40 Burst results for "Supreme Court"
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on WTOP 24 Hour News
"York, feelings of shock have turned to helplessness along Florida's West Coast, where homes and businesses are in shambles a week after hurricane Ian slammed ashore. The death toll is up to at least 108. Ignacio Carroll is part of a search and rescue task force. Those who are maybe the Trump in their homes because it is debris. Chinese, they get them out on a check on their well-being. President Biden visits hard hit Fort Myers this morning and gets an update from one of his top critics. I'm Stephen portnoy at The White House. The president will meet with small business owners and residents who've suffered losses, and he'll attend a briefing on the efforts to help them recover, led by his fema administrator, and Florida's Republican governor Ron DeSantis. Mister Biden's press secretary says any political differences will be set aside for the moment. More than 300,000 customers still have no power. Donald Trump wants the Supreme Court to make the next move in his legal fight to stop the Justice Department's review of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. The former president's asking justices to overturn a lower court ruling in favor of the DoJ, former federal prosecutor Lori Levinson. I think the Trump team thinks that they have their best shot with the Supreme Court because in fact, justice clarence Thomas is the justice responsible for the 11th circuit that geographical area. And he himself could grant relief, at least temporarily, to president Trump. The Pentagon is investigating the navy seals training program after leaked video showed recruits screaming out in pain as their engulfed in clouds of tear gas, CBS News Pentagon correspondent David Martin. Exposure to tear gas is
Trump asks Supreme Court to weigh in on review of classified documents seized from Mar-a-Lago
"Trump has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the Mar-a-Lago dispute Lawyers for former president Donald Trump have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step into the legal fight over classified documents seized during an FBI search of its Florida estate The Trump team has asked the court to overturn a lower court ruling and permit an independent arbiter or special master to review the roughly 100 documents with classified markings At three judge panel last month limited the review to the much larger group of non classified documents Trump's lawyers submitted the Supreme Court application to justice clarence Thomas who oversees emergency matters from Florida and several other southern states Thomas can act on his own or as is usually done for the emergency appeal to the rest of the court the government is being asked to respond to the petition by
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on WTOP 24 Hour News
"Morning at four 33. A significant new development this week in the Donald Trump Mira Lago top secret documents investigation to tell you about former president now asking the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order. It's been about 100 documents with classification markings back into the pile being looked over by the special master. This morning we asked Politico, senior illegal affairs reporter Josh gerstein, what the former president's goal is here with the emergency requests. There's two possibilities here. One is sort of a strategic move to make sure that the courts retain some authority over this potentially classified documents and the possibility he might be able to get an order from a judge before any charges are brought criminally against him saying that there was some issue here that maybe he declassified them. I think that's probably what he's up to in addition to that. Obviously, if you have classified materials as part of this document review in front of the special master, it is going to inevitably delay and drag out that process, so it will take longer than it would have if we're just talking about ordinary government records. How is he able to do that or how might he be able to do that even though there's no evidence that he declassified those docs? Well, he's made these arguments that he had a general policy of declassifying the documents either by taking them to his residence at The White House or perhaps by taking them directly to Mar-a-Lago. That happened while he was still president and that's the argument that his lawyers and some of his advocates have put forward. But of course, you're right so far, nobody has really said under oath in any kind of way that they be accountable for that they remember this issue being discussed with Trump or that Trump gave some kind of broad directive that everything that was put in those places would be declassified. If somebody has that information, including Trump himself, they could put it in a declaration and pilot with the court, but thus far they haven't done that. By doing this, is he in any way bypassing or short circuiting the legal process or was this case always eventually headed to the Supreme Court? Well, it's an unusual posture because most criminal defendants, if they don't like something that the government has done to them before they face charges, they basically have to wait and see what happens if the government brings charges, then they can go to the judge handling that case. And say, I think this evidence was obtained illegally. It should be suppressed. Maybe that the whole indictment against them should be thrown out. But it's very unusual to see sort of a preemptive action by a defendant to go into court to try to sort of muck up and slow down the investigation before they faced any charges. That's the part about this that is very unusual. And I don't think that the former president will be able to get an order out of the Supreme Court that completely shuts down the Justice Department's investigation. Josh, people may remember late in Donald Trump's term, he intimated that because he nominated three of the current justices, he expected their loyalty. Is it at all clear whether he's walking down that path again and may be disappointed just as he was with some rulings late in his term? He may well think so. He has made very positive comments as recently as last week about Jenny Thomas, the wife of justice clarence Thomas, who, of course, was nominated by president George H. W. Bush. But you're right, having nominated three of the 9 justices on the court. He seemed to think that he was entitled to loyalty from them in connection with the various election related cases that we saw come up towards the end of 2020. But he really didn't find any traction in those disputes, and I think most of the
Biden’s Prisoner Exchange With the Maduro Regime in Venezuela
"The Biden administration is claiming credit for a prisoner exchange with the Maduro regime in Venezuela. And essentially, Biden released two nephews of Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan dictator. And these are relatives of his wife, they had been jailed. They were apparently arrested in Haiti on drug smuggling convictions and Biden goes, you can have them back in exchange for 7 Americans who are imprisoned in Venezuela, including by the way, 5 oil executives who had been held for nearly 5 years. The case is actually kind of crazy. The 5 American oil executives went down to Venezuela in 2017. They were invited to a sort of a conference being hosted by the state run oil company. It's called petti vesa, PDVSA. And so PETA vesa had this supposed conference and when these American oil executives show up, basically they're hauled off by security agents. Later accused of embezzlement and convicted in a trial that was then upheld by the Venezuelan Supreme Court. Now when I say all this, you know, Debbie will tell you more than anyone else that the Venezuelan Supreme Court is a rubber stamp. It's not a real Supreme Court. It was stacked by first Hugo Chavez and then Maduro handpicked judges, the independence of the Venezuelan court has been destroyed. By the way, the left would be happy to try to do something like that here as well. The Supreme Court now is a big thorn in their side. So the Supreme Court in Venezuela basically upholds the conviction, but there appears to be no credible evidence that these guys were embezzlers of any sort.
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on WTOP 24 Hour News
"Two, three, because with roof masters, the proof is in the room. This is WTO P news. Supreme Court Justices just this week hearing arguments over a congressional map drawn by Alabama lawmakers, a lower court says the map weakens the influence of black voters and violates the Voting Rights Act. This morning, Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes, with more. This is the redistricting that all states have to do after the 2020 census and Alabama has 7 congressional districts. It has traditionally had one district in which minority voters made up a majority to elect a black congresswoman, but that was challenged. The state has about 27% of its voters are black and that was challenged and a three judge panel decided that the challengers were right that under the Voting Rights Act, the state should have two districts in which candidates of color would be favored. And now the Supreme Court is reviewing that decision. So talk about how the court's conservative justice is, our approaching this issue. Well, they were a little quiet. It was the liberal justices that were really out there saying that the conservative majority has been sort of shrinking the protections of the Voting Rights Act and made it seem like they were going to go down swinging if they were going to go down. But it was unclear whether the conservative majority was going to accept Alabama's very broad argument here, which is that you really can't consider race in these kinds of decisions about these minority majority districts and that they would somehow have to be achievable by using race neutral means of drawing districts. And some justices seem to think that maybe that was going too far. Former president Trump is now asking the Supreme Court to step into the legal fight over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago that we're taken by the FBI a couple of months back. What do you know about this? There was a ruling last month, you know, that put the district judges ruling on hold by the 11th circuit, former president Trump has now challenging that at the Supreme Court. He saying that this special master that was appointed should look through all of these documents to decide which are classified which may be personal record. They want that to continue and that they want the Supreme Court to enforce that. Bob is the former president jumping ahead here by going straight to the Supreme Court. Not particularly because the 11th circuit has ruled. This is something that would likely come to the Supreme Court anyway. And it appears that the former president is asking for just sort of a
A Huge Controversy Has Erupted Over Herschel Walker in Georgia
"Huge controversy has erupted over Herschel Walker in Georgia, a very ugly controversy, his son Christian walker, who's one of this podcast weighing in and there are some people who think it's very bad for Herschel Walker's chances in Georgia. And this, of course, would mean that virtual communist Raphael Warnock would have 6 more years, a kind of almost a nightmarish prospect of something that's made even more nightmarish occurring in a red state. Now, I'm going to talk in more detail about all of this tomorrow because I want to go into some of the details of it, but I'm not going to do that here. Here I want to take a broader view of what's happening with the U.S. Senate. Now, first, let me say that I think the issue in Georgia is not Herschel Walker's behavior. Rather, it is due we and by we here, I mean, Georgians, but also Americans, do we want someone as far left as Rafael Warnock to be representing a red state? And perhaps tipping the balance or keeping the balance for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate. Think about the long-term implications of the Democrats having Senate control implications for a Supreme Court implications for so many other things. So very difficult for us as Republicans to keep our eye on the ball. We're often sort of trapped into this. Our candidate has moral failings. We've got to pull out our long knives and sort of stab him ourselves. Democrats would never do this. If Raphael Warnock did exactly what Herschel Walker did. Exactly the same. The left would a, laugh it off, dismiss it. Pooh pooh it, ignore it. And second of all, even more audacious, they would turn around and accuse the publications and talked about it of racism for going after a black man, and a pastor, how dare you, so look at the difference in psychology between the two sides.
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Jim Bohannon
"As counterintuitive as it sounds that their vacant lot, the zoned for housing and is surrounded by houses. It was actually federally regulated wetland. The agency put together a memo that they had a staff member drive out to their property after we filed the lawsuit and fill out a form and say, well, it's not really clear that their property has much effect on priestly, which is nearby. But across the road from their property, there's this 35 acre wetland complex and if we notionally consider their lot as quote similarly situated to the 35 acres of wetlands across the street from it, well then we can regulate it because we could regulate those 35 acres of wetlands. So the government's own investigation showed that the second's lot doesn't provide any ecological services to priest Lake. It doesn't filter any floodwater. No surface water flows from the sac as property to priest Lake or really anywhere else. And yet because there is a great big wetland across this road, the government was able to say, we'll just we'll just batch yours with those and regulate years as though it was the same as these others. Well, now we must take a quick break here and we're going to come back and learn some more about this case and about what could be at stake here. In other words, depending on how the court rules, this could have impact I'm sure in a lot more than the second property. One 8 6 6 5 O Jimbo one 8 6 6 5 O 5 four 6 two 6 attorney Tony Francois is our guest and we're looking at one of the big cases coming up before the Supreme Court in its new term and it could have impacts that might reach out and affect all kinds of other people. One 8 6 6 5 O Jimbo back in a moment. At school boards across America, parents are fighting back. They're fighting back against awok agenda that puts our kids at risk. Left wing curriculum changes. Gender identity politics and critical race theory have the moms and dads of America really outraged. Now, all this week, Sean Spicer is on newsmax, showing why and how parents are really fighting back. Sean exposes the radical agenda in our schools and shows how a grassroots and peaceful revolt is underway to stop it. Watch Sean Spicer and
How abortion could affect the midterm elections
"President Biden is marking 100 days since the Supreme Court overturned a national right to abortion It's an issue Democrats hope can galvanize their voters before next month's elections that will decide congressional control This afternoon the president will attend the second meeting of a cabinet level task force he set up to coordinate his administration's response to the high court ruling The White House says he will announce new steps for protecting access to abortion but will again remind Americans only Congress can restore national access and will again urge them to elect more Democrats The White House says nearly 30 million women of reproductive age now live in states with an abortion ban Sagar Meghani Washington
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on THE NEWS with Anthony Davis
"Coming up on 5 minute news. Trump hopes biased Supreme Court will protect his espionage woes. Joe Biden announces new guidelines to protect abortion and contraception rights. And Elon Musk is back in the spotlight hoping to buy Twitter. It's Wednesday October 5. I'm Anthony Davis. The former president Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step into the legal fight over the classified documents seized during an FBI search of his Florida estate. Escalating a dispute over the powers of an independent arbiter appointed to inspect the records by Trump himself. Trump lawyers asked the justices to overturn a lower court ruling and allow the arbiter called a special master to review the roughly 100 documents with classified markings that were taken in the August 8th search of Mar-a-Lago. A three judge panel from the Atlanta based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th circuit last month limited the special masters review to the much larger collection of non classified documents. The judges, including two Trump appointees, sided with the Justice Department, which had argued there was no legal basis for the special master to conduct his own review of the classified documents. But Trump's lawyers said in their application to the Supreme Court that it was essential for the special master to have access to the classified records to determine whether documents bearing classification markings are in fact classified and regardless of classification, whether those records are personal records or presidential records. It says without the special master review, the unchallenged views of the current Justice Department would supersede the established authority of the chief executive. An independent review, the Trump team says, ensures a transparent process that provides much needed oversight. Trump lawyers admitted the Supreme Court application to the far right justice clarence Thomas, who oversees emergency matters from Florida and several other southern states. Thomas has previously come under scrutiny for his vote in a different Trump documents case, in which he was the only member of the court to vote against allowing the U.S. House committee investigating January 6th to obtain Trump records held by the national archives and records administration, justice Thomas is also married to the far right extremist conspiracy theorist, Ginny Thomas. President Joe Biden and top White House officials announced new guidelines and grants to protect abortion and contraception rights on Tuesday and said women's rights have already been curtailed since the Supreme Court overturned roe versus wade a hundred days ago. Speaking at a meeting of the reproductive rights task force with vice president Kamala Harris, Biden said the decision that had rescinded women's constitutional rights to an abortion has had frightening ripple effects in some states, including restricting a teens access to medicine she needed for arthritis. We're not going to sit by and let Republicans throughout the country enact extreme policies, he said. Abortion bans have gone into effect in more than a dozen Republican states since the court overturned the 1973 roe V wade ruling on June 24th, nearly 30 million women of reproductive age now live in a state with a ban, including nearly 22 million women who can not access abortion care after 6 weeks. Biden's meeting held with doctors, lawmakers, and White House officials focused on how millions of women can not access abortion services, face shrinking access to contraception and how doctors and nurses are facing criminal penalties for providing abortions. The Supreme Court decision created a healthcare crisis in America, Harris said what we are seeing in laws around our country is the criminalization of doctors and healthcare providers, she said, noting some states had reverted to abortion laws put in place before women even had the right to vote. The tumultuous saga of Elon Musk's on again off again purchase of Twitter took a turn toward a conclusion yesterday after the mercurial Tesla CEO proposed to buy the company at the originally agreed on price of $44 billion. Musk made the surprising turnaround not on Twitter as has been his custom, but in a letter to Twitter that the company disclosed in a filing yesterday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It came less than two weeks before a trial between the two parties is scheduled to start in Delaware. In response to it has said it intends to close the transaction at $54 and 20 cents per share after receiving the letter from Musk. But the company stopped short of saying it's dropping its lawsuit against the billionaire Tesla CEO, expert said that makes sense given the contentious relationship and lack of trust between the two parties. Trading into a stock which had been halted for much of the day pending release of the news, resumed trading late Tuesday and soared 22% to close at $52. Musk's proposal is the latest twist in a high profile saga involving the world's richest man and one of the most influential social media platforms, while some logistical and legal hurdles remain, Musk could be in charge of Twitter in a matter of days, however long it takes him and his co investors to line up the cash, said Anne Lipton, an associate law professor at tulane university, a letter from Musk's lawyer dated Monday and disclosed by Twitter, said Musk would close the merger signed in April, provided that the Delaware chancery court enter an immediate stay of Twitter's lawsuit against him, and adjourn the trial scheduled to start on October 17. You can subscribe to 5 minute news on YouTube with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker or enable 5 minute news as your Amazon Alexa flash briefing skill. Subscribe, rate, and review online at 5 minutes dot news. 5 minute news is an evergreen podcast covering politics inequality, health and climate delivering independent, unbiased and essential world news. Daily. If you enjoy 5 minute news, join me for the weekend show podcast. Big picture conversations with expert guests about the state of America available every Sunday with Midas touch and 5 minute news. Search and subscribe to the weekend show.
Ginni and Clarence Thomas Must Have a Sad Marriage
"You retweeted Ginny Thomas read an opening statement to the committee according to a source. I can guarantee that my husband has never spoken with me about pending cases at the court. It's an ironclad rule here in our home. She said clarence Thomas is uninterested in politics, and you just said that did the committee just start laughing hysterically. But, I mean, here we have a sitting Supreme Court Justice's wife saying yes, the election was stolen. And no, I've never talked to my husband about anything. And you know what, every single biography of every single Supreme Court Justice talks about how they discussed cases with their families. Yeah. I mean, you know, we know that was it Lewis Powell, who wrote roe V wade. We know he discussed it with his family. What he was going to do in that decision. We just know this. And it's just like, it's sitting there going, wow, you must have a really crappy marriage. If you can't talk about work at all with each other, I mean, I hope the sex is good.
Supreme Court welcomes the public again, and a new justice
"The Supreme Court has opened a historic new term That is in fact actually isn't the issue what Congress would have intended For the first time the high court has a black female justice saying Ketanji Brown Jackson quickly jumped into oral arguments in a water rights case It's the first session since the court issued a landmark abortion rights ruling and the first with the public in the room since before the virus pandemic In coming months the court will take up elections and religious rights cases It's also accepted one seeking to hold social media companies financially responsible for terror attacks Sagar Meghani Washington
In this week's religion roundup, Jewish pilgrims gather in Ukraine despite the war, Brazil's president exhorts evangelicals to help keep him in office, and the Vatican imposes disciplinary sanctions on a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Bishop.
"And this week's religion roundup Jewish pilgrims gather in Ukraine despite the war Brazil's president exhorts evangelicals to help keep him in office and the Vatican imposes disciplinary sanctions on a Nobel Peace Prize winning bishop Thousands of hasidic Jewish pilgrims ignore travel warnings and flock to central Ukraine to mark the Jewish new year The pilgrims travel from Israel and other countries to the small city of Oman The burial site of a respected hasidic rabbi who died in 1810 About 23,000 pilgrims were in Uman on Sunday Brazil's president Bolsonaro waged an all out campaign to shore up the crucial evangelical vote ahead of the October 2nd elections Evangelicals helped carry him to power in 2018 and he tapped members of their churches for important ministries and for a Supreme Court nomination Influential pastors and politicians are warning their followers that the race's FrontRunner leftist former president Lula would close Christian churches The Vatican says it imposed disciplinary sanctions on Nobel Peace Prize winning bishop Carlos Bello following allegations that he sexually abused boys in East Timor in the 1990s The Vatican spokesman says the office that handles sex abuse cases received allegations concerning the bishop's behavior in 2019 and within a year had imposed sanctions AP Vatican correspondent Nicole Winfield says many questions remained about the bishop's role in the church over the past two decades After 2002 though when he retired it seems like he almost fell off the map It's as if he disappeared If he was under some kind of Vatican sanction in those years that would explain this very low profile that he had The announced sanctions include limitations on bellows movements and ministry and prohibit him from having voluntary contact with minors or contact with East Timor I'm Walter ratliff
Doug Sits Down With Former Congressman Jason Lewis of Minnesota
"Us a little bit about your background and then what, you know, what staircase you fell down to say, I need to run for Congress, you know? Well, you do, I was in the airport the other day and somebody came up to me, and said, I know you, then you used to fill in for Russia and you were in Congress for a while and I said, yep, that's me and they said, whatever happened to you anyway. We all get those. Well, look, I grew up in a small business family. My mom was from north Minneapolis. My dad was from Iowa. We settled in the Hawkeye state, but Minnesota was the second home. So when I fell into talk radio after graduate school, I had an opportunity to go home to Minneapolis and St. Paul, I did. And that was in the early 90s and raised my two daughters here for 30 years. Loved it. Got into radio. It was fortunate enough to hit the timing was good, telling them for rush and had my own syndicated show for a while. But at some point, Doug, you know what it's like, you can be a commentator so long, but after a while, you got to put your money where your mouth is and you want to get on the field and play. Because the only way to really change things is to vote for them. So I thought, in most, by the way, most commentators won't talk most talk show hosts don't do that because they can demagogue your previous comments like Supreme Court Justices. And I knew that would happen with me and it did with CNN and all the rest. But I didn't really care. I just said, look, I want to do something. And I was fortunate to come into Congress with a new president when we really had an opportunity to do things and we did. But it was really just more of an angst about, look, you can talk all day long, but at some point, you know, suit up, get in the game. And so I did do that and served. I thought in one of the more consequential terms of Congress, and then I ran for the U.S. Senate alongside the president here in Minnesota, and two years ago and October, we were neck and neck with Tina Smith, who was the Democrat, I would say from Minnesota, but really she represents Planned Parenthood. Her former employer. But I felt that we were going to win Minnesota. I really felt the president went. And we did great. I collected more votes than any other statewide candidate in Minnesota history. We outperformed the top of the ticket by two points, but we had 1.9 million absentee ballots at 60% of the total Minnesota vote gained by mail.
Jackson set to make Supreme Court debut in brief ceremony
"Justice catani Brown Jackson will make her Supreme Court debut today in a ceremony before the high court's term starts next week President Biden will be among those at Jackson's ceremonial investiture Brown Jackson do solemnly swear Where she'll repeat the oath she took upon formally joining the high court in June During the brief ceremony Jackson will also follow a half century custom by sitting in a chair that once belonged to John Marshall the 19th century chief justice who was also a slaveholder Jackson is the court's third black justice and its first black woman Sagar Meghani Washington
1/6 chairman: Ginni Thomas reiterates false election claims
"The wife of Supreme Court Justice clarence Thomas was interviewed by the House committee investigating the capitol riot Thank you for being here Jenny Thomas answered some of the questions Committee chair of Benny Thompson says she stood by the false claim the 2020 election was stolen a source familiar with the investigation tells the AP Thomas did not provide any evidence or reasoning to back up her claim Her attorney says misses Thomas had significant concerns about fraud and irregularities and beyond that played no role in any events after the 2020 election results Jenny Thomas has repeatedly maintained her political activities pose no conflict of interest with the work of her husband Benny Thompson says they're glad she came and it's a work in progress Ed Donahue Washington
Dr. Irwin Redlener: Republican America Is Drifting Away From Reality
"All you have to know really is this one fact from a recent poll. 61% of registered Republicans believe the freaking election was stolen. 61% of a major political party think that the election was actually won by Donald Trump. Yeah. You know, if you start from there and say, well, what else do they believe? And you know, you get a you get a glimpse at how far away from reality our country is drifting, and I don't know what's going to happen, except that the Republicans stupidly supported this insane set of laws and state abilities to control women take care of themselves and their bodies. Driven by the Supreme Court decision and hopefully that will backfire on them because it's infuriating so many people, men and women. And maybe they'll maybe we'll see some changes.
The Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance
"At a time when things are going, well, very badly because of the Biden regime. And or as Debbie calls them President Biden with using, of course, a fingers to put quotation marks. This guy is a wrecking ball. He's a human disaster. And he might be comatose and he might be out of it, but certainly the ring of people around him to gather their causing a lot of carnage. And so we look around for things that are going well, things that are going better, things that we can be hopeful about. And one of those things are one of these things is the Supreme Court. The court has come into its own. It is now, it seems a solid conservative majority at the court. And a majority with a certain comfortable margin. Now, the court was precariously balanced in the middle with Roberts as the swing justice. And while Robert does have conservative leanings, I think that's the key word leanings. And so let's just say that out of ten cases we could count on Roberts maybe 6 out of ten, which means that the court was slightly tipped in a rightward direction, but only slightly. And this, by the way, after conservatives have had the bulk of nominees to the court over the past 30 years. So this has been a project long in the making frustratingly slow in the realization, but I'm happy to say that now we do have a conservative court. Not to say we don't have a swing justice, but who is the swing justice? Believe it or not, it's none other than Kavanaugh.
Ginni Thomas meets with House panel investigating Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021
"The wife of Supreme Court Justice clarence Thomas has appeared voluntarily for an interview with the house panel investigating the capitol riot The extent of Ginny Thomas involvement in the capital attack itself is unclear The committee has tried for months to speak with her to learn about her role in trying to help Donald Trump overturn his election loss Thomas texted with The White House chief of staff Mark Meadows after the election and urged Arizona lawmakers to pick a clean slate of electors after Trump lost the state Her lawyers said Thomas was eager to clear up any misconceptions about her work relating to the election Sagar
Biden, Harris to attend Jackson's Supreme Court investiture
"President Biden will be on hand tomorrow for justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court investiture a White House official says both the president and vice president will attend the ceremony underscoring the importance of Jackson's confirmation to the Biden legacy She is the high court's first black female justice We're going to look back and see this as a moment of real change The president had celebrated Jackson's April confirmation on the south lawn saying he believed America needed a court that looked like America The Supreme Court's new term starts Monday Sagar Meghani Washington
Teen interest in long-lasting birth control soars after Roe
"Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned roe V wade more teenage girls are going to their doctors to get longer lasting birth control Experts say the ruling in June by the high court appears to be accelerating a trend increased birth control use among teens that includes long acting reversible forms like intrauterine devices and implants Planned Parenthood says it's been flooded with questions as doctors say there is even a demand among teens who aren't sexually active Some patients are especially fearful because new abortion laws and several states do not include exceptions for sexual assault some doctors say even parents who may have been hesitant in the past about birth control for their teens now want to discuss the topic I'm Donna water
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes' path: From Yale to jail
"Oath keepers founder Stewart Rhodes returns to court for his trial on charges related to the capitol riot Rhodes graduated from Yale law school He was a clerk on the Arizona Supreme Court but for people he worked with like Matt Perry Rhodes came across as angry So I made the jokes about Stewart having being the next Hitler I really meant that he was going to lead some kind of charge against the government just like Hitler did at the beer hall putsch get arrested be in jail and that was going to be it And that was going to be the end of Stewart Perry told the AP roads alienated his Republican boss and the Arizona Supreme Court and eventually left the job Jim Arroyo was president of an oath keeper's chapter in Arizona Stewart will In my opinion go down as a person who created one of the greatest organizations this country has ever seen And then destroyed it single handedly At the same time Arroyo says Rhodes wanted to send oath keepers to the Mexico border in an armed operation to support border patrol Roads and four others are on trial in a rarely used Civil War era law against attempting to overthrow the government I'm Ed Donahue
Alabama halts execution because of time, IV access concerns
"Alabama has called off the execution of a convicted killer just three hours after a divided U.S. Supreme Court gave the okay prison officials had until midnight Thursday to give convicted killer Alan Miller a lethal injection but corrections commissioner John Hamm says the team administering the drugs had trouble accessing a vein and didn't say how long the team tried but he says Miller was returned to his cell the 57 year old was sentenced to death for a 1999 workplace rampage in which he killed two coworkers and a former supervisor I'm Donna water
John Zmirak Takes Us Back to the Lunacy of the Kavanaugh Hearings
"You've shared this on the program before, but it's so important that people who are listening know the details of what happened and to reiterate when justice Kavanaugh, then not yet a justice was put up by Trump at the Supreme Court. The pro abortion left decided, again, because they've done this several times to go scorched earth to lie to make things up. And as their principle tool in this, they found a memoir written by Mark judge of his time of being an alcoholic in high school, and they thought this is just enough for us to create a narrative. We are going to lie, but we bet we can put this over on the American people and keep this guy off the Supreme Court because we don't want roe V wade over overturned. That's right. And so Christine daisy Ford couldn't say what year this rape allegedly happened. But she remembered all sorts of details all of them from Mark judge's book. So Eric, if somebody ever claims, wants to, if somebody wants to make a perjury involving you, they will use fish out of water. Your memoir of going to college. And there will be all these seemingly verifying details. Well, oh yeah, you did stay in that dorm. Yes, you did work at that place over the summer. Oh yeah, that's what you were wearing. On celery Green Day in 1983. Oh, this story knew this is seeming suspiciously real. It sounds like this person was there. Oh wait, he had a memoir. Okay? But again, they picked him Mark judge because he admitted to having memory lapses.
"supreme court" Discussed on Fresh Air
"Clarence Thomas, justice Thomas didn't recuse himself from a decision regarding former president Trump's request to block release of White House records, pertaining to January 6th. Then a couple of months later, it became public that Thomas wife juni Thomas, who's a conspiracy theorist, wanted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. She even texted Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, urging him to take action. There will be other decisions pertaining to January 6th likely to come before the Supreme Court. My understanding is no one has any power except for Thomas himself to decide whether he needs to recuse himself from decisions pertaining to January 6th because of his wife's involvement in trying to overturn the election. What's your understanding of that? That's my understanding also. I want to add one thing to what you said, Terry. He not only didn't recuse himself, he was the sole noted dissent in favor of former president Trump. So he was an active participant on the other side in that case, and experts in legal ethics say he was obliged to recuse himself. There's a federal statute that seems to say just that, but as you say, the way the Supreme Court has set up each justice gets to decide for him or herself whether to recuse, there's an old adage that you shouldn't be a judge in your own case, but this is an exception to that adage. Now the court will say, what's the alternative? Are the other members of the court supposed to vote that someone can't hear a case? If they were to do that, would they act for strategic reasons to try to block someone from participating in a case that they don't want on the case. So there's no easy answer other than to hope and trust that the justices will follow the law. And I guess we don't know for sure what justice Thomas knew when he dissented in that case.
"supreme court" Discussed on Fresh Air
"Let's get back to my interview with Adam lip tack, the Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times. So there's a big voting rights case coming before the Supreme Court next term. Would you describe that case? Yeah, this is what an election law professor called an 800 pound gorilla of a case. The constitution has a couple of provisions in it that says state legislatures get to set voting rules for federal elections. And that's fine so far as it goes. Congress can override the state legislature. But lately, the court has been very intrigued by what it calls the independent state legislature doctrine, and what's important about that is that people who promote that doctrine say, yes, the state legislature gets to set the rules and nobody at the state level has anything more to say about it. The state Supreme Court can't say this violates the state constitution. Executive agencies can't say voting rules ought to be different because of the pandemic, that the legislature gets to act by itself unmoored from the state constitution, and that means that, for instance, maps struck down as partisan gerrymanders by a state Supreme Court, don't stay struck down, that the state legislatures, which are these days, most of them controlled by Republicans get a lot more room to maneuver. And if the court has agreed to hear this case, we don't know yet whether it's going to adopt the independent state legislature doctrine, but at least four justices have indicated that they think the doctrine has real force. And that means in the 2024 election, this could have a vast impact on how those elections are conducted. So with state supreme courts no longer having the ability to overturn electoral decisions from the legislature even if the state Supreme Court considers those new laws to be unconstitutional, those new laws pertaining to voting rights and elections
"supreme court" Discussed on Fresh Air
"New season. We're telling stories about the cultures of work. The 9 to 5. It's a myth and rest around the world. I came into this totally prepared to defend my American productivity. At work, the new season of the NPR podcast rough translation. Let's get back to my interview with Adam lip tech who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times. He's been covering the court for 14 years. We're talking about the term that just ended and the court's swing further to the right with its new conservative super majority. You write that this is the most conservative Supreme Court term since 1931. And that the court's power is amplified because of gridlock in Congress. Would you explain that connection? Sure. The court issues two basic kinds of decisions. Sometimes it tells us what the constitution means, and those are basically showstoppers. They're the court essentially has the last word unless you get a constitutional amendment or a later court to overrule the decision. The constitutional decision is fixed. But a lot of their decisions are statutory decisions. They merely interpret what Congress said. And they say, well, we understand Congress to set X if Congress disagrees, they can the next day saying nope. That's wrong. We meant why, and we mean it, and we're going to pass a new law. And that kind of dialog between the court and Congress used to be commonplace. In the 90s, they would routinely Congress would routinely override Supreme Court decisions. He might remember the lily ledbetter case about time limits in sex discrimination cases. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent says I disagree with the majority with the majority said in Congress, you should please act and change it in Congress did. But now that we have a Congress that's essentially paralyzed by political polarization, you don't have that kind of dialog. And that means that this court, which is already so ambitious. And so powerful becomes even more powerful because there's this not this counterweight of dialog between the branches, but the supremacy of a single branch. How do you expect that to be evident in the Supreme Court decision preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating power plant emissions, including carbon emissions that contribute greatly to climate change? If Congress were not so polarized, and if it followed the wishes of the average American voter, it would take some steps, perhaps more modest than some would like. But it would take some steps to address climate change. And it would say what was missing according to the Supreme Court, it would say to the EPA, you can do this. You can't do that. We're going to take charge here and we're going to amend the clean air act, which hasn't been amended since 1990. To give EPA at least some power to take bold action to address climate change, but this Congress is incapable of reacting to Supreme Court decisions and that means as a practical matter that the Supreme Court has the last word, but it's a funny thing. The structure of their decision is we invite Congress to act. If Congress would only speak more clearly, in the full knowledge, that it can't and won't. It appears that the court is intent on moving toward deregulation because in another decision and earlier the court ruled that the CDC wasn't authorized to impose a moratorium on evictions during the early days of the pandemic.
"supreme court" Discussed on Rage for Justice Report
"Thanks for joining us this week on the rage for justice report. Consumer watched up. I'm your host Jamie court president of consumer watchdog. Today we're joined by Jerry flanagan litigation director, who is also someone who just won a victory at the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court. Thanks for joining us, Jerry. Happy to be here. Now this was an interesting victory. It was a surprise victory. So why don't you tell folks about it? Right. So this is a case that we won at the 9th circuit unanimously. So great news only to be rewarded by a petition from CBS, which is the company on the other side. The pharmacy pharmacy chain that owns also. Well, the largest corporations in the world, right? They own Aetna. It's a pharmacy benefit manager. It has a annual revenue of $247 billion. And they bragged that most of it's from the federal government. So we got this great victory the 9th circuit only did be rewarded by a petition from CVS to the U.S. Supreme Court looking for review. And we thought, oh, geez. Well, luckily, those don't get granted very often, about 4% of the time. Well, on July 2nd, we get news at the U.S. Supreme Court had accepted the petition. It was one of the 4% of cases of the United States Supreme Court decided to hear. So at that point, we had a really gear up and get ready to write a big brief and prepare for oral argument the U.S. Supreme Court. And long story short, we wrote that brief, it's an outstanding brief. I was in the process of getting ready to do oral argument on December 7th, the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, only to get out of the blue last week, a notice that says that CDS has decided to fall on its own sword and give up its appeal to the United States Supreme Court. So we win, meaning the 9th circuit decision wins. Now the downside of that is that I have to cancel my airfare and hotel in D.C. because I won't be arguing from the U.S. Supreme Court, but a very, very good outcome from our client for our clients. And that is a win in my book. Yeah. Wins a win. And this was a case that was about people with HIV who were not able to go in as we all are otherwise to a pharmacy and get their special HIV medications from a pharmacist. And you argued in the initial case that that was basically a disability discrimination because people with HIV should have the same rights as everyone else. So what happened? They got CVS spooked at the level of the Supreme Court. I mean, imagine your brief was very good..
"supreme court" Discussed on Today, Explained
"Are so mad about the Supreme Court. The attorney general of the United States. The attorney general of the United States and former Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Today I am nominating chief judge, Merrick Brian Garland to join the Supreme Court. So in 2016, justice Scalia dies. And after many, many years of the Supreme Court having a 5 to four conservative majority, Scalia's death meant that then president Obama could replace him. There would be a 5 to four liberal majority, and that would have been a sea change. I mean, we really haven't had a liberal court since the beginning of the Nixon administration. And Republicans viewed that as an unacceptable crisis. Mister president, the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court. And so almost immediately, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader announced that there would be no hearing for anyone that Obama nominated the seat must be filled by whoever is the next president. Of course, the American people should have a say. In the court's direction. And of course, the next president was Donald Trump, Donald Trump appoints Neil Gorsuch, judge Neil Gorsuch of the United States, Supreme Court to be of the United States Supreme Court. And I think a lot of Democrats left feeling like a seat was stolen from that. When McConnell deprived president Obama of a vote on Garland, it was a nuclear option. The rest is fallout. And then four years later, shortly before the 2020 election just a few weeks before the 2020 election, justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies. And all of a sudden, judge Amy, Coney, Barrett. Republicans race to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's nominee to Phil Ginsburg seat, they actually confirm Barrett, 8 days before election day. So in 2016, Republicans were saying under no circumstances, can you confirm a justice during a presidential election year? And in 2020, they're saying 8 days before an election, we're going to confirm a justice. My colleagues, there is no escaping this glaring hypocrisy. As I said before, no tit for tat, convoluted, distorted version of history will wipe away the stain that will exist forever. Which feels unfair but also just feels like politics, right? Like the Republicans are playing a political game better than Democrats are. Is it like the greater American public who feels like there's a credibility problem here or is it just like Democrats and I don't know, senior correspondents at vox. I mean, it's a fair question. There are several recent polls showing that the Supreme Court has its lowest approval ratings, according to some of the polls ever measured by that particular poll. Now, I think that that's driven more by the abortion decision that we were talking about before the break than it is driven by Merrick Garland or Amy Coney Barrett. It is notable that several of the justice actually four of the justices have recently given speech is that our very, very defensive, you know, justice breyer is the one liberal, who has done this. He wrote a whole book, which I wrote a fairly scathing review of it's not a very good book. Is it like a hundred pages? Yeah, it's this tiny book. A whole book feels generous. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no Twitter. It is a small book like object that he wrote. And this clip, I'm going to show you how to dunk on someone. Which argues essentially that we shouldn't be criticizing the Supreme Court as political that it's unfair to say that justices are handing down partisan decisions. And that's been echoed by justice clarence Thomas in a speech that he recently gave. I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal press. So preference. So if they think your anti abortion or something personally, they think that that's the way you always will come out. They think you're for that. They think you become like a politician. And I think that's a problem. I think you're going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions. By justice Samuel Alito, and his speech that he recently gave by justice Amy Coney Barrett in a speech that she gave at the McConnell center while speaking after she was introduced by Mitch McConnell and there are actually pictures of Mitch McConnell sitting next to her, gazing admiringly upon her as she argues that the Supreme Court is not a bunch of, quote, partisan hacks. So like they do seem to be very defensive right now. They do seem to feel like whether it's the drop in the court's polls, whether it's the attacks on the court's credibility, are serious enough that they as justices need to get out into the public circuit and try to robot it. I mean, what happens if the Supreme Court of the United States is in viewed as legitimate across the country? I mean, it's a tough question. We know what happens when parts of the country don't view the Supreme Court as legitimate. I mean, that's what happened in the south in response to the Brown V board of education decision. The Supreme Court said black children would go to school with white. The south said, never. You had massive resistance where states refused to comply with the decision. In some cases, the United States had to send troops to those states in order to enforce those decisions. The federal officers are armed with a proclamation from president Kennedy, urging the governor to end his efforts to prevent two Negro students from registering at the university. The governor is adamant. And so you can imagine a situation where the Supreme Court strikes down some blue state governor's signature legislation on some extraordinarily dubious legal theory. And that blue state governor also decides to put up similar resistance. You know, says to President Biden, we're not going to comply with this decision unless you send troops. The other thing to understand about the Supreme Court, I think this is why Mitch McConnell understood that it was so important for his party to control it. Is that the Supreme Court is basically become the locus of policy making in the United States right now. Congress is barely able to act. The Supreme Court can do anything at once with 5 votes. And so we're seeing this massive shift in power away from the branches that are supposed to be making decisions because they can't function very well right now. And towards the Supreme Court, which is able to make decisions quite quickly, but is made up of people who have never run for an election in their life. What's the most charitable defense that prior and bear it and Alito and Thomas are right that the court isn't partisan right now? So the argument that they make is that they are not making these decisions because they are Republican partisans who want Republicans to win. They are making them because they have a judicial philosophy. Barrett made this argument explicitly. Like I have an original judicial philosophy that leads me to certain outcomes. It happens to be the case that the Republican Party may like those outcomes, but it's not because she is a partisan. Are there examples of her judicial philosophy leading to outcomes that conservatives don't like? I mean, the one big recent example of a justice, you know, applying what they claim to be their judicial philosophy in a way that cut against their politics is justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion in bostock, which was an important gay rights decision. 6 to three opinion, which in ringing terms holds that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the language, the text of that law encompasses lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in this country,.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"The likes of which it never occurred at the supreme court and sites margarite marbury versus madison. Says it's the function of duty of the supreme court to interpret the constitution. But he didn't say everybody's bound by it right but the court takes a sentence context so there's the famous line in that. Were marshall says it is emphatically the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is as we learned earlier in the episode. What that man in eighteen hundred three was at the court could decide what the law is only in the case at hand but in nineteen fifty eight. The court was asserting that it had carte blanche power. A decision in one case apply to everyone everywhere in the country in other words judicial judicial supremacy. We serve the floor and ceiling thing is not everyone was bought into the idea of judicial supremacy. It's greeted with widespread skepticism. Because remember most of the people on the left had fought the earlier court battles. They were roosevelt. People and the idea of judicial supremacy was anathema to their understanding. How could they give final. Say power to a court that had stood in the way of so much legislation. They believed in but there is a new generation of rising liberals. Who seeing an activist liberal court like. Love this so. They embraced the idea of judicial supremacy..
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Little rock arkansas and the first phase of the trouble. The white population are determined to prevent college students from getting to the school that end children. Tent picketing the school little rock. Arkansas september twenty fifth nineteen fifty seven. An angry mob stands outside central high school a formerly all white school waiting to see if nine black students will show up mini gene brown. Tricky was one of those students. The world came to little rock to see what would happen. Years of rising. Tensions had led to this moment the sequence of events in the development of the little rock school in one thousand nine hundred fifty to the issue of school segregation went to the supreme court and the case brown v board of education. A lawyer named thurgood marshall then the chief attorney for the end. Acp argued for the plaintiffs. He argued that segregation in schools was a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution and the court unanimously agreed. They ruled that segregation in public. Schools was unconstitutional. Now states across the country had to figure out a way to integrate their schools which made a lot of people especially in the south really angry. They the idea that the federal government could just come into their state and tell them what to do and fable of segregation and supreme court or we are going to maintain segregated schools down in dixie and that included little rock in one thousand nine hundred thousand five. The little rock school board approved a moderate plan for the fragile desegregation of the public schools. In.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"I am from fad under my constitutional duty. The recommend the measures but us breaking nation in the midst of bringing world may require on march fourth. One thousand nine hundred eighty president. Franklin d roosevelt took office and he was up against the worst economic disaster in american history. Augural address the biggest applause for we have nothing to fear. Fear itself was instead that i may have to take on the powers over wartime president negative pound the way they warrick date emergency as great as the power. That would be given to me it. We were in fact invaded by farm wall. He has a mandate which is to do something about the great depression. Prosperity is just around the corner. Say the headlines but around the corners wind the lengthening brett lines and a whole new class of citizens appears in american society. The new poor unemployment running twenty five salt not since the civil war has such pressure political economic social center on the white house and so roosevelt pushes through the first new deal and the court strikes at all down by this time the supreme court was beginning to find its voice again to come out of the shadows. But you can't expect to be taken more seriously and expand your power if you're stuck in a basement. Construction on a new supreme court building was underway when roosevelt took office and not long after roosevelt. Tried to pass the first new deal. The court moved into its fancy. New building amend the architecture glorious grace nations capital. The united states supreme court building is one of the most imposing a are they meeting blaze for the highest tribunal of land whips in seventeen. This was a real step up from their basement quarters. It's big regal. Like something out of ancient greece with a wide oval plaza tall imposing columns lining the front marble statues on either side and a staircase perfect for a.
"supreme court" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"I i mean there's a part of this texas law that says someone an abortion provider. Who's sued under it has an affirmative defense. They can point to roe v. Wade they can point to planned. Parenthood v casey Up until the supreme court overrules a if and when those those decisions and so you could imagine a state like california passing a law The second amendment the big second amendment decision it of course is is heller. You'd imagine state like california saying private citizens are assault. Weapons are banned in the state of california and no state official may enforce that private citizens may sue other private citizens I if they haven't assault weapon in their homes and defendants can point to heller up until the point at which heller is is overruled I mean i think that second amendment advocates would have a big problem with the law like that. Well absolutely i mean and by the way so called. Assault weapons are already. I don't think they're allowed in california. But it would be more just simply had a handgun or rifle or something that there seems to be little question that the supreme court protects your second amendment right to own or for instance climate change suits holding companies responsible or holding individuals responsible. If they don't have clean energy enough homes or whatever it is we really don't want to get into the business of deputising private citizens to sue other individuals For things that they believe to be Transgressions of law or moral code It's a it's a very scary thing to get into. And i think something like it. Almost strikes me. This law was a little too clever by half clearly was designed to escape the kind of scrutiny that the court says imposed in the past on abortion laws by coming up with this work around of deputising average citizens to be the ones doing the suits rather than public officials. But it's a terrible precedent. And i don't think the republicans who put it into place really thought through all of the ramifications And that goes to a lot of levels by the way to which we can talk about just whether or not in in general Going this far with the law that they have and giving democrats all the ammunition that they now are. Whether or not all of this was. We'll be worth it or my actually set back the cause of those who have been trying to rein in to some degree. Some of the more expansive abortion laws across the country bill. What's your your rita. That i mean the way that i am seeing this essentially a texas recognizes even in the law that abortion providers right..
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"Of going ahead and interpreting the constitution based on what they said. Originally when the framers developed the constitutional originalism has taken a bunch of different turns since it was first conceived and began to be articulated but bork was the first person who stepped forward and said yes. I want overturn. The civil rights legislation has been put in place by The war and the burger court's and it's worth noting that when people complained about the robert bork hearings and when people today complain about the robert bork hearings did in fact. It wasn't just democrats at the time who complained about bork's approach to the constitution and to the supreme court that fifty eight of the one hundred senators who were sitting at the time opposed nomination and when reagan gave up an appointed anthony kennedy for that spot instead his hearing only took three days and he won confirmation unanimously suggesting that the problem was not with the democrats who are posing board but rather with the nomination in the first place but what this is giving us since then is a real turn among the court to originalism and increasingly the modern day. Republican court under. John roberts who was appointed by george w. bush has taken this originalists. Turn and it's a very unusual supreme court so the court now there are six people appointed by republicans. Three people appointed by democrats by far when you look at republican presidents and democratic presidencies. It's during republican presidencies. That you end up with far more appointments being made than democratic president so indeed. The republican party does and has for quite some time had the majority in the court. Now the question is what should the courts aim be. Should the court be. And we've been talking about this a little bit over time not to say the partisanship vanishes. Should the court be thinking about. The greater whole. Should it be acting in an arbiter or umpire. Kind of state. Should it be deciding issues of law or should it be a political tool. should it be promoting. A party's views. Really obviously really assertively. That's a different thing. A very different vision of what the supreme court should be. And certainly there number of cases. Coming out of the roberts court that suggests that if indeed it's got a vision of the way the country should be. It's a vision that privileges the republican party right now. So for example. In two thousand ten the roberts court decided citizens united which permitted the the rise of dark money and the real flood of corporate money into political advertising. Which is a way of course to increase the power of people with money in determining how elections come out it also in two thousand thirteen. That's something that really addressed. The warn course protection of voting and that's set in nineteen sixty five. Congress passed the voting rights act which required states..
"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 supreme card under roger tawny hands down the dread scott sanford decision and with that he does a number of things first of all he says that dread scott has no right to sue and that black americans have no rights that a white man is bound to respect so he wipes out the idea of black citizenship with one hand but then he goes on to a piece of the decision that is even more spectacular at the time and that is the idea that congress has no right to legislate in the territories and what that means is that the missouri compromise of eighteen twenty which had divided the newly acquired lands in eighteen. Oh three between the southern states and the northern states was unconstitutional so it was not going to be possible to keep enslavement out of any of the territory that the north had claim since eighteen. Twenty that had not yet been admitted into the union as states but it also went on dramatically to curtail the ability of congress to do a number of things that hit it. Assumed until then it was able to do that under the marshall court is certainly would have been able to do and what this did first of all was it showed a very different side of supreme court It does a number of things first of all. It's a sign that southern enslavers recognize that they are no longer able to command a majority of voters in the country so rather than any longer trying to go ahead and sway elections with persuasion. They're simply going to entrench themselves in the supreme court and use that institution really is a partisan holding action to guarantee that they're going to get their way even though they can no longer command a majority and that's a long standing tradition. I mean if you if you go back and think about john adams and the so-called midnight judges in which he's trying to establish federal all of these positions these judicial positions the federalist party at that point around eighteen hundred. They lose that election and it's clear at that moment that they are going to be out of power for a bit that the public is not with them. They are losing elections. They are beginning to lose seats in congress. So what the federalist do again as a holding action justice as heather. Just put it. Is they grab at the courts and they grab at classrooms. They grab it education in both cases in the case of the courts. Trying to have a sort of federalist anchor of power and control regardless of where the voting is going and in the classrooms so that they can train good patriotic citizens to have the right kind of education so that they will be good. They wouldn't say good. Federalists they would say good. Americans but basically so that they will have a good capital f. federalist education in the case of the dread scott decision the effect of politicizing the supreme court and using it as a political tool becomes clear really really quickly so northerners for example horace greeley at the new york daily tribune with simply outraged and he said any slave driving editor or virginia. Barroom politician could've taken the chief justice's place on the bench and nobody would have perceived the difference and particularly at that moment in time we're in eighteen fifty seven. The slavery crisis is rising to its peak. It is everywhere. Abolitionist sir out everywhere. You have this new anti-slavery republican party being born coming into existence. We're reaching the real peak of the slavery crisis so not only..
"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 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 Verdict with Ted Cruz
"Showdown at the supreme court made your cases involving religious liberty involving adoption involving healthcare and another challenge to obamacare and believe it or not the co host of this. Very podcast is the plaintiff in a major supreme court case. that's coming down the pike. This verdict with ted cruz. Welcome back to verdict ted cruz. I'm michael knowles. I'm going to have a spoiler right here. I am not the plaintiff in this case. Coming down the pike at the supreme court it will not be made. It will be our intrepid host. Senator cruz senator. That's coming up It is were at the end of court term. So it's it's always busy as we get decisions coming down and And they usually save the biggest ones for last so senator. You are an expert in this field not just because you went to law school. Not just because you are. A supreme court litigator and you've argued before the court before also because you've written a book on the subject of the court called one vote away. I've been very busy. Hawking my book speechless but your book one vote away very crucial right now because we have had some pretty serious cases just in the past couple of weeks well that's right and and there's some interesting potential divides were saying among the more conservative justices. You know the the press has been very fond of saying there's a six vote conservative majority on the court and that may be the case. It may not time will tell. There's no doubt the three supreme court justices that president trump put on the court will be a very significant legacy of his and it may prove his most long lasting legacy but experience teaches us. That justice's tenure that they're jurisprudence is assessed and measured in decades not an individual year. So it's really early with with cavanaugh and gorsuch and barrett. It's really early to assess what kind of justice they're going to You mentioned my book. One vote away As you know the final chapter of the book traces the history of supreme court nominations starting with eisenhower and going up to the present and You know..
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Lawyer of the century s for conservatives who hated the decisions of the warren court. They were still totally fine with the principle of judicial supremacy. They were just biding their time. Till the court flip conservative again. So for the first time in american history there was consensus across the board that the supreme court should have the final say over the constitution. So that settles that who has final authority debate and the debate shifts from who has final interpretive authority now. Everybody says it's the court to how the constitution should be interpreted.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Doctrines and turns them into major issues of constitutional law for the first time. When we come back we entered the warren court arra and the battle for judicial supremacy reaches a tipping point. This is dan from phoenix arizona. And you're listening to a through line from npr. This message comes from npr sponsor. Tele doc tele doc is here for you with twenty four seven access to board certified doctors who can diagnose and treat non emergency conditions like sinus infections allergies rashes and more and tell docs. Doctors can wear authorized call in a prescription to be filled at the pharmacy of your choice. Download the app today or visit. Hello doc dot com slash. Npr part.