40 Burst results for "Supreme Court"
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Blocked and Reported
"Reported should reveal like little whispering middle school girls and say that we might have an exciting announcement very soon as we that out. Let's let's whisper about a little bit. We might have an exciting announcement stated okay. So second. Half of the podcast. This was a story that actually found to your lap. But i'm going to tell it. Yeah steal it for reasons. Why katie surely have heard of the abortion banned that the supreme court upheld in texas. No what is that. What is abortion. What is a band. Be more specific all of that. I'm sounds like cancelled culture striking again. This was a little bit of culture. Actually so okay. Skoda's recently refused to block texas six week abortion ban. Sba as is the case in texas. They went a little bit bigger than people do elsewhere. It's like an extremely draconian law pretty authoritarian. There's no exceptions for rape incest. As many people have pointed out a lot of women don't even know they're pregnant at six weeks There's also bizarre. Provision that allows texans to sue. Anyone who like aided or abetted oppose six-week abortion. Here's how marcos have stirred up in slate. Random strangers can sue any better to an abortion anywhere in texas and collect a minimum of ten thousand dollars plus attorneys fees. People are justifiably very concerned about this law. Dude i love this. This sounds like gave a great way to make money. I am going to. I'm going to go stand outside of planned parenthood and get people's numbers and make myself a little bit of cash actually brought in this out so that you could report anybody for anything. This would be great. We just stand up. Yeah i would like stand outside of a bar and watch people have a drink and drive away and then follow them. Collect ten thousand dollars. Yeah yeah just empower everyone. My understanding of small government conservatism. Is you want to deputise. Basically every citizen to government agents and enforceable everybody gets a little deputy badge and it's yellow. It's a yellow star no katie so people are justifiably concerned about this law. I don't want to gloss over that. It isn't a very bad law. But we feel like you guys probably have no shortage of other places where you could get legal analysis and learned about why it's bad and learn about the supreme court ruling. We're gonna stick instead to what we do best which is internet bullshit. Yup not long after this the ruling came down and scotus refuse to block the bill. A- bunch of scary stuff got posted online about. Basically bounty hunters. I think vice was like one of the first people to pick the story up with the headline read. It bans abortion bounty hunter forum. Sort other words a sub read. It was set up for bounty to sort of coordinate and try to find and punish women getting abortions and very smart very smart. You gotta work together. If you're going to get that money very entrepreneurial so this article included a tweet from kendal brown. Who who's an activist. They one of texas's new abortion law and men are already strategizing on reddit about how to turn and women..
Texas Abortion Law: US Supreme Court Votes Not to Block Ban
"Earlier. This month in the middle of the night. The supreme court refused to block a texas law that bans most abortions that law is now the most restrictive abortion measure in the nation it bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy and establishes a sort of bounty system. That allows anyone to sue those involved in facilitating an abortion. This is a bigger than texas. The decision could be a blueprint of gutting. Roe v wade. The supreme court ruling that legalized abortion nationally is going to play out in the courts and while it does groups on the ground are figuring out how to adopt is ena. Zamora is the executive director of the fraud data fund they provide support and funding for those seeking abortions in texas rio grande valley. We're gonna talk about what this decision means for those seeking care and where the spite goes from here. A lot of us are in texas right now. We're not looking at this through the lens of someone who was there where using where in texas are you. I'm located in the rio grande valley so deep south texas along the us mexico border. What are you hearing from people in texas. There's a lot of confusion around the law and just people being upset. I think a lot of people think that this law just went way too far the biggest concern for most of the people who do abortion funding work is. How are we going to help. People get their abortion care in your own words. What is this legislation. Do so sp eight what it does is. It bans abortion past six weeks in texas. It is essentially a complete abortion banned because by the time. Most people know that they're pregnant. They're unable to get an abortion and texas. This also has a very cruel and specific civil litigation our civil cause of action that allows anybody to sue anybody else who helps quote unquote to aid and abet someone and getting abortion care in texas past six weeks
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on News and Information with Dave Williams and Amy Chodroff
"Uh, since abortion became legal after the Roe v. Wade decision in the U. S Supreme Court Um and basically what he is doing is he's hoping that someone will, uh, do him so the case can get into court faster. Jonathan Mitchell is a former Texas solicitor general who helped prepare the bill. He defended in the legal brief submitted to the U. S Supreme Court in which he calls on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court is expected to address the Mississippi case in its next term that could affect Rovi Wade rates For me, it's 1972 all over again. At that time, he continues abortions in Texas, where available mostly to women of economic means, who could afford to travel to states like California, Colorado or New York to have the procedure done. He claims that Texas's new law returns the state to those days. It looks like Texas Governor Greg Abbott may be feeling some pressure. Because of his latest policies, including the Heartbeat bill. The latest poll from the Dallas Morning News and the University of Texas at Tyler shows his approval rating has dropped to 45%. Now. It's far too early to tell how things will play out in next year's gubernatorial election. But to well known political candidates look like they could give Abbott a series run if they do wind up entering the race, actor Matthew McConaughey, who has hinted that he is entertaining the idea. Of running against Abbott led Abbott by nine points in a hypothetical matchup in the new poll. We don't know which party that McConaughey would run under, however well, former representative Beta Rourke, who ran against Senator Ted Cruz for a spot in the upper chamber and later took a shot at the Democratic presidential nomination. Cut a previous 12 point head to head deficit against Abbott,.
Minnesota High Court OKs Ballot Question on Minneapolis PD
"The Minnesota Supreme Court has cleared the way for Minneapolis voters to decide if changes should be made to policing in the city where George Floyd was killed Minnesota's highest court has overturned a lower court ruling that rejected ballot language approved by the Minneapolis city council the question surrounded wording to describe a proposed charter amendment that would replace the Minneapolis police department with a new department of public safety that could include police officers if necessary the proposal is part of the de fund the police movement that gained momentum after George Floyd was killed last year it doesn't define the police but it would take away a requirement that Minneapolis have a police department with a minimum staffing level I'm Jackie Quinn
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on WHOREible Decisions
"The idea that they're really like this is the supreme court ruling in texas and it's scary because that means that a lot of other states sickly red states can follow in line with this and it's it's kind of unfortunate they shut it down today. I believe right no. I don't not that. I saw the last ghouls i did from. Abc ten apparently thought that is that the The supreme court voted five to four to deny emerge. Yes yeah so it. So they denied it but this but still texas has been going crazy. No detects abortion man but the supreme court is a different thing and they just found out two hours ago. Supreme court refuses to block abortion awesome. They're keeping it. I thought no the supreme court against roe wade and refusers dying abortion their denying refusing this law. So they're gonna allow texas to move forward. Is it jesus freaks..
The History of the Supreme Court Justifies Opinions Against Forced Medicine
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough declared the supreme court in buck versus bell decision of nineteen twenty seven. I'm reading from timeline. Dot com quote. It is better for all the world. If instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecilities society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. That decision was written by oliver wendell. Holmes and forced sterilization became fully legal in the united states. The case came at the height of popularity for the pseudo sciences of eugenics which maintained that negative character traits like criminality and stupidity or the entirely the product of bad genes. The court decision that set the precedent for intervention on the sterilization of women was the jacobson v massachusetts thankfully. Many decades later there was a lawsuit that included deloris madrigal. Who is the lead plaintiff in the nineteen seventy-eight case which brought suit against la county's usc medical center birds nonconsensual sterilization of mexican american women in the nineteen sixties and seventies. It would make sense. Why certain communities are apprehensive of the government forcibly putting medicine on you.
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Latina to Latina
"Earlier. This month in the middle of the night. The supreme court refused to block a texas law that bans most abortions that law is now the most restrictive abortion measure in the nation it bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy and establishes a sort of bounty system. That allows anyone to sue those involved in facilitating an abortion. This is a bigger than texas. The decision could be a blueprint of gutting. Roe v wade. The supreme court ruling that legalized abortion nationally is going to play out in the courts and while it does groups on the ground are figuring out how to adopt is ena. Zamora is the executive director of the fraud data fund they provide support and funding for those seeking abortions in texas rio grande valley. We're gonna talk about what this decision means for those seeking care and where the spite goes from here. A lot of us are in texas right now. We're not looking at this through the lens of someone who was there where using where in texas are you. I'm located in the rio grande valley so deep south texas along the us mexico border. What are you hearing from people in texas. There's a lot of confusion around the law and just people being upset. I think a lot of people think that this law just went way too far the biggest concern for most of the people who do abortion funding work is. How are we going to help. People get their abortion care in your own words. What is this legislation. Do so sp eight what it does is. It bans abortion past six weeks in texas. It is essentially a complete abortion banned because by the time. Most people know that they're pregnant. They're unable to get an abortion and texas. This also has a very cruel and specific civil litigation our civil cause of action that allows anybody to sue anybody else who helps quote unquote to aid and abet someone and getting abortion care in texas past six weeks it is such a vague law that we don't really know what it means to eight in a bit. It can be anything from like giving somebody money to get their abortion taking them to their abortion appointment like literally driving them to their appointment apparent being there for their child while they get their care a spiritual leader giving counseling around abortion a doctor giving that as an option to a patient that somebody who works like the work that we do in front that fund do abortion funding like people pay for their abortion helping them get the travel that they need to get their abortion care so all of that constitutes aiding and abetting right so it puts a lot of people at legal risk for helping someone that they love. Get the care that they need. We'll talk a little bit about what this means. Nationally and the their implications nationally. But i do wanna talk about texas. And i wanna talk about people might be seeking abortions in the rio grande valley specifically what this legislation means for latinas in rgb. Just to kinda give you a background of the demographic in the rio grande valley or a very beautiful and vibrant community. But on the flip side we also are a low income community Where largely characterized as hispanic or latin x more than ninety percent of us Identify as hispanic even prior to sba. We were kind of living in an abortion desert. There's only one abortion clinic. South of san antonio and that clinic is in mcallen texas. There are a lot of barriers at texas has in place even prior to eight that made getting an abortion exceedingly difficult one of the first things you realize when you get an abortion as you have to get an ultrasound right so the ultrasound has to be performed by the same person who is doing the abortion and an ultrasound has to be done twenty four hours before the actual abortion so. There's a twenty four hour waiting period to getting an abortion. The doctor has explained to you what you're seeing on the ultrasound screen. They also have to do mandatory counseling. And then you have to wait twenty four hours then you go back the next day And you get your abortion so all of these hoops. That people had to jump through to get an abortion. So i think was specifically in the rio grande valley wearing a very unique Geographical area because we are close to the border that means we're the furthest away from any state line right so under. V8's if you don't get your abortion the four six weeks and you're going to have to travel outside of texas to get your care and that just simply is in reality for a lot of people. What front that often does is. We provide financial assistance. So will literally help you pay for your abortion because it's so expensive and we also provide travel support as well because another big barrier in texas. Is that there are very few abortion clinics or a huge state. We also provide travel support in the form of lodging gas money. Aaron ground transportation however whatever. Anybody needs to get their care which is to say nothing of the fact that if you are a working class woman in order to do that travel and in order to accommodate the twenty four hour wait time. It means you're likely taking at least two days off of work. Oh yeah you're taking two days off if you have to travel more than a hundred miles to the clinic then you're able to get a same-day like a same day procedure. But you have to wait two hours between your ultrasound and your actual abortion but in general. Yes there's a bunch of residual kocit aren't even calculated into the actual cost. Which is you know. Loss of wages child care.
Ex-Cop's Murder Verdict Reversed in Australian Woman's Death
"Hi Mike Rossi a reporting a former Minneapolis police officer's murder verdict has been reversed in an Australian woman's death the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the third degree murder conviction Wednesday of a former Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot an Australian woman in twenty seventeen while responding to her nine one one call the Supreme Court said the charge of third degree murder or depraved murder against Mohammed nor did not fit the circumstances of the case nor was convicted of third degree murder and the second degree manslaughter in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond the ruling means the murder conviction will be overturned and nor will be sentenced on the manslaughter count with more than twenty eight months served if the manslaughter sentences the presumptive for years he could be eligible for supervised release around the end of this year hi Mike Rossio
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Jim Bohannon
"Deaths are about to surpass the number in America from the 1918 flu pandemic? I did not know that. Yeah, so we are just days away, and it's clearly going to pass the number because we're still having over 1000 deaths a day. We're just days away from this being the worst pandemic in U. S history. Created by humans. A human mistake. Almost certainly. And not enough talk about that, Or is anything being done to make sure we don't do this again? To ourselves. I would like it if we made sure we didn't ever do this again. Here here. Here's the story that troubles me quite a bit, uh, talked about it a little bit of the other day. Um As uh, are freaking worthless Congress. In a series of presidents going further down. The road of doing things they know are unconstitutional, Bit by bit by bit. It has predictably eroded approval of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was pretty steady for many, many years with high approval ratings. Because they were seen as independent of politics. And you know all the obvious things, I think. But as Congress has failed to deal with things and put the Supreme Court in the role of having to decide these decisions that that the Congress should And then presidents doing things to challenge the Supreme Court. So then by, you know automatically if Trump does something that Is that people are saying is unconstitutional. Well, then, if the court rules against it, people that like Trump get in their minds. Okay, the Supreme Court's Against Trump. Same with Biden, right? I mean, because and it's become so fashionable in politics. It always has been on and off, but especially now. You say to your base? You're getting screwed. You're getting cheated. The man is sticking it to you and I'm going to stand up for you. I'm going to X Y and Z and I know as I'm claiming that I can't do that It's blatantly unconstitutional. But then you make the Supreme Court the bad guy for calling you on something you clearly can't do. And then you wail at all. There are a bunch of conservative monsters on the Supreme Court. It's just it's so dishonest and even as the left complaints about the damage Trump allegedly did to the institutions, I mean, that's a that's US seriously dangerous game to play. Right well, so with the Supreme Court having majority approval ratings for all of our lifetimes, it is now at 37% of Americans approve other Supreme Court is handling its job of 15 point drop from last year. Well and again, and there are sins on the right, of course, But the left spent the last couple of years trying to convince us that various Supreme Court nominees were rapists would would get women that back Alley, the hanger abortions would force gaze back into the closet. We're monsters were oppressors, Handmaid's tale, blah, blah, blah, and the number of people believed it and the media as the the horrible reporting on the Texas abortion law. Right. The media acting like the Supreme Court stepped in to try to attack Roe versus Wade. When this had this Texas abortion thing has zero to do with Roe versus Wade. Um, based on the writings and talking's of all my favorite Uh, lawyer pundits. Um It's you know, so that's where you end up. Yeah, it's it's not good. It's not good. There are so many trillions of dollars at stake, Politicians on both sides are willing to just throw away anything to keep their share of it. Keep their share of the power well. Um, that you know that Annoys me that bothers me. It pisses me off. But the fact that so many American people have been Hoodwinked into thinking the gigantic rich government is actually looking out for the little guy just so naive. The new Guinness World Records book is out. Here's some highlights. Dog with the longest ears. The world's short the world's shortest female twins. So any of that strikes your fancy? How long are years? Was it a basset hound? A F. Mhm. Yeah, My My sister has a basset hound She's on. She's not owned. I'm sorry. She is Guardian. Several in her lifetime. She's a fan of the breed. They have exceedingly long years they drag on the ground. You have to make sure they do not become, like damaged and infected. If it's just some dog breeds are odd, but she's a big fan. So I will say nothing further. One of the most iconic brands and all of television is coming back. Bad boys. Bad boys. What you gonna do? What you going to do when they come for you? Yes, drug addicts being put in the back of police cars. Drug people being handcuffed by the police. It is cops the obviously guilty making stupid and weak excuses for why.
Justice Dept. Seeks Emergency Order to Block Texas Abortion Law
"The biden administration is taking emergency action to try to stop a new texas law that bans most abortions in that state in a new. Filing the justice department is asking federal judge for a restraining order to temporarily blocked the law while a larger legal challenge. Plays out npr. Sarah mccamman has more the latest action by the justice. Department comes days after the doj sued the state of texas over the law known as sp eight it allows individuals to file lawsuits worth tens of thousands of dollars against anyone involved in helping a patient get an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy in a new emergency motion. The department says that the clear purpose of the law is to quote deny women rights guaranteed to them by the us constitution while attempting to evade judicial review. The us supreme court allowed it to take effect on september first despite legal challenges from reproductive rights groups but did not weigh in on the constitutional issues raised by the law. The case is likely to end up before the supreme court again
Justice Department Seeks Order Against Texas Abortion Law
"The justice department is seeking an emergency order to stop the enforcement of a new state law in Texas that bans most abortions while the case is still being decided the Texas law known as SB eight bans abortions after a heartbeat can be detected usually about six weeks which is booked for most women know they're pregnant courts have blocked other states from imposing similar restrictions but Texas's law differs because it leaves enforcement of private citizens through civil lawsuits instead of criminal prosecutions the law went into effect earlier this month after the Supreme Court declined an emergency appeal in Tuesday night's emergency motion the justice department said the relief is necessary to protect the constitutional rights of women in Texas I'm Julie Walker
Sean Feucht on Saturating Washington DC in Prayer
"Us more about the prayers. The next day the white house all that kind of stuff. Yeah so this is our second year in a row doing this and one of the things we really try to do is is really saturate. The city of dc. It's a. I would call it. It's almost like a pilgrimage. For for believers you know going to the capital city of place of significance that affects every area of our life. And then going to to to to the places in that city that really need prayer so we went to the supreme court and last year we had the largest prayer meeting in ever in american history in front of the supreme court over three thousand people showed up in the rain and it was significant because it was on the eve of amy coney baron getting confirm two supreme court and actually since that prayer meeting every single religious liberties case. It's been brought against the church has been overturned in the supreme court. So that's amazing. Were undefeated since our last prayer so we gathered there on sunday morning and then we went to the white house after the after that and prayed and worshipped at the white house. Eric you're with me together. There and then we moved to the lincoln memorial and we did a prayer meeting there and then we convene for the grand finale on the national mall so we really we hit all areas of dc. We just saturate the city. I mean you could see lettuce worship dear. You know shirts and everything was everywhere. And it's just something that we really like to do. We're going to go and take over the city for a day. Fill it with prayer. Fill it with worship shift the narrative of what people think about that
Schumer: U.S. Senate to Stage Voting Rights Reform Bill Vote
"While republican led states like texas are busy erecting. All the voting impediments they can think of senate majority leader. Chuck schumer is promising action to protect voting rights on the federal level. The republican led war on. Democracy has only worsened. In the last few weeks most notably the governor of texas recently signed into law vile new voter suppression bill that ranks one of the most draconian undemocratic in living memory. This is unacceptable so the senate must act. I intend to hold a vote in the senate as early as next week on voting rights legislation time time is of the essence. Still with us. Professor victoria di francesco. Soto and matthew dowd a professor. I want to circle back to voting rights and a hot minute but first considering texas leading the nation in voting restrictions and choice restrictions tell our audience. What's going to happen. When redistricting comes up. I believe we have about a week until that starts right so we from today. The second sean legislative session starts which is dedicated to redrawing the lines end. What we see in texas is a hard right. Turn something okay. It is gone too far to the right. it will snap back but what we're looking at with. The upcoming redistricting. Under a republican led legislature is a lot of the things that we've seen over the last year over the past couple of years are going to be institutionalized because republicans are squarely in the driver's seat. Outdrawing those maps and brian. This is the first time in recent history that we're going to be having matt strong without the protection of sexy five from the voting rights act that was repealed that was struck down by by the supreme court in two thousand
Justice Stephen Breyer Says 'Criteria [Was Not] Met' to Rule on 2020 Election
"I am so disappointed in them. No judge, including the Supreme Court of my United States has had the courage to allow it to be heard. Why was that? Why was it Because they didn't bring a case. I guess that met the normal criteria for being heard. And this is why This justice needed to be seriously challenged if you're going to bring up the subject. Rather than an attack on Trump. Because they didn't bring a case. I guess that met the normal criteria for being heard. And what would that be? And what would that be? Go ahead. He decided to take a case. There have to be four votes to take it so I can't go beyond that. What we do know is that they were not four votes to take it because it wasn't taken. And there are criteria and, uh, if we don't take a case, it's you know, I mean, the reason was all likelihood is that the criteria weren't mad and he doesn't tell us what the criteria are. But I will tell you the criteria were met. I just told you why they were met. The criteria were met. That Article two Section one close to was clearly violated more than once by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The Supreme Court Had Precedent to Rule on the 2020 Election
"Now, these men who gathered in Philadelphia, They understood what they were doing. They created the Constitution. They created the federal government. They created the presidency and the vice presidency. They created the Electoral College. They created separation of powers. And they created Article two, Section one Clause two. In such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct comma. In the state of Pennsylvania that come about the Pennsylvania What a growth a grave violation of the federal Constitution by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as much as you would a violation of the Constitution by the Florida Supreme Court in 2000. Actually, this was worse. The difference is the U. S. Supreme Court in 2000 stepped in and upheld the United States Constitution. And one of the arguments people were making, including me was exactly this section of the Constitution. Article two Section one Clause two as the Florida Supreme Court kept changing the deadlines and the manner in which we count chads. They kept extending the deadlines. They kept interposing themselves into how chance are to be counted. They were violating the federal constitution. And the U. S Constitution. Put an end to it. The U. S. Supreme Court under the US Constitution, put an end to it because the Legislature makes these decisions. Not the Florida Supreme Court. Well, what happened in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was even worse. Because what happened there is also an elected in this case, Supreme Court of seven members, five of them were Democrats. They extended the time for voting. The eliminated the signature requirement. And they did other things. That the Legislature in Pennsylvania, which was Republican, did not do.
Biden Announces Vaccine Plan for Employers
"Vaccine requirements just announced by president biden are not out of the blue. They're not even the first ones we had for. Covert nineteen as new york times notes today. We've already got experience with large employers starting to require vaccination at among other things. But we've learned from that experience so far. Is that the requirements work. They succeed at their goal of getting more people to get the shot last month. For example the pentagon announced that active duty military personnel would have to get vaccinated that has just been announced so far. They haven't hit a deadline for it yet. But already the proportion of active duty personnel. Who had the shot has gone from. Seventy six percent to eighty three percent. Same deal with the. Va seven weeks ago. The va told its frontline. Health workers they had to get the shot since then the number of va frontline workers who've been vaccinated has gone from seventy seven percent up to eighty two percent and still rising same deal at private sector employers like united airlines for example employees. There were told last month that they'd have until october. Twenty fifth to get vaccinated. Well s- only september tenth. Now there's still plenty of time before that deadline hits but already just since laying out that eventual requirement the majority of united airlines workers who weren't vaccinated before that announcement have since become vaccinated. We know it works and we've had plenty of other vaccine requirements throughout our history. That have also worked. But as the president indicated today we also know that republican governors and republican elected officials will sue and try to stop these new policies as if they're totally novel as if this is some brand new idea. The united states supreme court has ruled multiple times going back more than a century that it is not unconstitutional to require americans to get a vaccine. Even if a person doesn't want to in the context of a serious public health threat you can be required to be vaccinated. They ruled that way back in one thousand nine five in the context of mandatory smallpox vaccine requirement in massachusetts. They ruled that way in nineteen twenty two in the context of vaccines being required of students if they wanted to attend
Miami International Airport Boasting US' First COVID-Detecting Dogs
"A dog looking for covert is it even possible. Evidently it is and now you can find them at miami international airport for dogs trained to detect kobe. Nineteen as part of a pilot program. This is cobra one of the dogs trained to detect the virus. Watch how she sits. After she smells the inside of a mask that has deactivated virus in it. Then watch how. She just keeps walking when she smells the mask of someone who's not infected. The dogs are ninety. Seven percent accurate. I mean it's the same as the pc test. It means it's a great. It's a great thing miami. International airport is the first in the nation to have the dogs. I think in this particular airport. Now we're doing it with the employees but people will see the dogs and know that that's another weapon that we're using to fight this
Coronavirus-Sniffing Dogs Unleashed at Miami Airport to Detect Virus in Employees
"A dog looking for covert is it even possible. Evidently it is and now you can find them at miami international airport for dogs trained to detect kobe. Nineteen as part of a pilot program. This is cobra one of the dogs trained to detect the virus. Watch how she sits. After she smells the inside of a mask that has deactivated virus in it. Then watch how. She just keeps walking when she smells the mask of someone who's not infected. The dogs are ninety. Seven percent accurate. I mean it's the same as the pc test. It means it's a great. It's a great thing miami. International airport is the first in the nation to have the dogs. I think in this particular airport. Now we're doing it with the employees but people will see the dogs and know that that's another weapon that we're using to fight this pandemic
Justice Department Sues Texas Over 6-Week Abortion Ban
"Today. The justice department under merrick garland they sue texas over the texas's new law that essentially bans abortion in their lawsuit. Doj accuses texas of passing. It's abortion ban quote in open defiance of the constitution the constitution under current supreme court precedent protects woman's right to get an abortion in this country. No matter what state. She lives in their argument. Here is a direct echo of the same argument that the oj used in twenty ten to great effect in that arizona case that argument that legal protections enshrined federally forest all by the us constitution trump state law that tries to get around those protections because the texas abortion banned ignore ignores those federal constitutional protections miracle arlen and the biden justice department. Now say the court should strike down the texas banned altogether.
Biden Administration Sues Texas Over Abortion Ban
"Came out of washington late on thursday night. London time with the announcement by the attorney. General of the united states. Merrick garland that the biden administration will be suing the state of texas taking out a federal lawsuit. It all relates to a move by texas which is widely regarded as the most extreme restriction on abortion rights since the landmark nineteen seventy-three ruling known as rovers his weight. He came into effect last week. By decision of the united states supreme court and all of the last week liberals and democrats and abortion rights activists have been debating. What can be done. What can the democrats do. What in particular can the democrat in the white house. Joe biden do well now. We know the first step that the administration is gain to take but earlier. This week i talked to the guardian. Us columnist maurer donnegan who's written extensively about abortion rights in the us. And i began by asking more. Don't again to sketch out the political landscape these last fifty years and the role abortion rights as an issue has played in that charting the nearly fifty years since that landmark decision of roe versus wade. The other major story. Today is the decision of the united states. Supreme court handed down a historic decision about abortion. The court said and so when roe v wade was decided in early nineteen seventy-three. It was actually a pretty uncontroversial decision. It was a seven to two decision. The majority opinion which legalized abortion in all fifty states was written by a justice who had been appointed by republican president who was fairly popular in fact at the time. Abortion rights were popular writ large. That really started to
U.S. Sues to Block Texas Abortion Ban, Calls It 'Unconstitutional'
"Quote open defiance of the constitution. And that's how. The justice department described the texas abortion ban in a brand new lawsuit argues that the legislation is unconstitutional and should be struck down. This is the first major move against this law from the biden administration. Attorney general merrick garland said the law which bans abortions after six weeks. Which is before. Many women would know that they are pregnant with no exceptions for rape or incest violates supreme court precedent by denying women their constitutional rights and he said the provisions that effectively deputises private citizens to be bounty hunters was a quote unprecedented scheme and quote to evade responsibility. This kind of scheme nullify. The constitution of the united states is one that all americans whatever their politics or party should fear if it prevails it may become a model for action in other areas by other states. That's the point. One should be fearful of this regardless of where you stand on abortion. The supreme court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the texas love. The conservative majority on the supreme court allowed it to go into effect. Anyway justice steven brier told. Npr today that he thought the majority was very very wrong to do that. That's easy to see why because most abortion providers in texas have now already closed their doors out of fear of being sued by vigilantes or worse
Justice Department Sues Texas Over 6-Week Abortion Ban
"Justice department is suing the state of taxes over. Its new abortion law which is among the strictest in the nation houston public media's cairo buckley reports the doj father complaint today in district court the doj says the law banning abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy and making private citizens. Responsible for enforcement is unconstitutional. Attorney general merrick garland says the doj is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit enforcement united states as authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights. The biden administration has vowed to fight the law especially since the us. Supreme court decided not to step in before it took effect last week. I'm kyra buckley. In
The Biden-Pelosi-Schumer Stance Is 'Abortions on Demand'
"Line open, Mr Call Screener. I dare anybody to call this program now. And tell me that abortion Especially Now let me do it this way way that abortion on demand. Is not the killing of a baby. That means abortion to the last second. That means partial birth of Bush. I want to know the science. And when another science And why is that a choice? Because the Supreme Court said so. I don't make moral decisions do you based on what the Supreme Court says? I don't Or what the government says. Or doesn't say. You're the have morality or you don't. Now. The Biden Pelosi. Schumer position isn't You know abortions, but only in certain cases only limited No, no, it's abortion on demand. What do you think of that? What's the science say? So, as I just said, In the first one hand, they're going to court to demand abortion on demand in the state of Texas. For any reason. On the other hand. The same governors attacked by the same administration because he will not Mandate vaccinations. And Biden said another lie today. There's so many, it's hard to keep track. He talked about these governors who oppose vaccines. There's not a single governor in the country that opposes vaccines, including the Santas and Abbott. That is a that is a flat out grow. Tests lie that comes out of this mouth endlessly.
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"Is this in and of itself a controversial opinion. But it comes at this moment when it's like a huge hammer sort of landing on the nation and making this bold statement about what the nation should be the responses to it show really clearly. People understood the impact of this decision. There was a pamphlet edition of tani's decision that became very popular and began selling out. One of the people selling that pamphlet wrote in trying to sell it of course as a whole this pamphlet gives the historical legal and physical aspects of the slavery question in a concise compass and should be circulated by thousands before the next presidential election all desire to answer. The arguments of the abolitionists should read it and one of the things said has kept me up at night for over a year now. Is the idea that democracy is really about people voting locally that what people say on the ground in the states in this case is really what democracy is all about without of course recognizing that that vote itself is enormously limited a certainly in the eighteen fifties so quite literally enslavers say well. Hey this is. Democracy were voting to have slavery which is to me just mind blowing but at the time that was the logic behind a decision like the dread scott decision which said that in fact the federal government a majority rule of the federal government did not matter so long as local people wanted to preserve certain as they would have said custom after the civil war the united states congress goes ahead and tries to deal with the trouble that the supreme court has created with the dread scott decision. It's dealing with a lot of things. But one of the things that has to deal with is the fact that the dread scott decision remains as part of the body of laws that govern the land and in eighteen sixty eight we get the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. Which is i passed by the congress and then ratified by the states and the fourteenth amendment to the constitution takes on the issue of the dread scott decision and in the first section of it it says all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the law wherein they reside take that dread scott decision. Then it says no state shall make or enforce any law which xiao abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws and. That's crucially important. Because we've got here is first of all martial expanding what the federal government is trying to look like people like tawny really cutting back on that vision with vision of states rights instead and the response from the congress in the united states to that is to amend the constitution with the fourteenth amendment and then of course crucially the fourth section of the fourteenth amendment gives congress the power to enforce this legislation. What's interesting is southerners responded to dread scott by saying in this case it's a it's a quote from an article in the richmond enquirer that finally be quote proper umpire weighing in on this question of slavery and that.
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"The first cabinet member to be rejected by the senate in american history. So he can't be a secretary of treasury because the senate itself says come on dude. We're not going to deal with this guy. But jackson is never one to be told now right and he's very upset at this rejection right off the cuff so he again tries to get funny in this case to be an associate justice of the supreme court again. He's opposed in the senate and he does not get that seat finally third time. There's a slim margin of democratic control in the senate once again. Tani is sent forward this time to be chief justice of the united states and this time he gets confirmed. Say you're saying he gets confirmed by a slight majority in the senate. Is that what you're saying is a saying. Let's see how that's going to work out year. So the reason that we're making a big deal about tawny is because tani's emphasis in the supreme court is going to be to try and push back against the nationalism and the stronger government that the marshall court has sat up. He does this. Most obviously and famously in the dread scott v sanford decision of eighteen fifty seven and. This is the reason that i have such strong feelings about tawny and the trick to the dread scott decision is that. It's the story of an enslaved man named dread scott who was enslaved and missouri and he was owned by a man who was an army officer and the army officer took him from the slave state of missouri into i the free state of illinois and then the free territory of wisconsin scott goes ahead and he sues for his freedom on the basis of the fact that he has lived in a free state and a free territory and the supreme court had the ability at the time to do what everybody thought they would do. Which was the obvious to say that. Under missouri law there was a missouri. Law called the sojourner law which said that if you took an enslaved person into a free state and retained ownership of that person that when you return back to missouri that that because she were simply traveling if you will it would not make a difference in the legal status of the enslaved person whom you claimed as your property but the supreme court went beyond that it decided not simply to rest on the precedent of missouri law but instead to go ahead and weigh in on the issue that was at hand at the time in america and that was the question of what would happen to the territories that the united states had acquired in eighteen. Forty eight under the treaty of guadalupe. Doll go that. Is the southern enslavers especially the big enslavers. The people who had the major were determined to move their system of human enslavement into the territories and at the same time northerners many of whom were not at all concerned about the fate of their black neighbors in the american south were determined not to let the system of human enslavement. Move into the west because they believed that that system of capital and labor would shot out the little guys from the north who wanted to move into that region and shift the balance of power in the union between north and south because if in fact you permitted enslavement in those new territories should get more slave states and those slave states would eventually overawe the free states in the senate and house of representatives and of course on the electoral college. So tiny decides. He's going to go ahead and solve the question that neither the congress nor the president had been able to solve in the supreme court..
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"America obviously doesn't play out through history we end up and we're gonna be talking today about some courts it don't end up with that kind of a reputation and how exactly that happens. But maybe it'd be more fun to walk through how courts become different by starting with the first really dramatic court in american history. And that's john marshall's court. And i have the reason i guess i'm jumping ahead to. Marshall is because the story of how john marshall became the chief. Justice of the supreme court is to my mind..
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"Live on cafes twitter and facebook pages and heather's facebook page okay now that we've gotten that little promotional announcement out of the way and you really should come because it's gonna be fun now. Let's get to the topic at hand. The supreme court now. We chose the supreme court for obvious reasons. It's been in the news. This session of the court has just ended and it ended with a couple of decisions that obviously for good reason have attracted a lot of notice and what we really wanted to do. Today is put this court in context to look at other courts in the past to look at what they did at talk in a broader way. About what the supreme court does for the nation and i suppose in one way the many ways in which the supreme court in its rulings basically shows vision and promotes a vision of what america should be. An was interesting when we decided to talk about this. That unlike everything else we've talked about in our history together. We both found the supreme court a funny topic in that. We both know it really well. And we know a lot of decisions and we teach a lot of decisions. Talking about the role of the supreme court in american history proved to be the hardest concept that we've tried to grapple with together. We spent more hours trying to put this episode together than any of the others. I don't think and almost in any of the others combined with the we were going no totally true over the course of like two and a half days three conversations. No and it's you know one of the things that i said as you and i were talking back and forth to each other. Heather was in the various things that i do in the public. What people always want to know more about is the supreme court and that's not necessarily just because they're interested in the court but i think it's it's something that people uniformly don't know a lot about don't know how to think about. It aren't necessarily absolutely sure what it's supposed to be doing versus what it is doing now. So in a way. I found our sort of casting about like. How do we wanna approach this. I'm not sure as kind of a reflection of how hard it is to generalize and think about the court particularly given what we're going to be talking about today which is the ways that it changes over time so i got to do what everybody in the country wants to do..
"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 Throughline
"That's it for this week show. I'm running. I'm ron in arab louis. And you've been listening.
"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 Factually! with Adam Conover
"I think the right to own guns is a candidate for that given american history. But you have to believe that. That's a supreme court job is to find writes that aren't in the constitution. I don't believe that i've never believe that. I am pro-choice way down. I met my wife giving a talk to planned parenthood. I volunteer for planned parenthood. Three daughters i fight for their right to reproductive freedom and justice and roe versus wade could not be worse could not be roe versus wade caused more horror for our country than almost any case. Wow because you believe. The the supreme court's job should not be to find a numerator writes in the in the constitutional appeared may use a four letter. Word on this podcast or no. Of course you may. It is not the supreme court's job to make shit up. So i i do. I do a it turns out. That's exactly their jobs. So i- blog at a place called dorfman Once a week or so. And then for five years. I think a blog post. I wrote the gut the most clicks or whatever you call it Was one that said. How do you teach constitutional law in a world where the justices just make should up and let me tell you how but let me tell you how that was triggered because it responds directly to your question if you don't mind play. There's a law professor at nyu named christopher scriven who is really well known in antitrust and some ip stuff and he's really smart and he was not traditionally a constitutional law got then. He decided he wanted to teach constitutional law and he studied at everything and he taught it for a year maybe two and then he tweeted and then he tweeted publicly and told me privately. He told us dean. I don't wanna teach us anymore. Because i can't teach my students this stuff. 'cause it's not law is just making this just the judges making shit up. And that's what and that's an. I cannot impress upon enough. Liberal conservative libertarian. Reactionary communist doesn't matter. They are dealing with vague taxed with imprecise history or no history like drone strikes. How do we have history and drone strikes and they're not bound by anything see lower court. Judges are bound by the supreme court. And i know a lot of federal judges both on the trial level and the court of appeals level. Now i can't speak to this last three years. Wave of trump judges but before that the republican judges and the democrat judges that i knew by enlarge in good faith. Try to figure out what the supreme court said and follow it now. Sometimes there's no supreme court decision they make shit up to but the different but the difference between having to follow the orders of.
"supreme court" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover
"You know. The supreme court is really weird. We have this myth that it's a group of nine priests who interpret our holy constitution using their perfect knowledge of the law. But you get rid of the robes and they're just a bunch of adults with flabby mortal human bodies you know like they got genitalia flopping around like anybody under there not only that they have friends enemies credit cards dinner plans family problems all the things that we do. Their people is what i'm saying. They live in the same country we do and they are the products of our times. Just like we are which means that they are not in fact. Angels sent from the land of law down to earth to interpret dispassionately. No they're human beings that have all the ideology and biopsies that being a human entails in fact despite the impartial priestly branding. The supreme court has been susceptible to changes and developments in politics in american history. Just as profound as an american institution for instance. If you read the press you'll see that there's a lot of talk right now about how bad it is that the supreme court is suddenly politicize that it's become a place of partisan competition but the truth is there's a brief court has been a contested political space for instance. Here's a quote about the court that could be said by a democrat today. Decrying republican machinations. Here it goes by a fraudulent use of the constitution which has made judges removable. They have multiplied useless judges merely to strengthen their phalanx that was a quote from thomas jefferson himself and he wrote it because he was unhappy with the efforts of the federalist party to establish the court's power over states. That's right in those days. It was not taken for granted but the court had power over state laws at all in fact even though the judicial review of laws is basically what we think of the supreme court as being four today as being at central purpose. That was not a given at the time that it had that power but it was actually jefferson's effort to push the court away from federalism that led to the famous eighteen. O three decision marbury versus madison. Where chief justice. John marshall declared for the first time that the court had the right to say what the law means. That's right judicial review is not in the constitution. The court literally came up with it itself now. Jefferson didn't like this at all. He said that this decision would make the courts quote a despotic branch of government but nevertheless judicial review was established and the supreme court has ever since been the final arbiter on what the constitution says even though that power is not actually laid out in the constitution and in fact was enacted over the protests of one of the founding fathers so point being we have always fought over this thing in fact. The supreme court continued to be the site of battles throughout american history in eighteen thirty seven. Andrew jackson added to justice in the courts to give him two more positions for his literal cronies. But then after abraham lincoln was assassinated. The republican congress reduced the size of the court by two in order to stop. Lincoln's democratic replacement. Andrew johnson from making pro slavery appointments literally. These are politicians and large and small innings. That's not a word but smaller inning..
"supreme court" Discussed on FiveThirtyEight Politics
"Without 'CAUSE WE WANNA have courts there to be able to stop that and in a world where courts don't have any legitimacy or authority that would be one sort of check on government power that would no longer stand and that could be right now what are the moments that you mention when the country has come perilously close to kind of going over the edge and the judiciary losing legitimacy? Yes. One is during the civil war you had a supreme court that was more conservative more sort of southern oriented. I think it's better way to describe it than certainly President Lincoln was and there's one instance where the court sort of issued. An order to President Lincoln he ignored now is a lot to get into there and there's a lot of disagreement about whether he actually was legally authorized to do that, and so I don't want to get into the specifics on that but that was a a situation where the country was really literally being torn apart by civil war and the Supreme Court played a role in that story I mean going back a few years before that this reported issued the opinion in Dread Scott that was one of the events that's released sort of accelerated things towards civil war and then immediate aftermath there was actually a lot of partisan wrangling about the. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court they remove seats from the court in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson from appointing on the court. Then they added seats after he left office, and so there was a lot of kind of wrangling about the core that period seemed to settle down in the decades after that I think the next really really there was some other blips but the next really really big moment is the one. I talked about earlier this sort of core pack crisis with FDR The nineteen thirties what role did the founding fathers intended for the Supreme Court to have in American government and has not role changed over the centuries or decades? It's kind of unclear. It's debated and there's a lot of people who debate the extent to which they expected the court to even have the power to overturn federal statutes I mean there's there's certainly some evidence that they did. I. Think it is fair to say that they did not expect the court to be as powerful and institution as it has become or maybe to use its power to declare statutes and constitutional nearly as often as. It does. So just by example of that, the court exercised the power of short view to declare a federal statute unconstitutional I believe a twice before the civil war and it now does so maybe not every term. But with some regularity, there's federal statutes here and there that says are in constitutional time not to mention all the state statutes striking down left and right I also think it's hard to imagine the founding generation thinking that. Supreme Court would really decide a lot of issues that really come down to philosophy and values I mean. So we we go to the Supreme Court and ask them to decide some of the questions that divides side like should abortion be legal should affirmative action be legal and things like that and I think the court really has accumulated power in ways that weren't anticipated slowly but surely over the last two, hundred years and so how. Did, we get to the place where we are right now where it seems like we're on the cosmic having this six three conservative majority the court has accumulated a lot of power in his particular weighing in on very divisive issues can strike down you know federal statute as you mentioned, for example, the entirety of the Ford About Care Act if it wanted to in this case coming in November, how did it all get to this point?.
"supreme court" Discussed on FiveThirtyEight Politics
"You know a certain point, you could be a court were people just aren't listening to your judgments I wanna dig into that a little bit more. But I mean I, why would a new even six three conservative majority court also kind of understand those constraints. And just do what past justices have done, which is as they become the median justice move more towards the center as a sort of self preservation mechanism. I think it's very possible. I. Think that's why you will find that there have been a lot of dire predictions made. It very points in the past about how the court is moving. Right. These same kind of predictions have been made over and over for the past three decades or so and the court has unquestionably moved to the right over that time period but I think it's fair to say at the same time, the court has not done a lot of. Things people necessarily thought it would do or has not acted as quickly as people had expected to and I'm a person who made predictions about what the court was going to do, and I was a little surprised at the extent to which Chief Justice Roberts triangulate. I was curious to see how much that was going to continue over the next few years, and it's quite possible that someone in that conservative coalition might recognize these constraints and I do think it's a certain amount of pressure to be that media justice and it's really all coming down to me. Do I really WanNa pull the trigger on this or not? All that said I think that the Conservative legal movement has really tried very hard to identify people and instill in them. These really rigid interpreted values that discouraged them from taking those kinds of considerations into account, and they really kind of make villains out of people that do you mentioned that there is always the potential that the public could just lose faith in the court and that there isn't really an enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court. What is at stake in that kind of scenario? What happens if Americans lose faith in the Supreme Court's rulings? Do. We have examples from other countries or from moments in American history. So we have examples in American history where we have gone perilously close to that address and then not gone over it in terms of other countries there many other countries that don't have a supreme court that say has the power to overturn statutes or Overturn Federal Statutes, and those countries. They function fine. Britain United Kingdom doesn't have a written constitution for longtime their Supreme Court wasn't even call from court. He didn't have the same kind of power that our Supreme Court has. You had the principal legislative supremacy there, and that's a free country and so I don't think that it's necessarily apocalyptic and there's a lot of people in Academy who say. Let's just stop giving the Supreme Court the power to do all this stuff we've been letting the Supreme Court decide way too many important issues. Why should we do that and that's another class of kind of reforms that people are talking amount. It's an idea called jurisdiction stripping is one of the flavors of that where you just pass statutes that say the Supreme Court is not allowed to decide cases about this topic and let's just have it be settled by legislatures. Now, that's one possibility, but there's other possibilities to you. Also things that we fear are the court stepping in to stop tyranny like if the president starts just jailing people..
"supreme court" Discussed on The Signal
"The Constitution didn't abortion itself would be completely illegal. Now. That's been a strategy that I think would be that ultimate goal I think that's less likely in the short term because that would be a very, very dramatic shift and it would have massive implications for things like contraception IBS, whole range of I'm sort of reproductive. But people like Neil Gorsuch for example, who's a justice on the Supreme Court have ruminated around? Issues to do with person who'd end the constitution he was talking about suicide newsasia but he did rise on these matters before he was appointed to the court and antiabortion lawyers regularly make these kinds of arguments to the court. So again, assistant grounds upon which abortion rights could be eroded.
"supreme court" Discussed on It's Been a Minute with Sam Sanders
"It's much more complicated than it seems. And I also think. Migrants have been used as political pawns on both sides of the aisle for a while. And as soon as stories like these break, they become political. And they become tools for a lot of gets to say vote for this person or that person give money to to this or that. And there's not that further unpacking of what's really going on and what these women really need. And I think. This is a moment for people to question why they glommed onto these stories and how and whether it is for their ends or for the needs of the people actually being hurt. An absolutely. This week has just been so. Complicated. You know because you have a lot of people assuming and I may have contributed to that regretfully that this is Trumpian thing. Right. These hysterectomies that these forced sterilizations directly related to the trump administration. I. Don't I don't think that's the case, and then in that framing that the reporting that I did like kind of outlined some of those reproductive injustices under the trump administration. I have learned this week after doing interviews with women who are patients of this doctor outside of detention that framing made them reluctant to speak to me because they are women who live in rural Georgia who we're very quick to tell me that they voted for trump and they support trump and this has nothing to do with trump in my framing. Made them very reluctant to reach out. You Know Tina. So much of the conversation this last week has been about rb g and the Supreme Court and her replacement and what that means for Roe versus Wade and women's access to abortion. And underscores this reality for the left that the main focus of women's health and reproductive rights politically it's abortion but you know reproductive rights. It's so much more than that. It is also about choosing win or consenting to a hysterectomy in the case of your reporting, it is about access to birth control or any number of things. How does the nature of? AMERICA'S POLITICAL FOCUS Help or hurt women like the ones that you're covering. Who have very little agency in a different set of needs than perhaps allowed US voices? In these debates over the rights of women. When the news emerged that Ruth Bader. GINSBURG had died. I had a very strong reaction in had concerns. Even as an American citizen with lots of privileges. But I, I did think about the women that I've been covering. I report on abortion access law especially across the south and. In the borderlands. You're essentially border patrol gets act like you're a constitution free zone and I spoke to abortion funders across the south and abortion providers, and how sometimes south can feel like for Free Zone you know Roe v Wade is is in effect it's in place, but there are lots of pregnant people especially in this area of the country who cannot access abortion care or who experienced insurmountable barriers. I understand you know the focus in the importance of the Supreme Court but I also know that the courts haven't perfected everyone I also know that court cases don't mean you know on the ground that people can access the care that they need. So it's all it's we needed on it's complicated. Through all of this and and who has access to.
"supreme court" Discussed on Matt D’Elia Is Confused
"The law as written is the law as written. Should be a fucking nine fucking moderates on the Supreme Court. The? FARC You want to change the law, become a politician. You want to enforce the law, become a cop you want to interpret the law, you become a judge. Don't fuck and mix them up. Why the fuck is any judge. Far Up one side or the other of any spectrum politically. Fuck that. The laws are already fucking written. I don't want somebody reading through fuck and political lens through their own ideology fuck you. You're one fucking person you're nine people. All you should just fucking. Be The best ever at interpreting the existing laws as objectively as you can. I don't want some hard right motherfucker deciding the fate of the fucking country or some hard left motherfucker. I want somebody who does what the system was designed to fucking do, which is objectively Interpret. The existing laws that's the system. Fuck you. Fuck you bitch. Connell.
"supreme court" Discussed on Slate's If Then
"In January? Facebook made its first attempt to answer that question in detail. It released a set of bylaws covering everything from the makeup of the board to the individual appeals process for content. So how's it going to work? Let's say that I post something. It gets taken down for whatever reason then what happens so what will happen is let's say posted pictures of your cat and some flags it for violence against animals and gets taken down incorrectly. Do you appeal. That wants to facebook through their internal mechanisms. And then you'd appeal it again. If you get to that level you will get a code and you will take that code and copy paste it and it will go to a website that is not facebook and you a copy and paste that code into generate your file and to give permission for facebook to allow your private information to be reviewed by an outside body and then it goes before a case selection committee which functions a little bit like writ in the Supreme Court Which is kind of their decide whether or not your case is worth reviewing if you're cases selected it's brought before a five person panel of Oversight Board members and they then write a decision explaining why they gave their answer and saying whether they would take down or keep it up even decision around a particular piece of content might be representative of a larger issue. Then that small five person panel can flag it with the larger forty person board if they've made a policy decision or a policy recommendation that facebook has to reply to that policy decision. And say why it is that they are implementing that policy decision or why. They're not and that is also a public statement. Then all of those decisions are put into a database. That is searchable on the website. And we'll be able to kind of have a common law type Database that allows us to see similar facts or similar rulings and all of this is supposed to happen within ninety days of making that initial complaint. Yes exactly which is insane. It's insane it's insane for like it. Well it's insane for two reasons. One is the idea that you can do all of that within ninety days and then the other part of it is that both seems very slow and very fast. It feels very fast to give that amount of due process of someone I mean court cases languish for years right but at the same time. It seems really slow because there is in the life of the Internet with an eighteen hours things might no longer be relevant from the user perspective. It's really supposed to be about signaling erroneous decisions or decisions that people want change on facebook's policy about to an outside board when time is not really of the essence. I listen to you detail all these steps. And they're frankly sort of dizzying in their complex about it Boy It seems like a lot for an individual user. It is a lot for an individual user. But I think that we're kind of at this point. Where these transnational private companies that have got privately governed are public rights of speech. I think it's maybe time it's these issues have certainly are not new. They have been happening for the last twenty years and so I think that people will become so much more literate in such a short amount of time and I think this is just the tip of the iceberg of that kind of civics and cultural literacy around this issue. This appeals process. Kate is describing. It only applies to content. That has already been removed from the platform. So if you're a user and you WanNa see something come down. The Oversight Board can't help. It is narrow though because this is just about content that gets taken down. It's not about whether my neighbor is posting vaccine misinformation that I would like to see taken down. Yeah and so at the beginning. It's only gonNA be about removal. And so if you think about this actually from a privacy perspective this makes a lot of sense. Let's say that. You flag a piece of content that your neighbor posts right and facebook says no keeping it up and you want to appeal that decision for you to appeal that decision given the process that I just gave you. You would be sending someone else's data off of facebook and into the outside world from a privacy perspective. You just can't. That's very difficult to do when I think about how. The typical person uses facebook. Do you think this is going to change their experience all that much? I don't think most people will appeal this type of content but I think it might be part of a broader industry. Change that ends up happening. I see this kind of going one of three ways on one hand. It might end up being that this just stays at facebook the other way that you could think about it. Is that other websites twitter. Google whatever chip into the trust and then also want to use the oversight board and the people on the oversight board as their own adjudicators of their own types of content. And the third way it gets you going. Is that each of these platforms decides to create. Its Own Oversight Board to review their own content based on their own rules and values and in that case what I see happening for users markets of rules you are very explicitly going to certain types of platforms to be able to say certain types of things with the understanding that even say certain types of things on some platforms forms.
"supreme court" Discussed on Talking Politics
"`This is really interesting. Scott nothing nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit but what you've seen in that case is the use of the common law as yardstick and going forward once we leave leave there will need to be some sort of other constitutional principles which have to be developed to do with the problems that the e you have already dealt with for example example interference with the free movement of goods. Scottish Parliament says minimum alcohol pricing that affects the right of English manufacturers to sell Oleg goods at the price they want to in Scotland. They want to challenge that. How do they do that the moment they do it as saying it's country to the EU treaty when that's been taken away will they then have recourse to some common law principle that says that there should be no discrimination between manufacturers there was an obvious irony here which Che's reasoning around Brexit was about to return to parliamentary sovereignty but then as you get closer to the the UK's exit from the European Union Union. What do you find you find that in the vacuum left by the inability to rely on e. u. Legislation you find British legal institution starting to fill it rather than parliament in some ways. I think what's happening is changing. I think there's no going back. We are in new territory for the British political silence relationship to the judiciary it will not be the same as it was post Brexit for the reasons that you were saying Catherine but it still seems to me that what we're seeing about the role of the Supreme Court today is somehow tied I to the crisis within parliament palm it hasn't been operating as it would have done normally the party system as we saw over the course of the last two three years essentially essentially broke down and that I think is the vacuum that's being filled by by the Supreme Court at the moment and I think once parliament is able to to reorganize itself around parties that have some greater sense of loyalty and are able to sort of follow the whipping system vote in ways that are more predictable along party lines then then I think maybe the recourse to law will not be as in might not be just a lasting change that when should be an if you think we will definitely just snap back into a more discipline okay yes if if that if those sort of parliamentary practices returned in a more party sort of system ways and the need for I think probably won't be as essential essential but I I think there's two different things going on and I don't think you can separate out of this the Kuban issue because it is because the opposition and Pisa these are unwilling to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister that we are in this ludicrous position where we have a government with a negative majority that is being maintained in office by the House House o Commons while the House of Commons and trust act or send the executives delegate of the legislature in order to conduct negotiations..
"supreme court" Discussed on Talking Politics
"Hello my name's. David Runciman and this is talking politics. The prorogation cases reached the Supreme Court. We're right in the middle of it. It's complicated. It's really important. We need lawyer. Luckily we have one the talking politics is brought to you in partnership with the London review of books which is celebrating celebrating its fortieth anniversary for the next few months with an unimproved -able offer get a year subscription and limited edition El Arbi tote bag for just forty pounds by using the Euro Alabi. Don't me food slash birthday in the Catherine Bernard is with US professor of E. You Look Chris. Bitten haven't Thompson when we had Kenneth a couple of weeks ago we had to begin by getting into the Clair's interest because he was party to the case that reach this goal. You'll know no excellent did you watch should instantly panic Kuam. I think gives a master class in how to be a good lawyer rotten the barrack-room liar. Can I watch the afternoon so I watched the other guy. Lewd keen on a lot of people said this is really like watching test match cricket. No exciting Ben Stakes test match cricket but kind of grind devotion where you can do other stuff at the same in time and then suddenly something happens and you think well. That's not it. I watch bits of it is William. I didn't watch any of the Catherine. Let's just kind kind of sketchy in some of the background here. So where do you think we are in this. We've had the the main case laid out by both sides. The commentary is making it quite clear. Ah The issue whether it's justifiable if that's how you pronounce it and then if it is whether the government acted for the motives that panic is saying therefore illegitimately absolutely or unlawfully which one is weighing most heavily at the moment panic skill seemed to be to kind of bury the justifiable issue till the end and really focus on what the government during the justifiability issue is is always very vexed one vicar that goes to the core of our constitution separation of powers traditionally the courts are highly reluctant to get in volt in second guessing political decisions because they are very mindful of the fact that they are not democratically elected and so the approach taken by the High Court of England Wales where they said this is high politics and therefore we the court should not get involved is very much the standard approach and so they ruled the motto wasn't justiciable Scottish. Court takes a very different line they he said no power should be limited. This quite well established case law that says slipped even prerogative powers can in certain circumstances be judicially reviewable and in this case because what the prime minister did so undermined our constitution that not only is it justifiable. Nope we find that there is no peace and so really the reason why this case is quite important is it's really looking under the bonnet of our Constitution to try to understand the constitution actually means yesterday given what you said that was therefore surprising focus on the other side of it. Most of the arguments revolved around what the government was doing including the question of this length of time for appropriation. Could it be justified in terms of the government was justifying it to prepare for Queen's speech to to allow for the party conferences given there was going to be a recess only count seven days. The justiciability issue did seem to be in the background role in the foreground grant. This is the thing I'm struggling to is the justice sh- ability issue simply the court will have to take a view on Amazon. It will come to this area questions surpri question you can't take view on the substance unless there is to use a legal term lockers the right to actually hear the case away with the lawyers for both so is focusing on the secondary issue because they hope that by emphasizing the second issue rubbing the secondary but the second issue it will strengthen drinks and the case for the court find it is justiciable matter because the point they're trying to get across is what certainly the point that. Deena Miller is trying to get across what Boris Johnson did so undermines parliamentary democracy that therefore something needs to be done hence the court should give itself self the right to hear this case what more of senator who question before I bring others and when you look at the government side was really focusing on what it soars was the weakness is in the Scottish judgement so it was so inviting the court to see Israel not as setting some grand principle not as taking a step back and deciding what kind of constitutional order we are but simply reacting to two previous judgments. You're the Supreme Court. Here's the judgment of Scottish court. They made a mistake. He went on about this. They misunderstood the nature of recess. They got it wrong having made a mistake it's easy for you. You can just say that one cook it right. MANCO got it wrong and that's your job as a supreme court it simply to pass judgment on lower court's decisions plausible it is plausible and it may be the appealing way forward out of decision which is so high profile and whichever way it goes will cause considerable shot ground if they were to find against Boris Johnson than it clearly raises serious questions about his continuance as a prime minister if they find against essentially this the Scottish court if they say this isn't just issue master then it paves the way the Nicholas Sturgeon to say look do caught in London. Don't listen to our judges. This is our highest court and you've ignored them if they say the Scottish just made broadly broadly speaking a technical mistake does that give them an out. This is sort of my question because it seems like the government seemed to be hoping we're giving you away out here which is to find find that the Scottish court simply he kept saying it. Lucchini kept saying this was his big reveal. Wasn't that exciting but he said they got it wrong. They made a fundamental mistake. They they say that during recess parliament can recall itself and it calmed but not that much to do with the rest of the case but it's like here's a mistake his euro an end it may be that they go for a very simple solution. They may also say in principle. These cases are justiciable but on the facts of this case there hasn't been abused so this is the sort the middle ground outcome because I suspect what does Laurie them is that you have some power which is totally early on limited and without control and by that I mean I Johnson I think rather cleverly paroled for only five weeks and it was wrapped up with the party conference season but if you take the logical consequence of that you could say well actually he could Perot for a whole year. There's nothing to Asto or three hundred sixty four days. The only one day that punt would need to sit would be to sign off on money issues or more realistically parliament lament is Perot every time a difficult legal issue or difficult or controversial issues heard so the fact that prorogation can be used to turn on and turn of parliament without any control. It'll might be deeply and appealing to the judges they'll just remembered something that Lord sumptious that a couple of nights ago because I didn't come that question was put to and he said well one is tax tax almac to also mention he could've batted away this possibility that the prime minister could simply for extended periods of time parole given up until the next general election action's something like that so there are reasons why poem had to sit but also now under the Northern Ireland executive formation. There's got to be a regular reporting but the point is that it it would be possible to repeal act and then it is possible to have the right to provoke which executive function and if there is no judicial control atol it could be abused and that may be what would trouble the courts. I think the problem though this argument is I it completely ignores the fact that the space to be a political control roll over how the executive uses his power not come through the House of Commons ultimately the electric. We don't have a constitution. That's based on the idea that the only recall so there is to the beasts of power is legal in fact we have a constitution is based on the idea that the recourse for the abuse of power is supposed to be political and I would say that if we end up with the Supreme Court's in this is judicial and finds that Johnson is used the protein in power illegally we into department completely new constitutional territory whether all of the judiciary is concerned at the very same time we've departed into completely new constitution Asian territory where we have an executive that has not confidence in any shape or form of the House of Commons and we have executive that has a minus forty five the majority this executive should not exist and it's it's it's in some kind of constitutional Zombie states far as our constitutions conserve so if we depart accompany on the political side with really long standing constitutional principle that the executive has to have a majority in the House of Commons whilst with departing company on the on the judicial issue side of saying that the judges aren't supposed to assert some higher principle of constitutional law that they opposed over parliament then went completely. I mean I can't begin to think where we are L. Constitution. It doesn't make sense the the paradox is that if the courts were to say that the probation is unlawful. What does that mean in practice. Does that mean that you revert to the order of the Scottish court which is to say that the prorogation Helen for it therefore you set the clock back to the date of per Gatien and therefore all of the bills that have fallen then get resurrected including the bill on domestic Vance and then does that allow for aw the executive then to say actually. We're going to Peru again the day after this one issues it came from the Supreme Court yesterday. Another part of the government's case is that go back to a Halama saying parliament could have stopped this where roots for parliament to assert yourself against the executive and also to prevent prorogation chose not to it focused on preventing no deal in the article fifty issue so we're doing this in the context of parliament having chosen not to assert itself except it is a power of executives prog power a so. It's quite difficult see how palm could have stopped it or Palman could have replaced the exact conwell tons of government on it. I mean this did it. Choose not to or was that actually to simply simply not even try and produce emotion couldn't produce the motion saying that wouldn't accept the use of the progress of couse pound wasn't in session and was it it was because he did it in only twenty gate of August beginning of September. There was enough time for parliament to accept the principle that they needed to move to a general election rather than take the route twitch they took which was to put as a priority not general election avoiding no deal in legislative terms maybe with knowledge in fact that that then meant that that the recourse would have to be through the courts rather than through parliament that seems to me that that was a conscious choice at least not maybe our conscious everyone together but that was a consequence of the way parliament uh hey. I it is important. I think to see as well as there is a reason why parliament the majority in parliament chose this route is is because there are too many people in the opposition including leading the Labor Party who do not think that the opposition leader is a fit person to be prime minister. If that weren't true then parliament could and would have acted differently. I think that this moment we wouldn't be in this position so wanted to come onto the white a question of how g think Katherine the Court sees its role here not just on this issue but more broadly because it's getting the kind of scrutiny it's it's never had I mean this is huge. There's real pressure on them but there was one aspect of it yesterday that struck me. Neither side can talk about one of the primary summary reasons..