35 Burst results for "Supreme Supreme Court Court"
In light of EPA court ruling, new focus on states' power
"The Supreme Court may have limited the power of the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants but its ruling did not touch the power of the states While democratic states have taken the lead on the most aggressive climate policy in recent years some Republican led states are also helping shift the U.S. power grid toward cleaner sources of energy a group of 24 states has formed the U.S. climate alliance most of those commonwealths are led by Democrats but a few including Vermont Massachusetts and Maryland have Republican governors together the state's account for 42% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and 18 of those states have set 100% clean energy goals I'm Shelly Adler
Post-Roe, Women Discover How Their Employer Influences Abortion Access
"Abortion providers and patients across the country have been struggling to navigate the evolving legal landscape around abortion laws and access I'm Ben Thomas with the latest Texas clinics have been turning away patients rescheduling them and now face canceling appointments again after the Texas Supreme Court blocked a lower court order late Friday that had given some confidence to resume abortions The state had left an abortion ban on the books for the past 50 years walrus was in place but a Houston judge on Tuesday reassured some clinics they could temporarily resume abortions up to 6 weeks into pregnancy Texas attorney general Ken Paxton quickly asked the state Supreme Court stocked with 9 Republican justices to temporarily put that order on hold which it did Friday night In Florida a law banning abortions after 15 weeks went into effect Friday
Sean Davis: If a Baby Is Not Human, What Species Is It?
"We're not psychiatrists shown, but I have to ask you to react to what we've seen over the weekend again and again and again. Not only was there pregnant woman outside the Supreme Court with a massive belly which had written on her belly, not a human yet. I mean, just mind numbing indoctrination. There are so many reports as even video Shaun of pro abortion protesters there with their little children wearing political t-shirts and what have you. What does that tell us about the place that this party has sunken to? Well, first off, I hope the baby inside that woman is not human. Exactly what species was she fornicating with. Good question. Good question. It's always amused me. If the baby is not human, what species is she, and if she's not alive, why do you need to kill it? Right. We all know that's absurd, even that person knows that absurd. What they're actually saying is that I don't believe that this person inside me is entitled to the same rights. I have because if that were the case, it would be inconvenient for me. And when you take that into account, it makes clear that while we think this is a political battle, it's actually not. It's a spiritual battle. There's clearly an otherworldly element here. And what I saw over the weekend in the reactions from the left was just was purely demonic.
Fox News: Biden Admin Misses Major Oil Lease Deadline
"Fox News the Biden administration misses major oily deadline This administration all right Ladies and gentlemen Joe Biden is never ever Going to agree to the production of more oil natural gas coal nuclear energy never They are trying to starve the American people they are throwing sand in the engine of our economy To drive this nation into their ideological grasp What's not being reported is what I've been saying At the same time that they're at war With all of our institutions the Supreme Court the border patrol local police the United States military the list is a long one There are number one enemy is American energy Their number one enemy They would rather deal with a genocidal communist regime in Venezuela they'd rather deal with a monarchy genocidal regime in Saudi Arabia Then give one inch of land Our coastline For domestic production
The Liberty Amendments & the Supreme Court
"This book helped launch along with meckel's group The article 5 movement and it was written published 9 years ago 9 years ago One of the amendments that I proposed one of the liberty amendments that I proposed In addition to establishing term limits for justice which I still believe in Included the following Section four of the proposed amendment Upon three fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate Three fifths vote not three fourths three fifths Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court I'll explain why I did that That's continue Section 5 The congressional override under section four is not subject to a presidential veto In shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any federal or state courts In other words Congress three fifths of both houses can simply overrule a majority Supreme Court opinion There is no judicial review there's no action by the president Section 6 upon three fifths vote of the several state legislatures The states may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court That is three fifths of the state legislatures not a governor not a state court a state Supreme Court the legislature section 7 The states override under section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any federal or state court Or oversight or interference by Congress or the president
Matt Whitaker Reacts to the Supreme Court's EPA Ruling
"On a case that is not getting frankly as much in is because it takes a little bit more to discuss, but it's pretty plain and simple. The EPA court, I was excited as much about the West Virginia case, is any of the other case believe me, I was excited about the Dobbs case and others. But this EPA case is something you saw firsthand dealing in the administration level that executive branches have believed that they can have more power than Congress gives them to give us your thoughts on that. Well, I think there's always been an unholy alliance between the administrative state, the ABC admin, you know, unelected bureaucrats and the Congress who don't have to make the tough choices of what they're actually going to regulate. And so they've offloaded in very vague statutes. Some of these powers, whether it's to regulate water, regulate air, quality, regulate all these issues, and of course the administrative state has picked up the baton and run as far as they possibly can. This West Virginia case, I think you're right. I think it's a very important case. Probably not the most important because Dobbs, you know, certainly. Was revolutionary in its restoring the balance of power in the constitution between three branches in the states, but ultimately this West Virginia case versus the EPA is puts the administrative Genie back in the bottle. Makes Congress pass specific legislation to address these issues that are determined to be important. And again, a restores power to the people and takes it out of Washington, D.C., and out of these unelected bureaucrats. So
Liberals on Fire! With Guest Host Doug Collins
"Of the things that's always amazed me is we always hear from the left about the judicial item. We want an active living view of the constitution. Well, folks, an active living view of the constitution means that you have a political view and not a legal view. I've always said in Washington D.C. and if you're listing out there, you need to understand this. We don't vote in Congress. And when I was there, senator was there, we don't vote on words on ideas we vote on words on paper. And by doing so, that means that there are certain things that the words actually mean and actually say, and we need to understand it. The Supreme Court gets that liberals don't get that. I want to start us off though, play clip 5. I want you to hear what judicial activism really means to a liberal. If what we've seen this term is not judicial activism, I don't know what is. This is a court that has used textualism in so many cases, claiming that they have to find the founding fathers intent. And using that to do absolutely insane things like permit people to have AR-15s in public in this country in the midst of a wave of gun violence. But by the same token, when textualism does not serve this court, they don't feel constrained by principle. And so we see the decision that we saw today in the EPA case, where they used something called the major questions doctrine, very rarely used to say that Congress hadn't given the EPA sufficient authority hadn't been explicit enough in that grant of authority to permit the EPA to take important steps to slow the advance of climate change. And it's amazing when you think that we've seen that same doctrine very rarely used in our nation's history, used a couple of other times by this court in one case to end the nationwide ban on evictions during the pandemic. And in another to keep Joe Biden from requiring vaccination at large companies. So this is a court that's been very facile about how it's used doctrine. It's not a good look. It's very disheartening to people like Neil and like me who love the court and love the law because we understand that the core of the court's authority is its integrity. It doesn't have an army to go out and enforce its orders. Oh my goodness. Did you just hear that, folks? I mean, I could not have ever a vision, a better articulation of the liberals just upset about this when they said, judicial activism. Folks, they believed judicial activism is anything that the liberals want.
Supreme Court Justice Slams President Wilson's Legacy
"Over in the Gorsuch concurrence on page four, he writes about, from time to time, some people have questioned the assertion that the framers believed the republic would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable ministers. Justice Gorsuch drops footnote one in the Gorsuch concern. It might be famous footnote one. For example, Woodrow Wilson famously argued that quote popular sovereignty embarrassed the nation because it made it harder to achieve executive expertise. In Wilson's eyes, the mass of the people were selfish ignorant timid stupid stubborn or foolish. He expressed even greater disdain for particular groups. Defending the white men of the south, for ridding themselves by fair means or foul of the intolerable burden of government sustained by the votes of ignorant African Americans. And that's in brah and blacks. Woodrow Wilson really despised black people. I hope you know that. Wilson likewise denounce this is gorgeous again. Wilson likewise denounced immigrants from the south of Italy and men of the meanest sort out of Hungary and Poland, who possessed neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence.
Mark Meckler: Biden Had the Right to Reverse 'Remain in Mexico'
"Mark, there has been a series of victories in the Supreme Court for America and for conservatives. However, just a few days ago, in the last 24 to 48 hours, Americans are ringing their hands over a victory that was handed to Joe Biden regarding the remain in Mexico policy. Yeah, it is absolutely frustrating and basically just for in summary for folks what it says is president Trump had put into place something called the remain in Mexico policy, which required somebody who was applying for asylum in the United States to remain in Mexico while that asylum determination was being made. And that resulted in the turn back as far as we know of at least 70,000 people who otherwise would have been brought into the country and released pending their hearings most of them never to show up for those hearings. Unfortunately, what the Supreme Court said is that the Biden administration had the right to and did reverse that policy and that that was totally supportable under the law. I'm going to say something that a lot of conservatives don't like. I think that the Supreme Court on this one right. Unfortunately, sometimes we get the right result legally and we don't like the result from a policy perspective, but I actually think they got this one correct. I think this was a discretionary policy that was put into place. And I think the Biden administration had the right to reverse it.
Rep. Jackie Speier Discusses the Next Front in the Abortion War
"You might have noticed that yesterday, Missouri, just announced one of their biggest hospitals, a 165 satellite facilities. They're not offering emergency contraception anymore. So you can see how this erosion is going to become, you know, a landslide in short order. You said something, you know, again, I keep saying we have to by any means necessary help as many women as we can now. Filibuster on and not get enough senators in. I mean, one step at a time here, but you said Rome may be dead, but medication abortion used by 54% of women who have abortions is FDA approved safe and effective, no clinic no waiting past the word. That's going to be the next front in this battle. Talk to us about that a little. Right. So the most people don't appreciate that the morning after pill is not medication abortion. Good morning, after pill is something you can take when you've had unprotected sex as a means of making sure that there is no implantation. The medication abortion is one that can be taken up to 12, maybe 11 to 12 weeks after you have been impregnated and in which the actual embryo is on the side of the wall of your uterus. So yes, it's what we didn't have in the 70s. It's what we do have today because of technology and advancements in pharmacology. And it is FDA approved since 2000 is mifepristone. You take one pill to stop the growth of the egg and then you take another pill to have it shed the egg. So yes, it's going, it's going to be the next, well, it's considered abortion. So that is part of what is being banned. And Republicans make no mistake or trying to come for all of it. They're going to try to make sure women can't get that. They can't cross state lines. I mean, as you said, today's Supreme Court decision is about ensuring women will never be equal, the Supreme Court has become an extreme weapon of the far
Malcom Nance Author of 'They Want to Kill Americans' Was Right
"This, I said this in a hearing, just after January 6th, they called me to testify before Congress. And one of the things that I identified was, I said, there's a reason they were able to mass on the capitol, get in there, start pitched lethal battles with the police using spears, American flags, as spears and Trump flags. It's battering ramps. They were able to get close because they had the camouflage of white skin. Yeah. That was it. And they were thinking, we're not going to hurt or harm people who are like Donald Trump or ourselves. And that was part of their strategy was to close in upon the building and seize the building and proclaim Donald Trump president. I wrote that a year ago and I could not believe it. Then, and now I'm finding out it's all true and this is why people need to buy this book. This week for the next two weeks before this launch because people are not going to take this lying down. They, as, you know, calls for Donald Trump's arrest or indictment or criminality. I still every once in a while, get these feeds from the right-wing blogosphere and the right-wing world, they live in a crazy alternate reality where we are armed, rampant militants tearing up the world. And they brag about the number of guns they have. They brag about it. And you know, I'm afraid that by the time that this, you know, we get to book launch on July 12th, they'll have solidified in their heads that they're going to have to do something about the January 6th committee and the people who are investigating it. And now that they've got their big win in the Supreme Court with roe versus wade, they feel empowered that this country is theirs
Even the Pope Disagrees With Republicans
"Right, Supreme Court denied a religious liberty challenge to New York healthcare workers who were fighting against the state's vaccine mandate. But not without a descent from clarence Thomas, they claimed that COVID vaccines developed using aborted children, he argued that healthcare workers had legitimate injections to use in the vaccine, which he said were developed using stem cell lines from aborted children. First of all, in fact, COVID among many, many vaccines have used, yes, from they were frozen more than 5 decades ago. Yes. Right? Even the Catholic Church does not believe there should be legitimate religious corrections to using the vaccine. And the COVID vaccines have zero aborted fetus. Cells in them. And the Pope just gave communion this week. The Nancy Pelosi. Thank you. Because the Bible's not against abortion and the Republican Party is not pro life.
Debbie and Dinesh Review the Events of This Momentous Week
"I mean, what an incredible week it's been on so many fronts, but notably with the Supreme Court. And, you know, I got to say this is, I don't know if the right phrase is Trump's revenge, but the court has come through in a big way. No, I mean, just you talking to Kelly, you know, last segment. It's unbelievable that we could literally lose our religious freedom in this country, our gun rights pretty much every right that we have in the constitution if we had liberal judges. I mean, I think that is the takeaway because the three judges that, you know, I guess you call them dissenters, right? They were, they don't believe in religious freedom. I mean, they have a whole different take on all this stuff and so their view of religious freedom is official government hostility to religion. Absolutely. Their view is that the Second Amendment has got to be taken with a grain of salt. So if it means anything, it doesn't prohibit gun regulations. And then what I find remarkable is they want to import rights like the abortion right that's nowhere in the constitution. So they want to get rid of rights that are there. Right. And then import rights that are not there. Well, I mean, and it makes you wonder how well they know the constitution because as Kelly pointed out, Sotomayor was talking about separation of church and state, which is not even in the constitution. To begin with. So well, I think she knows that. I think what she's doing is and this is their notion of the living constitution. Right. They will take a letter that Jefferson wrote in 1803, and imported as if it's constitutional doctrine. Why? Because it's convenient
Kelly Shackelford on His SCOTUS Victory Affirming Religious Freedom
"Guys, what a perfect time to bring back to the podcast, our friend Kelly shackleford, he's the president and CEO of first liberty institute. He's a constitutional scholar. He's argued before the Supreme Court testified before the House and Senate. One numerous landmark First Amendment and religious liberty cases. He was named one of the 25 greatest Texas lawyers of the past quarter century by Texas lawyer Kelly welcome to the podcast. I mean, you should have a big smile on your face. This has been a pretty momentous week to massive victories for religious freedom. One, of course, the coach, the football coach spraying on the field and the other the case in Maine that involves sort of tuition subsidies and will I want to talk about both. But let's begin with the coach. Now that was a case that first liberty, that was your case. So talk about what the key issue was in that case and what the court what the court decided and what the other side was pushing for. Well, the case was pretty simple. Most people understand coach made a pledge to God that after every game, win or lose, he would go to the 50 yard line when people were milling around, checking their cell phones, talking to friends. He would the first thing he would do is go to a knee for 20 seconds, maybe 30 seconds tops, and just give thanks for the privilege of coaching those young men. And he did that for over 7 years until the school told them that if he did that again, they were going to fire him. And he did because he made a pledge and they fired him for going on his on his knee for about 20 seconds and saying a silent prayer. And, you know, the argument, of course, on our side was that he has free speech rights. He has free exercise of religion, right? So under the First Amendment. And they tried to argue that, well, no, some student, you know, might see him from 200 yards away and feel coerced to pray because he's
Dinesh Reviews the Latest Supreme Court Decision Taming the EPA
"The EPA has been writing all these rules to fight climate change, and they're basically one thing they're trying to do is make it almost impossible for the coal industry. The function in this country. And the way they do this is they take the clean air act, which was passed by Congress, and they expanded in such a way that it enables them to pass all kinds of rules that set certain emissions and put caps on how much emissions can occur. The net effect is we are almost you may say deliberately killing a major industry in our own country and doing it in the name of climate change. So this goes to the Supreme Court and it goes to the Supreme Court on the part of plaintiffs who say basically listen. Yes, there is a clean air act. But the clean air act was passed long before this climate change hoopla. Moreover, the Congress delegates to the EPA, the authority to clean up the air. And the EPA does have the right to make rules consistent with that delegation of power. But no, the EPA can't just say, well, since we have a clean air act, we're not going to take all these new issues of climate change, the oceans are rising, the temperature is going up, the global temperature, and we will now declare ourselves. The enforcer of this climate change ideology, and the court goes, where's your authority to do that in the clean air act? I'm now going to read from the court's decision. When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may seem natural that those in the executive branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the constitution does not authorize agencies to do this. It goes on to say they can not be quote substitutes for laws passed by the people's representatives. In other words, an agency of the executive branch can't just decide what Congress can pass a law. Well, that's okay. We'll sort of make the law ourselves
Supreme Court Sides With Biden to End 'Remain in Mexico' Program
"As the Supreme Court moves to the end of this very important term, a couple of other important decisions that just came out. One of them did not seem to go our way, and that is the Supreme Court allows Biden, allows Biden to end the Trump era remain in Mexico policy. So to refresh Trump had the policy that basically said, listen, if you apply for asylum in the United States, you're not going to be let into the United States. You got to stay in Mexico. And then when you turn comes up for a hearing, you can show up and have the hearing, but this idea that we're going to let you in in the meantime disperse you within the country, hope that you show up for your hearing, that's not going to happen. Now, the Biden administration wanted to rewrite the policy, have its own policy, which in a sense has much greater latitude for people to come through, come through the border and stay in the United States pending their cases. And the Supreme Court basically said, well, there was a Trump judge in Texas who basically said, no, Biden can not change the Trump era policy because the immigration law is passed by Congress. Does not permit these illegals to make their way into the country. But the Supreme Court here held no, they said, look, each administration gets to draft its own policy. They seemingly don't think that this is such a departure from the law itself. So it's within the discretionary latitude, I guess, of the Biden administration to make these kinds of rules. So this is clearly a victory for the Biden
Court leaves dwindling paths for Biden's climate mission
"The Supreme Court's ruling on climate change is sparked intense reaction and signs of potential litigation AP correspondent Norman hall reports The Supreme Court's decision limiting the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to broadly regulate pollution by power plants as sparks celebration and consternation West Virginia attorney general Patrick morrisey was among Republican AGs who sued the Biden administration over its efforts to combat the effects of global warming We beat them this time and were prepared to do it again and again and again California governor Gavin Newsom called the court's ruling and comprehensible You don't believe in climate change You got to believe your own eyes come to California Washington governor Jay inslee says states will now have to step forward with laws to regulate pollution Russian state is not going to allow climate change to swallow our state President Joe Biden issued a state but saying the fight against climate change will carry forward Norman hall Washington
Abortion, women's rights grow as priorities: AP-NORC poll
"A new poll finds that more Americans see abortion or women's rights as a priority for the government to address following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn roe V wade The survey by The Associated Press and the norc center for public affairs research finds that 22% of adults in the U.S. name abortion or women's rights as one of up to 5 problems they want the government to work on That's more than doubled since December for women 9% in December said abortion was a priority right before the ruling it was 21% and after the ruling 37% Donna water Washington
"supreme court" Discussed on Rage for Justice Report
"Thanks for joining us this week on the rage for justice report. Consumer watched up. I'm your host Jamie court president of consumer watchdog. Today we're joined by Jerry flanagan litigation director, who is also someone who just won a victory at the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court. Thanks for joining us, Jerry. Happy to be here. Now this was an interesting victory. It was a surprise victory. So why don't you tell folks about it? Right. So this is a case that we won at the 9th circuit unanimously. So great news only to be rewarded by a petition from CBS, which is the company on the other side. The pharmacy pharmacy chain that owns also. Well, the largest corporations in the world, right? They own Aetna. It's a pharmacy benefit manager. It has a annual revenue of $247 billion. And they bragged that most of it's from the federal government. So we got this great victory the 9th circuit only did be rewarded by a petition from CVS to the U.S. Supreme Court looking for review. And we thought, oh, geez. Well, luckily, those don't get granted very often, about 4% of the time. Well, on July 2nd, we get news at the U.S. Supreme Court had accepted the petition. It was one of the 4% of cases of the United States Supreme Court decided to hear. So at that point, we had a really gear up and get ready to write a big brief and prepare for oral argument the U.S. Supreme Court. And long story short, we wrote that brief, it's an outstanding brief. I was in the process of getting ready to do oral argument on December 7th, the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, only to get out of the blue last week, a notice that says that CDS has decided to fall on its own sword and give up its appeal to the United States Supreme Court. So we win, meaning the 9th circuit decision wins. Now the downside of that is that I have to cancel my airfare and hotel in D.C. because I won't be arguing from the U.S. Supreme Court, but a very, very good outcome from our client for our clients. And that is a win in my book. Yeah. Wins a win. And this was a case that was about people with HIV who were not able to go in as we all are otherwise to a pharmacy and get their special HIV medications from a pharmacist. And you argued in the initial case that that was basically a disability discrimination because people with HIV should have the same rights as everyone else. So what happened? They got CVS spooked at the level of the Supreme Court. I mean, imagine your brief was very good..
"supreme court" Discussed on Today, Explained
"Are so mad about the Supreme Court. The attorney general of the United States. The attorney general of the United States and former Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Today I am nominating chief judge, Merrick Brian Garland to join the Supreme Court. So in 2016, justice Scalia dies. And after many, many years of the Supreme Court having a 5 to four conservative majority, Scalia's death meant that then president Obama could replace him. There would be a 5 to four liberal majority, and that would have been a sea change. I mean, we really haven't had a liberal court since the beginning of the Nixon administration. And Republicans viewed that as an unacceptable crisis. Mister president, the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court. And so almost immediately, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader announced that there would be no hearing for anyone that Obama nominated the seat must be filled by whoever is the next president. Of course, the American people should have a say. In the court's direction. And of course, the next president was Donald Trump, Donald Trump appoints Neil Gorsuch, judge Neil Gorsuch of the United States, Supreme Court to be of the United States Supreme Court. And I think a lot of Democrats left feeling like a seat was stolen from that. When McConnell deprived president Obama of a vote on Garland, it was a nuclear option. The rest is fallout. And then four years later, shortly before the 2020 election just a few weeks before the 2020 election, justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies. And all of a sudden, judge Amy, Coney, Barrett. Republicans race to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's nominee to Phil Ginsburg seat, they actually confirm Barrett, 8 days before election day. So in 2016, Republicans were saying under no circumstances, can you confirm a justice during a presidential election year? And in 2020, they're saying 8 days before an election, we're going to confirm a justice. My colleagues, there is no escaping this glaring hypocrisy. As I said before, no tit for tat, convoluted, distorted version of history will wipe away the stain that will exist forever. Which feels unfair but also just feels like politics, right? Like the Republicans are playing a political game better than Democrats are. Is it like the greater American public who feels like there's a credibility problem here or is it just like Democrats and I don't know, senior correspondents at vox. I mean, it's a fair question. There are several recent polls showing that the Supreme Court has its lowest approval ratings, according to some of the polls ever measured by that particular poll. Now, I think that that's driven more by the abortion decision that we were talking about before the break than it is driven by Merrick Garland or Amy Coney Barrett. It is notable that several of the justice actually four of the justices have recently given speech is that our very, very defensive, you know, justice breyer is the one liberal, who has done this. He wrote a whole book, which I wrote a fairly scathing review of it's not a very good book. Is it like a hundred pages? Yeah, it's this tiny book. A whole book feels generous. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no Twitter. It is a small book like object that he wrote. And this clip, I'm going to show you how to dunk on someone. Which argues essentially that we shouldn't be criticizing the Supreme Court as political that it's unfair to say that justices are handing down partisan decisions. And that's been echoed by justice clarence Thomas in a speech that he recently gave. I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal press. So preference. So if they think your anti abortion or something personally, they think that that's the way you always will come out. They think you're for that. They think you become like a politician. And I think that's a problem. I think you're going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions. By justice Samuel Alito, and his speech that he recently gave by justice Amy Coney Barrett in a speech that she gave at the McConnell center while speaking after she was introduced by Mitch McConnell and there are actually pictures of Mitch McConnell sitting next to her, gazing admiringly upon her as she argues that the Supreme Court is not a bunch of, quote, partisan hacks. So like they do seem to be very defensive right now. They do seem to feel like whether it's the drop in the court's polls, whether it's the attacks on the court's credibility, are serious enough that they as justices need to get out into the public circuit and try to robot it. I mean, what happens if the Supreme Court of the United States is in viewed as legitimate across the country? I mean, it's a tough question. We know what happens when parts of the country don't view the Supreme Court as legitimate. I mean, that's what happened in the south in response to the Brown V board of education decision. The Supreme Court said black children would go to school with white. The south said, never. You had massive resistance where states refused to comply with the decision. In some cases, the United States had to send troops to those states in order to enforce those decisions. The federal officers are armed with a proclamation from president Kennedy, urging the governor to end his efforts to prevent two Negro students from registering at the university. The governor is adamant. And so you can imagine a situation where the Supreme Court strikes down some blue state governor's signature legislation on some extraordinarily dubious legal theory. And that blue state governor also decides to put up similar resistance. You know, says to President Biden, we're not going to comply with this decision unless you send troops. The other thing to understand about the Supreme Court, I think this is why Mitch McConnell understood that it was so important for his party to control it. Is that the Supreme Court is basically become the locus of policy making in the United States right now. Congress is barely able to act. The Supreme Court can do anything at once with 5 votes. And so we're seeing this massive shift in power away from the branches that are supposed to be making decisions because they can't function very well right now. And towards the Supreme Court, which is able to make decisions quite quickly, but is made up of people who have never run for an election in their life. What's the most charitable defense that prior and bear it and Alito and Thomas are right that the court isn't partisan right now? So the argument that they make is that they are not making these decisions because they are Republican partisans who want Republicans to win. They are making them because they have a judicial philosophy. Barrett made this argument explicitly. Like I have an original judicial philosophy that leads me to certain outcomes. It happens to be the case that the Republican Party may like those outcomes, but it's not because she is a partisan. Are there examples of her judicial philosophy leading to outcomes that conservatives don't like? I mean, the one big recent example of a justice, you know, applying what they claim to be their judicial philosophy in a way that cut against their politics is justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion in bostock, which was an important gay rights decision. 6 to three opinion, which in ringing terms holds that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the language, the text of that law encompasses lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in this country,.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"The likes of which it never occurred at the supreme court and sites margarite marbury versus madison. Says it's the function of duty of the supreme court to interpret the constitution. But he didn't say everybody's bound by it right but the court takes a sentence context so there's the famous line in that. Were marshall says it is emphatically the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is as we learned earlier in the episode. What that man in eighteen hundred three was at the court could decide what the law is only in the case at hand but in nineteen fifty eight. The court was asserting that it had carte blanche power. A decision in one case apply to everyone everywhere in the country in other words judicial judicial supremacy. We serve the floor and ceiling thing is not everyone was bought into the idea of judicial supremacy. It's greeted with widespread skepticism. Because remember most of the people on the left had fought the earlier court battles. They were roosevelt. People and the idea of judicial supremacy was anathema to their understanding. How could they give final. Say power to a court that had stood in the way of so much legislation. They believed in but there is a new generation of rising liberals. Who seeing an activist liberal court like. Love this so. They embraced the idea of judicial supremacy..
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Little rock arkansas and the first phase of the trouble. The white population are determined to prevent college students from getting to the school that end children. Tent picketing the school little rock. Arkansas september twenty fifth nineteen fifty seven. An angry mob stands outside central high school a formerly all white school waiting to see if nine black students will show up mini gene brown. Tricky was one of those students. The world came to little rock to see what would happen. Years of rising. Tensions had led to this moment the sequence of events in the development of the little rock school in one thousand nine hundred fifty to the issue of school segregation went to the supreme court and the case brown v board of education. A lawyer named thurgood marshall then the chief attorney for the end. Acp argued for the plaintiffs. He argued that segregation in schools was a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution and the court unanimously agreed. They ruled that segregation in public. Schools was unconstitutional. Now states across the country had to figure out a way to integrate their schools which made a lot of people especially in the south really angry. They the idea that the federal government could just come into their state and tell them what to do and fable of segregation and supreme court or we are going to maintain segregated schools down in dixie and that included little rock in one thousand nine hundred thousand five. The little rock school board approved a moderate plan for the fragile desegregation of the public schools. In.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"I am from fad under my constitutional duty. The recommend the measures but us breaking nation in the midst of bringing world may require on march fourth. One thousand nine hundred eighty president. Franklin d roosevelt took office and he was up against the worst economic disaster in american history. Augural address the biggest applause for we have nothing to fear. Fear itself was instead that i may have to take on the powers over wartime president negative pound the way they warrick date emergency as great as the power. That would be given to me it. We were in fact invaded by farm wall. He has a mandate which is to do something about the great depression. Prosperity is just around the corner. Say the headlines but around the corners wind the lengthening brett lines and a whole new class of citizens appears in american society. The new poor unemployment running twenty five salt not since the civil war has such pressure political economic social center on the white house and so roosevelt pushes through the first new deal and the court strikes at all down by this time the supreme court was beginning to find its voice again to come out of the shadows. But you can't expect to be taken more seriously and expand your power if you're stuck in a basement. Construction on a new supreme court building was underway when roosevelt took office and not long after roosevelt. Tried to pass the first new deal. The court moved into its fancy. New building amend the architecture glorious grace nations capital. The united states supreme court building is one of the most imposing a are they meeting blaze for the highest tribunal of land whips in seventeen. This was a real step up from their basement quarters. It's big regal. Like something out of ancient greece with a wide oval plaza tall imposing columns lining the front marble statues on either side and a staircase perfect for a.
"supreme court" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"I i mean there's a part of this texas law that says someone an abortion provider. Who's sued under it has an affirmative defense. They can point to roe v. Wade they can point to planned. Parenthood v casey Up until the supreme court overrules a if and when those those decisions and so you could imagine a state like california passing a law The second amendment the big second amendment decision it of course is is heller. You'd imagine state like california saying private citizens are assault. Weapons are banned in the state of california and no state official may enforce that private citizens may sue other private citizens I if they haven't assault weapon in their homes and defendants can point to heller up until the point at which heller is is overruled I mean i think that second amendment advocates would have a big problem with the law like that. Well absolutely i mean and by the way so called. Assault weapons are already. I don't think they're allowed in california. But it would be more just simply had a handgun or rifle or something that there seems to be little question that the supreme court protects your second amendment right to own or for instance climate change suits holding companies responsible or holding individuals responsible. If they don't have clean energy enough homes or whatever it is we really don't want to get into the business of deputising private citizens to sue other individuals For things that they believe to be Transgressions of law or moral code It's a it's a very scary thing to get into. And i think something like it. Almost strikes me. This law was a little too clever by half clearly was designed to escape the kind of scrutiny that the court says imposed in the past on abortion laws by coming up with this work around of deputising average citizens to be the ones doing the suits rather than public officials. But it's a terrible precedent. And i don't think the republicans who put it into place really thought through all of the ramifications And that goes to a lot of levels by the way to which we can talk about just whether or not in in general Going this far with the law that they have and giving democrats all the ammunition that they now are. Whether or not all of this was. We'll be worth it or my actually set back the cause of those who have been trying to rein in to some degree. Some of the more expansive abortion laws across the country bill. What's your your rita. That i mean the way that i am seeing this essentially a texas recognizes even in the law that abortion providers right..
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"Of going ahead and interpreting the constitution based on what they said. Originally when the framers developed the constitutional originalism has taken a bunch of different turns since it was first conceived and began to be articulated but bork was the first person who stepped forward and said yes. I want overturn. The civil rights legislation has been put in place by The war and the burger court's and it's worth noting that when people complained about the robert bork hearings and when people today complain about the robert bork hearings did in fact. It wasn't just democrats at the time who complained about bork's approach to the constitution and to the supreme court that fifty eight of the one hundred senators who were sitting at the time opposed nomination and when reagan gave up an appointed anthony kennedy for that spot instead his hearing only took three days and he won confirmation unanimously suggesting that the problem was not with the democrats who are posing board but rather with the nomination in the first place but what this is giving us since then is a real turn among the court to originalism and increasingly the modern day. Republican court under. John roberts who was appointed by george w. bush has taken this originalists. Turn and it's a very unusual supreme court so the court now there are six people appointed by republicans. Three people appointed by democrats by far when you look at republican presidents and democratic presidencies. It's during republican presidencies. That you end up with far more appointments being made than democratic president so indeed. The republican party does and has for quite some time had the majority in the court. Now the question is what should the courts aim be. Should the court be. And we've been talking about this a little bit over time not to say the partisanship vanishes. Should the court be thinking about. The greater whole. Should it be acting in an arbiter or umpire. Kind of state. Should it be deciding issues of law or should it be a political tool. should it be promoting. A party's views. Really obviously really assertively. That's a different thing. A very different vision of what the supreme court should be. And certainly there number of cases. Coming out of the roberts court that suggests that if indeed it's got a vision of the way the country should be. It's a vision that privileges the republican party right now. So for example. In two thousand ten the roberts court decided citizens united which permitted the the rise of dark money and the real flood of corporate money into political advertising. Which is a way of course to increase the power of people with money in determining how elections come out it also in two thousand thirteen. That's something that really addressed. The warn course protection of voting and that's set in nineteen sixty five. Congress passed the voting rights act which required states..
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"Is this in and of itself a controversial opinion. But it comes at this moment when it's like a huge hammer sort of landing on the nation and making this bold statement about what the nation should be the responses to it show really clearly. People understood the impact of this decision. There was a pamphlet edition of tani's decision that became very popular and began selling out. One of the people selling that pamphlet wrote in trying to sell it of course as a whole this pamphlet gives the historical legal and physical aspects of the slavery question in a concise compass and should be circulated by thousands before the next presidential election all desire to answer. The arguments of the abolitionists should read it and one of the things said has kept me up at night for over a year now. Is the idea that democracy is really about people voting locally that what people say on the ground in the states in this case is really what democracy is all about without of course recognizing that that vote itself is enormously limited a certainly in the eighteen fifties so quite literally enslavers say well. Hey this is. Democracy were voting to have slavery which is to me just mind blowing but at the time that was the logic behind a decision like the dread scott decision which said that in fact the federal government a majority rule of the federal government did not matter so long as local people wanted to preserve certain as they would have said custom after the civil war the united states congress goes ahead and tries to deal with the trouble that the supreme court has created with the dread scott decision. It's dealing with a lot of things. But one of the things that has to deal with is the fact that the dread scott decision remains as part of the body of laws that govern the land and in eighteen sixty eight we get the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. Which is i passed by the congress and then ratified by the states and the fourteenth amendment to the constitution takes on the issue of the dread scott decision and in the first section of it it says all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the law wherein they reside take that dread scott decision. Then it says no state shall make or enforce any law which xiao abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws and. That's crucially important. Because we've got here is first of all martial expanding what the federal government is trying to look like people like tawny really cutting back on that vision with vision of states rights instead and the response from the congress in the united states to that is to amend the constitution with the fourteenth amendment and then of course crucially the fourth section of the fourteenth amendment gives congress the power to enforce this legislation. What's interesting is southerners responded to dread scott by saying in this case it's a it's a quote from an article in the richmond enquirer that finally be quote proper umpire weighing in on this question of slavery and that.
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"The supreme card under roger tawny hands down the dread scott sanford decision and with that he does a number of things first of all he says that dread scott has no right to sue and that black americans have no rights that a white man is bound to respect so he wipes out the idea of black citizenship with one hand but then he goes on to a piece of the decision that is even more spectacular at the time and that is the idea that congress has no right to legislate in the territories and what that means is that the missouri compromise of eighteen twenty which had divided the newly acquired lands in eighteen. Oh three between the southern states and the northern states was unconstitutional so it was not going to be possible to keep enslavement out of any of the territory that the north had claim since eighteen. Twenty that had not yet been admitted into the union as states but it also went on dramatically to curtail the ability of congress to do a number of things that hit it. Assumed until then it was able to do that under the marshall court is certainly would have been able to do and what this did first of all was it showed a very different side of supreme court It does a number of things first of all. It's a sign that southern enslavers recognize that they are no longer able to command a majority of voters in the country so rather than any longer trying to go ahead and sway elections with persuasion. They're simply going to entrench themselves in the supreme court and use that institution really is a partisan holding action to guarantee that they're going to get their way even though they can no longer command a majority and that's a long standing tradition. I mean if you if you go back and think about john adams and the so-called midnight judges in which he's trying to establish federal all of these positions these judicial positions the federalist party at that point around eighteen hundred. They lose that election and it's clear at that moment that they are going to be out of power for a bit that the public is not with them. They are losing elections. They are beginning to lose seats in congress. So what the federalist do again as a holding action justice as heather. Just put it. Is they grab at the courts and they grab at classrooms. They grab it education in both cases in the case of the courts. Trying to have a sort of federalist anchor of power and control regardless of where the voting is going and in the classrooms so that they can train good patriotic citizens to have the right kind of education so that they will be good. They wouldn't say good. Federalists they would say good. Americans but basically so that they will have a good capital f. federalist education in the case of the dread scott decision the effect of politicizing the supreme court and using it as a political tool becomes clear really really quickly so northerners for example horace greeley at the new york daily tribune with simply outraged and he said any slave driving editor or virginia. Barroom politician could've taken the chief justice's place on the bench and nobody would have perceived the difference and particularly at that moment in time we're in eighteen fifty seven. The slavery crisis is rising to its peak. It is everywhere. Abolitionist sir out everywhere. You have this new anti-slavery republican party being born coming into existence. We're reaching the real peak of the slavery crisis so not only..
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"The first cabinet member to be rejected by the senate in american history. So he can't be a secretary of treasury because the senate itself says come on dude. We're not going to deal with this guy. But jackson is never one to be told now right and he's very upset at this rejection right off the cuff so he again tries to get funny in this case to be an associate justice of the supreme court again. He's opposed in the senate and he does not get that seat finally third time. There's a slim margin of democratic control in the senate once again. Tani is sent forward this time to be chief justice of the united states and this time he gets confirmed. Say you're saying he gets confirmed by a slight majority in the senate. Is that what you're saying is a saying. Let's see how that's going to work out year. So the reason that we're making a big deal about tawny is because tani's emphasis in the supreme court is going to be to try and push back against the nationalism and the stronger government that the marshall court has sat up. He does this. Most obviously and famously in the dread scott v sanford decision of eighteen fifty seven and. This is the reason that i have such strong feelings about tawny and the trick to the dread scott decision is that. It's the story of an enslaved man named dread scott who was enslaved and missouri and he was owned by a man who was an army officer and the army officer took him from the slave state of missouri into i the free state of illinois and then the free territory of wisconsin scott goes ahead and he sues for his freedom on the basis of the fact that he has lived in a free state and a free territory and the supreme court had the ability at the time to do what everybody thought they would do. Which was the obvious to say that. Under missouri law there was a missouri. Law called the sojourner law which said that if you took an enslaved person into a free state and retained ownership of that person that when you return back to missouri that that because she were simply traveling if you will it would not make a difference in the legal status of the enslaved person whom you claimed as your property but the supreme court went beyond that it decided not simply to rest on the precedent of missouri law but instead to go ahead and weigh in on the issue that was at hand at the time in america and that was the question of what would happen to the territories that the united states had acquired in eighteen. Forty eight under the treaty of guadalupe. Doll go that. Is the southern enslavers especially the big enslavers. The people who had the major were determined to move their system of human enslavement into the territories and at the same time northerners many of whom were not at all concerned about the fate of their black neighbors in the american south were determined not to let the system of human enslavement. Move into the west because they believed that that system of capital and labor would shot out the little guys from the north who wanted to move into that region and shift the balance of power in the union between north and south because if in fact you permitted enslavement in those new territories should get more slave states and those slave states would eventually overawe the free states in the senate and house of representatives and of course on the electoral college. So tiny decides. He's going to go ahead and solve the question that neither the congress nor the president had been able to solve in the supreme court..
"supreme court" Discussed on FiveThirtyEight Politics
"You're not always the best position to assess your fitness for a job like supreme court justice. I have seen no signs of any kind of decline in justice. Breyer so i don't think that there's anyone out there saying you can no longer do the job. But that's something that sometimes happens without a whole lot of warning so so you mentioned that those kinds of considerations are at work as well. I mean it is true. I think we expected if we're going to hear announcement. There was a good chance that we would hear it on the last day of the term yesterday. But that's not an ironclad rule. We could hear in what remains this week. We could hear next week occasionally. Justices have announced their intent to depart the court within a couple of days after the end of the term. So i wouldn't say that the door has closed this term but obviously he hasn't told us that he's going yet and so right now i think no one is actively expecting to hear from him in the next couple of days but i think it remains alive possibility shoe that point during the twenty twenty election we heard plenty from the left and to some extent from joe biden himself about possible reforms changes to the supreme court. So i have some polling here on lifetime appointments and whether there should be a limited term age limits. That's pretty popular with american. So sixty percent of adults favor turmoil. Age limits with only twenty two percent opposed. Meanwhile packing the supreme court expanding. The size of the supreme court seems pretty unpopular. Right thirty eight percent in favor. Of forty two percent opposed. Does it seem like any of those changes or reforms or likely to come during the joe biden presidency. I think that many questions about what's possible renewed a lot turns on the filibuster whether it will remain a requirement to overcome filibuster in order to get legislation enacted and you could expand the size of the supreme court by ordinary legislation. Right sort of an interesting thing. It feels like that should require a constitutional amendment but no there's nothing in the constitution about the size of the supreme court. All you need and if you know simple majority was enough then you could tomorrow add some seats to the supreme court although as you say it's not popular in the same way. Term limits are popular term. Limits are complicated. Because you probably wouldn't need to amend the constitution to impose term limits not. Everybody agrees with that but they would certainly be vulnerable constitutional challenge. All there are creative ways you could structure you would say you've got a limited term but you remain a supreme court justice nominally and you get salary and you just have a different kind of status. Made you sit by designation on the lower courts. But you're not like forced out at the game entirely maybe do that by statute iffy but amending the constitution. You can certainly do to impose an eighteen year old sometimes people now we're talking about even like fourteen or twelve year term for supreme court justices if they went into effect. Perspectively couldn't probably kick out the ones who are already on the court and we've sort of lost the habit of amending the constitution..
"supreme court" Discussed on Verdict with Ted Cruz
"Showdown at the supreme court made your cases involving religious liberty involving adoption involving healthcare and another challenge to obamacare and believe it or not the co host of this. Very podcast is the plaintiff in a major supreme court case. that's coming down the pike. This verdict with ted cruz. Welcome back to verdict ted cruz. I'm michael knowles. I'm going to have a spoiler right here. I am not the plaintiff in this case. Coming down the pike at the supreme court it will not be made. It will be our intrepid host. Senator cruz senator. That's coming up It is were at the end of court term. So it's it's always busy as we get decisions coming down and And they usually save the biggest ones for last so senator. You are an expert in this field not just because you went to law school. Not just because you are. A supreme court litigator and you've argued before the court before also because you've written a book on the subject of the court called one vote away. I've been very busy. Hawking my book speechless but your book one vote away very crucial right now because we have had some pretty serious cases just in the past couple of weeks well that's right and and there's some interesting potential divides were saying among the more conservative justices. You know the the press has been very fond of saying there's a six vote conservative majority on the court and that may be the case. It may not time will tell. There's no doubt the three supreme court justices that president trump put on the court will be a very significant legacy of his and it may prove his most long lasting legacy but experience teaches us. That justice's tenure that they're jurisprudence is assessed and measured in decades not an individual year. So it's really early with with cavanaugh and gorsuch and barrett. It's really early to assess what kind of justice they're going to You mentioned my book. One vote away As you know the final chapter of the book traces the history of supreme court nominations starting with eisenhower and going up to the present and You know..
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"That's it for this week show. I'm running. I'm ron in arab louis. And you've been listening.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Lawyer of the century s for conservatives who hated the decisions of the warren court. They were still totally fine with the principle of judicial supremacy. They were just biding their time. Till the court flip conservative again. So for the first time in american history there was consensus across the board that the supreme court should have the final say over the constitution. So that settles that who has final authority debate and the debate shifts from who has final interpretive authority now. Everybody says it's the court to how the constitution should be interpreted.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Doctrines and turns them into major issues of constitutional law for the first time. When we come back we entered the warren court arra and the battle for judicial supremacy reaches a tipping point. This is dan from phoenix arizona. And you're listening to a through line from npr. This message comes from npr sponsor. Tele doc tele doc is here for you with twenty four seven access to board certified doctors who can diagnose and treat non emergency conditions like sinus infections allergies rashes and more and tell docs. Doctors can wear authorized call in a prescription to be filled at the pharmacy of your choice. Download the app today or visit. Hello doc dot com slash. Npr part.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Listening to through line from. Npr will go back in time to to understand the present this week. We're revisiting our episode on the history of the supreme court..