2 Burst results for "Supremes Supreme Court"

"supremes supreme court" Discussed on Here & Now

Here & Now

05:44 min | 1 year ago

"supremes supreme court" Discussed on Here & Now

"From npr and wbz. I'm robin young. I'm peter odell this is here and now. The supreme court ended its term. Today with the decision that could have a lasting impact on voter eligibility the courts. Six to three ruling in a case of arizona strikes another blow against the nineteen sixty five voting rights act and it follows the court's decision back in two thousand thirteen to strip out another key provision of that law. The justices also decided today case about non-profits disclosing their wealthy donors. npr justice correspondent carrie. Johnson joins us now hi carey. Hi peter so. This voting rights decision was about to provision in the law in arizona and the justices were split along liberal and conservative lines. Tell us more. About the case and how they ruled. Yeah to restrictions in arizona laws. One says the ballots that voters cast out of precinct. Don't count and the other lawn. Arizona made it crime for most people to collect other voters mail in ballots. Now how does this touch the issue of race. There's evidence in the record in the lower court that hispanic and black voters get their ballots. Thrown out twice as often as white people from voting on a precinct and arizona's native american population in rural areas sometimes lives forty five minutes to two hours away from a mailbox which means that it makes more sense sometimes for them to have others collect their ballots but that's illegal under arizona law now by a vote of sixty three today along ideological lines the courts conservative justices upheld both of those laws and even the majority written by justice samuel alito. Didn't set out any kind of bright line test for other cases to come. He did create some guide posts. That could make it harder for people to challenge other voting laws on the grounds that they have the effect of discriminating against minority voters. Three liberal justices dissented justice. Elena kagan in a blistering dissent warned that the court majority here was making up factors to uphold these arizona laws. She says it's tragic. The court has further weakened the monumental nineteen sixty five voting rights act at the same time states across the country are proposing more limits on voting. Will right. so let's let's get into that there's a lot of states led by republicans of that are creating these new laws. What does the ruling mean for those well. It sends a strong message that this six to three supreme court is going to hold future challenges by minority voters to a very high bar. The court majority opinion by justice. Alito today says mere inconvenience to vote is not sufficient to sue under the voting rights act and the state of arizona and other states have a strong interest and preventing fraud. That was a key argument. By arizona's attorney general mark brnovich but for many voting rights out device. Today's ruling puts another hurdle in front of them. It doesn't smother these cases altogether peter. But it's gonna make it a lot more difficult for them to win in the future. Remember just last week. The biden justice department sued georgia over. Its new voting restrictions. There's no word from doj yet on the court ruling today but some experts think today's ruling is going to make it harder for justice when that case in georgia at this point after today what is left really of the voting rights at you know back in two thousand thirteen as you mentioned earlier. The court gutted the key provisions of the law section five which allowed the justice department to pre approve voting changes and places with a history of discrimination now today. The court has imposed some new burdens on minority challengers who want to use the remaining part of the law section to now there is another path though that congress could weigh in it could reauthorize the voting rights act and revive some of these tools. But that's not going to be easy in a legislative body that struggling to get anything done as you talk about all the time on here now. Peter rice exactly Tell me about this. Other decision the court reversed a california law that requires nonprofits to disclose their major donors. In this case the conservative group americans for prosperity wanted to get out from under a california requirement that it disclose its donors just to the state not to the public because california wanted to police possible fraud in nonprofits there. The supreme court voted six to three again along ideological lines To side with the conservative group. Chief justice john roberts wrote for the majority here just to sonia. Soda your dissented. She said it could put a bull's eye on future Reporting and disclosure requirements and other cases but the majority found that it this california law restricted. Afp americans for prosperity first amendment rights to freedom of association. All right well. This is the end of the supremes supreme court's term for the year Will be digging in deeper to see what some of the major takeaways were thematically. But we're gonna have to save that for another time. Npr justice correspondent. Carrie johnson. thank you very much for your time. Happy be with you. Peter well this afternoon. In new york court room allen weisselberg the chief financial officer of the trump organization will be arraigned on charges that the trump family business did not pay corporate taxes on benefit benefits given out to employees such as weisselberg son who receive perks like central park apartment. These are the first criminal charges against the trump organization and for prosecutors. There a long time coming. And you're bernstein is reporting on this for npr. She's at the courthouse with more andrea. Start with a simple reminder. Who's allen weisselberg alan. Berg is the chief financial officer of the trump organization and he has worked for donald trump and for him his father fred trump for nearly half a century very very close very close.

arizona wbz robin young peter odell justice samuel alito supreme court mark brnovich npr biden justice department peter Elena kagan carey carrie Peter rice georgia Alito Johnson california Arizona
Is It Really Time to Get Rid of the Filibuster?

The Sunshine Economy

02:13 min | 1 year ago

Is It Really Time to Get Rid of the Filibuster?

"Then there's also a couple of gun control bills at the House approved Perry. I'm wondering if this is doomed in the Senate, and then if that's indicative of other bills that are going to go to the Senate over the next couple of years and only to die because moderate Democrats kill them. What do you think? Yeah. I mean, we're the background checks. Bill was passing the Democrats in the last house on the defensive, because last time, too, in 2019 or 29, pretty sure and also move. Know where we're headed toward this big fight. And this week we saw what I think. Is the biggest illustration of it and where it's going to become most central, which is that you have, you know, you have basically three blocks of Democrats. You have sort of more the most sort of left where Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster and like and jetted Supremes Supreme Court and just to do a lot of really liberal things. By getting rid of the old duster. You have the Joe Mansions and the Kristen Cinemas. The senators who are putting on Opposed to giving the bill Buster, But you saw this week what I think is an emerging vision among Democrats, which J, which James Clyburn and Stacey Abrams both raised their two of the most prominent black figures in the party, which is that you shouldn't give her the filibuster for everything, but you really need to get rid of the filibuster so you can pass voting rights bills that protect particularly people of colors right to vote and the ability to vote, particularly in response to all these bills moving in states like Georgia, that would make it harder to Votes, and I think the filibuster fight is going toe feel about a lot of issues, but it's really going to be about these voting rights issues where you're going to see a lot of like black Democrats pressuring mansion and cinema, particularly and saying, you know, on some level, you may want the filibuster in theory, but you cannot prioritize the filibuster over black voting rights. That's where we're headed toward. Is gonna be this real fight in the next few months in the Democratic Party and buying so far is trying to say his staff's been saying his preference is to keep the filibuster. You know, people have lots of purpose is in life that they don't necessarily abide by and I think he's signaling maybe some open this to some changes on issue himself.

Senate Supremes Supreme Court Joe Mansions Kristen Cinemas James Clyburn Stacey Abrams Perry Bill House Georgia Democratic Party