40 Burst results for "Supreme Court"
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Townhall Review
"Com. Coming up what I wanted to explain to people, but it doesn't need much explanation. I mean, you look at article after article New York's male vote disaster What will happen in November? It's a mess. Larry Elder on voter fraud in the final segment of town Hall review with you Back in a moment, this's Albert Mohler for townhall dot com. The Supreme Court has ruled that religious schools have the constitutional right to employ teachers on the basis of their religious beliefs. The seven to decision is really important. The decision underlines the fact that religious schools have the right to be religious and to be free from government or legal action based upon their employment decisions when it comes to teach Here's the two cases before the court presented hard situations, but the underlying principle was clear. Religious schools have the right to operate on their religious convictions without judicial review. As justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, quote a judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge their responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate end. Quote. It's a big win for religious freedom and this 72 decisions It's a very loud message. Indeed. I'm Albert Mohler. Public policy got peppered I dot e d u balance of Nature's fruits and vegetables in a capsule changing the world one life at a time. Oh, I have lots of energy, a lot more energy that actually reached the point where it was very difficult for me to get up and go to work. I'm 76 still working. And once I started taking balance of nature after a short time It just dawned on me one morning. I'm not tired like I normally I'm getting up and going to work and I have a lot more.
House Democrats can sue to force ex-Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify, appeals court says
"Court today ruling against the Trump administration in its efforts to block House Democrats from enforcing a subpoena for former White House counsel Don McGahn, Congressional investigators want began to answer questions about whether President Trump obstructed the special counsel's investigation into Russian election meddling. The administration is expected to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Townhall Review
"That's pretty easy to compile most significantly is brought the existentially threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party into the sunlight. Trump is buttress the Constitution, with two justices on the Supreme Court, 53 judges on the federal courts of appeal and over 140 District court judges. President Trump's tax cuts, along with his massive deregulation led to 3.5% unemployment until the regime in Beijing acted with criminal recklessness towards a virus that has devastated the world. Trump sprawling, slugging, tempestuous approach has worn down many, but his road is marked by these accomplishments. The elites are convinced he must be beaten. But Americans want their jobs and security back. They liked the police..
New York Judge Nixes President Trump's Bid to Delay Lawsuit from Woman Alleging Rape
"Trump's bid to delay a lawsuit brought by a woman alleging rape. A New York judge has ruled against President Donald Trump in his attempt to delay a lawsuit brought by a woman who accused him of rape, pointing to a recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling that the president isn't immune from a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney Judge Virna Saunders said the same principle applies to Fiji in Carol's defamation lawsuit, Carol says Trump slurred her in denying her claim that he raped her in the 19 nineties. Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz argues the Supreme Court ruling was limited to the criminal context and did not extend to civil matters. I'm Mike
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on News, Traffic and Weather
"Back in 2000. We didn't know it would be the next president of the Supreme Court shut down the Florida recount on December 12 5 weeks after Election Day, and this year's raised his clothes we could see a repeat or worse. President's attacks on mail in voting delays that the Postal Service concerns about coordinated voter suppression efforts. Among the challenges that could make this election the most litigated in history, with potential court fights across several states, the outcome unknown for days or even weeks after election Day. We're gonna keep an eye on election security all through the campaign with help of our crack legal team, our chief legal analyst Dan Abrams, Kate Shaw, professor of constitutional Law at Cardozo Law School, and and Kate, Let me begin. With you. Everyone wants a safe election. Everyone wants a secure election. You want the country to be confident that the election results reflect the will of the voter, So that's the goal. What's the most significant threat to that right now assured, you know there are a lot of possible nightmare scenarios. I mean, you spoke earlier in the show about the possible threat of foreign interference. Obviously, some foreign powers are already working. It seems to interfere the election. Then I think there's a question of what exactly that interference might look like. If we're talking about, you know, hacking campaigns or attempting to penetrate the apparatus of elections, voter databases and It rolls. You know, those things could pose a threat to the very legitimacy of our election. Other things like the promotion of misinformation on social media, you know they could violate the law. But any legal action would probably be too late to take any effect. And so in some ways, the intermediaries there are critical. So whether platforms like Twitter and Facebook are going to be vigilant about identifying fraudulent accounts and misinformation and doing takedowns and purges is going to be really critical. And then I think a lot of responsibilities actually gonna lie with the American people, right? I think Going into this final stretch of the campaign is going to be really important to take a pretty sceptical view of political information that we see on social media, knowing that the sources of it may not be reliable on DSO taking all of it with a very serious grain of salt, But, you know, I don't think any of you know, except for potential penetration of election equipment and systems. No, None of that necessarily poses a threat. The legitimacy of the election and there is a degree of messiness. Even apart from foreign interference, baked into elections, However, they were conducted and and and, you know, the president has married the concerns about for interference with his concerns about male in battling. They play that for a second, then come to you. The biggest risk that we have his mail in ballots. It is a much easier thing for a foreign power. Whether it's Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, It's much easier for them to Ford's valets and said the men, it's much easier for them to cheat with universal mail in ballots. Is that a real concern? I don't think that foreign interference with regard to mail in ballots is the number one concern or should be the number one concern out there. Remember when you're talking about Universal mail in ballots. Let's be honest about what the issues are again and again, you hear people say, Well, you know, they get sent to places where no one's No one's there anymore. They've moved or they're not alive anymore. And those air realists use But that's not voter fraud, right? Voter fraud, then is the person who decides they're going to risk their freedom. Take said ballot, falsify information and then send it in this notion about foreign powers being able to take on mass make up names, makeup signatures make up the exact kind of paper and the rest of the security issues that come in, and for the people who are counting the votes. Do not recognize that those votes and those names and those addresses don't match with what they have on the voter rolls. That's a real long shot with that, said Mail in voting is and should be the number one concern, not necessarily because of fraud. Because of all the legal battles were seeing right now over how to count them. When did they come in? Did they come in? By election day? Did they come in after? Were they postmarked? Did they have the proper signatures? It's really more a question of undercounting rather than overcounting. Your money at 20 and 50 past the hour on Comeau News. Cuomo's money report is sponsored by Propel Insurance. There is still no official date for this year's delayed Amazon Prime.
SJC: Police will need warrants for remote surveillance
"Ruling that criminal investigators have to get a warrant if they want to use hidden cameras for prolong surveillance. For years, investigators have placed hidden cameras on utility poles without having to get a warrant in order to gather evidence. With the state Supreme Court says From now on, I've got to get a warrant. The ruling comes in the case of a drug investigation that resulted in a number of indictments, based in part on evidence gathered by scammers targeting a couple homes of suspects. Court writes that the practice of the hidden cameras raises the specter of a nor William State. And if the home is a castle, a home that is subject to continuous targeted surveillance is a castle under siege. Eight New
Fresh "Supreme Court" from News, Traffic and Weather
"Moving north bound on fourth Avenue from Columbia Street. All lanes there are blocked in that area. Our next report is at 3 24 I'm Evan Smith. Come on Traffic. A sunny afternoon around Western Washington temperatures there going to be in the upper seventies in our warmest spots Low eighties on Monday, keeping it Sonny Sonny on Tuesday as well, Just a touch cooler mid seventies for much the week ahead. In the couple of the center turns on cos Stay connected. Stay informed the Northwest's only 24 hour news station Co. Moh news 1000 FM, 97 7 With less than three months before the presidential election, politicians are bracing for the possibility. We won't know who won on November 3rd legal experts on this week with George Stephanopoulos weigh in From ABC News It's this week here now, Chief Anchor George stepping up to the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed the orders of the Florida Supreme Court. On a very narrow majority. Five justices before George this effectively and it is in the election, Peter literally one of the closest elections in American history under four million Americans voted for you 300,000 vote difference. 600 votes, approximately separated the Gore and Bush in the state of Florida and now by one vote on Supreme Court, this election's over Back in 2000. We didn't know it would be the next president of the Supreme Court shut down the Florida recount on December 12 5 weeks after Election Day, and this year's raised his clothes we could see a repeat.
Judge nixes Trump bid to delay suit from woman alleging rape
"Hi Mike Rossi a reporting a New York judge allows a defamation lawsuit against the president to continue judge verna Saunders is allowing a defamation lawsuit brought against president Donald Trump to proceed Saunders ruled the presidency doesn't shield truck from the case brought by former elle magazine advice columnist E. Jean Carroll who accuses trump of rape the judge pointed to a recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling allowing Manhattan district attorney Cyrus R. Vance junior to subpoena trump's tax records for a state grand jury investigation Carroll who seeking trump's DNA as potential evidence says trump slurred her in denying her claim that he raped her in the nineteen nineties hi Mike Rossio
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Fox News Sunday
"And that's our focus today. Don't miss a single second of today's show. Well, the radical left continues to fight. Donald Trump administration to secure our borders with Mexico. Last week they went to the Supreme Court to halt construction actually appealed to the Supreme Court. To stop Donald Trump from building the southern wall between US and Mexico. Now the Democratic appointees, they voted for the borders again open borders. So because why Why's that you think voters they want all the illegal Mexicans and South American that crossed that border and they convey Oh tw. In Nevada. They passed a law now where they're where they're saying they're having mail in ballots right and even people who are in nursing homes with dementia. Will they get? They can have someone appointed to vote for them. I'm not kidding. It's ridiculous of that makes the November election even more important for this country. Can you imagine how much greatness we could've achieved in the past three years? If if Congress would have worked together with President Trump instead of fighting. Anyway. God bless America. God bless Donald Trump. God bless our listeners on the show. You know Donald Trump. He's not only building a wall he's built about 450 miles of wall. Good so In essence, he is the wall. He's a wall that will keep out some of these rigged establishment politicians like Joe Biden from ever reaching the White House, and I got to tell you what in listening to Joe Biden's talking I believe that he is definitely racist because he's always comparing blacks and Hispanics anyway. That's my opinion. Donald. I believe that Donald Trump where we're putting Americans first, Trump said in the statement. Americans first. Above all, hire American Thank God for Donald Trump Well in Eugene, Oregon, but this is a good story. Residents there were not in the mood for the black lives matter coming to their neighborhood last Thursday, it was awesome. After shouting and taking over the streets and Eugene Black lives matter. Activists were confronted by patriotic residents. Who blocked the vehicle that was used by the militant left this mob. The irritated residents took to the streets and joker masks of blue lives matter flag and patriotic, missed. To mock and taunt the leftist The Patriots started shouting All lives matter much to the dismay of the mob. Your listen to safer timers. Solutions Radio. I'm Rod Borowy. We're going to talk about some financial stuff. Don't worry. I just have to get my political two cents worth in again. Financial confidence is quality of life. Don't let anyone tell you any different. I think finding that confidence comes from being true to yourself. And having a retirement plan that you're 100% comfortable with and that you understand. You know, Rod that you know that Jimmy crack corn, but I don't care. Don't care. Don't care Don't care about Jimmy. But my buddy Jimmy crack corn, too. Is that right cracks a lot of corn and you don't care. I don't care, Jimmy well for Tyree's often lose their financial confidence when they let someone talked them in to taking more risks or talking them into something. They don't understand that there are comfortable with and sometimes they don't realize until it's too late, like when the market falls, and they lose way more than they were comfortable with..
Judge nixes Trump bid to delay suit from woman alleging rape
"Hi Mike Rossi reporting a judge denies president trump's bid to delay a lawsuit brought by a woman alleging rape a New York judge has ruled against president Donald Trump and his attempt to delay a lawsuit brought by a woman who accused him of rape pointing to a recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling that the president isn't immune from the criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney judge verna Saunders said the same principle applies to E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit Carol says trump slurred her in denying her claims that he raped her in the nineteen nineties trump attorney Marc Kasowitz argues the Supreme Court ruling was limited to the criminal context and did not extend to civil matters hi Mike Rossi up
Judge nixes Trump bid to delay suit from woman alleging rape
"Hi Mike Rossi reporting a judge denies president trump's bid to delay a lawsuit brought by a woman alleging rape a New York judge has ruled against president Donald Trump and his attempt to delay a lawsuit brought by a woman who accused him of rape pointing to a recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling that the president isn't immune from the criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney judge verna Saunders said the same principle applies to E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit Carol says trump slurred her in denying her claims that he raped her in the nineteen nineties trump attorney Marc Kasowitz argues the Supreme Court ruling was limited to the criminal context and did not extend to civil matters hi Mike Rossi up
Pence knocks chief justice as a "disappointment to conservatives"
"In the past, we have heard President Trump criticized judges whose rulings he doesn't like. Well now Vice President Mike Pence is taking aim at the most senior justice in the country of great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives. Well, that came during an interview with CBN news with the vice president, referring to specific cases, including Robert Swing vote that upheld the Affordable Care Act. And his vote against a Louisiana law that would have severely limited a woman's ability to have an abortion. So far. No response from Robert's In 2018 the chief justice fired back at the president, who called a judge who ruled against the president's asylum policy and Obama judge
Deutsche Bank turned over Trump financial documents to New York prosecutors
"More trouble for the president another scandal that has dogged him actually now for most of his first term, here's the headline in the Times tonight quote trump's bank was subpoenaed by New York prosecutors in criminal inquiry. Here's the nut graph of that story. Here's how it starts the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which means state prosecutors in New York state issued the subpoena last year to Deutsche Bank, which has been Mr trump's primary lender. Since the late nineteen nineties, they are seeking financial records that he and his company provided to your bank according to people familiar with the inquiry because of. Its long-standing and multifaceted relationship with trump Deutsche Bank has been a frequent target of regulators and lawmakers digging into the president's opaque finances but the subpoena from the Office of the District Attorney appears to be the first instance of a criminal inquiry involving trump and his dealings with Deutsche to lent him in and his company more than two billion dollars over the past two decades. Here's the amazing part the part that was the sort of draw jaw-dropping reveal in this story. Quote deutschebank complied with the subpoena. Out over a period of months last year, the bank provided the prosecutor's office with detailed records including financial statements and other materials that Mr Trump provided to the bank as he sought loans according to two of the people familiar with the inquiry. The subpoena to Georgia banks saw documents on various topics related to Mr Trump and his company including any materials that might point to possible fraud according to people briefed on the subpoenas contents. The bank's cooperation with the prosecutor's office is significant because other investigations that have sought trump's financial records have been stymied by legal challenges from the president and his family. This criminal investigation from New York prosecutors initially appeared to be focused on hush money payments made in two thousand sixteen to two women who said they had affairs with Mr Trump. But in a court filing this week prosecutors in the district attorney's office cited public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the trump organization and suggested they were also investigating possible crimes involving bank fraud. And Insurance Fraud. So. To be clear, this is a big deal that the New York Times is reporting tonight this is not about the subpoenas for the president's financial and tax information that were litigated up to the supreme. Court are now kicking around in the lower lower courts by the present, his lawyers seek to delay compliance with these subpoenas. What this is about is a subpoena of Deutsche Bank. which has loaned two billion dollars mysteriously to the president over his recent business career. Subpoenas to Deutsche, bank related to their dealings with the president, and these are not subpoenas that the president has successfully fended off in these tied up in court. This is a subpoena to Deutsche Bank the bank has complied with. And they have handed over all of this trump related documentation to state prosecutors were apparently pursuing a multifaceted criminal investigation of the president and his business an investigation that is not bound by the Justice Department's Ninety Day rule such as it is nor are they bound by the Justice Department's rules prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president because those rules are federal rules and these are state prosecutors? Prosecutors not answerable to attorney general the embar. Not only is it news that they are pursuing this stuff in the way that they are it is big news that in pursuing this information about the president, they got it they got their hands on this stuff from Deutsche Bank. Who Knew.
Judge: Doctrine shielding police from lawsuits is wrong
"Hi Mike Rossi a reporting a federal judge says the Supreme Court should sweep away qualified immunity for law enforcement officers a lawsuit brought against a white Mississippi police officer has led a federal judge to call on the U. S. Supreme Court to overturn the principle of qualified immunity Clarence Jameson a black resident of nieces South Carolina sued white Mississippi police officer Nick but Clinton saying the Clinton used to Jameson's race as a motivating factor for pulling the Clinton over in traffic and searching his car U. S. district judge Carlton Reeves who is African American dismissed the lawsuit Tuesday citing court precedents on qualified immunity but he wrote that the principal has shielded officers who violate people's constitutional rights I might cross you
Judge: Doctrine shielding police from lawsuits is wrong
"Hi Mike Rossi you're reporting a federal judge says the doctrine shielding police from lawsuits is wrong a federal judge in Mississippi is calling on the U. S. Supreme Court to overturn the principle of qualified immunity shields police officers from being sued for some of their actions U. S. district judge Carlton Reeves cited court precedents on qualified immunity as he dismissed the lawsuit brought by a black resident of nieces South Carolina against a white Mississippi police officer but in a sharply worded ruling Reeves who is African American wrote the doctrine is called qualified immunity in real life it operates like absolute immunity he added just as the supreme court's swept away the mistaken doctrine of separate but equal so too should eliminate the doctrine of qualified immunity hi Mike Rossio
Gallup Poll Finds Highest Supreme Court Approval Rating Since 2009
"Approval rating ever. For the U. S. Supreme Court. The latest Gallup poll has 58% of Americans approving of the job. The The high high court's court's doing doing up up from from 54% 54% last last year. year. But But like like so so many many other other things, things, the the results results very very along along party party lines. lines. 60% 60% of of Republicans Republicans said said they they approved approved of of the the decisions decisions from from the justices that is down, though 13% from last year for Democrats its way up 56% approval versus 38% from 2019. You might call this a
Louisiana Supreme Court Won't Review Life Sentence For Man Who Stole Hedge Clippers
"The Louisiana Supreme Court just announced. That they will not review, not review a life sentenced A life sentence issued to a black man convicted of attempting to steal hedge clippers from a storage room.
Colombia Supreme Court Orders Ex-President Álvaro Uribe Detained
"Colombia on Tuesday ordered the arrest of former President Alvarado re bay who's one of the country's most powerful politicians. Many Colombians adore rebate for leading a military offensive against Marxist guerrillas. But he has long faced allegations of human rights abuses. Here's reporter John Otis during his two terms as Colombia's president Alvarado Bebe's hardline security policies badly weakened the guerrillas who eventually signed a peace treaty. After he left office in 2010. Reba was elected to the Senate and helped elect the next two Colombian presidents. Followers really believe that he is the greatest Colombian ever to. I don't know to walk on Columbus. That's Paulie Martinez, a columnist for the Colombian newsmagazines, Samana. She points out that rebates presidency was also plagued by scandals under Areva's watch. Army troops killed thousands of innocent civilians then claimed they were guerilla fighters Rebates Intelligence agency spied on journalists, opposition leaders and Supreme Court judges. His current troubles stem from allegations that during the war rebased supported the formation of paramilitary death squads. The Supreme Court is now investigating whether rebate bribed witnesses to change their testimony. Sergio Guzman is the director of the consultancy Columbia Risk Analysis. The evidence against President you. It must be pretty solid for the Supreme Court to take the step. However, the news that rebate would be placed under house arrest. Outraged his supporters, including current president even Duke, Scanlon said. I will pay scumbag body See if he ended and we were done. He pointed out that the guerrillas and they had fought so hard to defeat and who have been accused of kidnappings and massacres have avoided prison under the generous terms of Colombia's 2016 peace treaty. But even Cepeda, the opposition senator, who accused Reba of having ties to paramilitaries, was elated. Why personas in Colombia? It's important, Seema. Justicia away, he said with the court's decision shows that no matter how powerful you are, no one is above the law for NPR news. I'm John Otis in Bogota, Colombia.
One nation, under gods? Indias divisive temple
"Off. Today India's Prime Minister Narendra. Modi. Traveled to the northeastern city of yoga which was hung with saffron flags and more than one hundred, thousand jobs. He came to lay the first stone of temple to Rahm incarnation of the Hindu God vishnu with believed was born in the city. This isn't the standard fare of a politician pressing the flesh for a photo op. It fulfils a promise Mr Moody made as a young politician to return to iota only when construction on a new temple began. Key. Speech at the dedication broadcast into the whole country he said the temple would be a symbol of unity that the weight of centuries and today. Agreement nation. Idea A symbol of unity. It is not the weight of centuries as Mr Moody and his BJP party see it goes back to the founding of a mosque on the site that was razed to the ground nearly thirty years ago. When we're talking about a Yoda today, we're talking about a very specific place just a couple of acres off the center of town where there was a great big mosque built in the sixteenth century and destroyed by Hindu activists in nineteen ninety-two. Alex. TREBEK's is the economists India correspondent based in Delhi the site of that former mosque is what's under contention? It's been the most controversial. Acre. In all of India. Ever since and the question is whether or not Hindus may bill the temple to Rahm right there and so how did things progressive since nineteen ninety two when the the mosque was destroyed how does that end up as a temple concentration today? It's been a terribly. Tortuous story through the courts after decades of legal stasis and very bizarre humiliation the supreme. Court. Last November, few months after Narendra Modi Wins, wapping reelection decides that the most crucial part of the ground ought to be given to the Hindus go ahead and build the temple that you've been clamoring for these decades. The court noted that the demolition of the mosque illegal in sort of compensation that no one appreciated very much allocated several acres of idle land outside the town to Muslims. In effect, the court just gave the Hindus white they had wanted and I mean the Hindu nationalists, the very groups that had clamored for the destruction of the mosque and eighty is a ninety S. And so what precisely is happening today then so today is the last of three days of the ceremony. Put. In which people most notably the prime minister are doing various prayers, offering ritual sacrifices, and so on. Around the site itself most spectacularly in the middle of all the Prime Minister Narendra. Modi ritually lifted into place the forty kilograms silver brick, which serves as temples foundation stone. Now it's consecrated and all its left is to keep on raising money and build the actual structure itself and what's the reaction been from Muslims about this this contentious building. You know in a way Muslims and everyone cares about civil rights and the secular foundation of India knows what to say no. One's happy about it. firebrand Muslim leader in Parliament Assadi. Noisy has criticized the prime minister going to a religious event and it's indeed striking that the prime minister should be there on the temple grounds with a bunch of priests and Politicos all mixed in as if they were a single class, it's shocking if you've been sleeping under a rock as India's changed in recent years and in fact, I was Struck that there have been no mass protests by Muslim groups either after the Supreme Court's decision last November nor today it doesn't mean they're happy about it. But at this point, the thing to protest, we talked a lot about Narendra Modi's brand of Hindu nationalism I. Guess This is kind of a pinnacle. Then for his aims I mean what? What does this mean for him and his party it is a pinnacle of sorts but I think it's more important to look at this as the end of a long first stage of Hindu nationalism. Movement. In India. We're looking at something more like a capstone than a foundation stone and at the same time this date August fifth was chosen for quite obvious reason. It's the first anniversary of this government very bold move to strip the state of jump in Kashmir India's only Muslim state a year ago of its status as a state and rule it directly from Delhi that was one of the main three goals that the Hindu nationalist movement had till. Now now, the third of those goals creating a uniform civil code that would bind. Muslim family law into line with Hindu and secular family law governs most of the rest of India is a less inspiring goal and it's been half accomplished. Already what Mr Moody is going to need in future is another another series of rallying cries like build the temple and where he's GonNa find them it's just not obvious at this point. So today's ceremony is is not a cause for for great triumph. This is this is not the the the end of this long road for the Jay he's hindu-nationalist goals and therefore mission accomplished. This is a triumph. Yes. By all rights Mr, Modi a good one to be taking the victory lap for his party is ideologically movement but that's also very backwards looking Mr Moody was elected with a terrific share of the parliamentary seats in two thousand fourteen in the first place. Because of these hindu-nationalist goals which attracted the devotion of his base, but because Indians were eager for change for economic development and good technocratic governance of a sort that he seemed specially poised to offer, there are various reforms for which he and his government can claim credit over the past six years. But there are many many more disappointments and in particular over the past two years say before the covid nineteen pandemic and then much much worse since it's begun, India's facing an economic crisis, it's every indicator is worse than they've been in a generation. So there's GonNa be a very strongly felt need. A week the opposition to come up with some way of rallying the country some nationalistic theme or series of themes to distract from the sort of impasse in India finds itself had economically this Hindu. Nationalist ideology offers no guidance towards what India's trade policy ought to be say or how environmental law to be fixed or scrapped. They've got a steady ideology, but it's not tacked onto any particular policies at this point i. think that the government we have in place right now strong government but in dark turbulent times is going to be almost desperate to find something to replace the impetus with. Altogether, though these changes that have already gone through, do you think it chips away at the basis of modern India's government? The the idea that religion shouldn't be a part of it. Yeah I think that India as we know it maybe as an idea we almost to retire Mahatma? Gandhi. Still on on every currency note but this is not Ghandi's India anymore you might almost say that the the anti-secularist of one it's now very ordinary to see symbols of state power mixed with. Symbols of sectarian dominance over the hindu-majority expressing itself often revanchist terms, which is why this template a Yoda really does. Alex thanks very much for joining US Jason. Thanks very much.
Census to Halt Operations a Month Early Amid Growing Fears of a Population Undercount
"Bureau has confirmed it will wrap up its count a month early. It's a move that many fear could reduce the accuracy of the population. Tout NPR national correspondent has alone. Juan broke this story last week, and the bureau confirmed it last night in hand. The census happens as we know every 10 years. The end date was initially postponed until late October because of the pandemic. Now the bureau is saying that it will wrap up on September 30th. What reasons has the sense is given According to a statement, the Census Bureau director Stephen Dealing Ham posted on the sense sphere is website last night. The Commerce secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, has directed the bureau to speed up counting to end it cut it short a month early in order to meet current legal deadline. There's a deadline set by federal fall, it says the Census Bureau via the Commerce secretary has to present to the president the latest state pop. Elation counts by December 31st of this year, and those are the numbers that are used to redistribute seats in Congress among the states, and that was a deadline The bureau had said in April that it could no longer meet because of the pandemic needed more time has asked Congress to give it more time by extending the deadline into 2021. Sir from Congress has not extend that deadline. Democrats have introduced legislation, but Republicans have not regarding those deadlines. And so the Commerce secretary apparently is saying it is time to make this change to make sure we can meet that deadline. Okay, let's break this down a little bit. NPR first reported that the agency had decided to cut short door knocking efforts. What is the impact, though of finishing early like this and what populations Could be most impacted by an undercount. One thing to keep in mind here is that you know, through all this back and forth career officials from the Census Bureau, including associate director for the 2020 cents is an associate director for field operations has publicly stated that the bureau as early as May, they've said, can no longer meet this federal deadline of December 31st And by rushing to do it at this point by not continue to count through October 30 1st there are concerns here that there would be great and accuracy and the data that are collected because we're at a point in the senses, with roughly four out of 10 households that have not yet responded to the senses, those four out of 10 whole household's roughly our representative of historically under counter groups who are Less likely to respond on the census around their own and are really probably only get counted if a door knocker gets to meet them and tries to essentially convinced them to do an in person interview outside their home for about five minutes, trying to collect that information and otherwise the bureau if it rides up, finding homes that are vacant or or seemed to be vacant or unresponsive here has to rely on government records and That way of rely on government records using statistical methods The bear has used before, but the bureau might have to use it at a much, much greater extent. And that could really hurt theocracy because those methods tend to over represent the white population while under representing people of color. Yeah, as we know, the Trump administration tried last year to get a citizenship question added to the census. The Supreme Court rejected that attempt. How does this week's news that the census will wrap up early fit into the bigger picture? I mean, the question everyone is asking is, Is this change? Politically motivated? You know, I've been covering the 2020 cents is all the lead up to it for three more than three years now, and it has been a Siri's Of attempts by the Trump administration to have a very direct hand and how the senses is carried out to be very clear. There is no citizenship question on the 2020 cents is, even though the Trump Administration tried very hard to get one onto the forms, and that on now, you know, just just recently Last Last month, President Trump released a presidential memo calling for unauthorized immigrants to be excluded. From the census numbers used to redistribute seats in Congress. Even though the Constitution says the counting of the whole number of persons in each state that's the that's how that's the people that should be counted nor determine how many states how many seats in Congress each state gets. So this latest move here a lot of Democrats a lot of sense its advocates, given what career officials have said about the need for more time or really questioning. Why is there this push to not extend counting and what happens with Congress? That's NPR's national correspondent. Hotsy Low long hands. Thank you so much for joining us. You're welcome, Tanya.
Trump and company could be under investigation for bank and insurance fraud
"Donald Trump and the trump organization may now be under investigation for possible insurance and bank fraud Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance says, he is justified in demanding trump's tax returns citing public reports of extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the trump organization in his court filing vans pointed to reports that trump inflated his wealth to potential lenders and business partners. He urged a federal judge to toss out trump's new legal effort to prevent prosecutors from getting his tax returns and other records. From his accountant's three grand jury subpoena the Supreme Court earlier this summer rejected trump's bid to block the subpoena ruling that presidents do not have immunity from being investigated for crimes by state prosecutors while in office. Even if the DA succeeds in obtaining president trump's records, they are unlikely to become public because they will be shielded by grand jury secrecy rules. Trump has since responded to the report team that it's quote, a continuation of the worst witch hunt in American history
Prosecutor seeking Trump's taxes cites probe of his business
"President trump says efforts to get his tax returns released to a federal court in New York are part of the witch hunt against him Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance junior has been seeking eight years of president trump's personal and corporate tax records in connection with alleged hush money payments and what was termed a complex financial investigation this week he told the judge his justification was public allegations of possible criminal activity at the president's trump organization president trump was asked about the court filing said what's this all about I know nothing about it but it's just a continuation of the which I did work out FOR Congress didn't work out for Muller didn't work out for anybody last month the Supreme Court rejected claims by trump's lawyers the president could not be criminally investigated while in office Jackie Quinn Washington
New York DA Seeking President Trump’s Tax Returns Cites Probe Into Reports Of ‘Protracted Criminal Conduct’ At Trump Organization
"NYC Prosecutor alleges protracted criminal conduct at trump organization inquest for president's personal tax returns by Larry Neumeister of the Associated Press in New York. A Manhattan prosecutor trying to get President Donald Trump tax returns told a judge Monday that he was justified in demanding them citing public reports of extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the trump organization trump's lawyers. Last month said the grand jury subpoena for the tax returns was issued in bad faith and amounted to harassment of the President Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus. Vance junior seeks eight years of the Republican presidents, personal corporate tax records, but has disclosed little about what prompted him to request the records other than part of the investigation relates to payoffs to women to keep them quiet about alleged affairs with trump. In a court filing Monday though attorneys for Vance said, trump's arguments that the subpoena was too broad stemmed from the false premise that the probe was limited to. So called Hush money payments this court is already aware that the assertion is fatally undermined by undisputed information. In the Public Record Vance's lawyers wrote, they said that information confirms the validity of a subpoena seeking evidence related to potentially improper financial transactions by a variety of individuals and entities. Over a period of years they said public reporting demonstrates that at the time, the subpoena was issued their republic allegations of possible criminal activity at plaintiffs New York. County based trump organization dating back over a decade these reports described transactions involving individual and corporate actors based in New York, county, but whose conduct at times extended beyond New York's borders this possible criminal activity occurred within the applicable statute of limitations. Particularly, if the transactions involved a continuing pattern of conduct, the lawyer said the lawyers urged Judge Victor Marrero to swiftly reject trump's arguments saying the baseless claims were threatening the investigation moreau against trump last year has scheduled arguments to be fully submitted by mid August every day that goes by day plaintiff effectively achieves the temporary absolute immunity that was rejected by this. Court the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court vans lawyer said, every such day also increases the prospect of loss of evidence or the expiration of limitations periods. The precise concerns that the Supreme Court observed justified its rejection of plaintiffs immunity claim in the first place. The Supreme Court last month rejected claims by trump's lawyers that the president could not be criminally investigated while he was in office bans lawyers said trump was not entitled to know the scope and nature of the grand jury investigation but they said information already in the public domain about trump's business dealings provided satisfactory support for the subpoena of. Tax. They cited several newspaper articles including one in the Washington Post examining allegations that trump had a practice of sending out financial statements to potential business partners and banks that inflated the worth of his properties by claiming they were bigger or more potentially lucrative than they were trump's former personal lawyer. Michael Cohen describes such practices during Congressional. Testimony. Vance sought the tax records in part for a probe of how Cohen arranged. During the two thousand sixteen presidential race to keep the porn actress stormy Daniels Model Karen. McDougal from Aaron claims of extramarital affairs with trump trump has denied the affairs cona serving the last two years of a three year prison sentence in home confinement after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations and lying to Congress among other charges. He said he plans to publish a book critical of the President before the November election.
"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 Talk About It
"Line. But time there has to be an evaluation of his worth. And if it's no longer needed, why are you still doing it? Are you doing just because some? You know whoever started it started it. But now it has no value. I mean I don't. I can't remember offhand because I didn't know brush her opponent but it has from at that time. and. I, read it. You read it though is. That the, they create the Electoral College because they didn't trust people can make the electoral decisions on their own. They wanted the president told them by what they thought of. Enlightened statesmen. People weren't allowed. So Common people so the. Comedy. It's not like. You made a statement that the forefathers literally from Jump Street. Trust, the people to make the right decision. We're GONNA make it for you. The common folk. Basically light meaning rich. Can. So right from the start, there was a wrong. Right from the start was manipulation from the start, it was about those that wanted our money right under the look that was a loophole right from the get go. Democracy, but we're going to be able to control this to Michael. Can His exactly. So whenever you gotTA hand on us. And I and and in essence. Really. Can Be called a democracy nine some morning that the wrong way when they hear this I'm not questioning democracy but you know is it truly in his definition? While knocker AC- When you put in place things to try and maintain control. To make it otherwise. Yeah. Be Think so I do agree with you too It is a big thing. I'm sure they're scrambling now to find the loopholes or come up with other ways to kind of hinder the vote. but at least that part of the loophole has been potentially close. hold as we. As we hope right right. Supreme Court The they've been in last few weeks have been handed down some decisions. That have been really impactful. An have been newsworthy and I don't know if you brothers have been paying attention just wanted to get your thoughts on. Why the Supreme Court. possibly. Make decisions that they've made the last few weeks I got mine, but let me hear it from you..
"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 The Latest
"We're coming on the air because there's a major decision out of the United States Supreme Court, concerning the dreamers. It's Tek I cover. The Supreme Court for the New York Times. So for months now we've been waiting on the supreme court to weigh in on one of the most significant cases we've seen in years. The fate of Dhaka good afternoon, everybody. This morning Secretary Napolitano announced new actions. My administration will take. Two men, our nation's immigration policy give you is to protect young unauthorized immigrants from deportation. These are young people who study in our schools. They play in our neighborhoods. These were people brought to the United. States by their parents as children. They pledge allegiance to our flag. It allowed them to go to school to work to basically become ingrained in the fabric of American society. Imagine you've done everything. Right your entire life. Studied hard. WORKED HARD Maybe even graduated at the top of your class. Only to suddenly face the threat of deportation to a country. That you know nothing about. With, language that you may not even speak. That's what gave rise to the Dream Act. Fast forward to the two thousand sixteen campaign trail. We will immediately terminate. President Obama's two illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law, and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately five million illegal immigrants five million. We're president. Trump may dismantling the program one of his central promises. Who is entered? The United States illegally. Is Subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country. Otherwise, we don't have a country. To promise in his first year in office in two thousand seventeen. Announcing that he would end the program through an executive order, arguing that President Obama didn't have the legal authority to create the program in the first place. Trump's executive order was immediately met with legal challenges, eventually finding itself in front of the Supreme Court in November of last year. We'll here argument I this morning. In case eighteen, Eighty, seven, the Department of Homeland, security, versus regents of the University of California and the related cases, and the central question in the case was this. Head. The administration given adequate reasons. For shutting down the program. Given the makeup of the court with five conservative justices in the majority, two of them appointed by president trump. A lot of court watchers expected it to rule in favor of the trump administration. The Department of Homeland Security reasonably determined fed, no longer wish to retain the DACA policy based on his belief that the policy was illegal. Put on Thursday in a five to four decision with the majority opinion written by chief justice, John Roberts. The court ruled that president trump was not free to shut down the program. It said the reasons. The administration had offered for doing so. which were basically that President Obama had acted unlawfully in the first place. were, not good enough. And that the administration had failed to grapple with and take account of two key things. I. It hadn't adequately considered chief justice Roberts, said whether every part of the program needed to be withdrawn. He asked whether it was really necessary to deport people instead of just withdrawing other benefits from them, notably the right to work. The other thing chief, Justice Roberts said the administration failed to grapple with was what lawyers call reliance interests, and he suggested that these young immigrants had come to rely on the program in a way that it was simply unfair to yank it out from under them. That, they had gone to school made lives here gotten mortgages gotten jobs contribute to society and in a minimum the administration should have considered the fairness of making them throw all of that away. But the latest is, this isn't over. The opinion didn't say it would be impossible for the trump administration to give good reasons for ending the program. The Department of Homeland Security. Can Shoe saying here are reasons? We've grappled with the points the Supreme Court has talked about and we still want to shut down the program. and. They will almost certainly issues such a memo. That will give rise to another set of legal challenges. The case will drag on probably for years certainly past the election. So this decision is not a show stopper. This rolling still surprised a lot of court watchers. You were brought to this country by your parents at the age of six. This is obviously very important day, but I wanted to first of all. Get your reaction to the supreme. Court decision that just came down I'm actually very pleasantly surprised. I had been on the end for the last few months just. Worried, you know to death on on what the decision of the Supreme Court was going to be. This. Is the second time this week that a fundamentally conservative court elated liberals. On Monday we saw the quarter firm workplace protections for LGBTQ employees in a six to three decision in that case to chief. Justice Roberts was in the majority. Now the chief justice is fundamentally conservative. He's an appointee of President George W Bush but he has turned out to be a not entirely reliable vote on matters of grave consequences to conservatives. With the addition of this latest opinion, he has established himself as the first chief justice in more than eight years. Who is also the swing justice, the member of the court who is likely to cast the decisive vote in closely divided.
"supreme court" Discussed on Deep Background with Noah Feldman
"From Pushkin Industries. This is deep background. The show where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news I'm Noah, Feldman. Until Monday, of this week it was lawful in more than half of the US states to fire an employee for being gay, bisexual or transgender. That is no longer true. The Supreme Court has now ruled the title seven of the Nineteen Sixty. Four Civil Rights Act which prohibits employment discrimination because of sex protects such workers. To discuss this landmark case, we're joined by Professor Bill Ask Rich. Bill is quite literally the perfect guest to discuss these topics. He's a professor at Yale. Law School, he's a pioneer in the study and the teaching of gay rights law and he spent much of his career, focusing on the interpretation of statutes. He's also the author of the forthcoming book marriage equality from outlaws to in-laws. A. Bill thank you so much for being here this morning. It's very rare for there to be an exactly ideal guest in response to an important news story, but in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on antidiscrimination law for Ganz transgender people. You I knew you were the exact guest. Because not only are you a pioneer in the law of gay rights? You're also one of our leading experts and statutory interpretation, so literally the two topics of the moment are both squarely within the domain of your expertise, so I guess I want to start by saying congratulations. You must be feeling happy about the decision in Bostock against Clayton County. That probably understates it. Very surprised it was six to three. Not at all surprised that if we won as we did. It would be textualist opinion. I've been saying this for two years. The cases coming for two years. My mantra to all the LGBT groups that would listen to me. Is that we need to understand thoroughly the text and structure as well as the precedence surrounding title seven. And I think justice. Gorsuch got it so great for the Supreme Court and maybe great for the country to and for gay and transgender people. Let's start with a little bit of background history here on why the decision was a surprise to many. How long has it been? Since people in the gay rights movement have been arguing that title seven, which prohibits discrimination because of sex properly interpreted, ought to also include within that discrimination against Gay Lesbian people are against transgender people well for most of my lifetime. LGBTQ people didn't even dare. Come out as gay or lesbian or whatnot at work, so there were not a lot of arguments for most of my lifetime. I would say in the Nineteen Ninety S. The argument becomes prominent because by the nineteen nineties. The A. Lot of lgbt tea and increasingly Q. People who were out of the workplace and then the Bayern Lewin case in Hawaii. said that. If you exclude from marriage a woman because she's marrying a woman rather than marrying a man well, that's sex discrimination in the same way that it's race discrimination if you exclude a white woman from marriage because she's marrying a black man. And so the confluence of both the social. Factors and this legal development in Bayern, Lewin, generated a lot of talk within the LGBTQ and academic communities. So this has been an argument that's been going on a conservative measure for thirty years as many as thirty years from the perspective of someone who's not a lawyer. It might seem kind of weird that. A right to have sex as a gay person was decided by the Supreme Court in the early two thousands that are right to gay marriage, was decided by the Supreme Court in the middle of the two thousand ten's, and yet it took until two thousand and twenty to achieve something that one might have imagined at least as a non lawyer was more obvious, namely a statutory right not to be discriminated against in the workplace. Lawyers know that the difference has something to do with a constitutional decision, which to all the Supreme Court's gay rights decisions until now of great consequence had been at a decision interpreting federal law. which is what this case was. Why do you think it took longer for the Supreme Court to reach this conclusion with respect to a federal statute than it did with respect to the constitution. Well unfortunately, that's an easy one to answer. And that is that the whole gay marriage issue arose again in the nineteen ninety s there had been some gay marriage cases in the seventies, and they'd all lost in the nineteen nineties There was a revival of interest. I actually was the attorney in the first case one in DC. And then the Hawaii case which was also unsuccessful, but God love publicity. was also in the mid nineteen ninety S and. Once marriage got on the horizon, both as an aspiration for the. Movement. And something to react to the marriage issue sort of sucked up most of the oxygen, so the sex discrimination argument was there was made in the Vermont tastes in one thousand nine was made in Massachusetts case in two thousand and three, and in some of the subsequent cases, but judges were afraid to pick up on it because of the negative reaction to bear in lieu the Hawaii case in nineteen ninety-three. And so the argument. Sort of existed in the ether. But judges and even attorneys were afraid to raise it. Because it did sound or Thog inal to the basic equality arguments that we're making in cases like Rome versus Evans in Nineteen ninety-six Lawrence versus Texas Sodomy case in two thousand and three and even Windsor. And the United States the defense of Marriage Act case was decided in two thousand, thirteen followed by Obama felt the marriage case. It seems on the surface again to a non lawyer. If I can pretend to.
"supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC
"The sounds of celebration outside the Supreme Court in two thousand fifteen, after gay marriage was legalized even with the ongoing pandemic, preventing cheering crowd, yesterday's decision was no less monumental, the supreme court voting six to three to extend protections against discrimination to lgbtq workers. Hello everyone, I'm David. Chalian the CNN political director. This is the daily DC. It was a historic victory for the Lgbtq community and a major milestone for transgender Americans..
"supreme court" Discussed on We The People
"Leading experts on the US Supreme Court and and so honored to welcome them. Chamie Santos is a partner in the appellate practice at Goodwin law where she practices a Pellet Complex Civil Litigation in federal courts and she is co host of the Supreme Court. Podcast strict scrutiny. Jamie thank you so much for joining. Thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here and Jonathan. Adler is Johan Memorial professor of law and director of the Coleman P Burke Centre for Environmental Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of law. He has repeatedly testified before. Congress and his work is often cited by the Supreme Court. He is a contributing editor to national review online and a regular contributor to the volokh conspiracy. Jonathan is wonderful to have you back. Great to be here. Let us begin. Friends with the recent Wisconsin election case. The Supreme Court in Republican National Committee versus Democratic National Committee overturned a decision of Wisconsin District Court to extend the postmark deadline for ballots to be counted. It was a hobby contested. Decision you both written about it Jamie. Tell us what was the reasoning of the courts majority in stopping the ballots from being counted unless they were mailed by election day? And what was the defense reasoning? And which do you agree with sue? This is a really interesting opinion because it is it comes out during a global pandemic A public health crisis and the majority's opinion actually didn't mention the word pandemic. It mentioned Kobe. Nineteen only when discussing what the court was not deciding and it cabinet's decision In a way that said you know this is really narrow. Were just looking at a narrow question about whether absentee ballots have to be mailed and postmarked by election day or as you mentioned whether they could be mailed and postmarked after election day as long as they're received by April thirteenth. So what the court says is a few things first. They say a critical point in this decision is that the plaintiffs didn't even seek this postmark by day relief in their motion. And we're not going to say it's forfeiture but we think that's very important And what the District Court did here. Is it kind of reached out Decided something that wasn't even sought by the plaintiffs And did so in a way that violated what the court called the per cell principle which is based on a two thousand six election case and the court said the principal means that lower courts. Shouldn't alter election rules on the eve of an election because otherwise it will result in judicially created confusion and intervening now could really affect the integrity of the election process. And then the rest of the court's decision largely focused on what the descent said and responded to those issues so the dissent was authored by Justice Ginsburg and it focused almost entirely on the public health crisis on the impact of that crisis on voting and the fact that this public health crisis was causing a massive backlog on absentee ballot requests and absentee ballots in county clerk's offices so Just as a tiny bit of background in a normal election year there might be one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand absentee ballot requests this year. Just at the time of the district's decision. There were one point. One million ballot requests Which meant that county. Clerks offices were being overwhelmed. The US Postal Service was slowing down mail And as a result the district court found that there would be tens of thousands of people who wouldn't even receive their absentee ballots ballots by the by the time of the Election Day. And so what justice? Ginsburg said is we're in the middle of massive pandemic and the majority's decision is going to result in massive disenfranchisement and that massive disenfranchisement greatly outweighs any of the concerns that the that the majority had about kind of judicial overreach. This is a an unprecedented situation and Any any concerns. The majority had pale in comparison to the the right to vote and then she closes by focusing on really the dire consequences of the majority's decision and she says tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens will have to risk their lives or give up the right to vote And that's a pretty weighty way too close an opinion As far as my views. I think it is certainly possible. And reasonable to in a in a normal case have a concern with a district court. That doesn't just uphold or enjoying a law but rewrites it which is what the District Court did hear rewrote election procedures. It said a new date and it changed State Law and I think in normal cases people would say that's not the role of a district court to play but this isn't a normal case and so I think that for the majority to take an extremely long thoughtful opinion by a district court that catalog the in favor of of providing relief to voters and to kind of cast aside with three pages is troubling to me Particularly in the middle of pandemics. I tend to think that the descent had the better of the arguments And I think that the these circumstances are just so different from any of the other cases the court Refer a tale Jonathan inured discussion of the Wisconsin cases The Falcons spiracy making sense of the Wisconsin Election Supreme Court decisions you quoted posed by Marquette University law professor Chad old father who wrote a fairly balanced assessment of the legal issues. Fresno old father said the abstract I wouldn't consider characterize The case as easy and that it essentially comes down to a willingness to account for unique circumstances the majority does Tend toward a business as usual approach. Dissents do not which you tend to and tell us more about the principal and how that principle tells courts about how to accommodate unique emergencies short jeff so I think In terms of the per cell principal The Supreme Court for Awhile has endorsed the principle that federal district courts should not make changes to electoral procedures in the days just before an election that that for elections to happen or in orderly fashion There shouldn't be an incentive for parties to run to court to try and change the rules midstream and that's really not a the role that federal courts should play and that principal certainly was a big factor for the majority here. That that this opinion came out Just a few days before the election was supposed to be held. It came out very late in the day under Wisconsin Law in terms of applying A- for absentee ballots and under normal situations late in the day in terms of when absentee ballots would have to be mailed and the majority certainly thought that that principle needed to be upheld The other thing that I think affected the majority's reasoning. Is that the way. The District Court Modified Wisconsin election law. Is that it would create the possibility that people could cast their ballots after the election. Day perhaps even with knowledge of what preliminary results were and that that is is particularly problematic. The District Court said that election results weren't supposed to be released until the deadline But of course we know that exit polls and other things often leak at a time and the court was concerned about that. I think that there are two other things that Were throwing one which is just a problem with this sort of litigation generally. It's it's done under incredibly tight time constraints and so that means that that the litigants don't always have the time to fully develop their arguments. The courts might not always have the time to consider every factor so one factor really hadn't been considered by. Anyone is the fact that a lot of absentee ballots actually aren't ever postmarked Because The Post Office doesn't postmark everything if you have you have prepaid envelopes and things like that. They often get mailed without any postmark at all. And that certainly affects whether or not A postmark can be ro deadline. And that wasn't really considered by by anyone and so I think that's an important factor the other thing that's just in the background here is what should federal court is due or not too when political officials who clearly have the ability and the power to solve the problem. Don't I'll live in Ohio. And we faced a similar sort of issue and here The governor and the Secretary of state acted very forcefully and aggressively to move our election day and two weeks before so legislature to to accommodate that Wisconsin for a variety of reasons. That did not happen and Yeah I think we can all say. I certainly think that Wisconsin legislature was very derelict in its obligation to ensure that elections can occur in an orderly way and in a way. That doesn't put anybody at risk but that doesn't necessarily mean that federal courts necessarily have the power to intervene the last minute and to rewrite a statute in ways that weren't necessarily even asked for up by of the parties so it's a very unfortunate decision and and I think what it highlights is that state legislatures really need to be thinking now about how they're going to make sure that elections can proceed if were still in a situation where people congregating and polling places is something. That's that's not advisable when we have our follow elections. Champion your commentary on Wisconsin Case. You wrote for those crying judicial activism by the District Court. What exactly would you have the remedy be? You've got a violation of the right to vote on one hand and no way of preventing it on the other and you have noted that indeed there were six hundred and eighty two ballots without a postmark. The election officials have decided in the end to count that and also that justice. Ginsburg was correct to predict that. Many people who requested ballots wouldn't receive them in time to mail them on election day. So.
"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 What Next | Daily News and Analysis
"So opportunity this town that we're talking about this. Little Fraction of Anaconda called Opportunity was actually lied deliberately. Built in the path of the smoke by the Anaconda Company to prove that it was safe. So there was this constant back and forth with ranchers and farmers in the valley and the company You know people are saying to that. Crops wouldn't grow the livestock getting sick and the company was insisting. No it's perfectly safe. We're going to build this little town here right in the plume just to prove that it safe and my understanding is that they actually wrote into to the fine print of these agreements with people when they sold them land and opportunity that the company reserved the right to pollute the atmosphere. I mean I think that they had such A. They had an uneasy deal residents of this town. They knew that it might be dangerous at the same time. It was a job that allowed then to make a good living and it just talking about this this brotherhood or this bond that they formed was very strong. It seemed like as the years went on. Montana's began to see the pollution affecting their everyday life in various ways and they wanted to address it. So what happened in nineteen seventy so. This date rewrote its constitution and it. It's a very progressive document in. It's been kind of held up as a model of progressive state constitution for other states. One of the key things that makes so progressive is they wrote in a clause that gives Montana's a guarantee to a quote clean and healthful environment and there isn't really a definition provided for what that means you know because this is just the overall governing document minor standing is the hope was that Montana's could use this clause in constitution to protect themselves from the kinds of pollution that were building up in Ama- conduct and Butte from the mining operations. I was struck by how intentional it was like. I found his speech from a judge. WHO's involved in writing rating the Constitution in nineteen seventy writing? I guess and he said I'm a Fourth Generation Anaconda N- and he told a story about falling rolling into the river and his watch stopped working. Eighty brought it to a watchmaker. WHO said all everything inside has has dissolved? I shouldn't laugh but it's the kind of straight you care if you spend the day As people everyone has a story like that I mean everyone knew that it was that things were bad. When did the federal government come in and say listen? We really need to clean this region up. Well I think. SUPERFUND sites were declared pretty soon in the eighties. The federal superfund law gives the EPA the power to investigate investigate and clean up places with hazardous materials. They can also hold companies accountable for the pollution. That caused this series of sites was designated needed. There's sites butte citing the content. There there were sites all the way up to Missoula one hundred and twenty miles away down the Clark Fork River so that all happened and through the eighties but because the superfund program was so new no one knew exactly what that was going to need and here we are for decades later still a battle to try and figure out exactly what it means. When you've written a little bit about the jockeying for which place gets cleaned up first because missoula this bigger town? which is you know? Further other down the river. It cleaned up I. Yeah so Missoula is wealthier. It's much larger. The headwaters of the river that flows into the Zula actually starts in Butte and there was a damn outside of Missoula that had built up toxic sick sediment over a number of years and there were concerns that the dam was going to burst and flood into Missoula with toxic waste. So pretty early. On when the SUPERFUND program started a group of very vocal missoula residents who did know how to work the system. They lobbied for cleanup. They got the the Dan removed. And initially the sediment that had built up behind the dam was supposed to be placed right outside Missoula but that changed and they unloaded this toxic sludge into rail cars and brought a hundred miles back up river and dumped it outside of opportunity so these communities that were dealing with their own toxic waste and their own environmental challenges all all of a sudden. They're also home. To missoula's toxic waste exactly and it just became this symbolic fight between you know the larger much wealthier town and the smaller poorer town that was constantly getting dumped on and that really was bruised to people blinn Anaconda and opportunity that simply by virtue of Zula being missoula they got this cleanup. I because if you think about it. It's a little bit counterintuitive to clean up downriver river I instead of cleaning up the headwaters I yeah I mean that decision was an EPA decision. It was an EPA decision but EPA decisions are driven by public pressure with that clause in the state constitution to protect them residents from the town called opportunity. We are trying to exert their own public pressure. They organized in the two thousands to bring a lawsuit against Arco. That's what everyone calls. The big company that now owns the Mining Complex Flex Arco and EPA had agreed to bring the level of arsenic in the soil down but residents of opportunity. They want them to go further ten times sometimes further. That's the crux of this lawsuit. Residents in opportunity want to levels restored to pre contamination levels. And that's a little bit vague. What exactly that might be? But it may be between maybe around twenty five parts per million so it's a tenth of what the EPA it did. How did the EPA decide on that threshold of two hundred fifty parts per million? As far as I can tell this a minimum standard for human health minimum. Yeah it's not necessarily a the best standard. There are other superfund sites in the country that have much lower levels in their remediation plans. So so there isn't for example. A set law about this is what you get. When you get an earth cynic remediation in your town? This is the level they. It doesn't exactly work that way. It's negotiated associated based on all kinds of factors. Like what is going to cost what the damage was like. You know what the land was like before. So the residents of opportunity were really unhappy with this two hundred and fifty especially because they know they're other communities in the country that have had there. Arsenic levels brought down much lower. Was it purely a compromise between the EPA and the company that was responsible for this pollution in or were was the community involved in the decision making it all the community was involved. They were there were public meetings. There was public input. They don't believe their concerns. Were listened to the people who filed this lawsuit. They don't believe that their concerns were heard. We should be super clear about exactly what happened. There are about one hundred families. Is that right correct. Yes and some of them have had some cleanup by the company and others haven't and they basically decided to sue and they ended up at the Montana Supreme Court. That's right what happened. In that case. The Montana Supreme Court said that they had the right a to pursue further cleanup based on the state's constitutional protection our constitutional guarantee to clean healthful environment And I I think the plan was then to pursue jury trial to figure out a settlement in all of this. I mean if you look at the numbers. The amount the estimated needed amount of further cleanup that they're asking for is not that huge. It's it's a maybe twenty percent of the money to Arco has already spent on this site It seems that what Arco Slash. BP is afraid of here is the precedent of allowing a group of citizens or exceeding to to a group of citizens request to go beyond EPA mandated cleanup. That is the decision that's now before the. US Supreme Court is the Montana Supreme Court's decision. Yeah it sounds like pretty much immediately. The company said no and went directly to the Supreme Court is my understanding. That's right and that surprised price. Everyone that surprised opportunity residents that surprise the lawyers for the opportunity residents that it didn't go through the system. It went straight from Montana precourt to US Supreme Court and they were also surprised that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. So I think that it. It took everyone. Yeah took everyone by surprise. The Supreme Court heard arguments for this case on Tuesday for the reporters covering it. The general takeaway was the justices were leaning towards a ruling in favour of Arco and the EPA. Some justices seemed skeptical of opportunities argument. Which is very interesting to me? You know I mean the the residents.
"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.