40 Burst results for "Supreme Court"
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on VB in the Middle
"Noon a little before noon, and she had a number of things to say. One was a pretty good might drop Rippen interrupting media members who rail against Trump interrupting, etcetera, etcetera, and I thought that was really good. But there was another moment there. And let me know when you have it Lightning because All right, so I want to play this for you first. Then I want to tell you what has been tweeted about this because this is how stuff goes. And this is how if the facts aren't what you want him to be, Just ignore him and just go with what you want. Here is Kate Kayleigh Mcenany talking about Amy Cockney Barrett, the Supreme Court nominee and Kayleigh Mcenany state. She is a Rhodes scholar. And a reporter. Correct, sir. Listen, what happens.
Subway bread isn't bread, court says
"Bread. Evidently, there's too much sugar in it. Ireland's highest court isn't sweet on that. Get it. The country's Supreme Court ruled that the starch used in subway sandwiches too sugary to be defined as bread. I mean, is this just something that really needs to be litigated? Granted, it's in Ireland. But enjoy your bread is you're going to eat it, though, baked from subway sandwiches as a sugar content of roughly 10%. The weight of its four flower contents. So therefore, kid with blows me away is subway was selling itself is healthy, said Not only is that helped that even bread, according to the courts in Ireland, but it's all relative healthy compared to what it's probably healthier than McDonalds or other fast through, But maybe not as healthy is just the salad. But if if the Irish know anything besides beer, it is bread, Irish soda bread. We used to have an international meal day. I used to have to bring something Irish and Italian and I was used to bring our soda bread. I actually didn't think they made anything else. I mean, talk about Sweetbread. Is that even bread? That should be exactly But did you make it or did your mom make it? I think I paged. Okay. And that's when I used to be pitching and was called. Preheat the oven. And mixing mixing the ball a little bit. Yes, Next NFL is postponed The Titans Steelers Game four after a positive test. I
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Balance of Power
"Hello, Mork. Conservative Supreme Court might change the role of regulation for corporations. And is there anything that the Fed can do for the economy that it hasn't done already from New York? Welcome to the second hour of Bloomberg balance of power. I'm David Weston. The Federal Reserve has taken interest rates down near zero. It's bought bonds. It's put together lending facilities, but there are still 11 million people unemployed and the pace of the recovery has slowed. If anything, Is there anything more we can hope for? From the Fred Fed? We welcome now. Fed expert Catherine Judge Harvey Goldschmid, professor of law at Columbia University. So, Professor, Thank you so much for joining us. What's the simple answer? Have they've done everything they can do? I was a judge. Professor judge. Look, we may have lost, Professor Judge So let's talk about what can be done by Congress at the moment because Congress is right now weighing the possibility of 1/4 round of fiscal stimulus, something that we talk with Nancy Pelosi about just earlier on balance of power. And this is what part of what she had to say about fiscal stimulus. We come down very far in the negotiations, not abandoning.
Subway bread isn't bread, Irish court says
"Bread, according to the Irish Supreme Court Court ruled that subway bread has too much sugar in it to qualify as a staple food that qualification is needed for subway to get an exemption from the country's value at attacks. Ireland Supreme Court says subway bread Both white and whole grain has five times more sugar than allowed for designation is a staple food, which, of course, will cost the company a lot of dough. It's
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Dennis Prager
"AM 1400 K Detroit, the Salem Media Group on the NASDAQ, As S A L M Time out for the O'Reilly update Message of the day what I learned Watching the debate, and I wasn't alone. 74 million folks watched in America across 16. TV networks and estimated 30 million Mohr viewed on streaming services and the next Has widely discussed the 90 minute debate was a fiasco. Mainly because of interruptions and the lack of specific questions. Take a look at President Trump's first In the first seven minutes of the debate. He was leading He was caught deliberate, gave his answers in a very methodical way. But then Mr Trump became agitated and frustrated. Because Joe Biden Distorted his record, and Chris Wallace, the moderator, did not correct the record because the debate rules stated The moderator can't jump in. And I told you that last week that there was a flaw in the debate. Structure. So Mr Charm started to interrupt and interrupt and interrupt, and it went downhill from there. Also, there would dodges two questions that Mr Wallace allowed. There were misstatement of facts on both sides. President Trump didn't restrain himself. It all you saw and he comes off is far too aggressive. That's what hurt him in the debate. I think he has the stronger political argument and the stronger record. But he loses massive style points. In his posture that you're going to say anything he's going to do anything. And the rules be. You know what Now, let's take a look at Joe Biden. Is obvious that the former vice president is not in charge of his message. Because he was asked a number of very pointed questions. Specific questions, mostly by Donald Trump. Not by Chris Wallace. Mr Wallace's questions as we pointed out yesterday, We're far too windy, far too long. But to give your example um, when you are asked Why You called Mr Trump Xenophobes when he stopped flights from China on January 30th. And you don't answer. I mean, that's insulting to the audience. Americans want to get a measure of both candidates during a debate because most people don't pay attention. They're not like you listening to this broadcast. They don't seek information. So three times a campaign they get. If they want to watch the candidates in person, and then the candidate is an answer A simple question like that. It's also obvious that Joe Biden will not challenge the far left that we saw that. When he was asked about packing the Supreme Court, which is a vital situation. Your bod would not answer the question whether he will or will not packed the Supreme Court. That means Add more justices through the Senate. And that is a vital vital Thing for Americans to know now by not answering. Mr Biden did answer. The answer is yes. That scares the heck out of me. So that's what I learned. I'm Bill O'Reilly and I approve that message by actually writing it disagree. I want to hear from you, Bill it billo'reilly dot com and please consider my brand new book killing crazy horse massive bestseller already. You will like this book. Give you a little escape over the weekend. In a moment, something you might not know. What this covert 19 have to do with losing.
Trump signs bill to avoid government shutdown
"Voting for a short term funding bill to avoid a government shutdown. The continuing resolution keeps government funded at current levels through December. 11th Theeighty 4 10 boat means lawmakers can avoid wrangling over a funding measure even as they try to focus on everything from a Supreme Court nomination to the upcoming election. It is a short term measure. It sends up another possible standoff in mid December, shortly after the election and heading into the Thanksgiving. And Christmas holidays. Buying your report. Trump's side. The bill, which was approved by sweeping bipartisan agreement went stand law early Thursday morning shortly after returning from campaigning in Minnesota.
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Lewis and Logan
"As the day wears on fires. Wyoming and Up here. Fort Collins will bring smoke through the I 25 corridor and it's far away is Alabama Senator Cory Gardner and John Hickenlooper getting ready for their first debate tomorrow? A key issue is President Trump's nomination of Amy Cockney Barrett to the U. S. Supreme Court. Hickenlooper says Senate Republicans should have followed the game plan from 2016 when they squashed President Obama's nomination eight months before the election. Garner thinks it's the right move. We're following President of the U. S Supreme Court and U S Senate confirmation. So John Hickenlooper, who supported Merrick Garland moving forward that does not support moving forward. Now he seems to be foot flopping with the wit. Hickenlooper is in disagreement. Barack Obama was eight months away from his election. So I was arguing that the old president stay in place and Cory Gardner said eight months wasn't enough time. And now suddenly, 44 days is enough time. That's the flip flop. The two men will meet in Pueblo tomorrow, innit bait entered by the Pueblo chieftain. It's been some GOP increasing fear of fallout from President Trump's response to questions about far right extremist groups. At Tuesday night's debate At her press briefing today, White House Press secretary Kaylie Magneri insist again the president has made his position clear this President's had advocated for the death penalty for a white supremacist, the first federal execution in 17 years. His record on this is unmistakable and shameful that the media refuses to cover it. She's referring to the execution of John King in April of last year, banged up struggling and desperate for a win that scribes both the Broncos and the Jets will square off tonight at MetLife Stadium with their season spiraling coaches on the hot seat and rosters ravaged by injuries but rip and will be the ninth different quarterback when he starts tonight in East Rutherford, New Jersey since Peyton Manning. But he's using a model practiced by a few Super Bowl M v. P s to prepare for the Jets stemming from mild remark. You know, a guy that works really hard Film room Do you look at guys like Tom Brady and the men and I think that's always kind of been the standard for the position and how they work and how they watched knowing how much they understand the games. So you know that's what I've always aspired to be. Our coverage of tonight's game starts at three o'clock. Newscast sponsored by cars for kids. Our next news updates at 10 30, I'm Chuck Clark on Koray News, radio 8 50 AM and 94 1 FM. And.
Tensions remain high over Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says Democrats seem intent on hitting Barrett with hypothetical cases more disrespect. Or judicial independence. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says the Republican majority which four years ago argued that the American people should have a voice in connection with a high court nominee is planning to confirm a nominee in the middle of an election that is already underway. On Capitol Hill, Mitchell Miller, w T. O p. New interruptions, Insults and indignation were
Fresh "Supreme Court" from Rush Limbaugh
"More, along with some of the most respected names in helping and healing for details and more information visit. I'm listening dot org's Remember Talk has the power to save lives. 98 7 13 30 K N as S Steve Macintosh Currently partly cloudy 58 degrees and gusty NORTH Wind. Kansas Congressman Dr Roger Marshall kicks off the keep Kansas great bus tours Saturday. I'm his hometown, Laredo. Marshall tells canIs Excuse. Look, We just want to reach out to the people. Kansan still want to see who their candidate is What they look like What their you know Whats in there, I what's in their in their guts. What type of a person are they? Republican. Marshall faces Democrat Barbara Boy in the race for the U. S Senate seat. To be vacated by the retiring pad. Roberts, President Trump's Supreme Court nominee is continuing her meet and greet with key senators. Over the past two days. Judge Amy Cockney Barrett has sat down with nearly two dozen senators so far all Republicans who have expressed confidence in her ability to serve on the nation's highest court, very far reaching and interesting discussion of Whole Siri's of matters relating legal philosophy, judicial cameramen on in some cases, points of law. Utah Republican Mitt Romney met with Barrett Wednesday. Barrett is back on the Hill today,.
Quim Torra, the president of the regional government of Catalonia, has officially been disqualified from office
"Last November in the build up to a general election in Spain Kim Torah, the president of the Regional Government of Catalonia hung a banner on the building in which the government sits demanding the freedom of certain of his colleagues presently in prison or in exile, and what we are going to ask Mister Sanchez. Okay. Obviously and of repression to sit together in these table of negotiations with no conditions that means that we are going to put on. The table, these referendum, these right of Catalonia to self determination, and we want to ask Mr Scientific for the amnesty for our colleagues imprison this week. This act appears to have caused cream Torah his job Spain's Supreme Court has upheld a previous decision banning him from public office eighteen months a consequence of him disobeying an earlier court order to remove the poster which was held to violate election laws against displaying political materials in were indeed on public buildings. He was also fine. Thirty thousand euros treated to a judicial wigging for his quote stubborn blunt repeated and obstinate on quote refusal to do as he was told. Others naturally be afraid of these magistrates if the Supreme Court would decide whether to disqualify democratic and legitimate president for having defended freedom of expression justice prisoners, coalitions, and the return of the exiles these traits today have in their hands. Something much more important than my political futures wanted. Not For any banner. But for banner that defended the fundamental rights denied I mean stylish kitchen. Inevitably given the nature of populist nationalist movements of the tight which Mr Tara leads he and his supporters will regard this damnation as a ringing endorsement. The practical upshot of this decision is that Catalonia has a new acting president, vice president and Economy Minister Arrogance and the Embassy of Catalan independence have been stoked once again with potentially combustible consequences. For Listeners who've been sufficiently bewildered by recent global events that decathlon succession crisis feels like something that happened circa the battle of Salamanca as opposed to three years ago a brisk recap is possibly in order. In October, two thousand and seventeen, the procession regional government of Catalonia through a referendum on independence. This vote had already been declared illegitimate by Spain's national government ruled illegal by Spain's constitutional. Court. and was widely boycotted by pro unionists within Catalonia. What they are pushing is not democracy it's a mockery of democracy travesty of democracy. Referendum do not equal or do not equate democracy. The result was ninety percent in favor of independence but on a turnout of only forty three percent. Nevertheless on October twenty, seventh, two, thousand and Seventeen Catalonia's parliament. Independence Solutia. The COLOSIO Delta repetant parliamentary get rather sit down. Though in Punta. The worst Zimba. Spain's national government was unimpressed by this and accordingly sacked Catalonia's leaders dissolved its parliament and instituted direct rule from Madrid Catalonia's. Can Preach Demont and a few other putative architects of the Catalan nation skipped the country. Wisely, it turned out those who stayed were arrested and charged with treason several received hefty prison sentences including Catalan vice president, Auriol Carris, currently serving thirteen years. President preached amount remains in exile in Belgium from where he has managed to get elected to European Parliament as a representative of Spain Vice? President John Carey has also been elected to European Parliament although for obvious reasons is yet take his seat. Absolutely none of which has caused the idea of Catalan independence to go away at least not entirely though recent polls do suggest dwindling enthusiasm for the idea from nearly forty nine percent at the time of the referendum to perhaps forty two percent. Now, President Torre has strongly suggested that regional elections may be held early in two thousand, twenty one, which he is already framing as a choice as he puts it between democracy and freedom or repression and imposition. The, difficulty with this argument is that in the present dispensation, Catalonia is not short of either democracy or freedom. It is the richest part of what is by global standards a wealthy country. It enjoys considerable autonomy electing its own parliament flying signed flag, speaking its own language, controlling its own police and many of the public services, including schools and healthcare. The Catalan independence movement often looks and sounds less like some heroic struggle to slough off a brutal imperialist yoke. The net does populist insurrection like Brexit, another self indulgent tantrum thrown by the complacent citizens of a prosperous and orderly nation rebelling against some imaginary tyranny door is breaking. Independent United Kingdom. The difference of course is that Mr Torah his colleagues and supporters do have a case on the repression and imposition front as well. The referendum of two thousand and seventeen was a stunt which all, but begged Madrid to overreact and indeed. Did Not just in its heavy-handed persecutions of the independence movements, ringleaders. But in the ham-fisted response of the National Police and Guardia Civil, which left hundreds of pro-independence protestors injured and Spain's government looking like exactly the authoritarian overlords that Catalonia's government was accusing them of being. Versus the cycle of Grievance keeps turning in firing president. Torres Spain might be about to discover again the folly of punishing those who want to be punished.
Helen Reddy: 'I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar' Singer Dies at 78
"Year before Helen Reddy was diagnosed with dementia, the singer explained in an interview with Houston Public media. Where I am woman came from, I guess Heaven, you know came to me and it wouldn't leave me was simply a phrase that over and over I am strong. I am invincible. I am woman. And I thought, Well, this is has to be a soul. I am woman. Hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore Helen Reddy this sport into a show business family in Australia. She came to the US after winning a singing competition in 1966. Her career was just beginning to take off when she decided she had to record I am woman, even though her label Capitol Records thought it was too strident to feminists ready, and her manager husband, more convinced the song would speak to a new generation of independent woman. Without any support from the label. They worked the phones trying to get radio stations to play it. It was so hard it was so hard, Helen Reddy and that 2014 interview. You know, so many radio stations would say, Well, we're we're already playing a female record. It took nearly a year for I'm women to work its way up the charts and become a number one hit. When ready, then won a Grammy for best female performance. She thanked her manager husband, I would like to thank Jeff wrong because he makes my success possible. And I would like to thank God because she makes everything possible, calling God she a national television was audacious. But remember, this was 1972. The same year, the Equal Rights Amendment passed the Senate and Shirley Chisholm ran for president. The Supreme Court made its decision in Roe vs Wade just a month after I am Woman reached number one on and I am women has legs over the years has been covered over and over with the cultural impact Illustrated in part by the gleeful karaoke version, sung by the main characters in the 2010 movie sex in the city, too. For recently Helen Reddy herself perform the song at the 2017 Women's March in Los Angeles. I wass but its ways. Yes, right. But look how much game Hindu and Helen Reddy's love memorialized in a movie that came out just this year, a biopic called, Of Course I Am Woman for Signature Song reflected optimism and joy in a time of challenge change difficulty. She leaves us joy and optimism in her music. It is
"Stand back and stand by": Trump doesn't condemn white supremacists
"Biden clashed on the president's Supreme Court nominee Healthcare, the Corona virus and policing. Trump also refused to condemn white supremacists who have supported him, telling one such group known as Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. There are two mohr of these debates to go in
Trump says he moved to end racial sensitivity training in federal agencies 'because it's racist'
"Right off the top President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden facing off in the first of three presidential debates in Cleveland last night, the contentious debate, leaving some viewers exhausted. By the candidates themselves. What you sure there's nothing smart about you? Jeff President Trump's first making his case for third Supreme Court justice, his nominee, Amy Cockney, Very we won the election, and therefore we have the right To choose her. The men also at odds over the response to the Corona virus, and the plan to reopen the country and amid nationwide protest over race relations. When pressed the president, saying he ended racial sensitivity training at federal agencies because he thinks it's racist. ABC is Alex per Shea
Trump, Biden Clash in Contentious First Debate
"I'm Anthony Davis. Law By angry interruptions and bitter. NHS The first debates between President Donald, trump, and Joe. Biden erupted in contentious exchanges last night over the coronavirus pandemic job losses and how the Supreme Court will shape the future of the nation's healthcare. Fitting for an ugly campaign, the two men frequently talked over each other with trump interrupting nearly shouting. So often that bind an eventually snapped at him, will you shut up man? The fact is that everything he said so far is simply ally Biden said I'm not here to call out his lies everybody knows he's Eliah trump and Biden arrived in Cleveland hoping the debates would energize basis of support even as they competed for the slim slice of undecided voters who could decide the election the vitriol exploded into the open when binding attacked trump's handling of the pandemic saying the president waited and waited to act when the virus reached American shores and still doesn't have a plan. The pandemic were in plain sight with the candidates elected and
Presidential debate: Trump and Biden trade insults in chaotic debate
"Tonight president trump and former vice president Joe Biden came face to face and then some for the first twenty twenty presidential debate we have seen our share of norm busting moments during this trump presidency during this campaign. But that debate tonight went well beyond what we have ever seen the topics ranged from the supreme court nominee to the pandemic. The night was chaotic. It was tough to watch on television. It got ugly at times featured razor sharp exchanges and personal attacks. The two hundred thousand people that have died on his watch you were here. It would be two million people. He has no plan for healthcare. He has like almost everything else. He talks about he does not have a plan. He doesn't have a plan and the fact is this man doesn't know what he's talking about. Are you willing to tell the American people tonight whether not you will support either ending the filibuster war packing whatever position I taken that that'll become the issue is order Senator Russia? Is it true that you paid seven hundred fifty dollars in federal income taxes each of those two year I've paid millions of dollars in taxes, millions of dollars of income tax, and let me just tell you. There was a story in one of the papers attacking paid through the worst. America's ever had the mayor of Moscow as wife gave you three and a half million dollars as. Deserve. Do with Peres on of this country's. Speaking of my son, the way you talk about the military, the way you talk about them being losers and being and just being suckers my son was in Iraq he spent a year there. He I got the bronze star you got a conspicuous service medal. He was not a loser. He was a patriot and the people left behind. There were heroes brilliant i. took. Up My son Beau Biden you're tied on. Are. You willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups. Do it I a give me a name. Give me A. Route Boris and right pro choice stand back and stand by but I'll tell you what I'll tell you what somebody's got to do something about Antifa and the left.
Breaking down the first presidential debate
"Something something one one of of the the many many reactions reactions to to the the often often out out of of control control atmosphere. atmosphere. Last Last night's night's presidential presidential debates. debates. Now Now Jones Jones has has a a ramp ramp up. up. It It was was a a night night of of bitter bitter exchanges, exchanges, Name Name calling calling and and talking talking over over each each other other got got so so bad bad that that Biden Biden said said to to Trump Trump Shut Shut up, up, man. man. Here's Here's one one of of the the exchanges exchanges concerning concerning the the future future of of Obama Obama care. Absolutely. Do you have an idea what you have Todo socialized medicine, Mr. President what? President Trump got off to a solid start making the case for choosing the Supreme Court Justice. I will tell you very simply, We won the election elections have consequences. We have the Senate. We have the White House and we have a phenomenal nominee. He also tried to pin Biden down on trade with China and tried to do the same on police violence, Law and order. But Biden was ready for that one. The vast majority of police officers are good, decent, honorable men and women. They risk their lives every day to take care of us. But there are some bad apples and when they occur when they find them, they have to be sorted out. They have to be held accountable. The former vice president stumbled a bit but otherwise held up. Trump was aggressive. Maybe too much so But this is the first debate. There's still two more to go. Al Jones 10 10 wins news
SCOTUS: Barrett Nomination Officially Sent To Senate
"Supreme Court nomination of Amy Cockney Barrett has been officially sent to the Senate. Berit met earlier today with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Capitol Hill. Senate Republicans air pushing to get Barrett confirmed ahead of the presidential election. If confirmed, she'd replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was buried earlier today beside her husband at Arlington National Cemetery.
Trump, Biden face off in chaotic first US presidential debate of 2020
"Interruptions and periodic chaos were the disorder of the night in presidential debate number one between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, the president on Biden's relations with police, following months of tensions, usually linked to police debts of black men and women, Portland The sheriff just came out today and he said, I support President Trump. I don't think you have any law enforcement. You can't even say the word law enforced because if you say those words, you're going to lose all of your radical left supporters ahead of Supreme Court arguments over the future of the affordable Care act. Biden on the president and healthcare he sends out Wishful thinking he has executive orders have no power. He hasn't lowered drug costs for anybody's been promising a healthcare plan since he got elected. He has not like almost everything else. He talks about those two experts rare in that they were uninterrupted. Next week, Uh, vice presidential debate,
ABC News Political Director Rick Klein on the first presidential debate
"Stay Stay with with us us here. here. The The debate debate begins begins in in just just 20 20 minutes minutes from from Cleveland Cleveland President President Trump Trump Now Now 74 74 years years old old former former vice vice President President Joe Joe Biden Biden is is 77. 77. It It makes makes him him the the oldest oldest candidates candidates ever to face off in a televised presidential debate. Topics include the Supreme Court, covert 19 race and violence in American cities, according to the Commission on presidential Debates, and you can be sure the President Trump's taxes will be discussed. We asked ABC news political director Rick Klein. Whether President Trump, despite his lack of experience as a politician is a better debater than Joe Biden. He's a better debater than people give credit for because he fears so wildly off subject under any traditional School sanctioned debate. He would fail miserably. But that's not how this works, and the American people have a different way of judging these things. He was able to dominate a field of, you know, well, more than a dozen candidates during the Republican prime rate. He was the front runner for much of that time, and he was able to go wire to wire Toto with some of the absolute best in the business, including very talented debaters like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and I think in the general election debates, I think most people that were watching, According to the insta polls, Hillary Clinton was judged to be a winner ended up not mattering. But I think his ability to understand the medium of television is unparalleled in his ability to dominate any kind of a lot of time, and I think the fact that he's only been doing it for a few years obscures the fact that he's very good at it, whether it's debating or anything on television. He understands what he's doing up there, and he understands the power of the images that he's projecting a final thought Rick about tonight. I think there's a fallacy that the audience for one of these debates is a mythical undecided voters There just aren't that many of them in the country. We're talking maybe 34% of the population. Truly undecided. Much more important in terms of the audience are the persuadable voters uncommitted voters in the sense that they're not committed to necessarily voting at all. Or maybe supporting a third party candidate in lieu of one of the men on stage tonight, So don't look at this is an opportunity or a challenge to change minds so much it is to persuade and to convince people that are critical to either party's chances that it's important to go vote and keep in mind that, you know. For Joe Biden of someone of Trump supporters. Eyes to stay home is a win for Donald Trump. Find supporter who feels to one inspired Tio actually vote that's counted as a win as well. ABC NEWS Political director Rick Climb You can watch and listen to the debate of w t o p dot com Or stay here on w T O p
NPR News Interviews Professor Anita Hill
"Considered from NPR News. I'm Ari Shapiro and Mary Louise Kelly has enough changed in the three years since the Harvey Weinstein story broke and the me to movement took off. A new report finds that for Hollywood and the entertainment business, the answer is no. The Hollywood Commission, a nonprofit that works to eradicate harassment and discrimination in the industry. Surveyed entertainment workers nationwide and found many are staying silent because they fear retaliation. Or they don't believe people in positions of power will be held to account. The chair of the commission is Anita Hill, who, of course, has fought her own battles over getting allegations of sexual harassment taken seriously. She accused now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of harassment and testified. Under oath back in 1991. Professor Hill joins us now welcome back to all things considered. I'm glad to speak with you again. I'm happy to be here. Tell me what surprised you in the survey results Well, the standout data was the data on accountability. We ask people Do you think that a person of higher rank Who was found to have our asked a person of lower rank would be held accountable and what we found is that 64% of the people we surveyed said that in fact, that person would not be held accountable. I suppose that's the thing that surprised me. I mean, on the one hand, it's not surprising that we're dealing with such deeply entrenched culture and history here. On the other hand, it's been three years of me, too, in the spotlight, and many powerful men have been held to account. You're you're absolutely right. We've seen some very high profile cases. And what we want to make sure is that it doesn't stop with just a few high profile cases. We know that they are problems throughout. Workplaces, and we want to make sure that everybody, whatever their position is Can count on being heard. So that's one piece of this. The other is persuading people who believe they're being harassed, have been harassed that they have a safe path to come forward and report it. I remember interviewing you, Professor Hill. Always. Almost exactly. Two years ago, September 2018 on we were talking because it was in the middle of the confirmation battle over Brett Kavanaugh. And we talked about the the personal cost of choosing to come forward. What do you say to someone who's weighing whether to do so or not? Well, you're absolutely right. There are personal cost. But even when people are willing to take the risk, there are other things that they're considering. People don't come forward because they think they won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the Cavanagh hearing really gave the impression that the Senate Judiciary Committee Did not take Christine Bozzi. Ford's claim seriously, and people see that example and becomes, you know what they think will happen to them.
Notre Dame president apologizes for no mask at White House
"Of Notre Dame's president has issued an apology for not wearing a mascot, a White House event. After pictures surfaced online of him, shaking hands and sitting shoulder to shoulder with people without one. Reverend John Jenkins attended the Rose Garden ceremony Saturday for Judge Amy Cockney Barrett. President Trump Supreme Court nominee Jenkins was there because Barrett is a Notre Dame alumna and a professor at the law school. The South been Tribune reports that Reverend Jenkins also pointed out that upon arrival, he another guest received rapid response code. 19 tests
Justice Ginsburg buried at Arlington in private ceremony
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died a week and a half ago at age 87 was buried today in a private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. She was laid to rest beside her husband, Martin and near some of her former colleagues on the court. Ginsberg is the 14th justice to be buried at Arlington. While the cemetery is known for its rows of white headstones. The section where the Ginsberg's are buried is an older section where markers Chosen by families are allowed and their headstone is black with a star of David at the top. The grave site is just below the final resting place of former President John F. Kennedy. Nine other justices are buried in this section, including three who Ginsberg served with
Barrett meeting with GOP senators ahead of confirmation hearings
"Amy Cockney Barrett, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, is on Capitol Hill today from meetings with nine Republican senators, including majority leader Mitch McConnell. As they prepare for her fast track confirmation. Democrats are being forced to confront the limits of their power as they fight the nomination. Some have said they won't meet with Barrett ahead of the confirmation hearings that are set to begin October. 12th.
"supreme court" Discussed on Into America
"A Supreme Court justice. Eight days after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader GINSBURG died, president. Donald. Trump nominated a replacement. Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant. And gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement. Towering intellect sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution. Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Amy. Coney Barrett currently serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. If confirmed, she will be the fifth woman ever to serve on the. Supreme. Court. If confirmed I would not assume that role for the sake of those in my own circle and certainly not for my own sake. I would assume this role to serve you. I WOULD The judicial oath, which requires me to administer justice without respect to persons. Do equal right to the poor and rich and faithfully, and impartially discharge my duties under the United States Constitution. Conservatives antiabortion activists are thrilled with the nomination judge. Breyer clerked for the late conservative Supreme, court, Justice Antonin Scalia and her past decisions and review articles signal that she would likely vote to strike down the affordable care act and restrict access to abortion. Democrats are calling.
"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 The Daily
"From. The New York Times I'm Michael Borrow this is the daily. For, the past few months the times has been pulling voters in swing states and tracking hell. The events of the summer are influencing key voters in the issues they care about. Today. How all of that beat reshaped by the death of justice loose Beta Ginsburg. It's Tuesday. September twenty second. The. Supreme Court is on the ballot and the outcome will impact everything from healthcare to civil rights affecting generations to come the question is what will be on the minds of voters over the next six weeks, the virus or this court pit. So what do polls tell us about whether voter support a Senate vote on a Supreme Court nominee what does it mean for the election in which voters will it energize given what we know? That voters think about this court thing the importance of the court could this change the course of this election? Any way you look at this? We're going to be spending a lot of time over the next six weeks talking about this Supreme Court nomination. How does that change the twenty twenty election?.
"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 Matt D’Elia Is Confused
"In fact, this doesn't sound like a thing that's possible but I think it is possible because I'm experiencing it. I Guy I'm so confused by one thing. I'm so confused by it. and. It is so demented that I think I've come around the other end. And I have ultimate clarity about this thing. I've been so dement, my mind has been so demented and thrust into such confusion that it has come out the it has had no choice but to come out the other side. With a crystal clear fucking understanding. and. Unsurprisingly for anyone who does pay attention to the news and if you do not. You are forgiven. Because the news. Is fucking. Depressing. Even if you're on antidepressants. Even if you're on fucking. Heroin or PCP you read the news. And you WANNA fucking cry. And you WANNA terrorise out and you want to jump out the nearest window. Doesn't matter what state you're in. If you read the news after enduring reading the news, you will want. To cry to tear your eyes out and jump out the window the news. That has thrust me. To confusion and. Beyond That, I'm referring to. Is. Everything that's happened in the. Wake of the death of Supreme Court justice? Ruth Bader GINSBURG. I'M.
"supreme court" Discussed on Talk About It
"When you think about it and I'm not faulting them but you can make this you know inference if you will. That from the get go. It was a way well, place in control from the get go. From Yeah. From think about it, you serve a life if you are able to serve lifetime and the thinking was okay, they serve lifetime which means. The other two groups. The other two branches can't really mess with them. But. If you put someone with your ideology in that position that means for the rest of their life. There's GonNa be supporting your ideology. Criminal it sounds like a setup from the beginning. Yeah it's awesome. They move home. If you WANNA look at it. That way I'm sure there those who disagree with the statement that I'm making but. If you just Kinda look at it. if I support the Angelo's ideology and he gets me on the court, even when the Angelo is no longer an office I'm still going to be voting his primarily his ideology. I'm going I'm going to make sure die. Yala she lives on why? Because there's nothing can be done to me. I'm here for life. And the thing about it that the constitution and the thing about it, and the thing advised that the constitution lists no official qualifications for becoming Supreme Court justice. So it says the president typically nominate people generally like you stated, sure their own political and ideological view. So the justice are no way obligates reflect the views and the decisions nor cases brought to the court. So if another president gets in, they don't have to even this thing to say because they're still on the backbone of the president actually elected him to the Supreme Court. So. Like you say man, that's that's something that should be really looked at how do we even make that change come about? because. The districts, and if you look at I look at district judges, they're like this. The People Chose Choose District Court touches Um. But when you become a federal judge, all federal judges are pointed. Call that or judge point. So all these federal judges are point. So they no matter what suggests you have play. When you get to federal judge levels, all of them are pointed so. Again like you said from day one..
"supreme court" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"Another thing build that that strikes me here is that we've never had a president. Like Donald Trump. Maybe we never will again, but that some of the issues raised here are are places where he is uniquely vulnerable I. Mean First of all. He has these large business. Interests networks of companies. accompanies within companies. And plus he hasn't really been all that transparent about that. I mean he's still that he can't release its tax. His tax returns because they're being audited. which you know after five years of that, it starts to look pretty clearly to my I like a pretext, but see some of these issues are maybe unique to him, and maybe won't be raised again for decades or hundred years again. Yeah I agree partly with that look as a businessman. He brings to this a different backgrounds you know businessmen are involved all all the time. If you're any kind of successful businessman, all sorts of litigation and questions about your taxes, and so forth and lots of things about you, so you're a little bit different than your standard run of the mill politician who spent his whole life in politics in his taxes may not be that that complicated. Complicated that, said just because he has refused to release them. is not evidence that he is guilty of anything. So you know it? It's a decision left for the voters to decide on. Do they want that information or do they? Do they not care or do? They just say all I've to make my decision based on what things are and this is where I'm going to go. Also this week religious schools one a seven two ruling on the ministerial exception. Essentially the the right of these schools to control their personnel so to elementary teachers. At Catholic schools said they were discriminated against contracts weren't renewed and they sued their schools. The Supreme Court now is saying that that claim those claims are essentially barred that the teacher is even though they were elementary school teachers led prayers..
"supreme court" Discussed on This Land
"Yesterday the amount of land, the federal government officially recognized as Indian country. As the jurisdiction of tribes was just fifty five million acres, only two percent of all land in the US. Today that number is seventy, four million. This is Rebecca Nagel and I'm bringing you an update from this land and crooked media. Today the Supreme Court finally made its ruling on the reservation status of eastern Oklahoma. We won. For the majority Justice Neal Gorsuch wrote and I, quote. On the far end of the trail of tears was a promise forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama. The Creek Nation received assurances that they're new lands in the. West would be secure forever. Today we are asked whether the landed these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for the purposes of Federal Criminal Law. Because Congress has not said otherwise. We hold the government to its word. It's been a year since I've spoken to you and a lot has happened not just today's decision, but a completely different supreme court case, new tribal leadership, a second set of oral arguments and our own in-depth investigation on the impact of this decision on past criminal convictions. There is so much to talk about. One Week from today we are going to bring you our coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling, and what it means, you don't want to miss it. Subscribe to this land wherever you get your podcasts..
"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 Slate's If Then
"For years ago. A Norwegian writer named Tom egland posted that same photo to facebook. It is a photo of a a nine year old girl running naked the streets and it was removed under the Child. Exploited imagery rural. That's Kate Clinic. A lawyer and writer whose research is focused on facebook and it happened to have been posted by very famous Norwegian author who got very upset and threw a fit on facebook after it was removed and the Norwegian prime minister than posted it and it was removed and then there was a a letter to mark. Zuckerberg was published on the front page of a Norwegian newspaper. Said Dear Mark Zuckerberg mark caved tonight and it was a whole lecture about censorship. I I you make rules. That don't distinguish between child pornography and important war documentary photos. Then you practice these rules without sounds judgment. Finally facebook eventually allowed the photo to go back up but the whole controversy. Kate says was a turning point. I think that they had failed up until that point to recognize how much these content moderation decisions could not be solved just by taking things down and it was just as important to make people feel that they were hurt and that they had voice as it was to remove content that they didn't want to see in the years. After the controversy over the Napalm girl image facebook has continued to struggle with these decisions. They've created huge content moderation operation and endured scandals over doctored videos and D platforming. Facebook simply couldn't settle on a clear system that determined what stays up and what comes down so right now. The company is trying something new creating an independent oversight board separate from the company that will decide what content stays and what goes a group users can appeal to and one that will try to police. What two billion people put online think of it as a Supreme Court for facebook? You're a lawyer. You've written him thought a lot about this. What was your first thought when you heard that they're doing this? I mean I follow these breakouts more than probably anyone. Even I was kind of like well. I'll believe it when I see it. So Kate asked to watch and facebook said yes. For most of the past year she's been an independent observer embedded inside the company as it wrestles with what it Supreme Court Tannen should be. And there've been moments where I've been very skeptical that it's all going to come together and survive and then there have been moments of kind of grandiosity in which kind of like. Wow this is maybe going to change the world forever.
"supreme court" Discussed on The BreakPoint Podcast
"Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about DACA how it decides will affect nearly a million people for the Colson Center. I'm John Stonestreet. This is break point. It never should have come to this yesterday. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the fate of the deferred. Action for Childhood Arrivals Arrivals Aka Daca and two thousand twelve. President Obama issued an executive order that allowed unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the US as children and to live and work in the United States legally approximately seven hundred thousand people who are dubbed Dreamers are currently covered under Dhaka and two thousand seventeen the trump administration announced that it was ending Daca giving congress six months to offer a possible replacement solution and we all know what happened next nothing in recent in years both political parties have shifted talking points on immigration and now effectively hope positions dictated by their most extreme members. Any hope for a legislative solution Chint seems impossible rulings by various federal courts against the White House of only entrench the stalemate so what will the Supreme Court decide. Three outcomes seem any most likely the court could agree with lower courts that the administration failed to meet the necessary legal requirements for ending Daca. Now that wouldn't be the same thing as saying the administration ration- can't Endaka. Since it was an executive order and not an act of Congress. This would be more of an immediate decision based on a technicality. Or the court could rule that the administration's decision to in Dhaka was legal and also legally implemented if that happens then dreamers would face deportation as soon as their current authorisation expires or the court could issue a more sweeping ruling. That President Obama's initial DACA executive order was illegal. That's that's the argument being made by the trump administration and would prevent a future president from just reinstating daca predictions based on oral arguments are notoriously pointless pointless but it seemed the conservative justices believed the administration had legal discretion in Dhaka while the liberal justices believed this administration had nefarious as intent in ending Daca. And if those lines hold will likely see a five four decision in favor of the trump administration now. I don't make predictions. But if I were to make get prediction which I won't that would be the better question is of course. What should the Supreme Court decide? And frankly I don't know in a perfect world's decision on this would have been made years ago. One that balanced concerns over immigration numbers enforcing borders human dignity and constitutionality. But the thing we can't can't change is that we're now having this debate in the context of a full on immigration mass with futures of seven hundred thousand human beings on the line who are largely in this country through no fault of their own. Like I said it never should have come to this but it did because this is what happens when politics takes over everything and in an upcoming video and are what would you say series. We answered the question about whether churches should be engaged in political issues. Are Answer is that the question is wrong from the very beginning. Why because in reality there's no such thing as a political issue there economic issues environmental issues criminal justice national security and yes immigration immigration issues but politics is not a category of issues? Politics is a process by which we work through issues in an attempt to order our lives together. Gather what side of the road should we drive on. What's the definition of marriage? Who should be allowed in the country and who shouldn't but in America almost everything has been reduced down and is now now thought of as entirely exclusively political issues and when that happens moral decisions become matters of power and influence in cases like Dhaka? Uh when what's at stake are actual people than both citizens and immigrants alike become the dehumanized victims of process operating out of its lane. So what's the way forward. Well honestly I'm not sure there is one until we. I go back in de politicized most of American life. I know that's not a satisfying answer and I wish mich- I had a better one for breakpoint on Johnstone Street..
"supreme court" Discussed on What Next | Daily News and Analysis
"Their stories might just inspire you to what would you like the power to do you can find that made all the difference anywhere you get your podcasts so the Supreme Court opened yesterday today. We're seeing one of these cases that you've said is a potential blockbuster it's actually three cases a trans woman and two gay men coming to the court and saying we were fired and it sex discrimination we talk about that a little bit okay so here's what you have to understand federal law has for a really long time prohibited discrimination against employees because of sex right so we all know that a boss can't say I don't like women women are really bad at working they should be at home doing did things so I'm GonNa fire all women right we know that so so think about it this way there are two employees at a company they're a man and a woman right of them happened to get married on the same weekend terrible timing friends have to choose one wedding or the other it's a huge social catastrophe but there you have it to get back to the office on Monday The man puts up a picture of his husband on his desk nice little frames picture the woman puts up a picture of her husband on the desk nice a nice little the employer comes in and he looks at the man and he looks at the picture of the man's husband and he says I'm firing you why did he fired Acai okay was it because he was gay yes that's part of it but if he had been a woman then he wouldn't have been fired because the boss is hey women can marry men but men aren't supposed to be marrying other men that switched me out the plaintiffs in this case say look if you changed the sex there's no discrimination not means this is sex discrimination sex was a key factor in discrimination so how is during a trans worker sex-discrimination so that's even simpler because what's happening there is an employer is looking at someone who transitioned from say male to female L. and saying hey you present as a woman but I think that you should act like a man and so the employer saying you're not allowed to transition from one sex to the other is off the table for me and it is literally impossible to perform that calculus without taking the person sex into account so what are the rulings before this case reached the Supreme Court that give you any idea of what's going to happen now yeah so it's interesting because you have a bunch of lower courts and judges including very conservative Republican nominees agreeing with the theory that I just laid out and saying look we're textualist sts we just look at the words and call balls and strikes right you cannot describe an instance of Anti Gay discrimination without taking the person sex into account so this is sex-discrimination you've seen far more judges side with that theory than you've seen them site against it it is definitely a consensus in the lower courts though there have been some deviations now theory is going to be tested at Skoda's and we know Skoda's does not mind overruling all of the lower courts and reminding them who's boss so everyone is very nervous in the advocacy world because they are fearing and perhaps predicting a white out at Skoda's another group that's fearing wipe out at Skoda's immigration advocates that's because in November the justices are going to decide whether the president has the power to rescind Daca the policy that lets so-called dreamers stay in the country legally even though their parents brought them here illegally okay so we have this case that will test whether the president can rescind Daca tell me a little what about it how it got here and what we know so far yes so here's the thing you may remember Attorney General Jeff sessions he was not good at his job he was actually quite bad at it because one of the easiest things that Administration can do is repeal it's assessors policies daca which as we know deferred deportation to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children riot gave the work permits allowed them to live here dog was just an executive policy that Brock Obama set up should have been easy for Jeff sessions to come in and say we don't like this policy we're scrapping it but instead he did something really weird he said I think that Daca isn't just bad but I think it's UN- constitutes national I've made this this sort of ruling and so I'm going to rescinded because of my belief that it's unconstitutional and.
"supreme court" Discussed on Talking Politics
"It's with the U. At least in relation to getting in extension that is something that is quite contingent at the same time. I think there's something that's much more structure than that is is that when we joined the European community as it then was we did abandon the principle of parliamentary sovereignty because actually there was a higher law which was e. EU law in parliament was constrained in the way in which it could legislate because it could not legislate in ways that violated European law. I have lots of people in this country. The WHO wants to leave the U. precisely because jet at the same time you have lots of people in this country who want to find a way of recreating what the e U did as acting as hi Laura you said Catherine within this country and there's no agreement about that whatsoever. The conflict is going to come and if it becomes a conflict lawyers for a higher constitutional solution law in the enough of the electro for parliament. We've got a massive political problem that there isn't any way of resolving. We've all learned a great deal. UNPACK constitutional law and our Constitution and Tara set the fragility of our Constitution and we've always been I think rather complacent set were like constitution is flexible and it works works and it's adaptable what we have never articulated and that's what this case is about the military cases about what we've never articulated is always independent on the executive behaving appropriately properly and not playing rather fast and loose with some of the the e conventions and that's why what you're seeing now is a recourse to the courts when people don't necessarily behave in the way that traditionally. I think think the electric job is to hold the ultimately is to hold the executive to account presupposes an election. You could say absolutely absolutely is the executive behaving appropriately that keeps the constitution going but it's also parliament paving appropriate I mean I think this is the point. The we're making which is parliament behaving appropriately under this system is to replace an executive in which it does not have confidence with another executive that is not right or wrong moral immoral but it is how the game works now for complicated reasons. Parliament is no longer willing to play that game so I think it's not simply that the executive is no longer abiding by the conventions I think across the board politicians on long robotic inventions and that's a big part of our problem and I think that's why it's finally balanced. I think I think there is effectively. Part of the government's case estee was the one I've just been making which was by our rules. Parliament could have done something about it and it didn't don't put all on us. I think the decision at the time to pursue the legislating against no deal rather than accepting that this was the time for general election was one of enormous consequences because that is absolutely the traditional mechanism to reassert control of the executives to dissolve it in for another one through new majority if you take off the table than is true. If you take off the table. The British system has left with what the courts. I think the other issue that we've not mentioned here which had been so crucial this is affixed parliament site that has been a game changer in all of this now of see we spent a lot of time thinking about the two-thirds majority and so forth but pre twenty eleven the premise of couldn't action any any time. Kern his hands are absolutely tied by that and of course the opposition for political reasons of making maximum use is at that so that's why you can see why the lawyers all the loyally minded. MP's event she went down the route to try and stop a no deal through deep. Ben Burtt Act and they see as important in terms of sequencing. Take no deal off the table. At least temporarily give yourself some breathing space then have an election and then we'll we'll see whether we get greater clarity of result. Kamensky a few more slightly more quick questions we can keep talking about this and it's really fascinating so these are connected but Bruni out there so one more on the constitutional could people say we're moving in an American direction but there are obvious this analogies there is written constitution. I don't know whether it makes sense sensical anyone an originalist in this country any it does is much more political. The judges are appointed through a political process that other constitutional courts that we might be moving more all towards. I mean this is not like the German Constitutional Court. Is it under those systems. There is a written constitution and the court interpreted but are we. Are we still going to be Sui Generis just the UK version of this or are we becoming more European ironically as we leave the European loose sense. I I think in the sense that you have some reference to some higher body of law that needs to be interpreted by figures. Perhaps that would be a deep irony right leaving the east is what made us more European his love it just be happening the it was the European bet not legal but I think the cost of the UK's membership of the there's been a process of constitutional modernisation you WANNA call it that's taken UK closer to the European system but not in name simply and content but on inform now we're seeing the consequences consequences of that and having to come to terms with it but it's definitely not the European Court of Justice. I'm Katherine will know better than me. That's another sort of system much stricter. I suppose Oh so much more orientated towards innovation through the courts the German Constitutional Court because I'm Helen's took this law as we've talked by various European crises ICEES. We used to the fact that it's really a massive constraint on political action. Isn't it always hearing well. The GEM would like to ex ex-wife at the Constitutional Court weren't lead lays not questioned about whether what except that she stopped it quite such sets limits on what can be done mm in relation to Europe or or in particular relation to the European matters that basically at a constraint I think then on the way in which the German having governed can think about questions because it's worried about what can be taken to the gym constitutional cool so for instance the VP's actions we've talked about it could the block look could be the various challenges to the CB's actions in the gym constitutional. I'm cool and essentially looks like Merkel's decision. Making is always trying onto stay justify side a warm gym. Constitutional Court mice might decide against his cousin. Do you think this is the first of many I mean we could be back in the Supreme Court watching it gripped on TV in a few weeks time when people challenge Boris Johnson's refusal to sign the letter or signing electra and then handing in in a slightly snarky way which means he doesn't mean whatever is this the beginning of a sequence it may well be and we've already seen there's a case before Scottish coarser ready owned in preparation for that issue but I would I would like to say is this `constitutionalisation in process actually predated anything to do with Brexit and I think had lots to do pollution because devolution once you've got a devolution statute which has got a set of separation of powers between Westminster and Edinburgh Westminster Cardiff. Your Netflix began to have constitutional battles about where those powers beginning end because because of course by definition the statute can't be that conclusive and there will be. We've already seen cases. There's one about the EU Withdrawal Act twenty eighteen about what can be done under the Scottish powers in relation to the withdrawal there already constitutional like questions coming up which the Supreme Court has had to deal with but but I just want to say we can't get to a European position without having a massive massive fight about it because this simply is not sufficient agreement in this country to say that there is such a thing as higher constitutional which is what we're preceding and a traditional common way of Kogi steps rather than a great kangaroo leave without ever written a cool reaction against this if it is simply done by the course asserting authority that hasn't hitherto existed being recognized that remember the courts only get the cases brought before the court song out there looking for work so there's another development this week which is the Liberal Democrats. Will we talked about it last week but it has been confirmed by that conference and Jo Swinson has been defending it which is to move to being the revoke. Okay Party and revoke without a referendum so that's another thing where I mean it's analogous. The parliament might do something without recourse to the people which is thought by many the people would provoke an enormous counter reaction to revoke the results of a referendum without having any other kind of popular vote. It's a risk josephson is spelling it and what seems to me like a fairly sincere way. She says that she believes it. Although I'm not sure she's currently the most adept politician out. The Gaza me is it. Is it potentially a huge risk of Liberal Democrats. Do you think I mean you can see what what position but related to these bigger questions just presenting it as a kind of act country to some democratic principles. She would only be in position to deliver that if she won a general election and so she al-Qaeda legitimacy came through the general elections. This seems to be another way in which all over our constitutional order but our political sharply understanding is talking to fracture which is we've never really decided. What is the nature of manifesto commitments in the coalition government. So what is this. Is this a bargaining tool or is this in stone. She has said she will not go into government with pretty much anyone else but anyway she gets into government. She said among other things that are great here in politics is just into arden and that's the person she wants to be my most like to earn his Prime Minister New Zealand because she went into government with a populist nationalist Winston Peters. Who is her deputy who stands for all the things that Jo Swinson is against? It's not clear to me. You can be just into art unless you're willing to compromise on some of these things. So what is this is this negotiating stance or has she box herself in like she will not go into government with anyone or is it sensible stance because it clearly distinguishes her from the Labor Party Z. and so it's it's an identity issue but this is what the Lib Dem's Stanford and of course she will go into government. If the parties were replaced our leaders she'll be fine going into government with Kiss Molo with Roy Stuart or whoever just not this law. I think it's also very risky because if the Liberal Democrats themselves in a situation where Boris Johnson manages manages to take the UK out with deal by the end of October the Liberal Democrats have nothing they have nothing left to have to invent themselves once more they become the return policy well well that is a big if I mean making the case for revoke because we've not yet left and it's all a mass and look what the government's doing. This is the end of the world versus. We've now left. There is a deal. We want to go back in. I mean that's a much harder sell even for the Liberal Democrats. I think however you cut it. I think it's also pretty risk risk. I think that the motives are pretty clearly political and electoral census the Labor be moved by the events of the summer into a second referendum random position so in competing for remain votes the Democrats need to move a step further and it clearly does cause some problems for the party. Not I mean having said that the Democrats are actually primarily competing with conservatives who are marginal seats are concerned so once question becomes well is that how is opposition to conservative remain is rather than to Labor remainders I think in terms of the the democratic legitimacy the fact that she saying there would be general election the if the Democrats within the majority party that would provide the oath Democratic Authority before we what what that does is to basically set the bar lower than what the referendum did in terms of the.
"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..
"supreme court" Discussed on Skullduggery
"It's tough enough to confirm him would have been tougher yet to change the rules to confirm at that point so you know the strategy that goes on looks good at the time but abernathy was definitely boost to the republican side <hes> question. We've talked about don mcgann. Who's in the news. These days is because the democrats house judiciary are doing everything they can to get his testimony about obstruction of justice by the president as as well as testimony from rob porter corey lewandowski. These are all in the courts right now and will almost certainly wind up up in the supreme court. What does this supreme court do when it gets these cases about whether they can require these his former white house officials to testify or answer mike why we think that cavanaugh ahead they look favorably on executive power who knows but that was part of the reason at the time. They were racing this nomination through. They wanted to get somebody else on the court because they they thought maybe molars whole tenure. What's going to be subject to supreme court decision. I think the general sense out there. Is that the you you know. This is a court. That's friendly to the trump administration. I think this is a big problem with the whole. This is the whole on air for the democrats will get nowhere in these things will ultimately end up in the supreme court and if they don't even gun control say you can do but this is my whole underlying argument in the book that all this politics ticks is poisoning the well so badly here in washington that people are gonna lose confidence in the courts neutral go right but i mean it's getting getting having the only the chief justice. John roberts is concerned about that right any kind of lower the temperature but you can't put things off forever got some point. You have to make a decision and you know bottom line. You don't see these confirmation wars. The intense partisan artisan politics around in all of this getting dialed back. You know he's time soon. I give all these talks and talk about this and people get so depressed in some ways but i like how do you how how do you dial it back. Why would one party when they're in their say. Okay you know we did all this stuff now. We're going to give up some power and and because they know that the other side can can just do it again when they get back in. I don't see this. It's going to take some major change in the culture of these nominations to. I have some kind of breakthrough and i don't see it or legislation changing. The makeup of the corduroy pants are talking about but that's going to be super partisan too i. I think that you know we're stuck with this for a while. You don't see mitch mcconnell slowing down on these judges. He's not saying oh you know we overdone it. No he's saying more and more and more on that uplifting thanks so much for joining us great congratulations on confirmation bias inside washington's war over the supreme court from from scully's death to justice cavenaugh. Thanks guys all right thank you. Have you ever wanted to speak another language. Whether you want to speak.