40 Burst results for "Supreme Court"
Liberals, Why Are You So Stupid?
"Unnecessarily I say because it's true if you're listening to conservative talk radio and I will prove this to you later on the show I promise I have the receipts to back this up you are smarter than the average liberal by far politics about I don't want to be dramatic I'm not suggesting a liberal brain surgeon like you're a better brain surgeon than them I'm saying about general political issues there is statistical data I will prove I'll prove to you later to show that among big political issues if you're a conservative there's a strong you know a whole lot more than your liberal friends they don't know anything because they've been raised on bumper sticker politics tolerance coexist equity I'll be changing none of that what is actually mean it was actually mean ask your liberal friends they've no idea you've now ask your Trump supporting friends to the liberals who listen to my show you don't have liberals you know I do they say I get their death threats every day ask your Trump supporting friends why do you support Trump they'll be like yeah man tax are cuts pretty good for my business economy was pretty good inflation was pretty low at the time you know a whole Abraham Accords thing got a couple piece of cords over there it's pretty good stuff like the Trump years got some justices on the Supreme Court flip the Roe v. Wade you ask the average Trump supporter they know all of it ask your liberal friends why they support Obama they have no idea really dig he'll be changing
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Bloomberg Law
"The law is clear? Yes the state is arguing that the law is clear, though the state has been unwilling to explain? Yes. And the state is arguing that the law is clear? Yes the is state is arguing that the law clear? Yes, unlike in other states where the state medical board has specific guidance to physicians. The Texas Medical Board has been totally silent here and nor has the Attorney General issued specific guidance. And one would think that if the law were actually clear, right, it allows a physician to intervene or we're dealing with premature rupture of the membranes for instance or a molar pregnancy or other scenarios that can commonly occur in pregnancy and threaten lives, that they would say so. And they have just remained silent, both the board and the Attorney General. Is the state's position that women have to carry a fetus to term even if the fetus is not viable or if the pregnancy presents a risk to the mother? The state's position is that the exception is extremely narrow. So it applies to threats to life but presumably would not apply to fetal anomaly, yes that's right. And I believe one of the women had to carry a fetus to term even though she knew that it would not survive. Yes, so part of the argument here is on that particular score is that the state isn't achieving any state interest when it makes women carry to term pregnancies that are destined to result in stillbirth or a very momentary hours -long life for the baby. The Texas Supreme Court consists of nine Republican appointed judges. Did you see five of them leaning in one direction another or or did they seem split? What was your take on the arguments? The justices seemed all over the map honestly and I don't mean that as a prediction that the plaintiffs are going to win here on the merits or across the board, but rather that there seemed to be some justices who wanted to find a way to deny standing to the plaintiffs perhaps through this argument that plaintiffs should just sue doctors and Texas is not really at fault as the state claims, but others expressed real confusion over the standing arguments and how be it would possible to deny standing to the plaintiffs. And I think they expressed some frustration with the state because here the reason we're at the Texas Supreme Court, the reason we're in the court system is because the Texas Medical Board has provided no guidance because the legislature sloppily drafted an abortion ban that can't be understood by the healthcare providers subject to its terms. And so I think there was a lot of frustration on that score as to what were they supposed to do, right? Once they find standing, then they are left with the question of how to interpret the statutory language. And depending on how they interpret it, they then have to come to the plaintiff's constitutional argument that if the statute doesn't allow physicians to act to save health and life in emergent situations, then it violates the Texas Constitution. We didn't see a whole lot of uptake of the constitutional argument, but there were some questions about in what way the Constitution would possibly reach the Texas abortion ban medical exception. So if the Texas Supreme Court sides with the state, is the case over? Possibly, or very early on in the litigation if they're at the court on a preliminary injunction. So really, court the is just determining whether the preliminary injunction ruling should stand, but what they say could essentially end the case. And certainly if the Texas Supreme Court determines that these plaintiffs don't have standing, then yes, the case is dead on arrival. And if the Texas Supreme Court denies the state's request to dismiss the case, then it goes back to the district court for a full trial? Yes, we're very early on, so it goes back within the Texas state system to the Texas trial judge for a trial on the merit. Just this month, 13 groups filed amicus briefs. What do you think are the implications for this decision in and out of Texas? The implications are going to be felt first and foremost in Texas. The arguments that the plaintiffs are making as a matter of constitutional law are about the Texas Constitution, but it is part and parcel of phenomenon a we've seen in state courts. So, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Indiana have determined that their abortion ban has to have a life or health exception because otherwise they violate protections on life within the state constitution. So, the Texas Supreme Court could here agree and further this trend toward recognizing some limitations on how far abortion bans can go. And has the state Supreme Court made any rulings recently on abortion issues? So, the Texas Supreme Court has recently been involved in the and back forth over SB8, for example, but what they've done there is usually take on relatively narrow questions with regard to SB8, the question was simply around whether the licensing board could be sued. And the Texas Supreme Court said no, and therefore killed what was left of the SB8 lawsuit after it left the United States Supreme Court. So, not a lot of activity on the merits of protection for abortion in the state of Texas. Why are there so many abortion laws? Why isn't there one comprehensive law? Part of it is that we had a series of laws that predate Dobbs, which turned groovy wade. So we have laws that regulate abortions for minors, we have laws around informed consent, we have a number of abortion restrictions that predate our total bans, and then we have our pre -row statute, for instance, which long predates Dobbs in the contemporary moment. So there's just differences in language that show up when you look across all of the abortion laws. We've seen backlash against abortion bans in other red states. Is there anything like that brewing in Texas? We've Yes, seen very minor developments. The Texas State Legislature this year enacted an extremely narrow affirmative defense to the abortion bans, recognizing that premature rupture of the membranes, for instance, and topic pregnancies of all kinds should not be within the abortion ban, but it's an affirmative defense. So in fact, it applies pretty narrowly. Doctors would have to be willing to face criminal charges or face revocation of their medical license and then raise a defense that this person was experiencing a C -Fection ectopic pregnancy, for example. Pretty narrow in terms of the changes we're seeing. We do not have a process by which the people can put on the ballot a constitutional amendment that might protect reproductive rights or do away with some of the manifestations of our abortion ban. And finally, the state really harped on the standing argument. Do you think the court will at least find that the plaintiffs here have standing? Whether it's the doctors have standing, even if the women don't, it's almost impossible to imagine a scenario where you can't count the vote to say at least one plaintiff, which is all they need, has standing. Because standing as a principle is going to apply across different areas of law. And I don't think the Texas Supreme Court is going to be eager to totally shut the courtroom doors to plaintiffs in a lot of different types of lawsuits, not just abortion -related lawsuits. Thanks so much Liz. That's Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas Law School. Coming up next, double jeopardy at the Supreme Court. This is Bloomberg. Bloomberg Radio is where you are. Get live business news and market headlines from anywhere, 24 hours a day via your mobile device. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg .com. This is a Bloomberg Money Minute. The case for an economic soft landing continues to build. The government says the economy grew at a 5 .2 percent annual rate last quarter, the fastest in nearly two years. Consumer spending fueled the growth. The economic data produced an early rally on Wall Street, but the gains didn't stick. Dow Industrials rose 13, the S &P 500 lost 4, the Nasdaq dropped 23. Spirit Airlines is tightening its belt. The Wall Street Journal reports the airline is offering early retirement packages to salaried employees, citing weak demand. Spirit
Judge Temporarily Lifts Gag Order in Trump’s Civil Fraud Trial
"On CNN and MSNBC and everywhere else how about all these phony legal analysts that said Donald Trump clearly violated this judges gag order or that judges gag order and they should send them to jail remember who said that Joe Scarborough Mr. among reprobates other judge David Friedman of the intermediate appeals it's a weird system in New York their Supreme Court is the trial level then they had the first level the intermediate appeals court and then they have ultimately their appellate court which is effectively their Supreme Court why mark well somebody got drunk that's why judge David Freeman of the state's intermediate appeals court issued what's known as a stay suspending the gag order and by the way there was a judicial nominee that Joe flopped Biden up there in the Senate and Senator John Kennedy I love this guy can't get him on any of my shows so I gave up he answered a simple quote what's the difference between a stay and an injunction I really don't know what you what he asked these people the most basic questions even and they know don't the answer because Joe Biden is loading the courts with ideologues and I might add with the help of Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham sorry Lindsey that's what you're doing the trial judge Arthur Ngaran not to be confused with the dictator Islamist of Turkey imposed a gag order on October 3 after Trump made a false comment about the judge's law crack on social media how do you know it was false then then he finds trump fifteen thousand for violating and expanded it to his lawyers after they question the clerk's prominent role in the trial what was happening is this clerk over and over again kept whispering to the judge and the judge kept whispering to the clerk like they were on a date or something but as I explained the other day a lot of these judges are absolutely stupid and have almost no real litigation experience even more than that they can't write or whatever and they rely on their clerks to
Fresh "Supreme Court" from Bloomberg Law
"Anne Cates, Bloomberg Radio. Let's check the markets in Asia. The CSI 300 is moving up now about a of quarter one percent. The Hanks index up a tenth of a percent. The Nikkei going the other direction with a drop of about two cents of one percent. Dolly Yen, $147 .03 and the yield on the 10 -year Treasury, 4 .26 percent. Global news 24 hours a day and whenever you wanted with Bloomberg News now. In Hong Kong, Ryan I'm Curtis. This is Bloomberg. What does the prosecutor have to prove in order to get a RICO conviction? Tell us why the Solicitor General sometimes referred to as the 10th Justice. Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. That's Jennifer Kaye from Bloomberg Law. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz. And analysis of important legal issues, and cases headlines. Is the toughest hurdle for prosecutors proving Trump's intent? Congress has no power to regulate the Supreme Court. Bloomberg Law with the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso ahead in this hour. The Supreme Court justices question Georgia's decision to retry a murder defendant after an acquittal and the Texas Supreme Court appears conflicted over the state's tough abortion law. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. It was heart heartbreaking. You know, telling
Outrageous Stalker Attacks Religious Jews for Their Traditions
"So I, minding my own business, I posted it on my social sites. Then along comes this stalker, who obviously has nothing to do with her life, hanging on the looking at. And what does she say? Well, what do you call her, Mr. British? She retweets or responds to my quote, quote, treated Now her. in 2010, as the New York Post points out, she considers herself to be a deeply religious Jew. Well, she's a liar, I doubt that. She quoted Jewish conservative commentator Mark Levin's video footage of rabbis, a quorum of Jewish adults traditionally male required for certain religious observances outside the White House. And you know what this dimwit said? Where are the women? I thought women or woman was a banned word now. I mean, when you have a Supreme Court justice, a can't define woman. But Weingarten can because she famously announced that publicly nobody cared. Nobody asked I that. think she was married to another woman, something like that. Now, I didn't ask her for opinion. I don't care for her opinion. I don't I don't care about her. In fact, I dislike her intensely given what she's doing to the young people in this country. Where are the women? So this was really an attack on Orthodox Judaism. She would never do that for the Muslims that have separate parents. No, no, no. Where are the women? I guess there I guess they're praying over in another direction, which is the way it works. sorry, I'm everybody can't be members of the American Federation of Teachers, aka the American Federation of Propagandists. About 35 % of teachers are Republicans, but I'm talking about the other 65 % that run the show. Orthodox Jews have gender separated prayers and they've had it for thousands of years. Thousands of years. So I decided to respond to her, and not in any substantive way, because I think she's got a negative IQ and it wouldn't matter anyway. She's a zealot. So I wrote, you're a contemptible moron, get off my timeline, you idiot. Isn't that pretty much what I would say on the phone, Mr. Producer? You're a contemptible moron. You're a contemptible moron, Ron Garton. Get off my timeline, you idiot. So, others joined in. The story exploded. So she blocked the comments, didn't she, Mr. Producer? She didn't want to hear anything. Brother Ben Shapiro jumped in. But I will tell
Fresh "Supreme Court" from News and Perspective with Tom Hutyler
"Bingo no matter the day there's a time to play at Muckle Shoot Bingo and matinee's sessions start every day at noon and evening sessions start at 7 p .m. Muckle Shoot Bingo in Auburn your home for machine go your next Northwest traffic at 304 here's the weather outlook by sponsored Northwest Crawl Space Services will have rain tomorrow and Friday highs in the mid 40s and wet in the times windy this weekend gradually warming to the lower 50s by Sunday 40 at SeaTac 42 here in downtown Seattle Northwest News Time now 255 the Texas Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in a case brought by women challenging the
Monitor Show 05:00 11-14-2023 05:00
"Investment Advisors switch to interactive brokers for lowest cost global trading and turnkey custody solutions. No ticket charges and no conflicts of your interests at IBKR dot com slash RIA. This is Bloomberg Radio. From the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studios, this is Bloomberg Daybreak for Tuesday, November 14th. And Israel ramps up its ground war against Hamas. That's as Israel supporters come out in force with a march in Washington. A critical 24 hours as Congress tries to avert a government shutdown. And Joe Biden and Xi Jinping are set to announce a deal to crack down on fentanyl. Donald Trump Jr.'s testimony on the witness stand and his family civil fraud case. Plus, the Supreme Court put in place its first formal code of ethics. I'm Michael Barr. More ahead. I'm John Stash, Aaron Swartz. The Knicks lost in Boston, the Islanders lost in Edmonton Monday Night Football. The Broncos upset the bill. That's all straight ahead on Bloomberg Daybreak on Bloomberg 1130 New York, Bloomberg 99 1 Washington, D .C., Bloomberg 106 1 Boston, Bloomberg 960 San Francisco, Sirius XM 121 and around the world on Bloomberg Radio dot com and via the Bloomberg Business Act. Good morning. I'm Nathan Hager and I'm Karen Moscow and U .S. stock index futures are higher this morning. S &P futures up two tenths of a percent, about nine points. Dow futures up a tenth of a percent or 40 points. NASDAQ futures up three tenths of a percent or 44 points. Ten year Treasury yield four point six one percent. Nathan, Karen, let's get you caught up on what's happening in the Middle East. The focus is turning to hospitals in Gaza, where Israel accuses Hamas of housing command centers and weapons. President Biden says the Al -Shifa hospital.
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Bloomberg Markets
"Interest rates to learn more. The world is more complex than ever, but that complexity pushes me to look at the bigger picture. Emily I'm Chang and I cover tech, culture, innovation, and the future of business for Bloomberg. At Bloomberg, reporters like me dig into the context of a story so you understand how it impacts you. Because text changes how you see things, how you change things. Context changes everything. Start watching my shows and more at Bloomberg .com. Need to start your day in just 15 minutes. The latest on the Israel -Hamas war. President Biden touting steps to ease inflation. Wake up with Bloomberg Daybreak U .S. edition. The U .S. Supreme Court has adopted a new code of conduct. Down to number one in college Available now on your podcast feed. Each weekday morning at 6 a .m. Eastern. Traders are betting the feds hiking cycle is over. Subscribe to Bloomberg Daybreak U .S. edition on Apple, Spotify and everywhere you get your podcast. Bloomberg Radio. Context changes everything. At Oppenheimer, we focus the power of our thinking on you. Creating customized plans to help achieve your goals. The power of Oppenheimer thinking is boundless and original. Listening more closely and
The Character Assassination of Benjamin Netanyahu
"The last year or so after netanyahu was re -elected and he put together this coalition they've been character assassinating netyahoo and this coalition the most right -wing government ever used to say that about menachem begum too by the now israel right -wing would be rhino in the united states rhino in the united states it's not right -wing what they're what they're really doing is smearing people of faith very religious people orthodox jews because the secularist jews there hate the orthodox very much like in our own country you don't have many orthodox jews orthodox practicing jews with the yarmulkes and the rest in the media mr producer i don't see any but you'll see a lot of secularists and by the way secular christians secular this but you'll see a lot of secular jews too and so they come in a world view from very different perspectives i'm just telling you the truth very different perspectives and so what's happened in israel just like in the united states sort of their marxist left their secularist left their self -hating left just as we have leftists in america who hate america well believe it or not there's leftists in israel who hate israel and they hate democracy they want an all -powerful court system which they have there more powerful than any other western country where the supreme court calls the shots on everything you don't even have to have standing they can pick and choose whatever they want to hear they issue a ruling overrule they regularly the Knesset their parliament our congress they don't have any authority to do it they just do it so netanyahu says you we know have to address this in a modest way but these justices they appoint each other do you know they we themselves effectively have elections but they don't seem to matter we out fight it we fight over the coalitions you've seen them do it and then we have three or four these justices they just decide they even make decisions about how they're going to fight wars so just like in our country with the propagandists they paint netanyahu as a dictator because netanyahu wants more democracy and it's not so sexual democracy the guy who wants to take a little bite out of the judicial oligarchy he's the fascist you see but this is typical with
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Bloomberg Daybreak
"Do it again. can Where I learn all this? It's all on smokeybear .com with other wildfire prevention tips because only you can prevent wildfires brought to you by the USDA Forest Service, your State Forester and the Ed Council. Get news the you need to start your day in just 15 minutes. The latest on the Israel Hamas war. President Biden touting steps to ease inflation. Wake up with Bloomberg Daybreak, US edition. The US Supreme Court has adopted a new code of conduct. Down to number one in college basketball. Available now on your podcast feed each weekday morning at 6 a .m. Eastern are traders betting the feds hiking cycle is over. Subscribe to Bloomberg Daybreak, US edition on Apple, Spotify and everywhere you get your podcasts. Bloomberg Radio. Context changes everything. The Wheel, a big idea that's inspired countless new ones. From the horse drawn carriage to a rover on Mars. 30 years ago, State Street launched the Spyder S &P 500 ETF, Spy, a big idea that inspired the world to invest differently and still does. What can you do with Spy? Before investing, consider the fund's investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. Visit SSGA .com for a prospectus containing this and other information. Read it carefully before investing. Spy is subject to risks similar to those of stocks. All
A highlight from Gary Gensler Wants To Relaunch FTX | SEC vs Crypto
"All right, so a lot happening this week, and today is no different. Gary Gensler is on the Warpath, we're going to be talking about that, and also breaking into what's happening with Bitcoin and some of the markets. We'll get into all that good stuff for you guys today. My name is Paul Bearer. Welcome back to Tech Path. Before we get started, I want to take a moment and thank our sponsor. On November 14th and 15th, Human Protocol is hosting Nukeonomics 2023 in Lisbon to discuss the impact of AI and Web3 on the world and the economy of tomorrow. Make sure and use our promo code PB50 for 50 % off. Nukeonomics is planned to set to explore the future of Web3 with thought leaders around the world. Cool thing, across the program, they're going to be doing a full kickoff. On starting the event, you'll be able to get access to new speakers. They're going to discuss the impact of blockchain and creating human -centric economies and the future of crypto. They'll also have this thing called the L -Room, which is going to be a startup pitch, so make sure and check that out. And then the following day, you'll be able to go to what they call the LX Mainstage, and all of that is going to be where we'll see Web3 in music, along with AI and other influences in digital media. Some of the guest speakers include Sam Weeks from Google, Erica Wykes -Snade from Adidas, Cyrus Faisal from Swisborg, and Javier Garcia de la Torre from Binance. Make sure and check them all out. Don't forget to use our code down below. We'll leave a link. All right, so let's break into it today. Let's go over to the first tweet. This is the Kobayisi letter just in. Market cap of Bitcoin officially rises above $750 billion for the first time since April 2022. I want to zoom in on that for you guys a little bit. The entire crypto space is nearing $1 .5 trillion market cap. That's nice to see, $1 .5 trillion. First time nearly two years that we've seen this. Bitcoin prices are now 35 % over the last month, 120 % on the year. I want you to take a moment for all you guys out there that are buying in Bitcoin, have been buying maybe since the beginning of the year. You're 120 % up. How do you say that to people when you look at that? I'm just kind of curious. How do you play it? And also, what tokens are you playing right now? Make sure and leave some comments down below. Smash the like button if you guys like breakdowns like this. Let us know. These are the kind of things. So we'll kind of guide you along here. But the resilience of crypto is incredible. The statement here, can't really deny what's happening out there. You guys are in the right place at the right time. The cool thing is, is when you like this video, it's going to share it to others who will start to learn what's happening out there in crypto as a whole. A couple of posts here. I want to go to Scott Johnson. And it looks like we've got some confirmation. One with a hard timeline, so almost certainly decided along with other open apps, the most likely outcome, US SEC said open talks with Grayscale on the spot Bitcoin ETF push is underway. So this came in further on him and he said, my guess is Grayscale is one of the two positions they received assurances that they will receive a new order, X number of days alongside the open apps. And then they have not received assurances, maybe demanding a new order. Kind of curious which one you think would be the case. Will Grayscale be aligned with the rest because with this alignment of discussions happening, you get back into the scenario of, yes, ETF is going to start positioning and maybe that's the opportunity. Now, the real question is how does Bitcoin respond once an ETF does come through? Pentoshi kind of hits on a couple of points here. A lot of people argue that Bitcoin ETF is going to be sell the news. Yes, some pricing is going on, but we have no idea what the demand will be and there will be some to start. Sure, illiquid supply is at an all -time high. That's one thing. A lot of Bitcoin is now in diamond handlers. Yes, we know that. And then don't pretend you know what's going to happen. I agree. I don't think anybody really knows for sure. You can assume, I think with some reason, that there's going to be some demand movement. But the biggest point, I think, is a little bit of a ephemeral approach to it. And what I mean by that is that when BlackRock comes into the space, if BlackRock is the one that, say, leads the way out, maybe there will be another winner here. Could be ARK, could be Fidelity. Whoever wins that marketing war, I think that's the point in which traditional investors will start to question their resolve around crypto. And when that happens, there will be a tipping point and I think that's the point in which a lot of this is going to start to peak. Now, maybe the timing is going to be perfect too because you've got, obviously, next year we've got the halving occurring. Hopefully we're out of what could be a recession. Hopefully we're out of these conflicts and other things are starting to settle. We'll talk about that in a second. Here's Will Quamente. He kind of jumps in on this. It's pretty obvious that if BlackRock is filing an ETH ETF, then the Bitcoin ETF must be a dumb deal. I don't know if it's a done deal, but this is interesting that they bring this up front. Now, granted, they may have enough indicators there that this is going to happen and they don't want to be left behind in the sense of a strategy around an ETH ETF. I just had James Saferd on. He and I had kind of been going back and forth. First time I had James on, he mentioned to us and we asked him straight blank, what about an ETH ETF? He wasn't really a fan of that, but he's changed his position. So I think that he, along with other Wall Streeters out there, are in a position now that ETH is going to make it through as an ETF. Here's John Deaton. Although I believe a spot ETF, Bitcoin ETF, should have been approved a long time ago, I believe the timing of a spot ETF approval is going to help create a perfect storm for Bitcoin. Whether you look at, you know, Wall Street getting what they want or you know what's happening overall, what he talks about here is we all know no matter what happens in the not too distant future, second and third quarter, rate cuts going to happen combined with rate cuts. This is my point is that you're going to get into some scenarios for 2024 where the cycle starts to feed upon itself. Rate cuts, the market looking at a much more structured capital alignment with an asset class that has now maybe come of age, along with all the technical components of what's happening with Bitcoin, and then what I think will be an absolute barnstorm of what's going to happen in Web3. That's going to include all the traditional tokens that we talk about here all the time, including, you know, ETH, AVAC, SOL, and many others in the Web3 ecosystem. So a lot definitely kind of lining up here for good news. SEC Chair Gensler says rebooted FTX is maybe a possibility if it's done within the law. All right. So this I would tread on very, very lightly in the sense that I think the brand damage has been done. I just cannot imagine, it would take maybe years to get way past where we are today. Any of the people that know about crypto today are going to most likely be feeding into the crypto investors of the future, and what I mean by the future, the next two to three years. FTX is still going to be a memory that's not one that's easy forgotten. And I think because of that, just the brand ethos that FTX pretty much imposed itself on the industry, I don't think is going to be forgotten. So I think it's going to be a scenario. They will not be overcoming it. And the thing that, you know, Gensler might be trying to do here is maybe just set it up for failure so he can do what I told you at some moment. I don't know. But I would not. Why? Go that route. Why would you bring that sore back up into the industry when there's so many great projects out there and great exchanges and places where you can do things, including all these new entities? I just don't know. I'm not sure. Let's listen to a clip right here. This is Brad Garment House. He's talking about FTX. Listen in. I've spoken with a lot of Democratic lawmakers, crypto skeptics about this, and they cite fraud often, that a lot of people are defrauded through crypto scams. How much more work needs to be done to push back against that kind of narrative? The fraud FTX wasn't a crypto fraud. I mean, yes, it was a fraud. Maybe if Gary Gensler and the SEC weren't so focused on going after Ripple and meeting openly with Sam Bankman -Fried, maybe we could have actually avoided some of that, right? Marty bracing myself for when I go check Twitter after this to see everything the XRP army had to say about this conversation. All right. So you can kind of see maybe with Brad Garment House, obviously I'm trying to take this to the Supreme Court, will maybe adjust his opinion of how they negotiate with the SEC. And maybe that's what he's talking about there. It would be interesting if that actually occurred. Maybe there is something that could be done and salvaged between that relationship. I don't know. I want to go over to another clip here. This gets into Garment House talking about Coinbase and what their current status is. Listen in. I followed the Coinbase case a little more closely. And so maybe I can comment there a little bit more. You know, the SEC is not trending well there. And again, if at some point you would think if you keep getting losses, you would say, okay, wait a minute, let's step back, let's reevaluate. Or even better, let's be part of championing a legislative solution. Well, you say you're hopeful that something happens legislatively, but ultimately the way things are going right now, do you think more clarity is likely to come from Congress or is it just going to continue to come from the courts and the judicial branch? I think that's a question for Chair Gensler.
SBF TRIAL Podcast 11/7: What's Next for Sam Bankman-Fried's Legal Case
"Welcome to the SBF trial, a Coindesk podcast network newsletter bringing you daily insights from inside the courtroom where Sam Bankman -Fried will try to stay out of prison. Follow the Coindesk podcast network to get the audio each morning with content from the Coindesk regulation team and voiced by Wondercraft AI. The story of United States v. Sam Bankman -Fried isn't quite over yet. Now that he's been found guilty on seven different charges, a few things are going to happen. One is, of course, the U .S. probation and pretrial services system will get to work on drafting a memo for a recommended sentence. The Department of Justice and the defense team will likely have views on that recommendation. Judge Lewis Kaplan has scheduled a tentative hearing on March 28 to discuss the proposed sentence, with deadlines for the two parties to respond to the memo ahead of that date. There's also Bankman -Fried's second trial, currently scheduled for March 11. The judge set a February 1 deadline for the DOJ to update him on whether or not it intends to proceed with this second trial, which is also dependent on the U .S. winning permission from the Bahamas government. As a reminder, Bankman -Fried faces additional charges of fraud on FTX customers tied to derivatives, though it's worth noting that last week's conviction did include a count of conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, securities fraud against FTX investors, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitter business, and conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. These charges were not included in Bankman -Fried's original indictment, meaning they did not appear in the DOJ's request to the Bahamas for his extradition. The Bahamas Supreme Court ordered that the government cannot retroactively grant permission for a trial on these charges until after a hearing has been completed. I haven't yet seen any confirmation that one has been scheduled. There's also post -trial motions. Defense Attorney Mark Cohen and his team may file for a new trial or for the judge to acquit despite the jury verdict. These are pro forma, but Cohen suggested he will file those and has a November 20th deadline to do so. The DOJ must respond by December 18th.
Georgia Forced to Redraw Legislative and Congressional Maps
"Georgia has just been told to redraw their maps, both their legislative maps on the state level and their congressional maps. It's going to be interesting to see how that goes. Um, I had a conversation with someone who was near the governor's office of in Georgia camp, who said, we weren't worried about it until the legislature figures it out. I said, I get that. Um, but you've got North Carolina. The reason I'm setting this up, it's a long setup, but you're bearing with me. Number one, folks, if you don't know, Chip was with a guy named, uh, Lynn Westman. Lynn Westman is a mentor of mine. He's a dear friend, just like he is to chip, uh, served in Congress. I'll tell people this all the time. If Lynn had not went to Congress, Lynn Westman would still be the speaker of the house in Georgia, if not governor. Um, I just believe he would have been and stayed there, but he, but he has an old, you know, contractor, a good old boy mentality. That's just the way he is. But he got in, y 'all got into redistricting heavy, uh, from really his time before you even more started working with him in the early two thousands, all the way to when you were working with him in 2009, 2010, working on the previous maps. This matters. And I'm afraid Republicans chip, and I love to get your input here. I'm afraid Republicans got complacent after the last round and we didn't take this round of redistricting as seriously across the country as say we did back in 2010. Yeah. I mean, it's a word of start, right? I mean, there's so much to unpack there. I mean, it, uh, um, I, I will say this, that, you know, uh, um, section five of the voting rights act, which the Supreme court rightly, you know, kicked out as unconstitutional a lot later than they should have candidly. I mean, a lot of people don't know, but what section five mandated was that if you were under, if you were a section five state or jurisdiction, which Georgia was many of the States in the South were, you had to submit your maps to the justice department for pre -clearance. It was blatantly unconstitutional because, uh, for a variety of reasons that I'm back to what you said about, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but what I do understand is, you know, you, you can't have one set of laws for one people in another state. You can't have another set of laws for another people. So the formula that decided pre -clearance, uh, up until like what, five years ago, maybe six years ago, you know, maybe, you know, was, uh, was the 1968, 1972 presidential election. I mean, are you kidding me? So, you know, now there's this whole cottage industry that the Democrats have. That's much more of a, it's much bigger of a cottage industry that, you know, they raised tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to go after only States that have Republican drawn maps. It's for blame. It's not so they can equal the playing field for minorities to compete. Do not kid yourselves. The reason behind this is to maximize Democrat drawn gist districts. That is political. That is not, that is not leveling the playing field for a particular minority. Um, it's only going after Republican State drawn maps and look, what these judges have done is they move the goalposts every time they make a decision. And I'll say this, and I know I'm going to get criticized for saying it, but federal judges, especially Trump appointed federal judges, you know, in some ways, you know, they're on the federal bench now, and that's a lifetime appointment. Right. You know, they are petrified at being at, at making a ruling at which they could be labeled by the other side as racist.
A highlight from Persecuted Apostles, Prevailing Gospel
"When I was a child there was a time in which trick birthday candles were all the rage. It was always somewhat interesting to watch someone's face as they tried and tried and tried again to blow out those candles but to no avail. Some of us tried with all of our might and no matter how hard we tried the light that we had thought that we had snuffed out came back. It's been like that throughout as history different leaders have tried to snuff out God's Word. Whether it's Antiochus or Diocletian, whether it's philosophers or false religious systems or communist regimes, many have tried throughout history either to chain or to cut off the Word of God. Some have tried to prohibit transmissions, others have tried to cut off translations, but they all have one thing in common. They have all ultimately failed and that long list of failure you might say in the New Testament Church begins right here in Acts chapter 4. As we make our way into the text first I want to briefly create some context. We have been studying Acts chapter 3. We just finished that. We're making our way into Acts chapter 4 but I want to remind you what happened in Acts 3. There was a man who had been crippled for over 40 years. He was lame from his mother's womb and he was miraculously healed. You'll remember that a crowd ensued as a result of marveling at the miracle and that a massed audience provided an occasion for Peter's evangelistic preaching. Those who played a part, some role or another, when you look at Peter's speech, Peter's preaching, some who had some role or another in Jesus's crucifixion were actually given an opportunity to have that sin and all of their other sins blotted out, wiped away. They could have left in that time. If they would have heard the gospel and repented they could have left being like those who would come to sing in later generations that hymn, my sins are blotted out I know. And there would be many that day that would respond to the gospel by God's grace but there would also be those who would add to their guilt. And I'm not simply referring to those who would hear Peter's message and then in an unwise and undiscerning way not respond to it with faith by God's grace. I'm talking about persons that we know. Familiar villains will reemerge on the scene in our study of Acts chapter four and they are going to try to snuff out what was to them a familiar name. We'll see all of that and more as we get into our text today. We begin in Acts chapter 4 verse 1 where we read, Now as they spoke to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them. So in the beginning of verse 1 of chapter 4 you see it says now as they spoke to the people. Doubtless this refers to Peter and John. You're going to see that the lame man was with them. He was with them on this day and he's actually going to be with them when they appear before the Sanhedrin, before the Jewish Supreme Court if you will the next day. But right here you get the idea that Peter and John at least primarily are the ones who are doing the preaching and teaching because look at verse 2 they were teaching the people and they were also preaching in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. Now before we get to verse 2 just a little note here a couple of notes about these parties that were involved in coming upon Peter and John. If you look at verse 1 we have three groups mentioned. The first one is the priests. The priests. They were the ones who essentially functioned in different roles at the temple. They had different responsibilities in the service at the temple. They might burn incense, offer sacrifices, teach the people, do whatever tasks pertained to the sanctuary. Now there were in 1st And now interestingly it looks as though they would serve in kind of rotations. So it could have worked out in one of two ways people usually say. It could have been that they served for two weeks during the course of a year. They would go to the temple and officiate at the temple because remember these were priests and Levites and remember they were scattered throughout the land of Israel to teach the people the law and so on. But two weeks out of the year they would come to the temple and they would serve at the temple. You also have the possibility that they would go to serve at the temple once every two years and they'd stay there for a month. So that's the first group here. The priests. They officiated in the temple. They offered sacrifices, burned incense, taught the law. Then you have the second group or a second person. The captain of the temple. Now he was essentially the chief of security and if you look through commentaries you find over and over again this role was a highly regarded one. It is repeatedly said that his position was second to the high priest. That's how prominent this role was. He served over the temple guard. He was kind of over the Levitical police force if you will. So he's there. And then you have the last group, a group that many of you doubtless are familiar with, the Sadducees. They were a religious group in Israel. Power brokers if you will. They had a lot of political clout and they also had a lot of religious clout within the nation of Israel but I think they are best known for what they didn't believe. Remember the Sadducees are those who did not believe in a resurrection. They are not they are those who do not believe in angels or demons. They did not believe in an afterlife. They only believed in the first five books of Moses it is often said as being divinely inspired. They had a lot of sad beliefs and like my grandpa used to joke that is why they are sad you see. They had a lot of sad erroneous beliefs. They were also political opportunists. They were those who were in positions of power. It appears that they came to their power after the period of the Maccabees, that intertestamental period. They're like a group of priestly families that get connected with the power brokers in the land and they try to solidify their power. That's why they tried to keep things nice and calm with Rome because they had a nice set up for them and they didn't want anybody rocking the boat. They're also have said to have been a pretty cruel group. Josephus had noted and I saw this in the pulpit commentary that the Sadducees were more severe and cruel in their administration of justice than any other Jews. They went on to note their tenant of no life to come made them look to severe punishments in this life and doubtless they would have looked for severe punishments right away for Peter and John but you're going to see in God's Providence God set it up in such a way in which they weren't going to be able to do what they wanted to do. The Lord will and will see that in future studying. So that brings us to verse 2. They make haste these three groups the priests the captain of the temple in the Sadducees and the reasons for their haste are found in verse 2 where we read being greatly disturbed in other words they were greatly annoyed in the Greek here this verb annoyed or irritated or angered and it's compounded by the preposition dia so they were very upset very disturbed and we're told that they were disturbed because they Peter and John taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead so this is why they were angry reason number one Peter and John are teaching and they're like who are these guys well we didn't give them the green light to teach we are in control we are the Sadducees they did not go through the rabbinical teaching system who was their rabbi we don't know who these people are so they were bothered that these people were teaching and they didn't have the the right to it as it were the religious leadership of that day they hated anything that infringed upon their authority that's one of the reasons why they hated Jesus he infringed upon their authority and they thought he needed to be stopped well Peter and John were doing so and they thought they needed to be stopped as well second reason why they were upset is basically I think this was multifaceted because Peter and John were preaching in Jesus the resurrection from the dead I think there's a lot of aspects to why this made them upset first they were a part of the Sanhedrin many note a primary part of the Sanhedrin the majority part of the Jewish religious ruling council that wrongly sentenced Jesus to death and handed him over to Pilate so a lot of these Sadducees were the very people who looked at the Son of God the Messiah and said he deserves to die and now Peter and John are preaching no no no Jesus has risen from the dead so they were upset doubtless they were also upset because they didn't believe in a resurrection and now they're teaching people that Jesus has rose from the dead and that's going to undercut their erroneous message and if you undercut their erroneous message you're going to undercut their clout and they didn't want their clout to be undercut being right wasn't the priority as much as having power and wealth and influence being right was incidental if they were right along the way that was great but protecting their power was the priority think about this you see this even in Matthew 28 remember after the soldiers come back and they are telling to the religious leadership what happened and they're saying that the tomb is empty and so on what does the religious leadership tell them they create a lie for them Matthew 28 verse 12 they give them money they give them a large sum of money Matthew 28 verse 12 they tell them the lie Matthew 28 verse 13 and they assured them that if this ever got to Pilate that they would cover for them suffice it to say the Sadducees in this case did not have righteous indignation one other possibility as well and maybe they're all together these aren't mutually exclusive is that they thought if word got around to the Romans that a Messiah was being preached who rose from the dead the Romans could esteem this as being somewhat revolutionary and what would be the problem with that it could ruin the nice gig that the Sadducees had so maybe to one degree or another all of these things are what bothered them in Peter and John preaching in Christ the resurrection but you'll find in verse three their indignation didn't just stay mental they weren't just upset on the inside it manifested itself physically look at verse three and they laid hands on them please know this wasn't a good kind of laying on of hands you know they weren't praying for them they weren't like ordaining them to ministry they weren't doing any kind of a good laying on of hands or so on this was a laying on of hands that was a seizing interestingly the word that's used here in the Greek epi ballo that word ballo means to cast to throw epi you think typically of being a preposition that means upon it's like they threw their hands upon them they seized them so that's the picture that I think is meant to be painted here they come down they laid hands on them now I just want to tell you something that I would do if I was a filmmaker and if I were recreating this scene in the kind of movie where we're trying to depict acts chapter four what I would do is that the moment that acts for three happens the beginning of it and they laid hands on them at that moment I would all of a sudden insert a flashback to Jesus's teaching on the Mount of Olives where he said but before all of these things they will lay hands on you and persecute you delivering you up to synagogues and prisons you will be brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake here is the initial fulfillment of those very words and it would keep manifesting itself but I want to remind you here that this was a prophecy that Jesus made this was the initial fulfillment of it and his word always comes to pass you can believe it you can believe the words of scripture you could believe every word that Jesus said he has a perfect streak that will never be broken some of you might remember my favorite pitcher when I was younger oral her shizer he pitched for the Los Angeles Dodgers believe he's a professing Christian brother in Christ and in 1998 he had an amazing year the Dodgers go on to win the World Series I believe he won the Cy Young Award that year and that year he pitched what I believe still is the record for number of innings pitched without giving up a run 59 innings pitched without a run being given up and if you were a baseball fan if you were oral her shizer fan then you were watching those games saying it's the street going to continue is it going to continue and when it did you were excited but eventually you were disappointed because that streak like other streaks in professional sports don't go on forever but with Jesus you will never be disappointed his perfect streak of having his words fulfilled will always stay it will never be broken and this is a witness to that right here in Acts chapter 4 verse 3 so they seized them and they put them in custody until the next day so the Sanhedrin had a rule they had a law that they essentially subscribe to that they would not try people at night before dawn didn't stop them when they wanted to kill Jesus that rule so they were okay with breaking their own rules probably they based this rule on Jeremiah 21 12 and ministered justice every morning and it didn't stop them from persecuting Jesus and having their kangaroo courts happen during the night but in this case they were going to wait they needed some sleep perhaps and they were going to wait until the next day Peter and John are put in custody until then and then we're told to get a it was late to use language from Matthew 14 15 notice a little bit of context here this event began at around 3 p .m. because remember that Peter and John were going up to the temple around the ninth hour that was 3 p .m. now that it's late now that it's evening you know that it's at least 6 p .m.
The Mike Johnson Speaker Strategy
"We very well might have a speaker. We might have a speaker. Mike Johnson is the speaker designate. We're going to have a vote hopefully momentarily here, but don't pop the champagne yet. Mike Johnson is a great man. He's been on the program. He's solid. He's very smart. He's argued in front of the Louisiana Supreme Court. He is a true patriot, a godly man, and this process, this process, we went through basically everybody. Thank goodness Emmer did not get it. It was a big win for the grassroots. Good job, everybody. Emmer just folded like a cheap suit. Go back to Minnesota to do deals with Democrats. There were other people that we wanted. I mean, Jim Jordan would have been terrific. Mike Johnson is similar of the similar kind of vein and form as Jim Jordan. He's tough. He's smart, and let me prove it to you. This morning, some anti -social person that works for, what is this, the New York magazine? Jonathan Chait says, all right everybody, you have to hate him. House Speaker nominee Mike Johnson, New Yorker. I thought it was New York. No, I think it was, I don't think it's New Yorker. I was right, not New Yorker. House Speaker nominee Mike Johnson was the mastermind of the January 6 plot. Oh, they're already telling us that we must hate him. He is the architect of January 6. By the way, he was one of the most and continues to be one of the most articulate advocates for election integrity. Okay, so it's the New York magazine. They have a blog called The Intelligencer. It's many of the New York publications do we need exactly. Johnson used to be a relatively obscure right wing backbencher, threw himself behind Trump's election subversion crusade. At first, Johnson endorsed both Trump's old mail fraud claims and his newer voting machine theories. In a friendly radio interview two weeks before the election, he said, they're supposed to say this as a way to try to make you hate him. A lot of us know intuitively that there are a lot of amiss about this election day. The fact that all these states with Democrat leaders change the rules, true, in the fourth quarter of the game, true, and the allegations of these voting machines, some being rigged, and a lot of merit in the software by certain voting companies. And when the president says the election was rigged, that's what he's talking about. The fix was in.
A highlight from Three Lessons from the Book of Exodus: Charlie's Speech to Colorado Christian Academy
"I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created. Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Brought to you by the loan experts I trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandtodd .com. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Okay, please take a seat. I'm going to close this. Okay, so I want to get to question and answer because I think that's actually the most fun, and I have a feeling there's a lot of questions. There's a lot I could talk about. First, I just want to say there's something really exciting happening in the country where I'm getting invited to speak at schools like this all across the country that didn't exist a decade ago, where parents are starting to rise up and start new communities and start new schools. This is exactly what is necessary in the country right now. Because there if is a woke private school and a failed public school, just start a new school. And we are really good at starting new things. We're really bad at preserving our things from getting captured and infiltrated. That's a separate issue. They're experts at infiltration, experts at destabilization. But I just want to compliment and commend the whole team here. Think really big because the demand is greater than you could ever imagine. I Colorado. love I hate what these people have done to it. And you have to think multigenerationally. You really do. And that's why this effort is so incredibly important. And you have no idea the child that you might be helping educate at Colorado Christian, the impact that they might make. You have no idea if they might be a changemaker, an entrepreneur, a senator, a congressman, something beyond your wildest imagination. Or the most important thing, a loyal husband and wife and someone who loves the Lord, honestly, even beyond a massive changemaker. So I'm going to actually talk about my favorite book of the Bible. I don't think you'll really guess it. It's funny. I love the word and I love what it does to you through different walks of life. And because I'm a glutton for punishment, I've decided to go through the first five books of the Bible in original Hebrew and go verse by verse. If you want a really big challenge, do that. Just finished Leviticus. That's no fun at all. It's unbelievably awesome as a Christian to read Leviticus for many different reasons. And it's amazing. But my favorite book of the Bible is the book of Exodus. And it's not quoted enough or understood enough. And I really think that there's more parallels for what we're living through right now in the book of Exodus than almost any other part of the word. I And so was studying and studying Exodus and so much pops out. So I'm going to go three lessons that I think we as believers, we as patriots, can derive from the book of Exodus. And some you say, OK, I've heard that one before. But I guarantee you I'm going to isolate a verse that you've probably never heard any pastor ever isolate. It's just kind of what I call a flyover verse. You know what I'm talking about? Where you just kind of skim. You're like, OK, let's go. You know, it's like the verse before John 3 16, John 3 15 and John 3 17. Does anyone know those? Probably not. Well, maybe in this room. But very few people do, right? It's a flyover verse. So it's first important to remember Exodus in Greek means the way out. Ex hodos, right? And the actual labeling of the verse is Israelites oppressed or the captivity in Egypt. The whole Old Testament, the first five books of the Bible of the word of God is centered around Egypt. Egypt is actually the villain of the Torah. Egypt is tyranny. Egypt is authoritarianism. Egypt is paganism. Egypt is godlessness. Egypt is one size fits all rule. Said differently, Egypt is the Biden administration. And so now if I offended you, you're in the wrong dinner. I'm sorry. Like so and the whole Bible is written even in Genesis. It's written as a refutation of Egypt. And if you know anything, devout Jews will tell you that the Exodus is the most important thing. Creation and Exodus are the two most important parts of Jewish life, right? Whether it be the Passover Seder, whether it be the Shema, whatever it is, Egypt is the whole ballgame, right? And like remember how we were delivered from Egypt and I'll dive into that. So there's this amazing thing and you remember the end of Genesis, right? Joseph does this remarkable stuff. He doesn't do it. God doesn't through Joseph and he's just a messenger. And he basically saves Egypt from famine and from starvation and saves the whole civilization, right? And the first chapter of Exodus sets up the whole, it's what I call the turning point chapter and we're living through this right now in America. And this is why Christian education is so important and why supporting this academy is so important. And it's a verse that you would just kind of read over and like, okay, yeah, whatever. Then rose a king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. Okay, Charlie, what's the big deal? That's exactly what's happening on university campuses across the country. Then rose a generation that did not know George Washington. Then rose a generation who did not know Abraham Lincoln. You get tyranny when you forget the sacrifices that were made before you. You get tyranny when you don't know your history. Right there, the entire book of Exodus gets set up. So here's Joseph that through God saves them from famine, saves them from starvation. The Egyptians should have statues made to Joseph. They should have songs made to Joseph. But all it took was one king who didn't have the memory of what Joseph did before. And then what happens? That king rises and everything changes. He says, who are these Israelites? They multiply like insects. Let's get rid of these guys. If you fail to pass down your values from one generation to the other, you can quickly all of a sudden get authoritarianism, tyranny, murder, genocide very, very quickly. It can happen in one generation. And I don't think we as Christians isolate this teaching enough because we act as if it happens automatically sometimes. Like, oh, I can send my kid to government school and they'll still share my values. You know, we go to church once a quarter and, you know, we listen to Christian music, you know, every so often and, you know, like through osmosis. And even in the cocktail reception, people come up to me and they say, Charlie, how am I supposed to deal with kids that don't share my values? How did this happen? And my question is always the same. You know, what college did they go to? Always. And in this case, it was Northwestern in Michigan, right? So nice selections. But again, I'm not picking on you guys. It's a very sweet couple. But it was just stood out, right? And you're here tonight because you want your children to share your values, that you want your children to live in liberty. And so that verse right there should be our mission statement. We never want to have a king or a sovereign, the people, ever not know the sacrifices that were made before. When I visit college campuses, and I visit college campuses so you don't have to, I am told, Charlie, the founders were a bunch of racist old dead white guys. We're a colonistic, colonialistic, misogynistic, homophobic, terrible country. That's a generation that did not know Joseph. So then all of a sudden they have a willingness and openness for tyranny, for totalitarianism, authoritarianism, because that is actually how we are naturally programmed. I actually didn't plan to talk about this, but it's just a little bit of a side note. The human being wants to be taken care of far more than they want to be free. Freedom is a value. You naturally do not want to be free. And if you disagree, you are not paying attention during COVID. People that were otherwise some of the most rational people that I knew lost their bloody mind masks wearing in a car alone because they wanted to be told what to do. Freedom requires risk. You cannot be free without chance. You can't have both. If you want to have everything taken care of, go commit a federal crime, or just become a conservative, because inevitably you'll end up in federal prison, and then you'll go to jail. There's no freedom, but there is assuredness at prison. Three meals a day, bunk you don't have to pay for, you don't have to work for what you get. Prison is the opposite of freedom. And so here's the Israelites that are living in total totalitarianism because a king came who did not know what the previous generation did. The next verse, Exodus 1 17, one of my favorite verses in the whole Bible, and I screamed this at pastors, and I yelled it at pastors, and I was unsuccessful. And I'll tell you why. But the midwives to the Hebrews, as in the original Hebrew it says this, feared God. Now the verse before it, Exodus 1 16, the king who forgot Joseph was like, hey, murder all the firstborn, murder them all, kill the babies. Now we would know nothing about killing babies in our civilization. We're way more advanced than that, obviously. We would never do such a thing ever, obviously. Look how advanced we are. We have Twitter and air conditioning, right? So this is, I always laugh when people say the Bible is such a medieval text, we've advanced so far. Yeah, right. No, we just do the evil things quicker and better and quieter and more secretly. So of course, we're more advanced than that. But the king or the pharaoh says, kill the firstborn. And I love this. The midwives disobeyed Pharaoh because they feared God. And it goes on to say that the Hebrew is not a great translation. God dealt well with them or God found favor in them. God loves when you defy tyranny for liberty. That is the heart of God. God wants you to reject tyranny if it engages in somebody's life or interferes with their liberty. A regular woke skinny jean -wearing pastor will tell you, no, no, no, Romans 13, man, submit to the rulers and authority because God put them there for your good. And then I say, OK, rocket scientist, constitutional scholar, man, your TED Talk rock concert, a thing you call a church with organized parking and a coffee bar. Let ask me you, since you're super smart, who are the leaders in America exactly? In Romans 13, God put the leaders in authority because they're there for your good. Who are the leaders? And they say the mayors, the congressmen, the senators. No, no, the people are the authority. So when the people's rights are infringed, the mayors and the state senators and Governor Polis should be submitting to us. We don't submit to them. So I love this verse. And God dealt well with the midwives. Let me ask you, is the American church, are we as Christians fighting tyranny the way the midwives fought tyranny in Egypt? I don't think we're doing a good job. I don't. I think you guys are. I mean, there's an exception. But the large part of the American church, American Christianity is submit to the government authority, submit to the cultural tyranny, submit to the pressure of the day. Submit to what other people are saying. That is not what God wants. And by the way, it's not just in Exodus. In Daniel, Daniel disobeyed the king and still prayed his prayers, ended up in the lion's den, right? In Acts, it says we obey God, not man, time and time again. Psalm 97 10 is my favorite, one of my favorite verses of the Bible. I have a lot of favorite verses. If you love God, you must hate evil. I don't think that we as Christians are doing a good job fulfilling that verse. I hear all the time, but Charlie, we must be nice. And I say, great. Right by the other point. Where in the 66 books of the Bible does the word nice appear in Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew? Waiting. Ready, set, go. And they say, well, we have to be loving. I said, yeah, but what does loving mean? Tell me in the original Greek. You know, is it agape, storge, phileo? You know, they say, well, oh my goodness. We kind of had this discourse earlier. But we're not called to be nice. We're called to tell the truth. And honestly, we've done a pretty crummy job of telling the truth the last 30 years here in America. We have allowed the worst of all evil, institutionalize itself, go after our children. And I finally am starting to see a response. This school is evidence of a response to all this institutionalized evil. And the midwives feared God and God dealt well with them. If we want God to deal well with us, maybe we should start fighting for liberty against tyranny. So God delivers his chosen people out of Egypt. And every time you hear Egypt, just think tyranny. Every time, right? And so he delivers them out of Egypt, one of my favorite parts. They're in the desert, you know, God, 10 miracles, the sea is parted. And this is why I always laugh when atheists say, all I need to do is see a miracle and I'll believe in God. Like, no, you don't. Like next Tuesday, you'll forget about God, right? Because you have a heart problem. You are your own God, right? That's not true. The Hebrews saw God move in an amazing way. They get into the desert. Within days, they're complaining. That's all the Jews do the entire Old Testament. They complain and they complain and they complain. It's why God had to let them all die off and, you know, have Joshua generation going. He's like, these people are not ready for Israel. They complained way too much. We want melons, we want meat, we want all the cucumbers. Literally, translation. So they get into the desert and they say, we want to go back to Egypt, because at least we had meat. At least we had melons, at least we had leeks, at least we had cucumbers. They wanted slavery over freedom because they ate better. And God's like, what am I going to do with these people? And I honestly think that's, I agree with Dennis Prager on this. It's one of the reasons why God chose the Jews. If you could do it with this group of people, you could do it with any group of people, right? If you could get this group of misfits to be successful in finance and business and education, there's something to this book, right? There's something there that we can all learn from. Anyway, so God then, God is a God of order. We as Christians don't do a good enough job. It drives me nuts when Christians only say God is love. Yeah, but he's also other things, okay? He's like judging God. Oh, you can't say that. Well, it's true. Jesus will judge the sinners at the end of the age. One of the main reasons why the church has gone woke is you'll never hear the three -letter word that every person needs to hear, sin. How do you know what redemption is if you don't know what sin is? Unknown concept. We just tell people, oh, you're perfect the way you are. Actually, you're not. Like you're pretty crummy in Jesus, like really bad, like really bad. All of us do, all the time. And we're going to keep sinning and we keep on eating Jesus. And so God established order for us. Of course, the Decalogue being the Ten Commandments or the Ten Statements. And of course, it begins, I am the Lord your God who delivered you from Egypt. He reminds them before he gives him the Decalogue. Moses, the Decalogue. Just in case you forgot, I delivered you from tyranny. God's heart is not for people to live in tyranny. That's when it drives me nuts when people say, Charlie, you're too political as a Christian. Look, God calls us to fight authoritarianism all the time. So then, my favorite one of the commandments that comes tonight, that pertains to tonight, is the one that every one of you are vigilant and why you're here tonight. Honor your mother and father so that you may live long in the land of which God is giving you. And I'm going to spend the remainder of my remarks on this and then he'll do some questions. Everything that the culture is doing when it comes to anybody under 18 is about trying to is this commandment the most proven commandment to have a free society. If you were to say, Charlie, out of all the Ten Commandments, what is the one that if you stop doing, you get tyranny the fastest? You actually more so than murder, more so than stealing, more so than not even having any gods before God. If you do not honor your mother and father, and I'll tell you exactly what that means, you 100 % will lose a free society. You cannot have a group of young people that dishonor or curse, which is the opposite of honor, their parents, and also live in liberty. It has never happened in the history of the species. Now, I'm a student of history. I love history. If anyone can tell me an example of a superpower that went out of their way to teach their children to hate the country that they're in, I'm all ears. I think it's the first time it's ever happened in the history of the species, and I've asked many different historians. When a wealthy, powerful, benevolent superpower has decided to teach their young, we actually hate the place that is pretty awesome. It is civilizational suicide. There will be historians 50 to 100 years from now writing books and teaching college classes, trying to try to answer the America question. How could a country that did so much good in World War II be so wealthy, be the beacon of light and liberty, have so much opportunity for so many people, go out of its way? And my answer is very simple. When you are secular and you do not believe in God, you must fill it with fake religions. Don't believe me? Go drive in one of these neighborhoods like I just did. BLM, gay pride, those are the pagan religions of the day. You always have to fill it with some source of meaning, whether it be the false god of BLM or the false god of trans surgeries for kids, whatever it is. They have to feel an attachment to something, and it's out of guilt. If you don't know how to deal with your guilt, because everyone feels guilt at some point, you're going to do some pretty wacky stuff. And boy, are we living in a society that is just ridden with pity and guilt. Pity for ourselves and our own state of affairs, it's rather remarkable. But if you have a strong attachment to the generation that came before you, you can inoculate yourself against that virus. So let's go through it. It's the only one of the Ten Commandments that involves a direct promise and also your nation. So we talk about politics, we talk about our country, we should probably isolate the one of the Ten Commandments that deals with the country. So honor, what does that word mean in Hebrew? It means heavily or to treat with seriousness or intentionality. What does curse mean in Hebrew? Lightly, it's the same root. So if you were to treat your parents lightly, you were to curse them. Now what does that mean to honor your mother and father? It means that when you're at college, you enter college believing that your parents are more correct than your professors. That does not happen. Professors at almost every single university across the country go out of their way to invalidate everything a parent has taught them up until age 18. Your parents are outdated, they're probably racist, they're terrible. Oh by the way, thanks for paying to the tuition to bring you here, but we're going to turn you into little revolutionaries basically. Finally, honor your mother and father so that you may live long in the land of which you are in. Marxism depends on three things. The obliteration of religion, property, and family. Private property, they're doing a great job and they're going to continue to do it. Religion, church rates are going down dramatically and they've infiltrated the American church. But the family was always the one that was able to say no. And you are going to have to, someone's going to have to explain this to me, how so many suburban house moms here in Colorado want their kids to suffer. It is unbelievable to me. This is one of the most radical like trans sanctuaries in the entire country. It's not ISIL, I'm sure you all know families or kids where you have parents that are excited to go get their 15 -year -old's breasts removed. It's amazing to me. And so the family's totally getting obliterated and deteriorated. That's why this school matters so much though, and why what you're doing matters so much, is that a strong nuclear family is a bulwark to any form of tyranny or any sort of despotism that we live through. And is Marxism really the kind of diabolical, and I use that word intentionally, enemy to the American republic and the American project. As it aims to do these things, as it continues to try to put these ideas into the zeitgeist, we ask ourselves the question, how does one fight back against it? And that's why the rise of homeschool and this alternative schooling is so exciting. They want you to just release your kid to the public government school and never ask a question after that. If you actually read their literature, they don't believe that it's your child. It's the state's child. That's not an exaggeration. You might say, Charlie, how did Colorado get so wacky? You know Colorado is the second most educated state in the country? College -educated state? There is your answer. Is that if you are non -stop producing people with college diplomas that believe men can give birth and have degrees in North African lesbian poetry, don't be surprised when your politics go insane. I trust welders, plumbers and construction workers far more than any given professor at, no offense, CU Boulder. I'm sorry, I just have to say it. I'm sorry. And so we must build new things. And I mentioned this earlier, we do not do a good enough job of defending our institutions from infiltration because we let our guard down and they take advantage of our good intentions. How many times do you feel like, well, what's the big deal? I want to be accepting to all people. So here's the playbook. It's so simple. Get a seat at the table. Complain relentlessly till I'm able to debase the leader on fake accusations and then I control the institution. How many times have you seen that? FBI, military, university campuses, major corporations, and they're relentless. You know what they operate? They operate like a bacterial infection that will not go away, that will just gnaw and gnaw and grow and grow and multiply. And we're like, well, my goodness, the CRT, DEI people, they used to have two seats at the table. Now they have 10 seats at the table and I don't want to be called a racist because that's the worst thing that you could be called. And so let's just let them control everything. So how do you summarize CRT? Call everything racist until you control it. That's it. That's what CRT is. Queer theory, call everything transphobic until you control it. It's a means to power. It's not about liberation. It's not about teaching history. It's a means to institutional takeover. And so the alternative is once they take over everything, build new stuff. And that's what you're doing. And so my one piece of advice to you guys, build, be bold, but please be vigilant about them trying to capture your institution. Because they don't build new stuff. That's what's crazy. They don't ever build anything beautiful or bold. They just take over stuff that we have built with our value system. And then we're like, well, we used to have that great thing. We used to have that church and used to have that school and used to have that place and used to have that company. And so they're experts at takeover. And so building new things is quite honestly the only and the best option. So I'll say this in closing. I get asked all the time, Charlie, this is a Christian audience, Charlie, do you think that we're in the end times? And I'm not a pastor, I'm not a theologian. So I'm not equipped to answer that, but I can say this. I'm very concerned that people are being taken advantage of by some pastors out there where they say, Charlie, Jesus is coming next Thursday. I don't have to do anything. I don't have to fight. Look, people ask, are you pre -trib or are you post -trib? I'm pan -trib. It's all going to pan out in the end. So I'm on the welcoming committee, not the planning committee. Okay. So this whole thing is a bunch of, you know, it's somewhat of a distraction. And, but, you know, people say, Charlie, you know, we must look, yes, we must look at the signs at the time. It's important to know what it means in the days of Noah. All that stuff is great and really important. I understand that. However, here's where it drives me nuts and I see it happen. And I want to make sure this might, if this touches one of you tonight, I will have done my job. Okay. Because you might be listening to some of those overly emphasized end times pastors, and you might feel disempowered and you might feel like you don't have to do anything. If I could just reach one of you, I feel I've done my job, which is the right response is if you feel that the world is ending and Jesus is coming soon, is not run to the Hill with the kids, is to occupy till Jesus comes. Is to hold as much turf and must terrain for his imminent return. And that must be our attitude because I'm afraid it has become an excuse. And I mean that very carefully. I've seen it where people say, Charlie, I don't need to donate. I don't need to start schools. I got asked by a Christian the other day, why even have kids? Because Jesus is coming again so quickly. I was like, wow. Jesus said the time or the day and the hour is unknown. It could be five minutes. It could be 50 years or 500 years. I get in trouble for even saying that because people say, Charlie, it's no more than five years. I said, listen, we don't know. It's what you do that matters. The enemy would love nothing more than to have us remain complacent, remain neutral if we are off by 200 years. God wants us to fight for what is good and what is righteous, regardless of what the signs of the times are telling us around us. And the most important thing that we as Christians have done a bad job and we as Protestants have done a bad job of is this. And I have to brag on the Catholics for a second. They have done a much better job than we as Protestants have done, a much better job at building colleges. And they're all woke now, but at building. But that's what happens. We don't defend anything. We build these beautiful things and the bacteria takes over. And so then at K through 12 schools, and I'll prove it to you, how many Bible believing spirit -filled Christians are on the US Supreme Court? There are far more Catholics. It's because they are experts at multi -generational type building and passing down values. I think we can learn something from that. And I think that one of the reasons we haven't done that is that since 1950 there's been a strain of Christianity that has told us we're getting zapped up in the next five minutes. And that might be true, but you have to act like it's not. And you have to act like you could have a lot more time left on the clock. And so if we change that attitude, by the way, the whole ball game changes. I hope you understand. You will ignite one of the most powerful silent majorities if you get Christians that have been waiting for the imminent return the last 60 years and done very little, and you get them into an action phase and realize that they have to try to act, watch out. All of a sudden the enemy is going to be on the run in a very, very big way. Okay, let's do some questions and I'll stay as long as you'll have me. So, okay. Okay, so I have one question and I'm going to turn it out to all you guys. So get your questions ready. The college thing is a big deal. I feel like we've been even asked, do you send your kids to college? My husband's out of the room so I can say this. They're not going to Boulder. For those of you who don't know where my husband went and where he's very involved with right now, but it's a tough call. What do you think the chances are if let's say our kids go through a school like this, make it, get into a college percentage wise, where are we at with dropping off the bandwagon? You'll lose one out of four. Across where that's what you see in universities. Even the strongest K through 12 that I've seen, homeschool, one out of four will be lost. If they have a public school, you'll lose closer to 50, 60 percent. Wow. Okay guys, we've got a lot of work to do. We're going to try to break that statistic. Or just not send them to college. Yeah. Okay. Well, yes. Well, right. Well, that'll be an open thing. Unless they go to Hillsdale or CCU, but yes. But those are the exceptions. Let me be very clear. Yes. That is not how most schools are. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Good. Very good. That was very enthusiastic.
Kash Patel: 'Ethnic Cleansing' Is a Myth Pushed by Media, Elites
"I'm always like I've never been so clear. This absolutely is a war for civilized man against the savage. Again, it's a fair debate about what the U .S. policy role should be. I get that. I'm just talking about what's happening. They have declared us their enemy, the infidel. That's just a fact. They've already done their damage here. They'll do it all over the place. But there's a lot of myths out there. You know, and I'm really getting tired of the ethnic cleansing genocide myth being gated by morons like AOC who acknowledge she knows nothing about the region. There is the Arabs in East. the Middle There are Arabs that serve in the mess it on the Supreme Court. They don't have those freedoms in the Arab world. So when you're talking about ethnic cleansing, how? By having freedom and liberty for Arabs in your how they're talking about. No, you're absolutely right. And it just shows the hypocrisy of the way it did. This doesn't happen overnight. This was a degradation by the mainstream media and the government gangsters in the political elite class coming together to, quote unquote, get Trump in the last decade, getting Trump in the next two years, getting Trump. And what they have is BLM with celebrations the Palestine Liberation Organization in New York City. You have the Harvard University president coming out and saying, oh, we should be ticked off at Israel for daring to defend themselves against a foreign terrorist organization. And when you have that radical agenda permeate through not just the media, but our educational institutions and government elitism, then the one thing you have is a universal failure of those people who are standing on the wall guarding against this defense protecting our nation. And if you don't think that this is happening around the world, look at what Iran did collectively because Joe Biden gave up Bagram. We have nobody looking at Iran's right because we gave up our only command and control node against terrorists that have been growing and partnering with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. And this is just another example of the politicization and Joe Biden's disastrous policies
ADF Counsel Jeremy Tedesco on the Fight Against Censorship
"Wanted to bring on one of the senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom to talk more about what they're doing. Jeremy Tedesco, welcome back. Thanks, Eric. Appreciate you having me on. Well, listen, this is important. I keep saying to people, we're in a war here and people need to know who the good guys are. The Alliance Defending Freedom, you're the good guys and you're some of the good guys. And you are fighting really, really hard. And people need to understand they have to support you guys. They have to because otherwise you couldn't do what you're doing. And what you're doing, I mean, have you guys have been in the Supreme Court, what, 15 times? I mean, it's insane. Yeah, we won 15 cases at the Supreme Court in the last 12 years. We just won one a couple months ago. 303 Creative versus Alanis, which was a case about compelled speech. Can the government force you to speak messages that you disagree with? And we won that case. And that's a that's a huge free speech win for every American, let alone our client, Laurie Smith, in that case. So we've had an unbelievable success at the Supreme Court and we hope to continue that. Well, talk about what you were doing. You're I mean, ADF is also involved in. I don't know, I don't even know the terms to describe it. DEI, talk about what you guys at ADF are doing on that score. You know, we we exist to protect free speech and religious freedom when government is censoring and discriminating on the basis of religion. But one of the things that's happening in culture more and more, I mean, your listeners know this very well, is that private companies are involved in that censorship as well. And that's not an accident. The reality is that a lot of activists on the on the left side of the political equation, they understand it's very hard for them to push their agenda through the government because of the barriers of the Constitution and the First Amendment. Their agenda is also not popular at the ballot box, for the most part. But if they can get capture, all these large corporations that control access to essential public essential services, like access to the Digital Public Square or having a bank account or access to payment processing, then they can basically de facto regulate America in a way that's consistent with their agenda. And that's what they're doing through ESG, environmental, social and governance, activism and DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion, activism as well. And the corporations are really listening to them. But that's largely because it's in a one sided conversation. So we're pushing back on that a lot of different ways at ADF. One of the main ones is through this index, the viewpoint diversity score index that we put together that rates major corporations on their respect for free speech and religious freedom. And so that's government sensors are a huge problem. But private sensors in the day and age we live are also an enormous problem. And private censorship can have just as much of a chilling effect on people's willingness to exercise their fundamental freedoms as government censorship. And at ADF, we're committed to figuring out how to solve the private censorship problem.
A highlight from CMMThursday Hour 2 (Michael Torbin 231005)
"Welcome to the Eric Metaxas show. Did you ever see the movie The Blob starring Steve McQueen? The blood curdling threat of The Blob. Well, way back when, Eric had a small part in that film, but they had to cut his scene because The Blob was supposed to eat him, but he kept spitting him out. Oh, the whole thing was just a disaster. Anyway, here's the guy who's not always that easy to digest. Eric Metaxas. Ladies and gentlemen, I told you, I told you that in this segment I would bring on a senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, Jack Wagner. And as it turns out, he just corrected me. I'm mispronouncing Jack. He pronounces it Vincent, which is bizarre of Vincent. If you insist, Vincent Wagner, welcome to the program. Thanks, Eric. It's an easy mistake to make. Yes, yes, it is. No, you know, I was saying to you that I was getting confused because I mentioned Jack Phillips. A lot of people know the case of Jack Phillips, the baker who has been attacked and attacked and attacked in Colorado, and you guys at the Alliance Defending Freedom have been defending him. And the head of ADF, Kristen Wagner, no relationship to Vincent Wagner. You said there's there's an O in her name. That's right. She got two G's and an O that I that I like. Well, sorry, an extra G and an O that are missing from my name. What what what's that all about? OK, so in any event, I'm trying to confuse my audience. So but but I got an email from her this morning talking about you guys at the Alliance Defending Freedom, defending Jack Phillips, the masterpiece bake shop owner who I've met him several times, a humble man, a man of God who refuses to do what people tell him to do because of his faith. And he has been so attacked in Colorado. And if it weren't for you guys at the Alliance Defending Freedom, he would just be literally out of business, bankrupt. I mean, that's one thing that maybe a lot of people are aware of that the Alliance Defending Freedom has done. But the fact that that battle goes on, can you say a little bit about I mean, this has been many, many, many years that ADF pro bono for free has been defending this hero, Jack Phillips in Colorado. Can you say why that's still going on? Well, Colorado and folks in Colorado haven't haven't let Jack move on with his life. I mean, just this week, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to take Jack's case again. So the fight continues. And like you said, Eric, don't charge Jack a dime. We don't charge any of our clients a dime. We do this all for free to protect Americans freedom. And you may be already familiar with the five areas we focus on. Jack's falls within the category of religious liberty. We want to protect all Americans freedom to exercise their religion, not just think about it privately in their house or in the church pew, but to exercise it in society to protect religious freedom, protect the free speech of all Americans. You know, that comes up a lot lately on college campuses and where a lot of those cases are and protect the sanctity of life. We we played a big role in last year's victory in Dobbs. Our team, our life team was helping the state of Mississippi defend the law that the Supreme Court eventually held was constitutional and overruled Roe on.
Monitor Show 23:00 10-07-2023 23:00
"Investment advisors, switch to interactive brokers for lowest cost global trading and turnkey custody solutions. No ticket charges and no conflicts of your interests at ibkr .com slash ria. Make political statements. We'll have to keep a scorecard for the Fifth Circuit this term. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stor. This is Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio. I'm June Grosso. Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now. President Biden spoke about the next speaker of the house. Whomever the house speaker is, I'm going to try to work with. They control half the Congress. And I'm going to try to work with them. While speaking from the White House today, he called on Congress to hurry and get back to work to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. This comes as the house is on recess until a new speaker is elected following the removal of Kevin McCarthy earlier this week. News reports earlier today claimed the California Republican plan to soon step down after he was removed. McCarthy told reporters, however, those reports were untrue. A South Florida Democratic congressman wants Mar -a -Lago taxed based on the amount that former President Trump says it's worth. Donald Trump is in the middle of a civil fraud trial in New York where the former president and his family are accused of repeatedly lying to banks and insurers by over and undervaluing his assets. In a letter to Palm Beach County property appraiser Dorothy Jacks.
Will Scharf: What If Tanya Chutkan Declines Case Dismissal?
"Judges, and I think it would be, if not favorably received, certainly carefully looked at. Now, if she, for the public out here, so if she rules, no, I'm not buying that, can she go ahead with the trial before the appeal is filed and heard? I think President Trump's lawyers would have a very strong ground to request a stay pending final resolution of the issue on immunity. That's how this would work in the case of a claim of judicial immunity or legislative immunity. We're in somewhat untested grounds, of course, because no president before in American history has been criminally indicted for acts in office the way that President Trump has been indicted. But I think his legal team would have a very strong argument for a stay of all proceedings pending final resolution, even if that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court of these presidential immunity issues. Because if it isn't stayed, then what happens, of course, is this trial judge basically makes the ultimate decision. I don't mean of guilt and innocence and jail time, I mean the ultimate decision, because you're going to go through a full fledged trial on a matter where you're challenging whether you should go through a full fledged trial, correct? That's right, and that's why it's so important that this particular motion has been brought when it's been brought. We're dealing with issues of immunity, typically the courts look at immunity claims and they try to decide that long before you get to trial, long before even trial preparation starts. That's the whole point of being immune from prosecution in cases like this. So, even if things don't go well in front of the DC district,
Will Scharf: Trump Asks Judge to Dismiss Election Interference Case
"Of his presidential responsibilities, that he cannot be prosecuted for them unless he is first both impeached and convicted by U the .S. House of Representatives in the Senate, which he of course was not in fact convicted. So it's a really important filing. It's one that I expect will end up in front of the United States Supreme Court, I think potentially pretty soon, but it's an important day. It's a day that could result in that entire prosecution being thrown out. All right, let me ask you a few questions. Number one, the judge is Tanya Chutkin, who should have recused herself. Overwhelming case that she's not of the judicial temperament to handle this particular case. So she'll be making the original ruling on this filing, will she not? That's correct, and you know, Trump's lawyers have already made the argument for recusal that she's not been, let's say favorably disposed towards, but significantly immunity motions like this are typically immediately appealable. So the normal process for a case like this would be for this motion to be taken. She issues her ruling on it, and if she were to rule against it, I think there would be grounds for an immediate appeal, an interlocutory appeal as it's called, up to the
A highlight from The Power of Hispanic Serving Institutions
"Hello, and welcome to the College Admissions Decoded podcast, an occasional series in the National Association for College Admission Counseling, or NACAC. I'm your host, Eddie Pickett. I'm a longtime NACAC member and a member of the NACAC board of directors. In my day job, I'm a senior associate dean of admissions and director of recruitment at Pomona College in Claremont, California. NACAC is an association of more than 25 ,000 professionals at high schools, colleges, universities, and nonprofit organizations, as well as independent counselors who support and advise students and families through the college admissions process. Our topic today is Hispanic Serving Institutions, also known as HSIs. Historically, HSIs are colleges and universities with Hispanic undergraduate enrollment of at least 25%. In 1992, Congress formally recognized HSIs and created federal appropriations to support these institutions. Today there are over 500 HSIs in the United States. HSIs play a vital role in the communities they serve, offering culturally relevant programs, a sense of belonging, and services that help students succeed. For this episode, we're joined by Belinda Sandoval -Sasweta, associate vice president of at admissions University of Redlands in California. Welcome Belinda. Thanks Eddie. Happy to be here. We're also joined by Argenis Rodriguez, director of a support program for students. Welcome Argenis. Happy to be here. Thank you both for joining us today on the podcast, particularly after this summer and the Supreme Court decision that came down. So let's just get started with the first question. Belinda, can you tell us a little bit about your background and the work with HSIs that you've done? My pronouns are she, hers, and Aya. I am a Mexican -American. I identify as a Chicana. And so I serve on the advisory council, which is made up of faculty, staff, and students. And we work together as a council to write our first grant for Hispanic -serving institutions, which we were proud recipients of this summer. And Argenis, same question. Can you tell us a little bit about your background and your work that you've done with HSIs? So I'm currently the director of a program that's aimed to support the specific needs of students as they are pursuing an undergraduate degree. And the program balances academic advising and personal support, along with career exploration, leadership development, and community engagement. And so what do Hispanic -serving institutions guarantee to offer students that other colleges and universities might not? Hispanic -serving institutions are intentional in supporting this population of students, like offering a sense of community and relatability. And Hispanic -serving institutions also offer a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And they will continue to play that critical role in providing Hispanic students with the education they need in order to enter their career fields. Very similar to Argenis, you know, I think that institutions are, they show their commitment to serving students. And I was actually reading Gina Garcia's book on Hispanic institutions in practice. And part of that really does a call, really has a call for us to not just be an institution that enrolls students, but be an institution that serves Hispanic students or Latinx or Latinos. So I think a Hispanic -serving institution is thinking about how to not just enroll them, but really truly serve them and serve them well while they are students. I like that idea of serving but also being intentional. So Argenis, can you start this next one? Just how do institutions approach students' success for HSIs? So the way that HSIs approach students' success is by utilizing data to determine what programming can provide support to Hispanic students in close equity gaps. So the data is utilized specifically to track multiple factors, such as first -year progress, graduation rates, and cohort program involvement. Then to Belinda, sitting on the admissions side, are there other unique factors that colleges and universities are tracking, such as first -gen or anything else with this HSI population? We certainly track first -gen. We also do a lot of programming at the recruitment level around language. So for example, we might do sessions in Spanish, we give tours in Spanish, just to give families an opportunity to really feel like they belong on a college campus. And I think that's a big part of that recruitment phase of being an HSI, is really thinking about how to incorporate families into this process. I would also say, you know, that student success looks at both how the student performs while they are a student, but it also is about how a student does once they transition out of the college community, right, and that professional sense of, or transitioning into the professional workspace. And so we're still thinking about ways to do that. With our new HSI grant, we were able to infuse funds into existing programs that we know are doing very well to retain both Latino students, but really all students. Can you tell us a few of those programs that you're specifically referencing? Sure. The programs that I'm referencing are things like our First -Year Journey, which are a couple of days of an outdoor experience that students do very well in transitioning to the university. And so we really want and encourage our Hispanic students, our first generation college students to participate in things like that, as well as our summer bridge program, and our mentor program, which is called STEP. Sounds like you're doing some great work over there, University of Redlands. Kudos to you all. Thanks, Eddie. And what I've noticed also with HSI, similar to HBCUs, is there's an immense version of pride in their schools, and both graduates, staff, and students affiliated with these schools. So Argenis, coming to you, can you talk about how that pride is nurtured on campus, and why so many students find the HSI experience attractive? Community colleges are an essential building block in the education journey of many Hispanic students. HSIs continue to be attractive because they foster community. Our commitment to Hispanic students and the status as an HSI is reflected in the college's participation in the Excelencia in Education National Initiative. You know, the CO is a national certification for institutions intentionally serving Latino students through data, practice, and leadership. So you pointed out community colleges being a strong support system. Can we just talk about how to get students comfortable at the community college and then also transitioning them from the two -year into the four -year and the importance of that too? So an example of this is by one of our programs that we have on campus called Connexiones and Connexions, which is a program designed for Latinx students. And the purpose is to increase engagement and clarify their academic and career interests. And another example, I guess if we're talking about how we are assisting transitioning them out, it's through a program that we also have on campus, which is Grow with Google. And that's a career readiness program that is centered on helping students, providing them with the preparation needed to enter the workforce through digital skills and career workshops. Thank you for that. It definitely always thinking about what are the opportunities presented by different colleges. And we hear about certain schools, not about all. And so as we think about the vastness of higher ed, that's also really important. And so Belinda, similar question coming to you, but just how does the University of Redlands build pride on your campus? I think there's a lot of different ways that we build pride, certainly with the traditions that are just part of the institution and making sure that all students feel like they are part of who, you know, of the institution and the fabric of the institution and making them like feel this isn't just, you know, an age old tradition that certain students happen to connect to, but that we try to infuse that into everything that we do. But I think, you know, at the end of the day, it's really about validating who a student is. And I think that is a real big part of coming into the institution. I mean, a lot of what I talk about with families when I do Spanish programming, for example, is that, you know, this is their community, too. And for a lot of our students that are first gen that are part of that identifies Latino or that are part of the Hispanic community, they've never been or have never set foot on a campus before. It's really talking about this is your space, too, really is powerful for them. And we get questions like, can I bring salsa to my daughter, you know, during on the weekends? Or can I, you know, go to the soccer game or can I do those kinds of things that if you've gone to college feels so like, of course you can do that. But if you are a first gen family who's never been to a college in the U .S. before, those are, you know, important questions to ask because they just don't know. And so I think that validation of who a student is and who, you know, their family is and the make of the dynamic of that family and where they come from really is important. It goes a long way. If you know me, I'm a numbers person. I love some good numbers. I want to give a shout out to University of Redlands as well. They're about 50 percent first gen students. You want to talk about creating opportunities. That's creating an opportunity. You know, at Pomona, we're about 20 percent and we're really excited about that for a private school being at nearly 50 percent. Kudos to you. So thank you for doing that great work and creating those opportunities for everyone. So staying in that numbers scene, I'm going to throw out this other stat that I saw was pretty interesting. So according to Excelencia in Education, HSIs in the U .S. enroll 66 percent of Latino students. For reference, there are 500 of them. There are about 4000 colleges, so 66 percent of students and about an eighth of the schools. So more power to HSIs to start. But with the student population increasing in the U .S. faster than any other population in terms of higher education enrollment, what does that mean for the future of HSIs? Well, I think that it means good things for all of us that are currently identified as a HSI. You know, we are committed to the work. We want to make sure that we are creating spaces that validate our students. I would also say, you know, that it really does speak also to all institutions. And I think it's a call for all institutions to really think about, you know, you have this fast growing minority group. And so that so I think the HSIs are in a unique position and that we have been thinking about how we are serving our Hispanic and Latino students. But I do think that all institutions really need to be thinking about that, about how they are serving this fast growing group, demographic group. I mean, it's a wonderful opportunity, right, because HSIs are now at the forefront of educating and preparing Hispanic students, you know, for the future. And that it seems like a very colorful future from the data that we're seeing as well coming down the pipeline. Students are starting to make their choices. Many prospective HSI students have a variety of options when selecting a college, including PWIs or predominantly white institutions, the term that we've used historically by the Department of Education. What should students think about when considering whether to attend an HSI or a PWI? And what have you heard from students on this question? And we'll go to our hand is first. So students who have expressed interest on PWIs, from my perspective, like they often worry about the cost of attendance and HSI community colleges offer Hispanic students a quality, affordable education that can prepare them to continue their education at a PWI if that's what the student is wanting to go for afterwards. Belinda. What I would say is, you know, every institution opens the door. And so I think whether a student selects a PWI or an HSI, I think it really is about whether a student is going to take advantage of the resources that are available. And a student that is thinking about an HSI oftentimes really has a good sense of who they are and what it is that they're looking to do and what kind of community they're going to be able to, you know, be, let's say, successful in. A student attending a PWI and I was one of them, I was a student that came from the Inland Empire and in California and went straight to PWI and I loved my experience there. It challenged me to think about who I was and my identity in a different way and how I could, you know, challenge the system a little bit to include me into it. But I would say that it made me that much stronger when I moved into the professional workforce. So I wouldn't say that one is better than the other. I would just say that when you're looking at institutions, the HSI's are going to provide a different environment than a PWI. And there are some very basic things. Like I give examples of, you know, you go from things like selling Mexican candy in the inspired out music of the commons and the quad area to the pedagogy and that is is being taught in the classroom to the faculty that are being hired. There's an intentionality there in a way that is not present in other places. Yeah, thank you. I always just tell students, like, know what you're getting yourself into. You know, as you're making your choices, you don't have to have a list of all PWIs or all HSIs. You can have a mix of them. As you get your decisions back, that's when you really have to make those choices. But understand the situation you're walking yourself into and also what do you want out of college? Because what you want isn't always the same as your peer or somebody who looks like you. So understand what you are wanting and what I and why I'm here at this school. So that's what I tell students. And now the question that we've all been waiting for, probably, and particularly thinking about this Supreme Court case, the SFFA case that just came out. And so considering the recent decision on race conscious admissions in the Supreme Court, some may question the need to focus on and provide federal funding to HSIs and other institutions that serve specific populations. What would you say to those who question the value of supporting HSIs? The recent decisions are not a deterrent. Like, HSIs understand that race does impact the student's access to higher education. You know, this can also affect persistence, retention, graduation and career outcomes. But that HSIs are also committed to diversity, equity and inclusion. And I would add that we talked about this fact earlier, right, that with that Latinos, they're the fastest growing demographic group in the United States. And I think a big part of what we are here to talk about is how do we make sure that our institutions are serving our students well? And so really thinking about what the value is of supporting HSIs, I think the value is that we are educating the future of the country. I want to be very clear to the students and counselors listening to this podcast that the discussion topic that you can write about in your essays, you can still write about whatever you want because I've been asked, well, you know, I'm Latino, can I write about my application? Yes, you can write about whatever you want. What the Supreme Court has done is it's limited our ability to evaluate race as a status alone. And so we can evaluate the discrimination faced. We can evaluate the motivation because of and the characters you've learned because of your race. But we can't just use race alone. So that's what the Supreme Court has done. It has not actually limited your ability to speak about race in your application whatsoever. So I want to be clear about that. I'm afraid that's all the time we have today. Many thanks to Belinda and Argenis for a great conversation. And thanks to you, our friends in the audience, for joining us for this podcast. College Admissions Dakota is a podcast from NACAC, the National Association for College Admission Counseling. It is produced by LWC Studios. Kojin Tashiro produced this episode. If you would like to learn more about NACAC's guests, our organization and the college admissions process, visit our website at NACACnet .org. That's N -A -C -A -C -N -E -T .org. Please leave a review and rate us on Apple Podcasts. See you next time on College Admissions Dakota.
"supreme court" Discussed on Live From Studio 6B
"Know these are the days that you really if you're if you're into politics and you're into and listen we've all had our disagreements with the Supreme Court we just talked about it the other day in that ruling in the in some of the individual justices and their decision -making and and as we complain about that decision about the words and what the words mean today's decision is exactly the opposite of that it was all about exactly what the words mean the plain language of the 14th as this decision comes down in the justices bar the use of racial preferences and college admissions what a what an interesting day number one to read as much as I could of the decision and it is a doozy of two hundred and fifty -nines 270 pages long justice Thomas's concurrence is what I could read of it and some of the highlights I saw is is unbelievable it is just fire and and the direct aim that they take at the three liberal justices and I have to say even Chief Justice John Roberts the direct take he he withering language to Justice Sotomayor and the other liberals on the
"supreme court" Discussed on Today, Explained
"supreme court" Discussed on This Week In Google
"I can't reach. The want of three inches. The Internet Columbus. I hadn't really thought about all of that until you brought it up. It's an interesting question. We live in interesting times, don't we? And you're right. I mean, Elon, I don't think Elon loves terrorists. He might think that maybe Russia's he likes Russia's just fine. Where he draws his lines may not be the place where you and I would try. That's right. That's right. Have we done this to death? Is there anything more to say about this? We just have to wait till the decisions appear sometimes. I think we may stumble on something, but yeah, I mean, there's lots to talk about, but it's sort of like, yeah, at a certain point, the more we're speculating the less useful it is, I don't think we need more data. But fascinating. And if you haven't ever listened to Supreme Court oral arguments, there always interesting. These in particular, I guess maybe because we had a dog in that hunt. But and I don't know nowadays where you listen to I used to go to oye oye, I don't know. I think they're actually on the Supreme Court site. And then other sites may scotus blog my refer to them, CNN was the streamer. So they may have them. Yeah, listen to C span's stream. So interesting. All right, so you can go to the Supreme Court website. And listen for yourself. Tell us what you think. It takes a lot of time as a caution, each of these nearly three hours. Three hours, yeah. Yeah. Long. And I think today's was a lot longer than anybody, including the justices. So you showed up at what time and got out at what time, Kathy. Well, I didn't today yesterday I showed up at about 5 35 in the morning and I got spat out at about 1245, I think. So if you're asking why I didn't necessarily go today, that's why. Yeah, it's exhausting. Yeah, right. I just play if you've
"supreme court" Discussed on Sarah Westall - Business Game Changers
"Welcome to business skin changers. I'm Sarah west hall. I have Lloyd Brunson coming to the program. Him and his brothers have initiated lawsuits and now they're looking at a Supreme Court case that just today made it to the docket to go in front in conference and the dataset for January 6th, which is pretty ironic. But they can the Supreme Court can look at it any time now before conference and make a decision on it. I got to be a little bit reserved and not totally optimistic on this because so many cases that go to conference don't actually make it to hearing, but in this case, there's an important element to this case that I hope they look at. And that's whether the Congress has immunity to usurp the constitution. And that's an important aspect that the Supreme Court really does need to take up. I hope they take their job seriously and I hope they have the courage to do it because that's what they're in position to do is look at areas where the constitution is not being followed. And this is a good case for that. Will they do it? I don't know. Will they succumb to blackmail and everything else? I don't know. There's just so many, this country is really in rough shape and we've got to rebuild it from the ground up. I don't know if these Supreme Court Justices have what it takes to do what's right. We'll see if they have what it takes to do what's right. This is a perfect case for them to look at that. I also don't think they're going to get rid of 385 members of Congress and all that stuff. But maybe, I mean, this is really strange times that we're living in. So anything could happen, but the most important thing that could happen is them re looking at these immunity clauses and whether they can usurp the constitution. That's a big deal. And if they just did that and recognize that, we could make serious progress in this country. So anyways, this is a good interview. I think you'll get a lot out of it. I was just, it was the first time I heard about it in detail. So I was like, wow, you guys are doing this. This is really great. But after I did a little bit more research, I just wanted to understand how many people go to conference and how many cases go to conference, how many make it at a conference that actually get a hearing. It's just not very much compared to making it to a hearing. That being said, this is still a really important case. And I was probably that they have the courage to do what's right here. The judges aren't blackmailed to the point where they just can't function. I don't know. I don't know if the judges in this country operate properly anymore. So before we get into this interview, I want to remind you that if you're interested in the defy time capsules, right now I have a coupon for 20% off on my shop. I've had that for a while, but now up until December 6th, they're running the Black Friday cyber week sale. And you get 20% off their site. Plus, using my coupon, you'll get 40% off. So I highly recommend that if you are interested in looking at these capsules, you do it now while you get a better savings. After December 6th, they're going to run another promotion, but won't be this big of a discount. They'll be giving away some free product as well. So go there, it's the best time to buy and get that if you were thinking about getting it for your parents. I have my parents on it. We use it too, me and my husband, but I really like my dad's cognitive abilities, fundamentally changed back to what he was when he was younger after taking this. And apparently it's because the telomere lengthening will go after the shortest telomeres first and lengthen those and because many people who are having cognitive problems as they get as they age, that's where they're telomeres tend to be shorter, at least on my dad that was the situation and it was remarkable the difference in his cognitive ability after he started taking this. So his quality of life really increased and so I'm really happy about that. So again, go to Sarah west Al dot com under shop, look for that coupon and then be sure to use that before December 6th to get the full discounts. Okay, so let's get into this really interesting conversation with loy, Bronson. High Lloyd, thank you so much for joining the program. Well, thank you for inviting me. It's great to be here with you. You have an incredible court case coming up with the Supreme Court. And I got to ask you some questions. It is groundbreaking. As you know, can you talk about, I mean, the lawsuit is against 385 members of Congress, VP Pence, Harris Biden and President Biden. Can you talk about what the case is about? Okay, the case, first of all, I'd like to say what it's not about. It's not about the election results of 2020. It's not about Republicans or Democrats. It's about securing our national. It's about protecting our national security. It's about it's about a hundred members of Congress presented evidence and testimony that we simply needed to take they simply needed to take ten days to investigate the claims of crimes and security breach. Before they, before they accepted the electoral votes. So when senator Lee and others stood there and held the constitution and said, we've got to just move forward with this. They didn't understand that no, they moved forward after they settled the dust after they settled the claims and make sure that they can move forward in a sound honest constitutional way. So they should have paused for ten days. They were required to pause for ten days. I'm investigate and they chose not to. So every single member of Congress that voted against a simple ten day investigation is a defendant, as well as Joe Biden and Mike Pence. Wow, okay. And let's talk about what you have as you were going through the lower courts, everybody loses in the lower courts. And these kinds of cases. Well, sure, we knew we would. And we expected that and we were prepared for that. We wanted to lose quickly. The quicker we lose. That's right. Okay, and then you got stuck in the district court. What happened there? Well, okay, we're talking about two lawsuits. I was talking about how you set it up. Go ahead. Okay, that's three of us. Three brothers are four brothers, but one brother is busy working on the music side of what we do. But we all support each other and what we're doing. So the three brothers, one of us, is very experienced with federal and state and even somewhat experienced with Supreme Court litigation. So he decided that we needed to do something after watching the hearings January 6th and seeing all of the pressure and support to get a ten day investigation going. He saw that the majority of all the Congress voted against it. He was just stunned, shocked, disappointed. And it felt like he wanted to do something with his legal skills. He had actually been suing banks before because of the sub prime mortgage bundling bungling it would say. And he was affected by that. He was hurt by that. And so he wanted to do something about that. So he litigated for several years in that arena. And so we had this experience with being able to go into court without attorneys and spending, you know, thousands and thousands of dollars with attorneys. So he was able to himself. So he thought, well, I've got this experience. I know how to do this. And so we should do something. So he called me on the phone and asked me if I'd be the plaintiff and a lawsuit. And I said, sure. So we got together and decided that eventually we decided that not just do one lawsuit. So I was a plaintiff on one. We got that going in federal court. And we thought it would be best to actually have two lawsuits going. So we would be able to, you know, one of the lawsuits is going to get there before the other. So we thought
"supreme court" Discussed on Red, Blue, and Brady
"Wonderful day. Thanks to our listeners. We'll see you later. Okay, so that panel was phenomenal. Kelly, but I loved your wrap up as well. Oh, thanks. It's something that I try to tell myself. Thank you all history. There's a lot of things that the Supreme Court has said shouldn't happen or can't happen that we are living with today. Isn't that the truth? I just, the thing that I keep coming back to, I think, are the points that were brought up repeatedly by all of our panelists, which is just that, you know, these decisions, these decisions have far reaching implications that are going to be felt. By all of us, but that there is going to be an undue burden placed on particular populations and that it is our job to try to make sure that we live in an equitable world and correct these problems. Yeah, I love that. And how that came up multiple times. And a big thing for me is something that John said and also something that Leia said, putting together, which is that John was saying, the Supreme Court doesn't take that many cases a year. And that is true. They don't. And so that means that even if people will sue and try to use this decision to invalidate gun laws, doesn't mean that we should stop pressing forward. And to that end, I love what a Leia said about thinking locally. And thinking about your community and what you can do there because I think that's also really important. Want to share with the podcast? Let's just now get in touch with us here at red blue and Brady via phone or text message. Simply call our text us at 480-744-3452 with your thoughts, questions, concerns, ideas, whatever. Kelly and I are standing by. Thanks for listening. As always, Brady's lifesaving work in Congress, the courts and communities across the country is made possible thanks to you. For more information on Brady or how to get involved in the fight against gun violence, please like and subscribe to the podcast. Get in touch with us at Brady united dot org oral on social at Brady buzz. Be brave. And remember, take action..
"supreme court" Discussed on Red, Blue, and Brady
"Hey everybody, welcome back to another episode of red blue and Brady. I'm JJ, one of your hosts. And I'm Kelly, your other host. And today we are really excited to be bringing you audio from a live event that we held here at Brady. Although, you know, don't panic, it was still digital. We're not there yet for fully in person events. Yeah, we held it in Brady's digital conference space, which is everywhere. And it's a really, really important conversation about what the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment and latest firearms decision means for all of us. It was a panel that could have easily gotten very, very wonky, but we were blessed with some phenomenal panelists who really broke down what this decision was and all of its implications in a way that I thought was really accessible and actually really quite fun to participate with. Yeah, I mean, I personally found it to be very accessible and also surprisingly, and if you're in the mental space right now, like a lot of people where you feel discouraged or you feel like there's nothing you can do. I would especially recommend listening to this one because I think we end on a note that is hopeful and a real way. Not in a false way about the fact that there are still so much that we can do to prevent gun violence. It was a phenomenal panel of legal experts public health experts and advocates and I can not wait for you to meet all of them. We have been joined by some phenomenal guests to talk about some stuff that could get a little wonky, but I think is really important for us to dig into, which is the recent Supreme Court decision in the Bruin case. So before we get into that, I would love if our panelists could introduce themselves to our audience. Can we start with you, doctor McCourt? Sure. Thanks for having me. My name is Alex accord. I'm an assistant professor at the Department of Health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg school of public health. I'm also the director of legal research for the Johns Hopkins center for gun violence solutions. Thank you. There's a lot of folks who have legal degrees on this call. Once again, I'm going to feel kind of left out. Can we kick over to you? Jonathan lowy. Sure. I'm John lowey and vice president of legal and chief counsel at Brady. And doctor Harmon. I'm Gerald Harmon. I'm a family physician in rural South Carolina, and immediate past president of the American medical association. Kelly, hi, everyone. I'm Kelly Samson. I'm senior counsel and director of racial justice here at Brady. And last but certainly not least, a woman who wears many hats in many different words a layout eastman. Hi, everyone. My name is alay eastman, and I am the team of national administrator. Lei also does about a thousand other things. She's organizing powerhouse. So we can just point that out. Kelly, can you give us a brief recap about what the Supreme Court case, you know, the New York State rifle versus Bruin was even about. Sure thing. So the case was about several things at once. Strictly speaking the case was about whether or not a New York State law that required individuals seeking a concealed carry license to show that they had proper cause and in that case proper cause meant something above sort of a general anxiety around safety, whether or not the state requiring individuals to show that was constitutional. So that's one thing. But obviously, there are so many other things. And a few of the other issues that came up in deciding that issue was first of all, the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home because up until this point the Supreme Court hadn't squarely decided that. And then also the standard of review that courts should be using when they're analyzing the legality of gun laws. So the case was about a New York State law, but it also was about the scope of the Second Amendment and the standard of review for gun laws throughout all courts in the United States. And then if we, you know, I'm still going to use Brady privilege. If we can kick over to John, what ultimately then was decided here in this case. Sure, well, the court, not surprisingly, given that the composition of the current court by a vote of 6 to three held that the New York proper cause requirement that Kelly explained is unconstitutional. And the court held that individuals have a right under the Second Amendment to carry guns in public spaces to use them for self defense or what the court calls confrontation and to be playing what that means is that individuals have a right to carry guns and public spaces, so that they can pull those guns out and shoot other people when they believe it is necessary in their judgment to do so and potentially kill those other people. So that was one aspect of the ruling. The other one was an issue that Kelly touched on and actually the court did not need to decide, but the court established a new rule that governs all challenges to gun laws. And the rule that had been applied by every single Court of Appeals in the country since the Heller decision in 2008 was essentially to keep out the wonkiness, essentially it said that the government can restrict gun rights in order to further an important interest, such as saving lives. So long as they don't unduly restrict those rights. There's a sort of, they're not overreaching and not restricting the right more than they need to or is reasonable. And I could get more wonky, but that's the gist of it. And that's basically the sort of rule that applies for virtually every right in the constitution. But the court in an opinion authored by justice Thomas created a new rule, which has never existed in American law for any right, which says that if a law restricts or impinges on protected sac amendment activity in some way, it can not be sustained, can not be allowed unless it has historical precedent, unless there was a law in American history that is somewhat similar to that previous law. And the court said, in fact, if there was a problem that was similar that and in 1800, let's say and Congress and states didn't enact a certain law that people now want courts may find, well, you can't enact a law like that, because it wasn't done in 1800. It is this history and tradition test, which sort of locks us into the past. Again, unheard of in American law, and that now is the rule going forward. It will go into more details later, but that's the gist of it. Thank you, Kelly and John. I think that sets us up really well for the beginning. We kind of have the bracket now for what will be discussing. I would love to open it up to the floor, though. I think John, you just expressed how you were, I think it's clear. Surprised by this particular ruling in some ways, probably based on the scope of the decision that was made. And I wonder what were your thoughts were you surprised at the way that this world has shook out and how it affects the communities that.
"supreme court" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Looks unconstitutional to anybody. With even a layman's knowledge of past supreme court precedents on abortion is a sign that you know she. She provided the boat. That made it possible to grant sir to take that decision and the others are these cases where religious liberties are at stake on like in the kobe cases where the states were in governors and local officials were imposing restrictions across the board. As kobe cases. We're going up in their areas and she went ruth. Bader ginsburg wins there. The court was voting for five to four to uphold the state deference to the states and localities to make their own decisions about public health. Once amy barrett was from the very first month she was on the court. She flipped those five four decisions because to her with the other conservative the other conservatives religious liberties of churches to be open or do what they want for the most part are more important than deferring to a local and state officials on public health matters. Well jackie let me follow up on the abortion case because this is the case coming out of mississippi that would ban abortion after fifteen weeks very controversial. Obviously as you suggest a lot of people who are pro choice are worried that this is going to be a vehicle to overturn roe. But you were talking. Before about chief justice roberts is jurisprudence and wanting to say it'll be 'incrementalist they close to public opinion. You're suggesting that cavanaugh may share that that view and that style of judging. So what's your best. Guess at this point or informed gas based on your reporting and your analysis of what the court will do. And whether just chief justice roberts will be will want to cobble together a majority to perhaps rollback rogue but but not overturn it. I think that's what they want to do. Which is not. Have a flat-out overturning. Roe or the casey case in nineteen ninety three. I think it was but by these cases like in the mississippi case since it question in in the upcoming term that starts october fifteen week banning abortions. After fifteen weeks. The this gets to the basic question that road dealt with about viability that a woman had a constitutional right to decide. She wanted an abortion up to the point that a fetus was viable and for all the advances in medicine. It's nowhere near fifteen weeks. And so if the court then decides that states can pass those sorts of laws. You'll you know this is the the net result is you're just going to continue to have the court green lighting these laws and restrictions that make abortion all but unavailable to most of the country. And we'll be right back where we were pre roll where women like in my hometown of toledo ohio blue or drove overnight to new york city to get their abortions. And so that's what i think will end up with a no vittoria will wanna get to voting rights so we can argue about it but before we do before we do. We were talking before about surprises. So i want to sort of propose. What for me was my biggest surprise. And that was clarence thomas and marijuana suggesting that it is now time for the federal government to reassess whether it's still makes any sense to ban the use of marijuana when i forget how many states but it's a pretty substantial number at this point including the largest in california have all legalized it. Although i rarely agree with him. That makes clarence thomas. My personal hero for this term. Can't what clarence. Thomas did might be surprising. But the fact that you're bringing up my god bringing up. His case is not at all surprising. Well i jess what should we make of thomas's what was in a concurrence. He wrote that. Yes it was. You know the thing that was that Clarence thomas Has as had you for a long time. In two thousand five. There was a case called race versus gonzalez which dealt with whether the federal controlled substances act would supersede california's than early step toward legalization where the compassionate use act that allowed medical use of marijuana and you and he descended from the court's decision which upheld the federal privacy over the state law for similar reasons. He did not accept the argument that personal growing a few plants for your personal use. If you're sick and california triggered federal authority through the commerce clause so it's not completely new for for clarence thomas. this was in medical. He went beyond that in in what he wrote this time. That's right that's right. He did and You know and yeah. I mean i. I'm i'm not. I'm not shocked by it You know it's it's really consistent. With what he said. Before ee someone who rarely changes his views on things so they're not to be huge surprises. But if you wanna go a little more broadly Mike you know he. He aligned with the liberals more often than one would expect in this in this term. He did for example in a case involving class action case involving whether consumers could a credit rating company that falsely labelled them as terrorists. Now he you know so there were some some moments where clarence thomas did not stick purely to the conservative script. But there were plenty more where he was exactly where he's always been the other most interesting clarence thomas development over the course of the last year and a half is. The supreme moved to remote oral arguments. We heard more from clarence thomas in the last year and a half then. We've heard from him during the his entire time on the bench because all of a sudden the chief justice was calling on every other justice to ask a question and silent clarence. Thomas suddenly became a very f- from my perspective. Very good questioner on the bench. There he often asked very insightful. Interesting questions That really kind of pushed the lawyers appearing before them is it time to reevaluate clarence thomas or is it just sort of this rare kind of thing that happened with cova. Well i think that You know justice. Thomas got a bad rap because he was almost always silent during oral arguments which is the only time the public really see the supreme court in action but anyone who's who's talked to him You know which a few times and Or seen him. Speak at an occasional public appearances. Knows that this guy. He knows law. He's very smart. He has very strong views on it. And they're certainly not used that everyone agrees with but when it comes to knowing the material on having incisive questions and thinking about it he does that. I mean this guy. I think was there are many reasons. One criticized him or any other supreme court justice but the idea that Some suggested that he's not asking questions you can't think of any or something like that is totally unfounded. And unfair to him. The question i guess now is if the court goes back in the courtroom and goes back to. Its normal way of argument. Which is a sort of free-for-all among the justices will clarence thomas continued to be involved or is it just the format where each justice ask questions in sequence in a teleconference that he found more comfortable or more useful to him and he'll go back is his prior a custom of of of.
"supreme court" Discussed on FiveThirtyEight Politics
"You're not always the best position to assess your fitness for a job like supreme court justice. I have seen no signs of any kind of decline in justice. Breyer so i don't think that there's anyone out there saying you can no longer do the job. But that's something that sometimes happens without a whole lot of warning so so you mentioned that those kinds of considerations are at work as well. I mean it is true. I think we expected if we're going to hear announcement. There was a good chance that we would hear it on the last day of the term yesterday. But that's not an ironclad rule. We could hear in what remains this week. We could hear next week occasionally. Justices have announced their intent to depart the court within a couple of days after the end of the term. So i wouldn't say that the door has closed this term but obviously he hasn't told us that he's going yet and so right now i think no one is actively expecting to hear from him in the next couple of days but i think it remains alive possibility shoe that point during the twenty twenty election we heard plenty from the left and to some extent from joe biden himself about possible reforms changes to the supreme court. So i have some polling here on lifetime appointments and whether there should be a limited term age limits. That's pretty popular with american. So sixty percent of adults favor turmoil. Age limits with only twenty two percent opposed. Meanwhile packing the supreme court expanding. The size of the supreme court seems pretty unpopular. Right thirty eight percent in favor. Of forty two percent opposed. Does it seem like any of those changes or reforms or likely to come during the joe biden presidency. I think that many questions about what's possible renewed a lot turns on the filibuster whether it will remain a requirement to overcome filibuster in order to get legislation enacted and you could expand the size of the supreme court by ordinary legislation. Right sort of an interesting thing. It feels like that should require a constitutional amendment but no there's nothing in the constitution about the size of the supreme court. All you need and if you know simple majority was enough then you could tomorrow add some seats to the supreme court although as you say it's not popular in the same way. Term limits are popular term. Limits are complicated. Because you probably wouldn't need to amend the constitution to impose term limits not. Everybody agrees with that but they would certainly be vulnerable constitutional challenge. All there are creative ways you could structure you would say you've got a limited term but you remain a supreme court justice nominally and you get salary and you just have a different kind of status. Made you sit by designation on the lower courts. But you're not like forced out at the game entirely maybe do that by statute iffy but amending the constitution. You can certainly do to impose an eighteen year old sometimes people now we're talking about even like fourteen or twelve year term for supreme court justices if they went into effect. Perspectively couldn't probably kick out the ones who are already on the court and we've sort of lost the habit of amending the constitution..
"supreme court" Discussed on At Liberty
"She didn't get the position she wanted on the softball team exams were coming up and she's sitting at local convenience store with her friend on the weekend and she sends out a snap chat. That says fuck school. Fuck cheer fuck softball. Fuck everything you know. Basically just expressing frustration and you know we may not have used those terms but who among us did not feel that way at some point you know during school. She sent it just her friends on snapchat designed to disappear within twenty four hours except when someone takes a screen shot of it and someone did here take a photograph of of a screen shot of it and showed it to the cheerleading coach and she was kicked off the team for a year for having done this in her parents. That's that's not right. And so they called the aclu and the pennsylvania thought. Hey you know. We'll write a demand letter. This is clearly unconstitutional. You cannot kick someone off the team simply for expressing her frustration outside of school on the weekend on her own time on her own dime Shortly the school will back off so they wrote the demand letter. The school did not back off. They sued the school. Did not back off. They got an injunction and almost immediately from the district court and she was back on the cheerleading team. The school continued to pursue the case. They appealed it to the third circuit. The school lost unanimously in. The court of appeals but still the school did not give up and they appealed to the supreme court and the question in the supreme court was should schools have the same authority to regulate kids speech outside school as they have inside school and that was the position that the schools they said luck in the internet age. There's no real difference inside and outside and we need to be able to regulate kids speech wherever it happens if it affects the school in one way or another. So what did the court rule in brandies case so. The court rejected the schools proposal. Eight to one. So this is again a decision which you saw both sides coming together. Achieving agreement with only one justice thomas saying that students don't have basically any speech rights but all the rest said no students have free speech rights and they have to have broader speech rights outside school than inside school for a variety is one is that the schools don't control students lives outside school. Parents are the ones who have responsibility over kids. When they're outside of school not schools and so for the schools to be sort of censoring their speech when they're at home or at a.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"I think what's really interesting about kind of arriving at this conclusion that That the court has the final say. Is it kind of does elevate the court suddenly almost above the other two branches. It makes it more. I don't know holy like it makes it seem like it's more above Changing you know like the idea of court packing today is like it's like blasphemous for some right well once they left embraced it. Then these tools which had been used and we're clearly constitutional needed to be de legitimated so that basically what we're told is because judiciary is the weakest branch the only way to give it its authority is to make a factor the strongest one. Which is what we've done so now there's nothing you can do except wait for some of them to to change their mind or decide that they want to retire or to die and then hope that you can replace them with people more to your liking. Could not think of a way to be honest to structure a branch of government to give that kind of power and now right look at the incentives that creates presidents. Appoint children the younger the better so that they can extend their say two generations. It's like we're going to have people who were appointed thirty years ago. Who are educated fifty years ago you know. His political sensibilities developed an entirely different era. We're going to give them say over the most important parts of our. It's like completely insane and nobody else in the world does it. Nobody i mean today you know. Given the political the incredibly divided political landscape Why is it important for you. Know people listening to know this. History and to kind of conceptualize this final say power of the court that we take for granted nowadays. Well i think it's important because it cuts right to the heart of what it means to be democracy in the modern world. So as i say there's something very peculiar about giving that kind of power to have such significant consequences for people's lives for people's rights for the for the way government operates to have it in what amounts then to an oligarchy or set of many life monarchy's and you know the fear people have as if we don't have that and we have utter chaos to me. It's like no look across the first one hundred fifty or two hundred years of american history. It's nothing like chaos it just simply the court's power becomes less relative to the political branches. But it's still there and there's it's just a different kind of negotiation in which is much more interaction in you get a much healthier system now right now. What's clear from this election is that's not going to happen now because the because we are actually divided we are in one of those periods. Government is divided because the public is divided. And larry kramer says the balance of power between the branches which has been at. The heart of our democracy for centuries needs to be restored. What's at stake. If it's not the preservation of this amazing system that has enabled peaceful transfers of power after elections by people. The democratic culture is what matters and it requires people bought into it and recognize. It's important put it ahead of their short term policy fights. Do i care about winning this game or do i care about the game. Why break all the rules of baseball in order to win this match. Do i actually play within these worlds. Even if i lose this match so that we can have future managed..
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Lawyer of the century s for conservatives who hated the decisions of the warren court. They were still totally fine with the principle of judicial supremacy. They were just biding their time. Till the court flip conservative again. So for the first time in american history there was consensus across the board that the supreme court should have the final say over the constitution. So that settles that who has final authority debate and the debate shifts from who has final interpretive authority now. Everybody says it's the court to how the constitution should be interpreted.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Doctrines and turns them into major issues of constitutional law for the first time. When we come back we entered the warren court arra and the battle for judicial supremacy reaches a tipping point. This is dan from phoenix arizona. And you're listening to a through line from npr. This message comes from npr sponsor. Tele doc tele doc is here for you with twenty four seven access to board certified doctors who can diagnose and treat non emergency conditions like sinus infections allergies rashes and more and tell docs. Doctors can wear authorized call in a prescription to be filled at the pharmacy of your choice. Download the app today or visit. Hello doc dot com slash. Npr part.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"That causes a plan to avenue justices to the court his mind for both it is simply the whenever a good will allow eight new justice for every justice over the age of seventy retiring and at that time. The court was the oldest in american history. And that would have given roosevelt six new appointees for a fifteen member board. I see make american democracy succeed you want. i will do off. it's disingenuous. you know. Everybody understands why he's really doing it. He was going on. Yes man to the court. And there's a cartoon of that era that shows you a jury box with everyone is filled with an image of fdr voting high. A that's what people fear would happen republican suspiciously. It's not particularly popular but it is still a huge amount of pressure on the court because he's roosevelt and he's got a lot of political capital to use a warning shot that you've gone too far and it's working. Its way through congress. And it's not clear what's going to happen. Roosevelt's court packing plan set off a heated debate in congress. But this wasn't the first time a president had proposed. Changing the number of justices on the court turns out right now to be last time but it wasn't the first time at all right back in eighteen zero one. John adams did it right before leaving office. They shrunk the court from six to five. The jefferson wouldn't get your make any appointments but congress increased the number two seven then. Andrew jackson added a couple. And abraham lincoln added one more congress increases its size from seven to ten under andrew. Johnson it shrunk to seven so that won't get any appointments in eighteen sixty eight ulysses grant was elected. They increase it again to nine and it stayed there. 'til roosevelt came along roosevelt's was the last serious effort. No one had ever doubted its constitutionality. And the way roosevelt side. The court had this outmoded outdated interpretation. That did not fit the modern world at all and that there was no way that there's should be the final and binding interpretation. So how do you push back at them to get them to stop striking down laws. You use the tools. The constitution provides which include that the political branches. Get to decide how the court his made up. So i'm going to add some justices way to turn it around. They're all just ways of pushing. These controversies back out to the people who are the ultimate deciders. People themselves are actually the interpreters of their own constitution with the court packing plan on the table. The future of the court was uncertain. And after months in limbo court retreats plan just the hell out of justices and caused the best off professor the time honestly our said. The switching time saves nine s accord changed in nineteen. Thirty seven roosevelt. Second new deal was upheld case. After case came before the court and they basically just greenland everything a minimum wage social security the right of workers to unionize and not long after one of the five justices who were the conservative majority. Holding this all back. Van deventer retires in the middle of all this and roosevelt is able quickly to replace him so now. He's got the law that he wants. The court has retreated. He's got the court that he wants. So we let's the court packing plants though. He doesn't need it. he's gotten what he needed. And in the next couple of years the rest of them retire and he's able to appoint other justices so roosevelt did get the court. He wanted just not in the way he expected from the time of the court packing plan onward the court simply rubber stamps. The federal government whatever the federal government does. The court is going to approved but the courts bid for judicial. Supremacy wasn't over just yeah tucked away in one of the cases. Decided by this court was a footnote that said we are reserving heightened judicial entanglement in a number of areas may refer to discrete and insular minorities and the protection of individual rights individual rights life liberty the pursuit of happiness. Nobody paid much attention to that footnote because in one hundred and fifty years before then none of those issues had actually been major issues in constitutional law. So it'd be like me saying i'm gonna let you control the whole house but i'm gonna keep this corner over here find. Keep that corner. What do i care to be clear. That corner is the civil rights corner. And then what the warren court gaza's pick that up in ways that actually nobody had really thought would happen and runs with it takes those.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Jose santana connecticut. And you're listening to throw line from and be really now device. Thank you for being in so much information to awesome. I support for this podcast. And the following message come from k. Buxbaum in support of the david gilkey and ulitsa tomato memorial fund established to strengthen npr's commitment to training and protecting journalists in high risk environments support for this podcast and the following message. Come from the american jewish world service working together for more than thirty years to build a more just and equitable world. learn more at. Aj w. s. dot org part to the switch in time saves nine under my constitutional duty. Recommend the measures stricken nation in the midst of us fricken. Whoa may require on march. Fourth nineteen thirty-three president. Franklin d roosevelt took office and he was up against the worst economic disaster in american history in his inaugural address. The biggest applause line was not. We have nothing to fear. Fear itself was instead that i may have to take on powers. A wartime president read negative pound way they against the emergency as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact in faded by.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Hi this is ellie. I'm calling from washington dc and you're listening to through live from. Npr support for npr. Comes from newman's own foundation working to nourish the common good by donating all profits from newman's own food products to charitable organizations that seek to make the world a better place. More information is available at newman's own foundation dot org an officer pens a sixteen year old to the ground and punches out his teeth. But are there any consequences for the cop for the first time we take you inside the secret investigations that show how police protections in california shield from accountability. Listen to on our watch a podcast from npr and qa. Dean part one. Who's say is it any way we start our story with a tested presidential election the election of eighteen hundred one of the most partisan showdowns in our country's history it's the most divisive period in american history except for the civil war and possibly today. The country was still pretty new and everybody was trying to figure out how this democracy thing was going to work. Things like trade taxation foreign relations state versus federal power superior of a lot of turmoil and there is essentially one huge division around which the political parties form. The united states didn't start out with any political parties no teams but competing visions of government. Were pulling people apart which led to the creation of these two parties. The federalists the party of incumbent president john adams and the democratic republicans always confusing because it has both democrat and republican in the party of candidate. Thomas jefferson. These parties had radically different outlooks on government. Almost all of the debates are around. What is it that we mean by. They would have said republicanism we would say democracy that is to say. How popular is it supposed to be. The democratic republicans were fans of popular politics. This is our law. Mar- power to grow up from the people themselves. Final interpretation rests with us in the community. Jefferson famously said. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world is storms in the physical much more conservative. Federalists pushback in all sorts of ways. Interpreting the constitution in ways that would limit the capacity for popular politics to grow the. Federalists wanted more stability and they thought in order to get that the federal government ought to have more power. They believed they're still very young. Country needed strong centralized government with lasting institutions. That would be around much longer than elected officials institutions like the courts. The federalists were the party of power throughout the seventeen ninety s but in the election of eighteen hundred they faced defeat adams lost the race in jefferson became president so congress becomes a democratic republican and you have jefferson in the white house but as outgoing president john adams term was coming to an end. He and his party made one. Final power grab adams nominated a bunch of federalist judges at the very end of his term. So called midnight judges as well as a new chief. Justice of the supreme court. John marshall becomes sort of the foundational chief justice in terms of thinking about development of the court as an institution marshals straight up federalist secretary of state for john adams and then he made him the chief. Justice is now in control of only one branch with the federalists in charge as chief justice. John marshall made a lot of symbolic changes to the supreme court. So the story goes that marcia wore a black robe at his swearing in after that this became common practice There was a degree to which some people did not like to see supreme court justices in robes at all thinking of it as a royal court as opposed to sort of a democratic body. He wants all the justices to board together to work together. He is a big proponent of having unanimous opinions. He thought that that had the tendency to make the court seem more important. Marshall dreamt of a supreme port with national authority. The supreme court that gets to interpret the constitution basically the umpire for the entire country. He believes in judicial supremacy which is much more what we today. The idea that the supreme court is the final arbiter of constitutionality this idea judicial supremacy gives the supreme court final. Say over what's constitutional and what's not and then everybody has to do what they decide the law of the land but again this was a dream. It's just not how things work then but there was this other thing a much more restricted power. That was on the table. Judicial review so judicial review is the notion that in a case before it. The court can say whether of schedule that has raised in the case is in fact constitutional and therefore enforceable. The court gets to decide what's constitutional and a case but the ruling doesn't extend beyond that specific case so it's the law of the case but not the law of the land whole idea of judicial review without judicial. Supremacy is that you have three coequal branches each with equal authority to interpret the constitution. Remember that was how the federal government was designed to work. No one branch was supreme over the others so they could all keep each other in check. Marshall himself was interested in having more of that supreme power for the court but he also understood it was not possible he operates in this world in which he knows he's a minority especially when the democratic republicans led by thomas jefferson and james madison are in power plus. There was some personal beef. Marshall jefferson were cousins. They famously did not like each other in eighteen. O three the cousins chief justice. John marshall and president thomas jefferson met in court going head to head in a case called marbury versus madison. Probably the most famous decision and sort of the the beginning of most constitutional experiences is marbury versus madison. We won't get into all the details of the case but in short the jefferson administration was being sued for refusing to acknowledge. Some of those midnight judges that john adams had appointed right before leaving. Office william marbury one of them. He and the other appointees were able to take the case directly to the supreme court thanks to a provision in federal law that congress had passed more than a decade earlier and marshall saw this as an opportunity. He sees this as a situation in which he needs to preserve the power of the court that had existed and try to grow it in opposition to the other branches of government marshall wanted to flex his authority as the head of the judicial branch. But he knows if he actually tries to order jefferson. Jefferson's going to ignore him..
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"He didn't know the rules necessarily but he got the gist of it. One person throws the ball the other tries to hit it and the person behind the plate behind the catcher. The person calling the strikes are balls strike. That's the on fire. The arbiter of justice. What he says goes no questions asked well old. But even when people don't like the call they have to live with it or get thrown out story. That's just the way the game was set up. This isn't an episode about baseball justice. Ginsburg will you raise your right hand and repeat after me. This is an episode about the supreme court. I heard solemnly swear that. I will support and defend the constitution of the united states which some people like to think of. As america's umpire judges are like umpires to be an umpire as a judge. I think means to follow the law and not to make the wall. Kong the shots for the country. No questions asked right. The death of supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg has forced abortion rights advocates to face their biggest fear. This is just one of several hot button. Issues like healthcare voting rights that could now being transformed for decades to come so now. The court has agreed to take another look at that very issue the core of row in kansas state's ban abortion violating the constitution. The court has the power of life indepth more. The court expands into every area of american society to bigger ticket item. It becomes the leanings of new. Justice are so crucial You're.
"supreme court" Discussed on RJ Politics
"I have said that does not require a two-thirds vote under the constitution supreme court clearly and unambiguously disagree with that position from the las vegas review journal. This rj politics. Show hello and welcome to rj. Politics las vegas review. Journal's weekly political podcast. I'm politics reporter rory appleton. I'm politics and government editor steve civilians and we have a fast and furious. Show for you today. As the news out of the state house has been coming pretty much every hour as we record on on this thursday and as we approach the legislative various legislative deadlines in the end of the session really next month as well. The first thing that we are definitely going to talk about is a decision today by the nevada. Surpreme court just to shrike down something. The legislature did in two thousand nine hundred uphold this. This two-thirds majority that's required for all taxes. In now as i as. I read the decision for even extending existing taxes as well so steve. That's something that you watch two full years and maybe talk a little bit about what exactly they did. Yeah absolutely and and And i have to come clean on this one because I i have for years long before the legislature in two thousand nineteen. Pass these two bills. I have been saying that if you have an existing tax that's supposed to expire or the rate is supposed to go down and you extend that tax or you maintain the rate at the same level. I have said that does not require a two thirds vote under the constitution. The supreme court clearly and unambiguously disagreed but that position so my position has been Has been Routed by the By a unanimous. Nevada supreme court. So i have to own up to that right off the top of the podcast but just by way of a really quick background back in nineteen ninety. Four then assemblyman jim. Gibbons was running for office and proposed what he called the gibbons tax restraint initiative and this initiative essentially circulated by the voters approved by them in nineteen ninety four hundred ninety six became part of the constitution said that any bill that creates generates or increases revenue to the.