pursuant to military commission convictions. And then there are ten who are in various stages of pretrial proceedings in the military commissions. And that's it and so you know twenty seven of the thirty nine on the tension side twelve of the thirty nine and the military commission side and the twelve on the military commission side that have their own problems. But i think from the from the perspective of an administration that has not repudiated commissions. You know. I think it's safe to assume those are going to soldier ahead at whatever terrifyingly slow paced. They're soldier in the the. You know the real political challenge the by administration the the diplomatic challenges. The ted who have already been cleared the political challenges the other seventeen all right before we turn to the other major issues that arose which coincidentally involve those other groups of people. Let's finish up with with the transfer Situation latif have you been in touch with Lot of nassar's family owned with him. I you were sort of famously. Not able to have direct contact with him while you were reporting your story about actually surprised. You're not in morocco hanging out with him now. It's yeah it was. I was very tempted. Let me tell you But i basically in reporting i did. A number of interviews with former guantanamo detainees. And those were the hardest interviews. I've ever done in my entire career impart because these men have been through a lot and they are very i mean they have all kinds of sort of ptsd and they have all kinds of Hesitations and unwillingness which you can sort of imagine to sit and subject themselves to more questions and so to me. I like that was actually very much. My first impulse like here. He's got gets transferred. Just jump on a plane. But then i realized that actually probably more productive. What would lead to a better interview and a more kinda humane way to approach. It is to sort of give them a little time. Let them settle with his family. modal space. I didn't want to be you know the pozo going in through brittany spears bathroom window or whatever and just give them a little space and then and then kinda pursue it. After that. And i think that Yeah i i have been sort of in touch with him through his lawyer and and as well with the family Again through the lawyer and yet they are. They are ecstatic. They're so excited They are and especially because it. Sort of coincidentally thank happened to be. He'd when when he sort of the day before he lands there so he celebrating his first. You know holiday with his family in nineteen years so they are. They are Very excited they are very. They're also a little bit. I mean kind of tender transitional time for them. Yeah so i. I think it's kinda we'll see how it shakes out and hopefully i'll be able to To get that you know interview that i've been waiting for for like five years now. So steve let's talk about general mark martin's who was the chief prosecutor of the military commissions. And as you described contended for a number of years that he would be there through the nine eleven trial mark. Martin's has now announced his retirement. The nine eleven trials still hasn't happened. What happened well you know. We only know been publicly. Reported ben and and so. I think it's an important caveat upfront but there are coincidences. That seemed to give a lot of credence to the public reporting. So carol rosenberg and at least on one of the stories i think. Charlie savage reported that martin's stepped away as the result of fight with others in the biden administration albeit unnamed. Others about the position the government was going to take on an interlocutory appeal in the al-nashiri case al-nashiri folks may remember is the alleged accused mastermind of the october. Two thousand bombing of the us has coal. It's al-nashiri case where the dc circuit in twenty nineteen wiped away three and a half years of pretrial proceedings because of a conflict that the trial judge hadn't disclosed here. Now ben what. We're what everyone's fighting about is an effort by the government led at the time general martin's to introduce statements al-nashiri made while he was in cia custody and by every account accept the government's being tortured not at his trial but at least in support of certain pretrial proceedings and the military commission and that fight produced a ruling by the trial. Judge judge a cost a gosh. I think it was late last year early this year. Adopting what to my mind was a rather implausible. Reading of the military commissions act under which those statements could be admitted for pretrial proceedings because pretrial proceedings were not quote proceedings in a military commission on that the that was just a reference to the trial. Whoever has the better argument al-nashiri has appealed that to the court of military commission review and general martin. Sears for court my favorite court the court that has has done the most the most article one courts bad name of any court. I can think of so. The that appeals. Pending and the time in of martin's departure was the day. The government's response was due and on that date. Not only did you know the times..
"steve vladeck" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Stagnated. We talked about the resignation of general martin's. And we talked about the dc circuits. Latest forays into guantanamo bay. It's though l'affaire podcast. July twenty third a guantanamo update with latiff. Nassar and steve vladeck. So steve get us started. It's been a a big few weeks for guantanamo news which usually doesn't take place in big clusters give us an overview of how the the world the small world of guantanamo bay is different this week than it was safe three weeks ago. Well i mean. I think the first thing is that there are things happening in the military commissions. I mean we've were on the far side of what was a sixteen seventeen month pause in every single pretrial proceeding in all four of the pen. No military commission cases and you know we had the first proceedings in at least two of those cases in the last couple of days in the last week or so. So that's i think a big shift. There's one fewer detainees guantanamo then. There was a couple of weeks ago. So we've had the first you know. Transfer of a detainee out of the administration at least a transfer that wasn't pursuant to a plea agreement since president obama's last folded office in two thousand seventeen and we no longer have general mark martin's as the chief prosecutor of the military commissions even though at various points general martin's had told various folks that he was gonna see the nine eleven trial all the way to its conclusion that ended up not happening Apparently it didn't happen because of a disagreement over some litigation strategy. So you know. These are at least in guantanamo land. Pretty big deals and then the fourth piece of news is sort of less of a pretty big deal because it was sort of a punt but the the biden administration filed its brief under seal in probably the most important guantanamo case. The dc circuit has heard in a while about whether the due process clause applies to the guantanamo detainees and apparently according to report him from carol. From charlie savage the administration took no position on that question. So you know. I would say ben four to five pretty big news items that i didn't matter a lot on their own but together also i think are a pretty interesting inflection point all right so we're going to go through each of those in turn but i wanna start with the transfer. The trump administration had not transferred people at least not pursuant to plea agreement and the the gentlemen transferred was named lot if nassir and we happen to have lots of nassir. Al beit a different one right here. Lot f- tell us about the gentleman who was transferred from guantanamo. This week and how you came to be interested in him. Yeah well. I guess. Maybe i'll answer the second question. I and in a way in your introduction you already answered it. Which that i found too much to my sort of befuddle moment a few years back when i was just sort of procrastinating on twitter that there was this guy at guantanamo who had my same name. Yeah i just like. I didn't realize that such a person exists. As soon as i did. I immediately wanted to know everything i could about him. So kind to your to the first part of your question. Basically what i could find out. Then there was pre little about him out there. The first kind of place where i found anything was on the guantanamo docket on the new york times website. And basically what. I found about him there through those Like leaked dod dossiers. It sounded very nefarious. I mean he basically the the charges. They were actually formal charges. But basically what they said were. He was a top explicit expert of al qaeda. He was top advisor to osama bin laden. He helped blow up the bamiyan buddha statues which were a unesco world heritage site he fought. Us and coalition forces at the battle of tora bora and then wound up at guantanamo where he had all kinds of disciplinary infractions. And everything like that. That's sort of what it said. I had this very stark picture of the sky. And then when i talked to his attorney a woman. By the name of shelby sullivan bennett. Who was then at the law firm reprieve. She basically said the exact opposite she said. No no no. This guy was an aid worker at the wrong place the wrong time. Yeah he never. Al qaeda didn't have any kind of relationship with osama bin laden and so on and so on and basically this guy the us paid a ransom for this guy and they got a guy who you know Who's just mixed up in something. Nothing do with and never had charges and never had a trial and then to kind of to make matters more intense. What at the time. When i discovered around Twenty two ebb and of two thousand sixteen early twenty seventeen. He had gone before this. Pr be hearing this parole like process Board made up of people from the heads of six top agencies of the us government and they unanimously declared that he was that they didn't need to be holding him any longer he was not a continuing threat so he was this guy that was sort of like cleared on paper but remained at guantanamo. Not sort of when. I found him when i started doing research into his story. And as you reported in your excellent radio lab series about him he kind of got hung up in this end of the obama administration period where he was Notionally under under certain circumstances cleared to be transferred to and yet it kinda didn't just didn't happen before trump took office. What do we know a lot about the circumstances of his actual transfer was it just that the biden administration picked up where the obama administration left off when it left office and now that they had the chance they affected the transfer order or is there more to the story than that. That's basically the story. There's maybe a little more to the story like it does feel like in general. The story is the his transfer was kind of this une. Cash check from the obama administration of the biden administration. Just finally you know endorsed or whatever but basically there were other things..
FDA announces advisory committee meeting to discuss Moderna vaccine candidate
"The us food and drug administration says it has scheduled a meeting of its vaccines and related biological products. Advisory committee for december seventeenth to discuss the request for emergency use authorization for covid nineteen vaccine from biotech company dern so this is the second one second company that's now asked for emergency authorization california. The state expects receive about three hundred and twenty seven thousand doses of pfizer's cove nineteen vaccine by mid december and a second within three weeks according to gavin newsom. He declined at that point though to give an exact date. Those doses are to be expected now. Recommendations on how to distribute the first doses of the vaccine will be made this week as guidelines on how exactly to prioritize distribution are being drafted. Now the state's task force is also working on the challenge of keeping the vaccines at an ultra low temperature which has been a problem to this point. But they're working on it. Decision makers are looking at the plan with a specific ion equity.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on KHVH 830AM
"That more and more of the high profile devices this peace in our country end up becoming a traditional question. I'm joined right now by Steve Vladeck, professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. Final item I want to touch on because I'm sure it's one. The casual observer may not fully understand judicial philosophy people here that a segment of the court is conservative. Another segment is liberal. They hear terms like originalism, textual ism and judicial activism. If you don't mind as best you can step us through what some of that means. I could try a large department that we tend to have way tend to have these conversations at such a level of superficiality that it's hard to get into the weeds. So you know, let's take this example. The Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment in the end it and you know, one of the questions is what makes it punishment. Unusual, right? The concision doesn't define the word unusual. We'd probably all have our own colloquial definitions of unusual should we interpret the Eighth Amendment by reference to weather a punishment was unusual at the time. That provision was adopted. In 17 91, or should we interpret the eight of them? And to me? It's unusual in contact with unusual today on DH that something with Supreme Court has actually wanted out a lot. And so one new is an ardent originalist would say All that matters is what the public Communion of the words were at the time they were adopted, and by that logic, there would be plenty of them things that No, we might think of today as unconscionable punishment. That would not be unusual for a moment because they weren't unusual in 17 91 the folks who are less I think, wedded to original. That would say no, The words have to be interpreted in contact. And so when we asked if John Doe's punishment is unusual, what we're asking is that unusual compared to everybody else. That the kind is punished. You know that debate time? I don't know. 2000 is the method of logical that over the condition because you know there are some provisional constitution that were just on ambiguous. The president has to be 35. We don't really fight over 35. But the continent has a lot of words that are not necessarily obvious and even Mohr write. The Constitution doesn't address a lot of scenarios. To the question in the context where either the test of ambiguous or where the text is just not pathetic at all. Doesn't address the problem, right? What should control should should what the founders thought. 17 18 1991 control or should. What is true today be the relevant baseline that is Really the heart of the debate between progressives and conservatives when it comes the methodology today, Steve Lannon, professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law and executive editor of just Security and senior editor of the Law, Fair Block, Steve, Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of that force. We appreciate it. My pleasure. Thanks for having me as we wrap things up one offer a big thanks to all of our guests. Of course, all of you for listening to my heart radio communities. If you want to hear previous episodes of this show were on your I heart radio app. Just search for I heart radio communities and you can find me on social.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on Power 105.1 FM
"Which yes, I have absolutely had the if not intended, at least inevitable consequence that more and more of the high profile divisive this peace in our country end up becoming a traditional questions I'm joined right now by Steve Vladeck, professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. Final item I want to touch on because I'm sure it's one. The casual observer may not fully understand. Judicial philosophy. People here that a segment of the court is conservative. Another segment is liberal. They hear terms like originalism, textual ism and judicial activism. If you don't mind as best you can step us through what some of that means. I could try a lot of department that we've come to have way tend to have these conversations at such a level of superficialities that it's hard to get into the weeds. So you know, let's take the example. Well, so the Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment in the amended and you know, one of the questions is what makes the punishment unusual, right? The conscience thing doesn't define the word unusual. We'd probably all have our own colloquial definition of unusual Should we interpret the Eighth Amendment by reference to weather a punishment was unusual at the time. That provision was adopted. In 17 91, or should we interpret it for them? And to me? It's unusual in contact with unusual today on DH that something the Supreme Court has actually fought it out a lot. And so one new is an ardent originalist would say All that matters is what the public Union of the words were at the time they were adopted, and by that logic, there would be plenty of things that You know, we might think of today as unconscionable punishment That would not be unusual for a member purposes because they weren't unusual in 17 91, the folks who are less I think, wedded to original. That would say no, the words have to be interpreted in contact. And so when we asked if John Doe's punishment is unusual, what we're asking is that unusual compared to everybody else at the time he is punished. You know that debate times? I don't know 2000 is the method Washington over the condition because there are some provisions. The Constitution there just on ambiguous. The president has to be 35. We don't really fight over what 35 means what the conscience has a lot of words that are not necessarily audience on and even Mohr write. The Constitution doesn't address a lot of scenarios. So the question is in the context where either detective ambiguous or where the texts is Just not good at all. Doesn't address the problem, right? What should control should should what the founders thought you 17 18 1991 control or should What is true today Be the relevant baseline That is really the heart of the debate between progressives and conservatives when it comes the methodology today. Steve Lannon, professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law and executive editor of Just Security and senior editor of the Law. Fair Block, Steve. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of that force. We appreciate it. My pleasure. Thanks for having me as we wrap things up one offer a big thanks to all of our guests. And of course, all of you for listening to I heart radio communities. If you want to hear previous episodes of this show were on your I heart radio app. Just search for I heart radio communities and you can find me on social media.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on Newsradio 1200 WOAI
"So it's not that the quarter are accountable that the accountability comes in different ways and not necessarily the ballot box. And that's part of how we ensure that courts are able to protect the rights of minorities, which is perhaps the most important function. I'm joined by Steve Vladeck, professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law and executive editor of Just Security and senior editor of the Law Fair blogged before we get into the confirmation process, something the country's about to see play out once again with the nomination of Judge Amy Cockney Barrett to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Tell us about how the Supreme Court operates when they're in session. Get into the court term starts on the first Monday in October, so you know coming up and the court basically the you know there's sort of two different sets of them that the Supreme Court does in the big high profile. What we call the merits of the court hears these oral arguments and then the hand down these often lengthy opinions on so last year, for example, the court handed down Such opinions in 53 cases, But we're also feline. More and more that the court also hands down pretty important rulings on what's called the Shadow Docket. Where you know it gets a question of like an emergency application off whether a lower court ruling should be allowed to stay in place. While the appeal worked its way through the court system, you know the court life today at the Court of Review, Not first, you, but sometimes at that. Early on, you know, should relieve this lower court ruling in place pending appeal. Should we allow this federal policy that has kept on hold? We allow this blocking of an election law through kept on hold. While the case we'll situate through the course especially not to the election. We're going to see more of those in the news than the typical, You know, more common high profile American cases. And you've actually argued before the Supreme Court. What is that experience like it's really intimidated of really cool baby would have been that hard to appreciate. The proposed who have never been in the courtroom is perhaps more so than any quarterback I ever seen. When you're already in the Supreme Court, you're literally right in front of the justice is about 5 ft..
"steve vladeck" Discussed on KTOK
"They were both confirmed unanimously, but they both still went through this, you know, arduous process of going through the Senate, so I think it's very much in line with the heroin. Your perception of the court as political and you need to go important edition of the court that now this is no regardless of who the nominee is north of which she eat their fill in. This is a big deal. Does. It also had to do with the fact the system has just gotten a little out of whack over the past couple of decades. Congress seating a lot of power and control to the other two branches, which in effect increases the impact and importance of those branches. Yeah, I think that's actually true both of the front and end back in and went by, that is, you know, in the old days, it wasn't necessarily the case that the president would be able to confirm anyone when his party was in charge of the Senate. I mean, they actually used to be meaningful, pushed back by the Senate against nominees of their own party in certain cases, and I think that's one thing that's changed in recent years. We've really seen the Senate seed any substantive. Um, uh, Disapproval authority as long as near the majority in the Senate, the same parties as the president, and then yes. Once we have the justices on the court, you know, I really do think that Whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, and you know, there's so much more of an incentive if you're a politician to deflect hard question to the courts, because it's easier to sort of blame the court's notice to take a stand, and I we saw this with Dr Abbott. The Trump administration. Part of life got into trouble when it tries to riff in Dhaka is because instead of just saying We don't like Dhaka, they tried to argue that they had to risk them DACA because doctor was unlawful. That's part of why the Supreme Court rejected the rescission of Dhaka. So I think there's a lot of effort to deflect accountability to the courts, which yes, I absolutely had the if not intended, at least inevitable consequence that more and more of the high profile devices this peace in our country end up becoming a traditional questions. I'm joined right now by Steve Vladeck, professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. Final item I want to touch on because I'm sure it's one. The casual observer may not fully understand judicial philosophy people here that a segment of the court is conservative. Another segment is liberal. They hear terms like originalism and textual ism and judicial activism. If you don't mind as best you can step us through what some of that means. I could try a lot department that we kind of have it way tend to have these conversations at such a level of superficialities that it's hard to get into the weeds. So you know, let's take an example. So the competition bars cruel and unusual punishment in the end it and you know, one of the questions is what makes a punishment unusual, right? The conscience thing doesn't define the word unusual. We'd probably all have our own colloquial definition of unusual Should we interpret the Eighth Amendment by reference to weather a punishment was unusual at the time. That provision was adopted in 17 91, or should we interpret the of them? And to me? It's unusual in contact with unusual today on DH that something with that Court has actually thought about a lot. And so one new is an ardent originalist would say All that matters is what the public Communion of the words were at the time they were adopted, and by that logic, there would be plenty of them that you know, we might think of today as unconscionable punishment that would not be unusual for economic purposes because they weren't unusual in 17 91, the folks who are less I think, wedded to original. That would say no, The words have to be in Put it in context. And so when we asked if John Doe's punishment is unusual, what we're asking is that unusual compared to everybody else at the time, his punished you know that debate times. I don't know 2000 is the method Washington over the condition because there are some provisions. The Constitution that are just on ambiguous. The president has to be 35. We don't really fight over what 35 means what the country has a lot of words that are not necessarily obvious and even Mohr write. The Constitution doesn't address a lot of scenarios. So the question is in the context where either the detective ambiguous or where the texts is Just not good at all. Doesn't address the problem, right? What should control should should what the founders thought. 17 18 1991 control or should. What is true today be the relevant baseline That is really the heart of the debate between progressives and conservatives when it comes the methodology today. Steve Lannon, professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law and executive editor of Just Security and senior editor of the Law. Fair Block, Steve. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of that force. We appreciate it. My pleasure. Thanks for having me as we wrap things up one offer a big thanks to all of our guests. And of course, all of you for listening to I heart radio communities. If you want to hear previous episodes of this show were on your I heart radio app. Just search for I heart radio communities and you can find me on social.
Study warns new flu virus in pigs could morph to cause a pandemic
"A new strain of the H one, N one virus is spreading silently in workers on pig farms in China and should be urgently control to avoid another pandemic, according to a team of scientists in a new study H, one n one is highly transmissible in the spread around the world in two thousand and nine killed about two hundred eighty five thousand people and morphed into a seasonal flu. The newer strain known as G Four E A H one. N One has been comment on China's pig farms, since about twenty sixteen, and it replicates efficiently inhuman airways, and this is according to a study published on Monday, so far is infected some people without causing disease, but health experts fear, it could mutate and change without morning.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on 790 KABC
"Are the really truly tolerant people? We'll be here. Tomorrow to recap all of this nonsense and garbage. We'll try to relax for the rest of the night. And we expect to see you here. Same time tomorrow. This is the Ben Shapiro show. Movement is here. J ABC, Los Angeles, Orange County. Cumulus station. KABC news live and local at six on Bryant peers and update on ISIS ride wanting to return to the US, but first Paul Manafort is going to spend nearly four years in jail. President Trump's former campaign chief was sentenced to forty seven months today for tax in Bank fraud in a Virginia courtroom Manafort still faces sentencing for other charges in DC court in ISIS bride wants to return to the US, but her citizenship status is in question. Hoda Moussana made headlines after she left her family and the Alabama to join the terrorist group university of Texas law. Professor Steve Vladeck says the government could have a prosecutorial slam dunk against her. I don't understand here is that based on what she that. There's any physical evidence to corroborate what you claim she's dawn you shouldn't be heavy lift at all for the government to prosecute her for a range of criminal, maybe not treating the criminal statute called providing material orca terrorists. And I don't think there's any question that just based on what she herself says she has done a strong case for prosecuting river that Vladic was aghast on the morning drive with Jillian barberie and John Phillips. I'm Jeff wiggle KABC. News testing continues. At Santa Anita race track. Crews have brought in high tech equipment, including some ground sonar technology and mechanical system that mimics the horse galloping along the track over twenty horses have died at the track in Arcadia since last year and some.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on 790 KABC
"Now passed that resolution condemning anti semitism and bigotry in response to Representative Ilhan Omar's remarks, which were widely regarded as antisemitic ahead of that vote. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy called upon lawmakers to do more congress is better than this. Cleese do not make history write about our time with these two years, the most we've ever done is that we had to keep bringing resolutions to the floor detail people that anti semitism is wrong. An ISIS bride wants to return to the US. But her citizenship status is in question. Hold a Mathon made headlines after she left her family in Alabama to join the terrorist group university of Texas law. Professor Steve Vladeck says the government could have a prosecutorial slam dunk against her. This is the thing. I don't understand here is that based on what she said there's any physical evidence that Robert what she claims she's dawn, it shouldn't be a heavy lift at all for the government to prosecute her for a range of criminal offenses, maybe not treason, but there's a criminal statute called providing material or to terrorists. And I don't think there's any question that just based on what she herself says she has done a strong case for prosecuting her for that Vladic was aghast on the morning drive with Jillian barberie and John Phillips. I'm Jeff whittle KABC news, Michael Jackson's daughter, Paris is speaking out about reports surrounding the documentary leaving Neverland Peres Jackson took the social media Wednesday, Saint she hasn't officially made a statement after several tabloids reported that she did people. Magazine is reporting. The Paris hasn't watched the HBO doc, which describes in detail sexual abuse allegations from two men who say the king of pop abused them for several years pairs famously told Rolling Stone magazine back in two thousand seventeen she believes her father is innocent. Jayson Campadonia, KABC news. Several people may be facing charges after raids at homes in chino, immigrations and customs enforcement agents, San Bernardino, Bernardino county sheriff's deputies and chino. Police officers swarmed the homes this morning. The houses were allegedly used as illegal marijuana grow houses. San Francisco has the highest rent prices in the nation. The average monthly rent was three thousand six hundred ninety dollars for a one bedroom apartment in San Francisco in February. That's according to the rental website Zimper that's an increase of one hundred and ten.
"steve vladeck" Discussed on 790 KABC
"A resolution condemning hate speech Nancy Pelosi says they'll be adding language that condemns other types of speech as well. Correspondent sunlen. Serfaty says the issue has now snowballed into a very divisive situation for Democrats. She says not only it's going to cover only anti semitism, but also anti Islamaphobia an anti white supremacy. And that is in response to a lot of concern members up here on Capitol Hill, a lot of Democrats saying look if we're going to chastise one of our own we can't single out one L, Omar over this the US border patrol reports. It's taken in more than seven hundred migrants into custody at the Texas Mexico border within a twenty four hour period. Correspondent Clayton Neville says. The president is commending these efforts US customs and border protection said this week that a record number of families are being apprehended. Border wide with the greatest increase coming in the L, Paso sector, hundreds of apprehensions backing up and claimed late Tuesday and Wednesday the patrol said that attentions involved several large groups of migrants, they crossed the border illegally. It said the groups are made up mostly of Central American families and unaccompanied juveniles President Trump commending the agency in a tweet saying the US is on track to apprehend more than one million people coming across the southern border this year, I'm Clayton Neville, and ISIS bride wants to return to the US, but her citizenship status is in question. Hoda Moussana made headlines after she left her family and the Alabama to join the terrorist group university of Texas law. Professor Steve Vladeck says the government could have a prosecutorial slam dunk against her. I don't understand here is that based on what she said there's any physical evidence to corroborate what you claim she's done. It shouldn't be heavy lift at all for the government to prosecute her for a range of criminal offenses, maybe not treason, but there's a criminal statute called providing material. Orca terrorists. And I don't think there's any question that just based on what she herself says she has done a strong case for prosecuting her for that Vladic was aghast on the morning drive with Jillian barberie and John Phillips. I'm Jeff wiggle KABC news, California state workers are hoarding vacation days, and it's costing taxpayers. Big bucks. More than four hundred and fifty employees left their jobs last year and took home a six-figure check. The LA times is reporting that the state show around three hundred million dollars for unused time off, which is a direct result of officials not enforcing a cap on vacation, a cruel. The report also states that as of two thousand seventeen state workers have piled up about three and a half billion dollars worth of Bank vacation time. Critics are calling the practice pension spiking. Jayson Campadonia KABC. News talk radio.