40 Burst results for "Supreme Supreme Supreme Court Court Court"
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast
"Hey everybody, I don't know about you, but as you've watched out over the world that warring Russian Ukraine is not just isolated to Eastern Europe, it spread all over the world and you can see it in market instability. You can see it here. People who do not think that that war is affecting you all you got to do is look at gas process. You look at your food process. You see the global change that has happened. But you know something is also affected investments as well. And I've said all along legacy precious metals is your navigator. They're the ones that see you through to get to the next level. The good news about this is, even with market volatility marketing instability, you've got options and goal process are rising as investors turn to go and go presents a hedge against this inflation and the protects you against the weakening dollar, which we are seeing. Legacy precious metals is the only company I trust to deal with gold and silver and the other precious metals. You need this investment. You need this as part of your portfolio to keep you buffered from what we're seeing in the world. War. And volatility in the market. This is where you need to be. Call legacy precious metals today. Be proactive about this. Get on board with it. Call them at 8 6 6 5 two 8 1903 8 6 6 5 two 8 1903 or you can download their free investors got it legacy p.m. investments dot com. Legacy p.m. investments dot com. You're navigator in a volatile world of investments. Hey everybody, Doug Collins. Welcome back to the Doug Collins podcast. A lot going on in the world right now. One of the biggest is coming not only from the Supreme Court, but it's also coming in legislation. And it's just involving an issue around the Second Amendment. Around guns, gun owner shampoo and Arnold, who can't, what can the government do? How can they restrict it? And throw on top of that, you know, you've had the mass shootings in Buffalo and in Texas and especially what we've seen in the response, especially the school. It brings a lot of these questions into just the mind of saying, what is actually out there, what's doing, I've always said, is you know here on the podcast that it's amazing to me that anytime something happens with a gun, the first reaction from the left is to go take and restrict legal gun owners rights while not doing anything about actually fixing the problem. Today on the show, we got Eric prep from gun owners of America. A good friend. He's been on the show before, you've been on radio show. We felt a lot about this. We're going to break it down a little bit deeper than just the headlines because I think it's important for you to understand some of the problems that we're seeing in some of the bills that are being passed. These rush to judgment bills, what I call them. And I had to deal with this in the judiciary committee as ranking member with Jerry Nadler over and over and over again. And then this new assault weapons ban plus, you know, really the overreaction of New York State to the Supreme Court case on the carry permit issue. So we got a lot to talk about. Welcome back to the podcast. Hey, thank you so much for having me. Great to be with you, Doug. All right, let's do something. Let's start back. It sort of reversed. You, of course, buffalo and others sort of highlighted this again..
Doug Sits Down With Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America
"Today on the show, we got Eric prep from gun owners of America. A good friend. He's been on the show before, you've been on radio show. We felt a lot about this. We're going to break it down a little bit deeper than just the headlines because I think it's important for you to understand some of the problems that we're seeing in some of the bills that are being passed. These rush to judgment bills, what I call them. And I had to deal with this in the judiciary committee as ranking member with Jerry Nadler over and over and over again. And then this new assault weapons ban plus, you know, really the overreaction of New York State to the Supreme Court case on the carry permit issue. So we got a lot to talk about. Welcome back to the podcast. Hey, thank you so much for having me. Great to be with you, Doug. All right, let's do something. Let's start back. It sort of reversed. You, of course, buffalo and others sort of highlighted this again. Congress got to do something that got to do something got to do something. The first iteration of this was really before even the Supreme Court case and I want to get to that in just a minute. But this idea of this quote bipartisan gun Bill. That really at the end of the day, number one, you know, from my perspective, didn't do anything to take any of these shootings would have not touched them at all, but it actually had a lot of really problematic issues. Give me your take on it, and then let's dive into a little bit of it. Sure. Well, I think you said it well. Nothing that is in there is going to make people safer. It's actually going to endanger innocent gun owners. First of all, it gives millions of dollars to encourage states to pass red flag laws. Otherwise known as gun confiscation orders. Sadly, wherever these laws have been passed in the states, it's resulted in innocent people having their guns confiscated, illegitimately, without due process, and yet you see state after state after state that's passed these laws already and it hasn't stopped mass shootings from occurring.
They Are Looking to Take Your Gun Rights!
"Lot going on in the world right now. One of the biggest is coming not only from the Supreme Court, but it's also coming in legislation. And it's just involving an issue around the Second Amendment. Around guns, gun owner shampoo and Arnold, who can't, what can the government do? How can they restrict it? And throw on top of that, you know, you've had the mass shootings in Buffalo and in Texas and especially what we've seen in the response, especially the school. It brings a lot of these questions into just the mind of saying, what is actually out there, what's doing, I've always said, is you know here on the podcast that it's amazing to me that anytime something happens with a gun, the first reaction from the left is to go take and restrict legal gun owners rights while not doing anything about actually fixing the problem.
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on AP 24 Hour News
"Of homers, including his first career Grand Slam. He's homered three times in four games since being acquired from the Orioles on Monday. The raised twins Orioles Red Sox White Sox and angels were also victorious in the AL. The Kremlin says it's open to talking about a possible prisoner exchange involving American basketball star Brittany griner, a Russian judge convicted the 31 year old griner Thursday of drug possession and smuggling in tennis Rafael Nadal has withdrawn from the upcoming hard court tournament in Montreal because of the abdominal injury that caused him to pull out of Wimbledon ahead of the semifinals, and engulf two young Kim 6 under 64 gave him a share of the lead with Brandon Wu and Ryan Moore won second round play was suspended at the Wyndham championship. Get some cool bar AP sports. Reporting Indiana becomes the first state to approve an abortion ban post role. Indiana has become the first state to pass new legislation severely restricting access to abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that overturned drove the wade. The Indiana legislature approved the near total abortion ban Friday and Republican governor Eric holcomb then signed the bill. The legislation does allow some exceptions, including in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life and physical health of the mother. After the Supreme Court ruling that removed constitutional protections for abortion, Indiana was one of the first Republican run state legislatures to debate tighter abortion laws. I'm Mike Gracia. Twitter says a still unknown number of owners of anonymous accounts might have had their identities compromised last year. A since fixed vulnerability in Twitter software was apparently exploited by a malicious actor. While the company says it doesn't know the extent of the global exposure, the digital advocacy group restored privacy says data presumably attained through the vulnerability was being sold for $30,000 on a popular hacking site and more than 5 million identities may have been exposed. Many people with anonymous Twitter accounts do so to protect their profiles for security reasons that include fear of persecution by repressive authorities. The revelation comes at a time that Twitter is in a legal battle with billionaire Elon Musk over his effort to back out of his $44 billion offer to buy Twitter. I'm Tim McGuire. A third person has now died in the lightning strike near The White House, I'm Lisa dwyer with the latest, a third person has now died from injuries following a lightning strike in Lafayette park in Washington, D.C., the park is a cross from The White House, a 29 year old adult male has now died from his injuries, the fourth person a woman remains in critical condition, a husband and wife from Wisconsin were also killed by the lightning strike Thursday night, 76 year old James Mueller and his wife 75 year old Donna Mueller of Janesville, Wisconsin, according to their niece, the Mueller's were celebrating more than 5 decades of marriage. The White House says they are saddened by the tragic loss of life. I'm Lisa dwyer. AP
Indiana becomes 1st state to approve abortion ban post Roe
"I'm Mike Gracia reporting Indiana becomes the first state to approve an abortion ban post role Indiana has become the first state to pass new legislation severely restricting access to abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that overturned drove the wade The Indiana legislature approved the near total abortion ban Friday and Republican governor Eric holcomb then signed the bill The legislation does allow some exceptions including in cases of rape incest and to protect the life and physical health of the mother After the Supreme Court ruling that removed constitutional protections for abortion Indiana was one of the first Republican run state legislatures to debate tighter abortion laws I'm Mike Gracia
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on AP 24 Hour News
"Earlier in the year I might have dreaded an opportunity like that, but now I'm thankful for an opportunity like that after everything that's happened this year. The Dodgers routed the Padres a to one before the game LA placed left hander Clayton Kershaw on the 15 day injured list one day after he left a start with lower back pain. Other animal winners, the brewers, Phillies, cubs, and Diamondbacks. In the American League, a career day at the plate for ASTRO's newcomer Trey Mancini helped Houston crush the guardians 9 to three, AP's Dave ferry reports. Mancini drove in 5 with a pair of homers, including his first career Grand Slam. He's homered three times in four games since being acquired from the Orioles on Monday. The rays twins Orioles Red Sox White Sox and angels were also victorious in the AL. The Kremlin says it's open to talking about a possible prisoner exchange involving American basketball star Brittany griner, a Russian judge convicted the 31 year old griner Thursday of drug possession and smuggling in tennis Rafael Nadal has withdrawn from the upcoming hard court tournament in Montreal because of the abdominal injury that caused him to pull out of Wimbledon ahead of the semifinals, and engulf two young Kim 6 under 64 gave him a share of the lead with Brandon Wu and Ryan Moore won second round play was suspended at the Wyndham championship. Get some cool bar AP sports. Hi, Mike Gracia, reporting Indiana becomes the first state to approve an abortion ban post role. Indiana has become the first state to pass new legislation severely restricting access to abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that overturned drove V wade. The Indiana legislature approved the near total abortion ban Friday and Republican governor Eric holcomb then signed the bill. The legislation does allow some exceptions, including in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life and physical health of the mother. After the Supreme Court ruling that removed constitutional protections for abortion, Indiana was one of the first Republican run state legislatures to debate tighter abortion laws. I'm Mike Gracia. Twitter says a still unknown number of owners of anonymous accounts might have had their identities compromised last year. A since fixed vulnerability in Twitter's software was apparently exploited by a malicious actor. While the company says it doesn't know the extent of the global exposure, the digital advocacy group restored privacy says data presumably attained through the vulnerability was being sold for $30,000 on a popular hacking site and more than 5 million identities may have been exposed. Many people with anonymous Twitter accounts do so to protect their profiles for security reasons that include fear of persecution by repressive authorities. The revelation comes at a time that Twitter is in a legal battle with billionaire Elon Musk over his effort to back out of his $44 billion offer to buy Twitter. I'm Tim McGuire. A third person has now died in the lightning strike near The White House. I'm Lisa dwyer with the latest, a third person has now died from injuries following a lightning strike in Lafayette park in Washington, D.C., the park is a cross from The White House, a 29 year old adult male has now died from his injuries, the fourth person a woman remains in critical condition, a husband and wife from Wisconsin were also killed by the lightning strike Thursday night, 76 year old James Mueller and his wife 75 year old Donna Mueller of Janesville, Wisconsin, according to their niece, the Mueller's were celebrating more than 5 decades of marriage. The White House says they are saddened by the tragic loss of life. I'm Lisa dwyer. AP
The Inflation Increasement Act
"Secular fanaticism is the curse of 20th and 21st centuries. These people are fanatics. The mansion deal he calls it the bench and deal. Features massive new subsidies for solar and wind over the next few years, massive is correct. Plus tens of billions of dollars in other handouts designed to dramatically increase the percentage of these unreliable sources of energy on our grid. Number two, it aggressively restrict fossil fuels. It includes among other things new taxes on oil and gas. And worse of all, granting the Biden EPA essentially unlimited power, I don't understand that. Didn't think Supreme Court just ruled. Oh, but Congress can make a law. Well, they can make a lot of Supreme Court. It'll be going to court. Well, by the time it goes to court, everything will be shut down that matters. Essentially unlimited power to restrict fossil fuel projects. It gives billions of dollars to the left wing causes it includes billions for undefined environmental justice. Prager rule number 36. Whenever justice gets an adjective, it's not justice. Social justice is nothing to do with justice, environmental justice has nothing to do with justice. Racial justice has nothing to do with justice. Just know that. And you will begin to understand the double talk. You are willing and language of the left. There's justice, and there's injustice. Just like when you add a word to democracy, like people's democracy, it's a bad sign. North Korea, a gigantic concentration camp. Is the people's democratic republic of Korea. People's democratic. Okay. The White House commission report is an extreme environmental justice is an extreme left wing wish list. That says we must quote sunset investments by 2030. That is just 8 years from now. In fossil fuels plastics and are you ready? This proves that they're fanatics and lawyers. The environmentalist world. And nuclear power. It actually says we must sunset investment in nuclear power. They don't give a damn about carbon emissions, but give a damn about destroying the society we live in. Environmentalism is to the environment what communism was through workers. The great Green New Deal gives government limitless corruption inducing power. The deal itself has tens of billions that bureaucrats can allocate arbitrarily. Tens of billions. Manchin's requested permitting policies would give new illegitimate powers that are guaranteed to be exercised corruptly.
Fresh "Supreme Court" from News, Traffic and Weather
"Couple of days, keep it hot. Today and tomorrow, heat advisory continuing in western Washington under sunny skies, more sunshine for Tuesday, but a bit cooler. In the comment section, there are some common news. Stay connected, stay informed. This is northwest news radio 1000 FM 97 7. Let's begin talking about the stunning vote in Kansas when you started getting numbers back on midterm election night on Tuesday. What were you thinking? What was going through your mind? Honestly, I was shocked. And every time a new wave of numbers come in, I was checking with our team on our decision desk that's looking at this and they're giving you all sorts of caveats. They say, well, we don't have a lot of the rural areas in yet, or maybe it's just the early vote and too early to tell. But you see the numbers that came in and early on, it was leading by 20 something points. It ended up being well into the double digits. This was not close. And I think the best case scenario for people that were fighting against this amendment, this attempt and then the constitutions will allow abortion to be banned in Kansas. Their best case scenario is they would squeak out a narrow victory. They never expected that they could blow away the expectations and win this handling. This was a massive show of support for abortion rights and a conservative, traditionally red state, less than 6 weeks after roe versus wade was overturned by the Supreme Court voters. Primer in a red state in the middle of summer, early August, where there weren't even other interesting races on the ballot. It was kind of a random time to put it on the ballot by design, by the way, a lot of Republican lawmakers wanted to put it out when they thought there'd be low turnout. They got the opposite. And their effort to amend the constitution, if anything, it backfired because it was a statement of the motivating power and the energy that could be surrounding this issue on the left. Among people that feel like the right to an abortion should be preserved and it was a major statement, huge implications for people in Kansas and frankly for hundreds of miles around there, and for the fall election. Let's talk about Arizona. I've got your what's going on in Arizona. Yeah, look, Arizona was one of the big surprises of 2020, and it went for Joe Biden. It went for a senator Mark Kelly. But on the Republican side, at least, it is a maga takeover. We didn't listen to what the fake news had to say. The maga movement rose up and voted like this. There's no way to read these election results other than to say that the power of Trump, trumpism,
AP correspondent Walter Ratliff has the Religion Roundup.
"And this week's religion roundup an AP investigation and covers abuse reporting failures in the Mormon church a Christian flag flies over Boston and Iraq's Yazidi community commemorates a tragic decade on stage Three of 6 children who accused their father of sexual abuse are suing the Mormon church for not going to authorities and letting the abuse go on for 7 years It didn't stop The eldest daughter of Paul Douglas Adams says when she reported abuse on a phone helpline it was kept within the church It didn't go away They just let it keep happening AP investigative reporter Michael resendez says the Arizona case follows a pattern found in other states The Associated Press has received nearly 12,000 pages of sealed records from another child sex abuse case in West Virginia which show that the helpline stands at the center of an elaborate system to divert child sex abuse complaints away from law enforcement And instead send them to attorneys for the church who may cover up that abuse leaving children and victims in harm's way Attorneys for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints say church officials feel they were constrained by confidentiality rules To lay at the feet of these bishops the blame for that is absurd and it's wrong Arizona's child sex reporting law says anyone who reasonably believes a child has been abused or neglected has a legal obligation to report the information The Christian flag that became the focus of a free speech legal battle that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court has been raised outside Boston city hall The flag raising took place about three months after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the city unjustly discriminated when it refused to fly the banner in 2017 Artists from the Yazidi community of Iraq commemorated their tragedy during a stage performance in Iraq's Kurdish region It has been 8 years since the lives of the Yazidis were torn apart by Islamic State militants The United Nations has called the attacks a genocide I'm Walter ratliff
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Face the Nation
"Week economic senator Christina Lindblad and businessweek features editor Danielle Sachs to explore this hard hitting and at times heartbreaking series of stories. And personal accounts that have emerged since the ruling. Christina, I want to start with you and talk a little bit about this double issue, this section and how it all came together. When did you start thinking about it? It started as a conversation right after the leak of the memo, the Supreme Court memo. It started actually with some members of our art department who are young mothers, and editor in chief, and it was this idea. Actually, the language we used at the beginning was it feels like there's a war on women going on in America. And it grew out of there. We sort of began to take stock, not just of the Supreme Court decision, but formula shortages, the past two years of working from home, juggling, school, closures, and just sort of how women feel burnt out. And then this just really the Supreme Court decision just really felt like just almost this is too much, too much to take. I think it's absolutely it. It also just felt like overturning roe was just like something that just felt unimaginable. And sort of the final straw. And the leak was the first tip off to the disbelief and then once it happened, we were like, not only do we have to do this issue, but we have to do this issue very quickly because the rage has just been unleashed. And so what I really like about this issue is how many different angles you attack it from and we're going to get into a few here, but Christina, let's start with sort of the economic impact. What this means for women and all the advancements that women have made so far over the past decades. I think that people maybe weren't aware of actually how much research has been done on what abortion access means to women's own personal financial well-being and how writ large what that means for the economy. People have done research looking at this and found that for educational attainment, the huge factor and earnings and the types of careers that women end up end up in. And you multiply that, sometimes two, three, four times for minorities. It actually there were a 154 economists and researchers compiled this huge amicus brief for the court summarizing all of these decades worth of research. But as we know, in the end, I mean, the majority opinion, if you read it, is trained very narrowly on constitutional grounds and did not really address any of that. One thing that I noticed in the wake of the leaked opinion, back in May, and then in the actual overturning of roe V wade, was the way that a lot of people started talking about abortion and reproductive medical care differently. There was this move to really be public with experiences that many women and men had gone through. And I'm wondering if you could tell us about what I think is one of the most powerful features in the magazine, which features ten women sharing their stories about how an abortion changed their life. Christina just talked about the studies and the research that we have telling us economic story, but we really wanted to humanize that and bring that to a personal level. And really find and have women share their own stories of how not only an abortion change their life personally, but their ability to earn a living or their financial trajectory or their ability to just live out their hopes and dreams. And we really wanted to talk to a cross section of women, we didn't just want to talk to a bunch of CEOs we wanted to hear from women's CEOs. We wanted to hear from working class women who wanted to hear from black women, immigrants, women, really a cross section. And there were certainly, we had two women who actually won a 76 and one is 80, so they obviously had their abortions pre row. So not only did they share the kind of harrowing stories of what it was like to get a phone number, call from a payphone, have someone pick you up in a car to get an abortion, unsure if you will ever make it home. But then be able to 55 years later tell the story of how that enables them to have children 15 years after that. And not only create financial stability for themselves, but for the next generation. We spoke to a woman who grew up Mormon in Utah and talked about hitting her professional feeling at the age of 22 because being a white Mormon woman who's pregnant, like that's it for your professional professional life. And so she was able to find a neighbor who helped give her the money to get an abortion and she ended up leaving Utah and now she's not only carved out an amazing career for herself. She's married and her husband's a stay at home father. We definitely heard from this cross section of women that in brown and black communities. That is often taboo to talk about an abortion and that sort of plays into a lot of anti abortion rhetoric and campaigns that have gone on over the years how the jobs ruling really these women felt liberated like we have to we have to get rid of the shave and we have to talk about and share these stories that may be uncomfortable. We even had a state senator open up to us. And talk about is something she carried with her for decades. And since she's come out about it, she's discovered two other women in her family who also had abortion. This has unleashed not only rage among women, but just sort of like bringing these critical conversations to the forefront. You know, when reading this issue, the feature is the articles in the issue. One theme kept coming up was how deeply personal. This is. Not just for the people featured, but for the way that we talk about reproductive rights here in the U.S. and Christina, that's no exception for your own story. And you got deeply personal. In your essay here. Yes, I talked about an abortion I had at 26 for the same reasons that Danielle was talking about this other person we interviewed. I wasn't ready. I had an idea of what I wanted my career trajectory to be. I was in the early parts of that. I had just gotten a master's degree and just motherhood wasn't part of that plan at that early. I now have two. I have two children. It would be ten years before I would go on to have my first child. So yeah, I do think it's really important that we normalize talking about this that we get rid of the stigma. Because we have to convince the world that that allowing women to plan the size and the timing of their families as their right. And not only know if I could just add. It's not only impacting women as Tim, I think you mentioned earlier. This impacts men and I think some of that research Christina that you pointed to earlier talks about how the right to choose does have a
Gov. Ron DeSantis Suspends State Attorney Andrew Warren
"Announcing that he is suspending a woke George Soros endorsed state prosecutor. Take a listen. The constitution of Florida has vested the veto power in the governor, not an individual state attorney. And so when you flagrantly violate your oath of office, when you make yourself above the law, you have violated your duty. You have neglected your duty and you are displaying a lack of confidence to be able to reform those duties. And so today we are suspending state attorney Andrew Warren effective in media. And I say good for you, governor, there is so much great content and sound bites coming out of that press conference. This was absolutely phenomenal. This is how you do it, folks. This is how Republicans win the day. You see, so many Republican governors, and we've got one here in Tennessee. His name is Bill Lee. And he won't do something like that. He'd never go after the state prosecutors who refused to enforce the law. And by the way, that's what Andrew Warren is accused of doing. Andrew Warren went out there and announced that he doesn't care what the Supreme Court decided about roe V wade that they would not be prosecuting any abortion cases in Tampa Florida. He was literally going out in front of the cameras and daring the governor to do something. And guess what? Ron DeSantis has the man parts to back it up. Ron DeSantis got out there and he's been doing this from day one.
Biden signs executive order to protect travel for abortion
"President Biden has taken more executive action amid what he calls a healthcare crisis following the Supreme Court's decision ending the constitutional right to abortion The president signed an order aimed in part at making it easier for women seeking an abortion to travel between states to get one The order came a day after Kansas voters defeated a state constitution amendment that would have allowed abortion restrictions What the president calls a powerful signal from a red state At this fall the American people will vote to preserve and protect the right and refuse to let them be ripped away by politicians
AG Merrick Garland Is Going After the Supreme Court
Circle of Hope Provides Great Alternatives to Abortion
"I am so grateful to God every day that more lives are being saved. I was listening driving in. To a wonderful organization in here in the Tampa Bay Area. I think it's called circle of hope. There all about presenting women with an alternative to abortion, they're all about taking the baby after the baby is born if the woman is going through a tough chapter in her life, they care for the baby until the mother is back on her feet and able to care for the baby and then they lovingly return the baby. To the mom, to the mother. And if the mother doesn't want the baby, which is sadly a reality, they are going to proceed with adoption. Methods at a very affordable rate. You know, for a lot of people, adoption is a nonstarter because they can't afford it. So that's all good. We've got some good things happening. That are coming down the pike. I just and again, I'm not putting politics ahead of these of this lifesaving decision by the Supreme Court. But politically, this really could give Democrats a lot of momentum.
Biden to sign executive order to protect travel for abortion
"President Biden today will take a step aimed in part at protecting women traveling between states to get an abortion It's another in a series of executive actions the Biden administration's taken since the Supreme Court's roe V wade decision The president will sign an order letting states that have not banned abortion to apply for specific Medicare waivers that would effectively help them treat women from out of state as the president launches a federal task force on access to reproductive care many Democrats and abortion advocacy groups are pushing for more including declaration of a public health emergency on abortion White House officials have said that would not accomplish much Sagar Meghani Washington
Kansas voters resoundingly protect their access to abortion
"Kansas voters want to protect their access to abortion Kansas voters have rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed the Republican controlled legislature to tighten restrictions on abortion or ban it altogether Tuesday's referendum was the first test of voter sentiment after the U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned roe V wade in a statement president Joe Biden says this vote makes clear what we know The majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own healthcare decisions The anti abortion group Susan B. Anthony pro life America says the vote is a huge disappointment and it calls on anti abortion candidates to go on the offensive
Kansas voters uphold state abortion rights, CBS News projects
"I'm Mike Gracia reporting Kansas voters protect abortion rights and block a path to an outright ban In the first test of U.S. voter sediment on abortion rights since the Supreme Court overturned roe V wade in June voters in Kansas protected the right to an abortion in the sunflower state Borders rejected a measure that would have allowed the Republican controlled Kansas legislature to tighten abortion restrictions or ban it outright In Michigan Thank you thank you Thank you Donald Trump endorsed conservative commentator Tudor Dixon won the Republican primary for Michigan governor That sets up a November general election showdown with democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer In Missouri trudy bush Valentine beat ten candidates in the democratic U.S. Senate primary but she'll be the underdog against Republican attorney general Eric Schmidt in November in
US sues Idaho over abortion law, citing medical emergencies
"The Justice Department's taking its first major action in response to some states enacting restrictive abortion laws after the Supreme Court overturned roe V wade Today the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state of Idaho Attorney general Merrick Garland says federal law requires that anyone coming to a medical facility for emergency care get necessary treatment In abortion if needed Idaho's law would make it a criminal offense for doctors to provide the emergency medical treatment that federal law requires The high courts row decision is likely to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states Garland says his department will keep working to protect reproductive freedom Washington
Supreme Court Political Hackery Revealed in Sam Alito's Rome Speech
"This political hacked Ness goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. I guess there's a new low, but Sam Alito is she wrote about Sam Alito went to Rome to correct some jokes after overturning roe. He said apparently Sam Alito went to Rome and let his free flag by guaranteeing he is now known internationally as a head. Yeah, this is him. Here we go. I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price, what really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine. Wow. The crisis test has Boris Johnson and Trudeau. I mean, now he's admitting it. I mean, it's out in the open now. You've got a Supreme Court, the majority of whom are conservative hacks. Right. And we'll deliver for all the people who and Sheldon White House is right about this and he's been right about this for three years now. He's delivering for their donors the same way a congressman would.
Bipartisan compromise bill would restore abortion rights
"I Mike rossia reporting there's a bipartisan compromise bill in the Senate that would restore abortion rights Four senators have introduced bipartisan legislation to restore abortion access following the Supreme Court decision to overturn roe V wade The legislation was introduced by Democrats Tim kaine of Virginia and kyrsten sinema of Arizona and Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska The legislation would prohibit most state regulations that prevent abortion access before fetal viability State restrictions would be permitted as long as the mother's life is protected The bill is not expected to pass and it's unlikely to even be brought to a vote But backers say the legislation is intended to signal to state legislatures and the public that a majority of the U.S. Senate supports codifying roe Mike Gracia Washington
Supreme Court certifies ruling ending Trump border policy
"I'm Mike Gracia reporting the Supreme Court certifies its ruling ending a Trump era border policy The Supreme Court has certified the ruling it issued June 30th allowing the Biden administration to end the Trump era remain in Mexico policy for asylum seekers In a two word docket entry the court said judgment issued to record the justices voted 5 four that the Biden administration could end what was a quarter stone Trump border policy Officially known as migrant protection protocols the policy made asylum seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court The Biden administration has not said how it will dismantle the policy Mike Gracia Washington
Frank Luntz: People Do Not Trust Our Government, Institutions
"Frank luntz, yesterday, was on ABC with John Carl. Talked about the polling that Gallup has done, and how more people have a negative opinion over the institutions that run this country than ever before. This is in cut number ten and Israel and he's right. Frank luntz is right because people just do not trust the federal government. People do not trust Joe Biden's administration to do what they say they'll do and to do what's best for the American people. Cut number ten. And Napoleon that was done by Gallup more people have a negative opinion over the institutions that run this country than ever before. All time lows. And it's not just The White House or Congress or Republican or Democrats. It's the courts, the Supreme Court. It's healthcare. It's doctors. It's everybody right now. And John at a certain point, this fragile coalition that we call the United States at a certain point, it could come apart. I know you make fun of me for being a pessimist, while sometimes pessimists are correct. I am pessimistic. I am afraid of credibility, and I think we have to tell people the truth. And that's why I go back to the recession. Tell people the truth. If they feel like they're in a recession, they are.
Rabbi Jonathan Cahn and Eric Discuss Trump's Effect on Roe v. Wade
"Welcome back, we're talking to rabbi Jonathan Khan, author of many books, including the harbinger, the harbinger two, son of harbinger, just kidding. No. Harbinger meets avenue Costello meet harbinger, the film is called the harbingers of things to come. It's available at Salem now, dot com, all kinds of other stuff in here. When you talk about the jubilee of abortion, which we just covered, you were relating that to the Supreme Court overturning roe V wade, and there's no question that is utterly historic. I mean, it's a monumental thing that something which was a bad law, not just because abortion is evil, but the law itself was bad. It was a high handed overreach by the judiciary to legislate something. It has no business being found in the constitution. It's just complete nonsense. But to have that actually overturned in our lifetimes, thanks to Donald Trump, who appointed three originalists to the Supreme Court. Yes. Yeah, a few things. One is, and remember we once talked about a thing called the paradigm. I think that I'm just going to say one thing about that. I won't go, yeah. What's one of your books? Yeah. Yeah. And one of the things about Donald Trump is I saw that he's following with America. He kept following this pattern of jehu jehu was the wild guide. And he comes up while the nation's falling away from God. But the one thing that one thing that jehu does, which is if he only did that, it would be enough. Is he opposes the worship of bail, which is the offering of child sacrifice. So the thing is that so jehu actually causes the temple of bail to fall. Donald Trump, as you said, he's the one who appointed the three Supreme Court Justices and by that act he caused roe versus way to fall.
"supreme court" Discussed on Fresh Air
"Let's get back to my interview with Adam lip tack, the Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times. So there's a big voting rights case coming before the Supreme Court next term. Would you describe that case? Yeah, this is what an election law professor called an 800 pound gorilla of a case. The constitution has a couple of provisions in it that says state legislatures get to set voting rules for federal elections. And that's fine so far as it goes. Congress can override the state legislature. But lately, the court has been very intrigued by what it calls the independent state legislature doctrine, and what's important about that is that people who promote that doctrine say, yes, the state legislature gets to set the rules and nobody at the state level has anything more to say about it. The state Supreme Court can't say this violates the state constitution. Executive agencies can't say voting rules ought to be different because of the pandemic, that the legislature gets to act by itself unmoored from the state constitution, and that means that, for instance, maps struck down as partisan gerrymanders by a state Supreme Court, don't stay struck down, that the state legislatures, which are these days, most of them controlled by Republicans get a lot more room to maneuver. And if the court has agreed to hear this case, we don't know yet whether it's going to adopt the independent state legislature doctrine, but at least four justices have indicated that they think the doctrine has real force. And that means in the 2024 election, this could have a vast impact on how those elections are conducted. So with state supreme courts no longer having the ability to overturn electoral decisions from the legislature even if the state Supreme Court considers those new laws to be unconstitutional, those new laws pertaining to voting rights and elections
"supreme court" Discussed on Fresh Air
"And that the occupational safety and health administration wasn't authorized to tell large employers to have their workers vaccinated or undergo frequent testing. So are these decisions weakening the power of all regulatory agencies? Yes. Let me answer in a narrow way and then in a broader way. The narrower way is the court has lately adopted and given real teeth to what they call the major questions doctrine. It says that if an agency is to address an area of important political or economic consequences, it has to act on the basis of particularly clear congressional authorization. It's not enough that the statute in question seems to give them power. It has to be an explicit mandate. That's a new idea. It's also part of a general conservative project to undo what they call the administrative state. They are very unhappy about agencies, vigorously regulating American life. And through all kinds of theories and means, they've tried to undermine the ability of people they would call unelected bureaucrats to issue regulations on public health on the environment on all kinds of things. And they do it often in the form of this is for Congress to address not for the executive branch and bureaucrats, and there's a general suspicion of expertise and here again, this would make a trifle more sense if we had a Congress that was prepared to act, but again, in kicking this over to Congress when Congress is not going to react, the Supreme Court essentially makes itself the regulator in these areas. You know, it's interesting to contrast the majority and minority opinions on the EPA ruling because as you've pointed out, the majority opinion doesn't mention climate change, but the dissenting opinion does. So sometimes the conservative majority writes these formal legal opinions that don't even mention or take account of the crisis in question, whether it's the pandemic, whether it's climate change, and has a kind of blinkered view of the role of law and executive agencies when I think everyone would agree something needs to be done, and yet the court says the agency can't do it, Congress won't do it. And we're just going to sit here and see what happens. Well, let's take another break here. Then we'll talk some more. If you're just joining us, my guest is Adam lip tack Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times. We'll be right back. This
"supreme court" Discussed on Fresh Air
"New season. We're telling stories about the cultures of work. The 9 to 5. It's a myth and rest around the world. I came into this totally prepared to defend my American productivity. At work, the new season of the NPR podcast rough translation. Let's get back to my interview with Adam lip tech who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times. He's been covering the court for 14 years. We're talking about the term that just ended and the court's swing further to the right with its new conservative super majority. You write that this is the most conservative Supreme Court term since 1931. And that the court's power is amplified because of gridlock in Congress. Would you explain that connection? Sure. The court issues two basic kinds of decisions. Sometimes it tells us what the constitution means, and those are basically showstoppers. They're the court essentially has the last word unless you get a constitutional amendment or a later court to overrule the decision. The constitutional decision is fixed. But a lot of their decisions are statutory decisions. They merely interpret what Congress said. And they say, well, we understand Congress to set X if Congress disagrees, they can the next day saying nope. That's wrong. We meant why, and we mean it, and we're going to pass a new law. And that kind of dialog between the court and Congress used to be commonplace. In the 90s, they would routinely Congress would routinely override Supreme Court decisions. He might remember the lily ledbetter case about time limits in sex discrimination cases. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent says I disagree with the majority with the majority said in Congress, you should please act and change it in Congress did. But now that we have a Congress that's essentially paralyzed by political polarization, you don't have that kind of dialog. And that means that this court, which is already so ambitious. And so powerful becomes even more powerful because there's this not this counterweight of dialog between the branches, but the supremacy of a single branch. How do you expect that to be evident in the Supreme Court decision preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating power plant emissions, including carbon emissions that contribute greatly to climate change? If Congress were not so polarized, and if it followed the wishes of the average American voter, it would take some steps, perhaps more modest than some would like. But it would take some steps to address climate change. And it would say what was missing according to the Supreme Court, it would say to the EPA, you can do this. You can't do that. We're going to take charge here and we're going to amend the clean air act, which hasn't been amended since 1990. To give EPA at least some power to take bold action to address climate change, but this Congress is incapable of reacting to Supreme Court decisions and that means as a practical matter that the Supreme Court has the last word, but it's a funny thing. The structure of their decision is we invite Congress to act. If Congress would only speak more clearly, in the full knowledge, that it can't and won't. It appears that the court is intent on moving toward deregulation because in another decision and earlier the court ruled that the CDC wasn't authorized to impose a moratorium on evictions during the early days of the pandemic.
"supreme court" Discussed on Rage for Justice Report
"Thanks for joining us this week on the rage for justice report. Consumer watched up. I'm your host Jamie court president of consumer watchdog. Today we're joined by Jerry flanagan litigation director, who is also someone who just won a victory at the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court. Thanks for joining us, Jerry. Happy to be here. Now this was an interesting victory. It was a surprise victory. So why don't you tell folks about it? Right. So this is a case that we won at the 9th circuit unanimously. So great news only to be rewarded by a petition from CBS, which is the company on the other side. The pharmacy pharmacy chain that owns also. Well, the largest corporations in the world, right? They own Aetna. It's a pharmacy benefit manager. It has a annual revenue of $247 billion. And they bragged that most of it's from the federal government. So we got this great victory the 9th circuit only did be rewarded by a petition from CVS to the U.S. Supreme Court looking for review. And we thought, oh, geez. Well, luckily, those don't get granted very often, about 4% of the time. Well, on July 2nd, we get news at the U.S. Supreme Court had accepted the petition. It was one of the 4% of cases of the United States Supreme Court decided to hear. So at that point, we had a really gear up and get ready to write a big brief and prepare for oral argument the U.S. Supreme Court. And long story short, we wrote that brief, it's an outstanding brief. I was in the process of getting ready to do oral argument on December 7th, the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, only to get out of the blue last week, a notice that says that CDS has decided to fall on its own sword and give up its appeal to the United States Supreme Court. So we win, meaning the 9th circuit decision wins. Now the downside of that is that I have to cancel my airfare and hotel in D.C. because I won't be arguing from the U.S. Supreme Court, but a very, very good outcome from our client for our clients. And that is a win in my book. Yeah. Wins a win. And this was a case that was about people with HIV who were not able to go in as we all are otherwise to a pharmacy and get their special HIV medications from a pharmacist. And you argued in the initial case that that was basically a disability discrimination because people with HIV should have the same rights as everyone else. So what happened? They got CVS spooked at the level of the Supreme Court. I mean, imagine your brief was very good..
"supreme court" Discussed on Today, Explained
"Are so mad about the Supreme Court. The attorney general of the United States. The attorney general of the United States and former Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Today I am nominating chief judge, Merrick Brian Garland to join the Supreme Court. So in 2016, justice Scalia dies. And after many, many years of the Supreme Court having a 5 to four conservative majority, Scalia's death meant that then president Obama could replace him. There would be a 5 to four liberal majority, and that would have been a sea change. I mean, we really haven't had a liberal court since the beginning of the Nixon administration. And Republicans viewed that as an unacceptable crisis. Mister president, the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court. And so almost immediately, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader announced that there would be no hearing for anyone that Obama nominated the seat must be filled by whoever is the next president. Of course, the American people should have a say. In the court's direction. And of course, the next president was Donald Trump, Donald Trump appoints Neil Gorsuch, judge Neil Gorsuch of the United States, Supreme Court to be of the United States Supreme Court. And I think a lot of Democrats left feeling like a seat was stolen from that. When McConnell deprived president Obama of a vote on Garland, it was a nuclear option. The rest is fallout. And then four years later, shortly before the 2020 election just a few weeks before the 2020 election, justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies. And all of a sudden, judge Amy, Coney, Barrett. Republicans race to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's nominee to Phil Ginsburg seat, they actually confirm Barrett, 8 days before election day. So in 2016, Republicans were saying under no circumstances, can you confirm a justice during a presidential election year? And in 2020, they're saying 8 days before an election, we're going to confirm a justice. My colleagues, there is no escaping this glaring hypocrisy. As I said before, no tit for tat, convoluted, distorted version of history will wipe away the stain that will exist forever. Which feels unfair but also just feels like politics, right? Like the Republicans are playing a political game better than Democrats are. Is it like the greater American public who feels like there's a credibility problem here or is it just like Democrats and I don't know, senior correspondents at vox. I mean, it's a fair question. There are several recent polls showing that the Supreme Court has its lowest approval ratings, according to some of the polls ever measured by that particular poll. Now, I think that that's driven more by the abortion decision that we were talking about before the break than it is driven by Merrick Garland or Amy Coney Barrett. It is notable that several of the justice actually four of the justices have recently given speech is that our very, very defensive, you know, justice breyer is the one liberal, who has done this. He wrote a whole book, which I wrote a fairly scathing review of it's not a very good book. Is it like a hundred pages? Yeah, it's this tiny book. A whole book feels generous. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no Twitter. It is a small book like object that he wrote. And this clip, I'm going to show you how to dunk on someone. Which argues essentially that we shouldn't be criticizing the Supreme Court as political that it's unfair to say that justices are handing down partisan decisions. And that's been echoed by justice clarence Thomas in a speech that he recently gave. I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal press. So preference. So if they think your anti abortion or something personally, they think that that's the way you always will come out. They think you're for that. They think you become like a politician. And I think that's a problem. I think you're going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions. By justice Samuel Alito, and his speech that he recently gave by justice Amy Coney Barrett in a speech that she gave at the McConnell center while speaking after she was introduced by Mitch McConnell and there are actually pictures of Mitch McConnell sitting next to her, gazing admiringly upon her as she argues that the Supreme Court is not a bunch of, quote, partisan hacks. So like they do seem to be very defensive right now. They do seem to feel like whether it's the drop in the court's polls, whether it's the attacks on the court's credibility, are serious enough that they as justices need to get out into the public circuit and try to robot it. I mean, what happens if the Supreme Court of the United States is in viewed as legitimate across the country? I mean, it's a tough question. We know what happens when parts of the country don't view the Supreme Court as legitimate. I mean, that's what happened in the south in response to the Brown V board of education decision. The Supreme Court said black children would go to school with white. The south said, never. You had massive resistance where states refused to comply with the decision. In some cases, the United States had to send troops to those states in order to enforce those decisions. The federal officers are armed with a proclamation from president Kennedy, urging the governor to end his efforts to prevent two Negro students from registering at the university. The governor is adamant. And so you can imagine a situation where the Supreme Court strikes down some blue state governor's signature legislation on some extraordinarily dubious legal theory. And that blue state governor also decides to put up similar resistance. You know, says to President Biden, we're not going to comply with this decision unless you send troops. The other thing to understand about the Supreme Court, I think this is why Mitch McConnell understood that it was so important for his party to control it. Is that the Supreme Court is basically become the locus of policy making in the United States right now. Congress is barely able to act. The Supreme Court can do anything at once with 5 votes. And so we're seeing this massive shift in power away from the branches that are supposed to be making decisions because they can't function very well right now. And towards the Supreme Court, which is able to make decisions quite quickly, but is made up of people who have never run for an election in their life. What's the most charitable defense that prior and bear it and Alito and Thomas are right that the court isn't partisan right now? So the argument that they make is that they are not making these decisions because they are Republican partisans who want Republicans to win. They are making them because they have a judicial philosophy. Barrett made this argument explicitly. Like I have an original judicial philosophy that leads me to certain outcomes. It happens to be the case that the Republican Party may like those outcomes, but it's not because she is a partisan. Are there examples of her judicial philosophy leading to outcomes that conservatives don't like? I mean, the one big recent example of a justice, you know, applying what they claim to be their judicial philosophy in a way that cut against their politics is justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion in bostock, which was an important gay rights decision. 6 to three opinion, which in ringing terms holds that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the language, the text of that law encompasses lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in this country,.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"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 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 FiveThirtyEight Politics
"Now that we have a sense of the courts ideological orientation overall. Let's dig into some of the specifics of the cases this term in particular thursdays decisions regarding election related law and hearing me to do that is abc contributor. Kate shaw. She's a professor of law at cardozo. School of law and co host of the podcast strict scrutiny. Welcome back gate thanks ceylan. Let's begin with the case. Out of arizona known as the brnovich versus democratic national committee. So republicans in arizona pass laws that require all ballots cast in incorrect precincts to be discarded and then banned third parties like campaign workers and community members from collecting ballots and delivering them to polling places. This is sometimes known. As ballot harvesting the democratic national committee sued alleging that these restrictions adversely affect minority voters. The laws were originally upheld lower court then overturned and now the supreme court has upheld them where they six three split along ideological lines so kate. What was the court trying to determine. In this case specifically will essentially whether these two arizona laws violated section two of the voting rights act so the voting rights act right from nineteen sixty five is the single most important piece of voting legislation pro democracy legislation that the country has ever known to roll the history clock back a little bit the fifteen minutes into added to the constitution in eighteen. Seventy and that purports to prohibit denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of race but for about one hundred years. That's basically an empty promise until the voting rights act of nineteen sixty five actually reiterates. The prohibition on racial discrimination in voting but also creates enforcement mechanisms right so gives actual ways to get into court to challenge the denial of the right to vote and the two big provisions in nineteen sixty five are section five which basically subjected some states to a specialized procedure whereby the federal authorities had to approve any changes in voting procedures before they could go into effect and section two. This nationwide prohibition on racial discrimination in voting so in two thousand thirteen supreme court essentially struck down section five right this pre clearance requirement that apply just to some parts of the country so the part that was at issue in yesterday's case was the last big remaining part of this landmark piece of legislation..
"supreme court" Discussed on Verdict with Ted Cruz
"Showdown at the supreme court made your cases involving religious liberty involving adoption involving healthcare and another challenge to obamacare and believe it or not the co host of this. Very podcast is the plaintiff in a major supreme court case. that's coming down the pike. This verdict with ted cruz. Welcome back to verdict ted cruz. I'm michael knowles. I'm going to have a spoiler right here. I am not the plaintiff in this case. Coming down the pike at the supreme court it will not be made. It will be our intrepid host. Senator cruz senator. That's coming up It is were at the end of court term. So it's it's always busy as we get decisions coming down and And they usually save the biggest ones for last so senator. You are an expert in this field not just because you went to law school. Not just because you are. A supreme court litigator and you've argued before the court before also because you've written a book on the subject of the court called one vote away. I've been very busy. Hawking my book speechless but your book one vote away very crucial right now because we have had some pretty serious cases just in the past couple of weeks well that's right and and there's some interesting potential divides were saying among the more conservative justices. You know the the press has been very fond of saying there's a six vote conservative majority on the court and that may be the case. It may not time will tell. There's no doubt the three supreme court justices that president trump put on the court will be a very significant legacy of his and it may prove his most long lasting legacy but experience teaches us. That justice's tenure that they're jurisprudence is assessed and measured in decades not an individual year. So it's really early with with cavanaugh and gorsuch and barrett. It's really early to assess what kind of justice they're going to You mentioned my book. One vote away As you know the final chapter of the book traces the history of supreme court nominations starting with eisenhower and going up to the present and You know..
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Lawyer of the century s for conservatives who hated the decisions of the warren court. They were still totally fine with the principle of judicial supremacy. They were just biding their time. Till the court flip conservative again. So for the first time in american history there was consensus across the board that the supreme court should have the final say over the constitution. So that settles that who has final authority debate and the debate shifts from who has final interpretive authority now. Everybody says it's the court to how the constitution should be interpreted.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Doctrines and turns them into major issues of constitutional law for the first time. When we come back we entered the warren court arra and the battle for judicial supremacy reaches a tipping point. This is dan from phoenix arizona. And you're listening to a through line from npr. This message comes from npr sponsor. Tele doc tele doc is here for you with twenty four seven access to board certified doctors who can diagnose and treat non emergency conditions like sinus infections allergies rashes and more and tell docs. Doctors can wear authorized call in a prescription to be filled at the pharmacy of your choice. Download the app today or visit. Hello doc dot com slash. Npr part.
"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..