40 Burst results for "Surpreme Court"
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on KYW 24 Hour News
"You need to know from K Y W NewsRadio, Montgomery County officials say Despite the rise in Cove in 19 cases, there's no reason to slow down the re opening there, but they're calling on residents to do their part. And story from our suburban bureau chief, Jim More. Montgomery County Commissioner Dr Valle Arcos says important numbers continue to trend in the right direction, including the percentage of tests coming back positive in the number of people hospitalized with covert 19 everyday I am asked if Montgomery County is going to have to take a step backward and start to close things Dan because she says she hopes not. But she says the county needs to keep focused on goals and the girls are ensuring that our hospitals do not get overwhelmed, making sure that our kids can get Back to school this fall and helping our local businesses get back on their feet, she says. The best way for people to reach those goals is for everyone to wear masks. They six feet away from people get tested, and if you test positive, cooperate with contact tracing this party's rules about wearing masks, Arcos says. There could be all the rules in the world, but it comes down to personal responsibility and people doing the right thing. The suburban bureau Jim Mel work. KOW news Radio. It's 12 07 The virus and voting will push for curbside voting in Alabama during the pandemic and waving some absentee ballot requirements has been blocked by the U. S. Supreme Court Legal scholar Jessica Levinson says it was a 5 to 4 ruling. A bare majority of the court relied on an old case that essentially says Court should not Inter Ffynnon election matters close to the election if it could cause voter confusion. A lower court allowed the changes. The state of Alabama appealed the decision. The high court will decide whether to hear that appeal. Steve Kate and CBS News and with lock down restrictions, easing somewhat, at least for now, thousands of people across the listening area are heading backto work. But as we hear from Cabo W's pull curves, many are finding their work places in their roles have changed. A 19 year old Megan Santa recently.
Supreme Court blocks curbside voting in Alabama
"A lower court ruling that would have allowed curbside voting in Alabama during the pandemic local officials their plan to offer that option into loosen absentee ballot restrictions in three of the state's largest counties ahead of this month's runoff elections. High court will now decide whether to hear Alabama's appeal. The Aurora,
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Bloomberg Law
"Bloomberg Law? Some complicated international law issues here. What kind of docket is Chief Justice Roberts facing interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts Joining me? His Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter, Drugstore Devon's professor William and Mary Law, School and analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines, President Trump lost resoundingly in the circuit courts and unusually large number of immigration cases Bloomberg Law with from Bloomberg Radio. Bloomberg long I'm June, also ahead in this hour, 35 to 4 decisions at the Supreme Court this week as the justice has handed victories to abortion rights advocates, religious schools and the president, Chief Justice John Roberts was the deciding vote in all three cases. So is Robert's the most powerful chief justice in our nation's history. In a 5 to 4 decision down ideological lines, the Supreme Court gave religious schools of victory this week. Ruling that states that offer taxpayer subsidies to private schools must do the same for religious schools. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Conservatives on the court in the decision that lowers the wall between church and state. In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote that the Montana Supreme Court violated the U. S Constitution is protection of the free exercise of religion. When it throughout a scholarship program because most of the money went to students attending faith based schools. His reasoning echo that expressed by Justice Samuel Alito during the oral arguments in the case. There's a difference between saying we're not going to fund religious activities and saying we're going to discriminate based on religion. That's the point they state nobody's claiming the state has an obligation. Make particular grants to religious institutions. My guest is Richard Gar net, a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. Would you call this? A landmark ruling? Did it go beyond previous decisions on religion? So, yes, I know. On the one hand, it's a very natural and probably expected next step from a case that was decided two years ago called Trinity Lutheran. That case involved a program in Missouri that provided recycled tire parts, the various non profit that they could use for playgrounds. But it excluded a religious daycare center from participating in the court said there that if the government got a general benefit program that it makes available to qualified applicants, it can't selectively exclude religious applicants and courting. That decision was 7 to 2. And there were some interesting little cryptic footnotes that made it clear that all the justices were aware that the next question was going to be And the next case was going to involve schools in school funding. And that's exactly what happened on this episode of the case, so in that sense it again the other shoe dropping Now, On the other hand, if you step back kind of 30,000 foot level, the case represent ah, very interesting and pretty clear change in the courts doctrine over the last 40 years, Let's say even 50 years ago, the Supreme Court would have been very skeptical about whether The Constitution even permitted government to provide neutral scholarship benefits to kid depending religious schools. There were all these decisions in the seventies and early eighties, where the court trucking down violations of the separation of church and state. But over the decades, the court's doctrine has just evolved. That moved away from what some would call kind of strict, no aid separation. More of a new trial of the approach, where long is religious beneficiaries are being treated equally nonreligious qualifying beneficiaries that's permissible and then you add to that this idea that the free exercise clause doesn't permit discrimination. So one way to see what's happened over the last several decades that assistance that might have been impermissible 30 of 40 years ago. Now under the new doctrine required. We went from not allowing even neutral aid now requiring evenhanded funding. You know, we see development from the court seduction in last of areas all the time, but certainly in this area, there hasn't been a change. Critics would say that the Roberts court seems to be blowing the line between church and state. Is it on its way to erasing the line? Yeah, I think critics would say that, I think could be mistaken. I mean, a lot depends on what one thinks. The appropriate line between church and state is so I think the Roberts majority believes, and that was probably my view as well that the separation of church and state is about keeping religious and political power separate. At its core. It means, you know, we don't want bishops deciding what the tax rate is, and we don't want politicians deciding what songs we're gonna sing at math but properly understood. The separation of church and state in the American tradition have never ruled out all forms of cooperation between religious entities in the one hand and government on the other. So you know people who returned from World War two used government funds on the G I bill to attend Notre Dame and Boston College. Religious hospitals have been getting reimbursed by Medicare forever. The government funded all kinds of Occasional on other projects working with religious nonprofit. It delivers all kinds of social services to low income people through churches now, so the separation of church and day in the important principle in our tradition, But I think what the Roberts court believes is that it's a mistake to think that separation ruled out all forms of cooperation. And, you know, education is a public good. It's a secular good. And if qualified education is provided by a religious school, I think the Roberts court position is that that public good isn't somehow tainted. Just because it's being delivered by ST Cecilia's, rather than PS 1 26 How far does this decision opened the door to Maura public funding of religious education? Well, it opened the door in the sense that it permits the legislative process to consider this issue right. So this decision doesn't require state to have a voucher program or a scholarship program or anything like that. But for the last several decades, a lot of times Political movement to get more school choice have kind of bumped up against these provisions. These provisions have stood as kind of an obstacle to choice based reform, even in faith that it wanted to enact it. So what this decision says, basically look going forward. These Blaine Amendment pipe provisions can't stand in the way of evenhanded school voucher programs. No states required to adopt them. State if it wants to can say public money is for government run schools charter schools on Lee, But if the state decides no. We're open to some experiments with programs that allow kids to use scholarships and tax credits of private school. They can't sing aloud religious schools for exclusion. Thanks, Rick. That's Richard Barnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School..
Supreme Court blocks curbside voting in Alabama during pandemic
"Blocked a lower court ruling allowing curbside voting in Alabama due to the Corona virus pandemic for the July 14th primary election run offs, which determined the Republican candidate for the Senate. The winner there will then face Democratic Senator Doug Jones in November's general election. The high court also loosened absentee ballot requirements in three of the state's largest counties. Former federal prosecutor Jessica Levinson says that the ruling will make it more difficulty for voters to get to the polls, especially during the pandemic meal is by far the safest way that people can vote and for that to be made harder for them. Really is a tragedy. The way that you can pull the levers of power in elections and try and get to your desired outcome is to do things like this to make it harder for people to vote. 8 53 here. The Senate yesterday passed by unanimous consent
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on All Things Considered
"Secular continues in Fountain Valley for ified north out of Rikers Avenue. There's a crash there blocking the carpool lane and the two left lanes and you're backed up to South Coast Drive about a 20 minute delay. It's all things considered from NPR News. I'm Mary Louise Kelly. Some voters in Alabama will be going to the polls on July 14th for primary runoff elections. They were rescheduled for March due to the pandemic, But other voters there prefer playing it safe and mailing in their ballots. A federal judge had loosened some of Alabama strict rules to make absentee voting easier. Then last night as NPR's David well, no reports, the U. S. Supreme Court's conservative majority blocked that judge's order. It was an emergency 5 to 4 ruling by the Supreme Court, with only the justices appointed by Republican presidents in favor. The court did not explain its reasoning, but in a similar rejection of an easing of voting rules in Wisconsin due to the pandemic. Conservative justices maintain that changing the rules there so close to an election would violate court precedent. The high court effectively put on hold a ruling by a federal district judge in Alabama. It would have made it simpler to get an absentee ballot and two handed in no copies of photo IDs would have been required for disabled and elderly people and mail in ballots would not have to be witnessed by other people. Changes would have applied to three of the state's most populous counties, which are some of the hardest hit by a recent spike in the pandemic. Curbside pickup statewide of such ballots would have also been permitted under the judge's ruling. Voters who sued to loosen the requirements say they plan to appeal and hopes that voting in Alabama won't be quite so onerous and dangerous in November. David Well, Noah NPR news. Covad, 19 has forced many families to improvise CHILDCARE. For some, it's been like a months long bring your child to work day. Paul Montanaro runs a pizza shop in the Bronx, and that is where his daughter, Francesca, has been spending most of her days since her school shut down in March. As part of their hunker down diary. Siri's radio diaries brings us her story. A ton of its possibly is hard. Dad, we have someone on line one. Thank you. Frankie. Hello. I am Francesca.
Supreme Court blocks curbside voting in Alabama during pandemic
"The Supreme Court, blocking a lower court ruling allowing curbside voting in Alabama and also waving some absentee ballot requirements during the covert 19 pandemic. Conservative justices granting Alabama's request a stay a federal judge's order. While the court decides whether to hear the appeal now the state argued that it would be confusing to change absentee ballot rules and three of Alabama 67 counties and that Curbside voting would be a major change. Done right before the election.
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"Have some good news. The indictments against raw celebrate in the district of Maryland were dismissed with prejudice meaning. They can never be refiled. This is especially good because those indictments contain. The only charge ever made that Ross engaged in murder-for-hire. This was a serious allegation at Ross Ulbricht Nice. It was never prosecuted or rolled on by a jury, but was trumpeted by the federal government and. And the media as if it were proven fact, the Maryland Court held these indictments for almost five years poisoning, Ross's case and leaving him under a cloud of unproven allegations as explained in Ross's appeal to the Supreme Court, the fact that the judge used these allegations to give her all say draconian sentence. Double Life Without Parole violated his sixth amendment. Right to a jury trial judges are. Are Required to issue. Sentences based on convictions decided by a jury, not unproven allegations never even charged at trial. Although this is a positive development that dropped indictment will not set rolls free now. A presidential pardon is.
Supreme Court to decide if Congress can get secret Russia grand jury materials
"The Supreme Court today announced it will hear the Muller Grand Jury Materials Case on the merits next term, which is going to push. Back its potential release. Should win on the merits to after the election, so don't imagine now first of all. These are the molar grand jury materials under rule sixty. We weren't going to get to see these anyway. It was just GonNa go to
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Jay Sekulow
"As I said before, it is time for a government of action for public school Children rather than focusing on weather, for instance, Yale University named after a fame slave trader changes its main to something more politically correct. It is time to move beyond symbols and symbolic reform to advance school choice. And if not now, when, if not us. Who? Harry? You wrote the block having thisa great block people go through. So get educated about what we're talking about doing it. He goes back all the way to even, you know, cases. The Supreme Court, by the way is clear the way for this. Zalben versus a side with Harris. It was out of Cleveland and that case again. It was about a new initiative that Cleveland had these scholarships provided by the city, 96% of which were used for Children to attend religious schools. And the court found they did this for view. Harry of Cleveland's public school system, said it was among the worst performing schools in the nation failed to meet any of the 18 state standards for minimal, minimal acceptable performance. And more than 2/3 of high school students either dropped or failed out before graduation. So was chief justice requests at the time and the Supreme Court that held that this was a constitutional programs so at the federal level at the Supreme Court level There has been a kind of clearing the way Harry for states to adopt aggressive school choice policies. I think you're absolutely correct. But it's also very, very important to keep in mind that progressive leaders, including leaders of teachers, unions are aggressively pushing back in state after state despite the success story ofthe school choice to be out the United States..
Supreme Court blocks curbside voting in Alabama during pandemic
"From afar. In a 5 to 4 ruling the U. S. Supreme Court has blocked a lower court order to allow curbside voting and waving some absentee ballot requirements during the pandemic in Alabama. Stay will remain in effect, while the courts decide whether to hear the state's appeal. Alabama officials say making changes in just three of the state's largest counties would be confusing. Plaintiffs say they're needed to prevent the sick and elderly from having to choose
The Supreme Court has turned away pleas from anti-abortion activists to make it easier for them to protest outside clinics
"This is a pre courts declined to hear an appeal from anti abortion activists we would hope to be able to bring their protests closer to abortion clinics there were two cases brought to the nation's highest court where activists from Chicago in Harrisburg Pennsylvania we're hoping to get local rules lifted on buffer zones to protect clients which prevent protesters from demonstrating too close to health facilities without further comment the justices said they wouldn't hear the cases this follows Monday's ruling against a Louisiana law that required hospital admitting privileges for abortion providers but the justices have ordered lower courts to revisit fetal ultrasound and parental notification cases in Indiana previously blocked by lower courts but now the Supreme Court's defined how to determine if a restriction is permissible or creates an unconstitutional obstacle for women Jackie Quinn Washington
Supreme Court denies Congress access to undisclosed Mueller material
"Supreme Court has denied Congress access to secret grand jury testimony from special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation through the November election. At least the justice have agreed to hear the Trump administration's appeal of a lower court order that said that material must be turned over to the Democratic controlled House of Representatives. High court's action will keep the documents out of congressional hands until at least the case is resolved, which likely won't happen before 2021
Supreme Court to hear legal showdown over Mueller grand jury docs
"Court has denied Congress access to secret grand jury testimony from special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation at least through the November election. The justice has agreed to hear the Trump administration's appeal of a lower court order for the material to be turned over to the House of Representatives. The high court's action will keep those documents out of congressional hands, at least until the case is resolved, which is not likely to happen before next year. We're just
Harsh book about Trump family by president's niece, Mary Trump, can be published, judge rules
"Speaking of a New York an appeals court has cleared the way for a publisher to distribute a tell all book by President Trump's niece over the objections of the president's brother. The New York State Supreme Court appellate division, issuing the written division late decision late Wednesday, the appeals court lifting the restraint that a judge put on Simon and Schuster that sought to block the distribution, But it left in place restraints against Mary Trump, the author of Too much and never enough How my family created the world's most dangerous man of a publisher and a lawyer for Mary Trump praised the ruling. An email sent to Robert Trump was not Replied. We do know Robert Trump has since filed his case in another county in New York. So he is still trying to stop the release of that book. Take us with you Wherever you go
Poll: About 7 in 10 white evangelicals approve of Trump
"A new poll shows about seven in ten white evangelicals approval president trump a new survey from the nonpartisan pew research center shows about seven in ten white evangelical Protestants approve of how president Donald Trump is handling his job that's support from a cornerstone of his political base has remained strong following a polarizing church visit any Supreme Court ruling on LGBT discrimination that disheartened some conservatives trump seventy two percent approval among white evangelicals in June represents a fall of six percentage points since a similar survey two months ago the survey's findings are in line with the ball in his general approval among all Americans which declined from forty four percent in April to thirty nine percent in June I'm Walter Ratliff
Supreme Court Says States Cannot Discriminate Against Religious Schools
"The past two weeks of Supreme Court rulings have not been encouraging after a disastrous ruling last week. And Bostock, arbitrarily expanded of rights protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity this week, according June medical all but handcuffed meaningful state efforts to restrict abortion finally yesterday, some good news, the Supreme Court by a five four vote held its ground on discrimination against religious education in espionage versus Department of Revenue The court ruled that a state tax credit which discriminates against religious schools in the families whose children attend or hope to attend them violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. This case dates back to two thousand fifteen when the state of Montana created a dollar for dollar tax. Tax Credit for individuals who donate to organizations that provide scholarships to private school students after creating the program, the Montana Department of revenue ruled that such a tax credit. If used to scholarship, students for religious private schools would violate the state's version of the Blaine Amendment, which prohibits state funding of religious education well. Kendra Espinosa, a single mom, who works extra jobs, so her kids can attend a Christian school challenge the Department of Revenue's ruling in court in late, two, thousand, eighteen, the Montana Supreme Court acknowledged that the department's ruling probably ran afoul of the US constitutions free exercise clause, however instead of overturning the ruling. It just invalidated the entire program well. Thankfully, that didn't work in. In his opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts said that went. Otherwise eligible recipients are disqualified from public benefit solely because of their religious character. We must apply strict scrutiny that statements a reference to the Trinity Lutheran Decision, which was a case successfully argued by the alliance defending freedom back in two thousand seventeen strict scrutiny means that the action can only be justified by a compelling governmental interest. Montana lacked a compelling governmental interest. Instead the state argued that the law serve Montana's interest in separating church and state more fiercely than the federal constitution while Montana's interest replied Justice Roberts is actually limited by the Constitution, specifically the free exercise clause in other words, the establishment clause and the free exercise. Exercise clause cannot be pitted against each other. The separation of church and state can't be done by discriminating against the church. And religion is not some secondary part of the First Amendment even more. Roberts continued Montana's attempt to sweep the free exercise problem and had under the rug by just invalidating the whole program doesn't change what he called Montana's error, a federal law after all because of the Trinity. Lutheran decision the Montana Court already knew the department's ruling was unconstitutional, but instead of applying the decision as it should have hit, just invalidated the whole program to make absolutely sure that religious schools received no aid ban action. Itself violated the free exercise clause according to Roberts a state. Need not subsidize private education, but once a state decides to do so. It cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious. Liberty opinion is a resounding repudiation of dozens of Blaine amendments and other states as well originally targeted to limit Catholic education. These amendments provide legal cover for treating religious institutions and the people who depend on them. Ask second-class Citizens Roberts made it as clear as possible that day, and we are not Roberts also rejected a suggestion by Justice Briar, which he called a quote, flexible context Pacific approach that may well vary from case to case religious. And citizens he said should not be at the mercy of courts waxing philosophical about the purposes of the religion clauses, and then applying them on some ad hoc basis, not dimension. It's hard to imagine how briars flexible content specific approach could be applied to any other right such as abortion, and perhaps the best part of this ruling. It offers a roadmap for Christians who hope to help people like Kendra Espinosa Afford Christian education. The Montana program can serve as A. A model for other states could even open the door for other solutions such as vouchers. Educational Innovation has long been among the best gift. Christians have to give to the wider world. This is an open door for us to become even more creative today. That's why this decision is such good news after the earthquakes from the court in the past couple of weeks, it's certainly nice to have some solid ground on which to stand
Supreme Court makes religious school education eligible for public aid
"The Supreme Court has made it easier for religious schools to obtain public funding. Upholding a scholarship program in Montana that allows state tax credits for private schooling. Montana's highest court had struck down that tax credit is a violation of the state constitutions ban on state aid to religious schools. The opinion is a huge win for supporters of school choice programs like the Trump Administration. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos calls the ruling a historic victory for America's students. American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten called the ruling a seismic shock threatens both public education. And religious liberty
Phase 3 in Louisiana put off amid coronavirus spike
"The country states are trying to balance public health and safety with the economic impact of lockdowns. The push and pull is being felt nationwide, but especially in some states that are now rethinking the reopening timetables summit arise and Corona. Virus cases one of them. Is Louisiana one of the hardest hit states in the nation? Early on in the pandemic, the state had begun reopening, but is now hitting. Pause on those plans joining me now with more details as reporter Scott Calvert. Scott before we talk about the fight to reopen, let's backtrack to the early days of the pandemic. Louisiana was one of the worst hit states in the country. That's right. Yeah I mean in late, March and early April the number of cases and the death toll in Louisiana, particularly in the new, Orleans area was just enormous, and at one point Louisiana rather was second only to new. New York state in per capita deaths, and there were two parishes which are the equivalent of counties in Louisiana that had the highest number of deaths per capita nationwide, so it was. It was really bad, so we've seen cases. Go down in some of the places that were hit hard early on like new. York New Jersey, but that hasn't been the case in Louisiana. Why not? Well. The governor on Bel Edwards basically says that people have not been good about doing things like wearing masks and practicing social distancing and staying home. They're sick. That sort of thing and it's really interesting because you know in in Louisiana their numbers basically peaked in mid April, and you started seeing this sort of steady decline in hospitalization and things like that and they really thought that things were going to keep getting better and they did. Did until mid June so just a couple of weeks ago, and then it started getting up again, and it's been doing that ever since the last two plus weeks the number of cases has been rising number of hospitalizations are on the upswing, and you know the the governor says it's really really boils down to people, not doing those things like wearing masks and practicing social distancing as the state has started to open up again. No amid arise in cases in several states, especially in the south and western United States. We've seen some areas, rollback or pause plans to reopen, but there is a fight going on in Louisiana over the reopening. What's happening? Right so Louisiana entered phased to in their lexicon back in on June the fifth and what that did is that allowed restaurants and gyms and hair salons, a lot of other businesses to operate at fifty percent capacity, and before that they have been at twenty five percent capacity. So what happened is early last week Governor Edwards said look. I'm going to pause us in phase two for another four weeks rather than go to the next phase of of reopening, and he said that he was doing that because the numbers weren't looking good, because the cases were up and so forth. Forth, and so he thought it prudent to pause where they were to try to drive those numbers down, and the issue is there are a number of Republican lawmakers in the State House of Representatives. Who would like to take away his authority governors to to operate the state of emergency? Because basically what they want to do is to allow local jurisdictions. Perish isn't cities to decide how open or not, the local economies should be, and they make a number of arguments. I mean one is that the hospital system in Louisiana is nowhere near being overwhelmed, which was a very real concern. Concern a couple of months ago, they also point out that you know. There's variations in terms of how badly affected certain parts of the state are, and they also point out that a lot of younger adults are are driving these increases in in case numbers, and that you know for the most part younger people people in their twenties say do pretty well clinically in terms of the virus, Cova Nineteen and that essentially, it's time to to open up the state more than it is. Because a lot of businesses are are really hurting in many ways. It seems like the challenges several. Several states are facing and that we've been talking about for the last several weeks. Balancing Public Health and safety concerns with economic concerns and the challenges, especially for small businesses that aren't able to stay open. That's right and one of the interesting dynamics there in Louisiana is you know. I talked to the head of the Baton Rouge area. Chamber of Commerce and they don't support this effort to override the governor's state of emergency, which is basically a petition drive in the House of Representatives and one of the reasons why they don't is because. They told me that they think that. They're satisfied with the path that they're on the way. The governor is handling this, but one of the real concerns I think is that if the number of cases keeps rising and in the state, decide that needs to take more drastic action. They're worried about restrictions being reimposed and rolling back to say phase one when they could only open at twenty five percent, and so they really don't WanNa. Go backwards and they're. They're not thrilled probably with with being at half capacity, but they'd rather do that. And I think a lot of businesses are able to more or less deal with that environment, rather than than go back to a situation where either they have to have a lower capacity or close altogether. And what is the governor saying about the petition effort? Governor Edwards has said he doesn't think this effort is going to succeed. But he also described it as irresponsible to the point of being asinine, and he thinks it just sends the wrong message to the residents of Louisiana at a time when they really are trying to encourage people to wear mouse, and be socially distant and things like that, and he also says that if that were to succeed in Louisiana would be the only state other than Wisconsin without a statewide order. At this point, the only reason Wisconsin doesn't have one. Is that the State Supreme? Court there overturned the Wisconsin border?
Supreme Court: Booking.com can trademark its name
"Travel website booking dot com Khun trademark its name. It's a ruling that also affects other companies whose name is a generic word followed by dot com The high court issued its 8 to 1 ruling today. Lower courts had cited with booking dot com but the Trump administration had appealed to the Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote for the majority. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented.
Supreme Court: Booking.com can trademark its name
"The nation's highest court has sided with booking dot com in a dispute with the U. S. patent and trademark office the Supreme Court says travel website booking dot com can trade markets name a ruling that impacts other companies whose name is just a generic word followed by dot com the ruling was eight to one the case was historic because it was the first of ten cases argued by telephone in may because of the corona virus outbreak and also the first time audio of arguments was made available live here's justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during questions on may fourth how many marks already registered marks would be subject to cancellation Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for the court stating we have no cost to deny booking dot com the same benefits Congress accorded other marks qualifying is non generic Jennifer king Washington
Supreme Court strikes down Montana ban on state funding of religious schools
"Supreme Court has issued a decision in favour of parents who send their Children to religious schools. The court ruled that the state of Montana violated the constitution when it kept religious schools out of a state scholarship program funded by tax credits. The decision was 5 to 4. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the other court Conservatives.
European Union to reopen borders to 14 countries, US misses out for now
"It will reopen his borders to travelers from 14 countries and possibly China soon. Most Americans, however, have been refused entry for at least another two weeks because of soaring Corona virus infections here in our country. Travelers from other big countries like Russia, Brazil and India will also miss out. The US Supreme Court ruled
Supreme Court clears way for federal executions to resume
"The Supreme Court's decision clears the way for the Trump administration to resume federal executions for the first time in 17 years. The four inmates involved were convicted of killing Children. Their executions were put on hold by a trial judge after inmates challenge the execution procedures. Federal executions are set to begin mid
"supreme court" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"Which is which is pretty interesting. I mean president. Trump is tweeting now that that the administration will be submitting enhanced papers shortly in order to properly fulfil the supreme court's ruling request, but Kim I mean it cannot possibly go anywhere with an election five months out. Well it's timing question at this point. Because following the administrative procedures act and going through this whole process simply does take time, and even under an expedited system it. It could be very difficult to get that done in five months and I think. That's one of the real kind of problems with this decision. It's not just that it is removing authority from Congress okay. This is this is where the laws are supposed to be made, and it's up a piece by the way this decision with the one that Neil gorsuch issued earlier in the week on the Civil Rights Act and the definition of sex when it comes to transgender identity. this was Congress wrote the civil. Rights Act Nineteen, sixty four used that word sex. It did not intend it to be used to deal with gay or transgender Americans. congress has every ability to update that law, and you could make an argument for why it could, and should, and was likely would at some point in the in the future. But, it's it's now. This decision has short-circuited that and instead had by judicial Fiat made law as it were, and I think the other problem with this. Is it I so that's a problem from Congress's perspective from an executive perspective. What the court is basically saying is encouraging. Future presents just come in as they're going out the door. You know. Issue some executive order that's going to entail years of legal challenge and and so get it on the books, even though it might be illegal and then hope that the Supreme Court Green Light. Sit again and we. We can't do democracy in that fashion. Bill did you of something you wanted to jump in on you I, agree entirely with Kim on this and look again. you know the points that you were raising Kyle about about the finer points of this decision that's contained in a big back, and forth between just as on Justice Roberts I mean to try to oversimplify it. Justice Roberts part of the sloppiness he said. Is that a memo? Written by the Department of Homeland Security chief was not admissible, because came after litigation started Brad. Cavanaugh says that that's true and he gives I think a whole list and I think the larger point is what it just smacks of to me as I say. I I see this is incredibly bad faith. It seems pretty clear who has authority here do this? As an as Kim, mentioned, there's all sorts of bad incentives contained in the chief justice's opinion, and it reminds me of well if If the trump administration only done this or only done that you know it reminds me of the the scarecrow and the tin man and the lion going to the guy and saying here's the witch's broom. You know that was the wicked witch. These we want the wicked witch of the West. You can always come up with some requirement. This should have been pretty clear. Cut Case and it wasn't and that's. I think that's a big problem and I think it's GonNa have terrible. consequences. The only way won't have terrible consequences for other administrations. If the court does what I think, it might do some of the courts doing. They'll just have different standards for Donald trump than for every other president. Hang tight. We'll be right back..
"supreme court" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. This is Potomac. Watch supreme. Court narrowly saves President Obama's executive action, protecting the dreamers in a decision with big legal and political effects. Welcome I'm kyle. Peterson with the wall. Street Journal sitting in today for Paul Zhigo we are joined today by my colleagues. Kim Strassel Hicham Hi. Kyle happy Friday happy Friday to you and our other colleague here. Bill mcgurn High Bill High. On Thursday in a five four decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts joining the courts for liberals The Supreme Court said that the trump administration did not sufficiently explain itself when it moved to Rollback Daca. The deferred action for childhood arrivals program, which has normalized the status of about seven hundred thousand people the dreamers, as they're sometimes called who were brought to the United States as children. The trump administration tried to end the program and the Supreme Court now is saying. I! Try again next time Kim. Would what do you make of this ruling? Well, it's basically a ruling that says a Obama can do a a rule, potentially illegally but when you go to revoke it, somehow you're held to a higher standard because an essence. What Chief Justice John Roberts did was ruled that the trump administration hadn't properly followed. The Administrative Procedures Act so the argument seems to be. The president can issue an executive order. Prior President is back as Obama did in two thousand and twelve and know it may, in fact, be incorrect and there were reasons to believe it had been. Wasn't legal given that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction and the Supreme Court upheld that injunction. Trump administration had every reason to believe that this had not been properly don and moved to revoke it, but now it's being held to some different standard and has to go through a whole bunch of procedural rural in order to get rid of this act. Yet Chief Justice Roberts. He's cutting it a little fine here, but as I understand it. His ruling essentially says that there's two parts to Dhaka..
"supreme court" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"This and. What that means is that. If you take away, nothing else, this is why. Three. Loading this before the dive. What that means is that. If the administration goes back reenact. The policy does appropriate. Factfinding does appropriate articulation than this. Supreme Court would very likely uphold that Redo. Now. Is Just Ban All over again. I, it's very much like the Muslim. Ban and look you saw it took a year and a half for the Muslim ban to take effect. We told you a trump can do this, but he's so incompetent that his first to go rounds even the Supreme Court was. Not like this, you can't. Ultimately. He was able to put that into effect. Ultimately. If Donald Trump is reelected, he will put this policy into effect and the Supreme Court five four. Endorse it. I'm going to explain exactly why as we do the breakdown? So it's a good. It's a great result right now. For Two million people living in this country right who are just trying to play by the rules and survive a racist demagogue who wants to kick them out for no other reason than it makes his base feel-good right? It's a tremendous result for them. It is a tremendous opportunity for us to say okay. Let's not elect a racist game show host monster as president, right, but but if you're on the thing, I mean, look like this podcast comes down really really hard to on non voters and third party voters If you care about this program and you don't want to see it. reauthorized and approved by the Supreme Court in Twenty Twenty one. Then you half to vote for Joe Biden. There is not another option I I can't put it any better than that. And the Supreme Court at Basically said so Yeah, this is something that always needed to be solved with actual legislation. Who wasn't you know at the dot? It's not something that the court can vicks force like the Congress needs to. Have a heart and actually do something for these people that is exactly right so I. Mean Republicans who stopping, but yet no, that's true, so look. Here's how it got to the Supreme Court and It began by an extension of the DACA program daca right, which was deferred action for parents right and the fifth circuit held the part of the program, was unconstitutional and enjoined doppler from going into effect and. That was affirmed four four. It was allowed to stand by the Scalia Lewis Supreme Court. So it was, it was heard by the Supreme Court and then Antonin Scalia had the good sense to die it was then four four, so that fifth circuit ruling was allowed to stand. And then when trump took office, jeff sessions sent out a memo. That said Hey. If data is unconstitutional DACA is also probably unconstitutional, so you should rescind that and. We talked about how. A portion of that was not a stupid argument in episode, one zero two. that the correct right like if the benefits portion of DOPP is unconstitutional than the benefits portion again with the scare quotes. Of of DACA is also probably unconstitutional. Again wouldn't have been the case. If the two thousand sixteen election had gone differently, but it did so so. Jeff sessions sent Elaine Duke. Who was then acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security a memo that said what I just set right, Hey! Fifth Circuit has said. DOPP is unconstitutional supreme. Court has let that stand divided four four -pinion, the Attorney General, it's my judgment. That DOPP is unconstitutional, and therefore docket is unconstitutional and I want you to end Daca right, and because trump appointees are stupid and lazy and awful. Acting. Secretary Duke put out literally. It was like a one paragraph memo that was like. Hey, okay. Read the memo on winding down Daca. And then the lawsuits were immediately file, and they were challenged onto grounds they were challenged for being arbitrary and capricious, and therefore a violation of the administrative procedure act and three, and then also for violating the equal protection clause and three courts. Three separate courts entered injunctions. Where like yeah, this is definitely arbitrary, capricious like. Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. You gotta give us more than a paragraph before you enact. Changes to an executive agencies policy right and So, they went back and by that time Kirsten. Nielsen was confirmed by the Senate and then. Actual Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and Nielsen issued a supplemental memoranda that said We stand by that paragraph from a Duke here are the reasons number one? It's bad law for all the reasons to duke said. Number two. We want at the Department of Homeland Security to avoid quote. Legally questionable policies end of quote for independent other reasons that we think this might also be a bad idea. Your guess is as good as mine. What that means search. And then the third. That Nielsen put in her supplemental memorandum was and and I want to quote from the court here because you won't believe me if I just summarize it. Quote! The importance of projecting a message that immigration laws would be enforced against all classes and categories of aliens. So! Yeah, that's as close as you come to. Saying you know the cruelty is the point, but but in any even those were the three reasons that VHS gave for the policy, and now we get to the analysis under the Administrative Procedure Act and sat along long. The analysis is clear but I expected the court to go the other way because you give tremendously wide latitude to the agency for what kind of reasons count..
"supreme court" Discussed on The Daily
"We're coming on the air because there's a major decision out of the United States Supreme Court concerning the dreamers. It's Tek I cover the Supreme Court for the New York Times. So for months now we've been waiting on the supreme court to weigh in on one of the most significant cases we've seen in years. The fate of Dhaka good afternoon, everybody. This morning Secretary Napolitano announced new actions. My administration will take. Two men our nation's immigration policy. give you is to protect young unauthorized immigrants from deportation. These are young people who study in our schools. They play in our neighborhoods. These were people brought to the United. States by their parents as children. They pledge allegiance to our flag. It allowed them to go to school to work to basically become ingrained in the fabric of American society imagine. You've done everything. Right your entire life. Studied hard. Worked hard. Maybe, even graduated at the top of your class. Only to suddenly face the threat of deportation to a country. That you know nothing about. With language that you may not even speak. That's what gave rise to the Dream Act. Fast forward to the two thousand, sixteen campaign trail. We will immediately terminate. President Obama's two illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately five million illegal immigrants five million. We're president. Trump may dismantling the program. One of his central promises. Who is entered? The United States illegally. Is Subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country. Otherwise, we don't have a country. To promise in his first year in office in two thousand seventeen. Announcing that he would end the program through an executive order arguing that President Obama didn't have the legal authority to create the program in the first place. Trump's executive order was immediately met with legal challenges, eventually finding itself in front of the Supreme Court in November of last year. We'll here argument. I, this morning, in case, eighteen, Eighty, seven, the Department of Homeland, security. Versus regents of the University of California, and the related cases, and the central question in the case was this. Head the administration given adequate. Reasons for shutting down the program. Given the makeup of the court with five conservative justices in the majority. Two of them appointed by President Trump. A lot of court watchers expected it to rule in favor of the trump administration. The Department of Homeland. Security reasonably determined fed no longer wish to retain the DACA policy based on his belief that the policy was illegal. Put on Thursday in a five to four decision with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The court ruled that president trump was not free to shut down the program. It said the reasons. The administration had offered for doing so. which were basically that president? Obama had acted unlawfully in the first place. Were not good enough. And that the administration had failed to grapple with and take account of two key things. I! It hadn't adequately considered chief justice Roberts said whether every part of the program needed to be withdrawn. He asked whether it was really necessary to deport people instead of just withdrawing other benefits from them, notably the right to work. The other thing chief justice, Roberts said the administration failed to grapple with was what lawyers call reliance interests, and he suggested that these young immigrants had come to rely on the program in a way that it was simply unfair to yank it out from under them. That they had gone to school made lives here gotten mortgages gotten jobs contribute to society and in a minimum the administration should have considered the fairness of making them throw all of that away. But the latest is this isn't over. The opinion didn't say it would be impossible for the trump administration to give good reasons for ending the program. The Department of Homeland Security can shoe saying here are reasons? We've grappled with the points. The Supreme Court has talked about, and we still want to shut down the program. And they will almost certainly issues such a memo. That will give rise to another set of legal challenges. The case will drag on probably for years certainly past the election, so this decision is not a show stopper. This rolling still surprised a lot of court watchers. You're brought to this country by your parents at the age of six. This is obviously very important day, but I wanted to first of all. Get your reaction to the Supreme Court decision. That just came down I'm actually very pleasantly surprised. I had been on the end for the last few months just. Worried. You know to death on on what the decision of the Supreme Court was going to be. This is the second time this week that a fundamentally conservative court elated liberals. On Monday we saw the quarter firm workplace protections for LGBTQ employees in a six to three decision in that case to chief, Justice Roberts was in the majority. Now the chief justice is fundamentally conservative. He's an appointee of president. George W Bush, but he has turned out to be a not entirely reliable vote on matters of grave consequences to conservatives. With the addition of this latest opinion, he has established himself as the first chief justice in more than eight years. Who is also the swing justice, the member of the court who is likely to cast the decisive vote in closely divided.
"supreme court" Discussed on The Latest
"We're coming on the air because there's a major decision out of the United States Supreme Court, concerning the dreamers. It's Tek I cover. The Supreme Court for the New York Times. So for months now we've been waiting on the supreme court to weigh in on one of the most significant cases we've seen in years. The fate of Dhaka good afternoon, everybody. This morning Secretary Napolitano announced new actions. My administration will take. Two men, our nation's immigration policy give you is to protect young unauthorized immigrants from deportation. These are young people who study in our schools. They play in our neighborhoods. These were people brought to the United. States by their parents as children. They pledge allegiance to our flag. It allowed them to go to school to work to basically become ingrained in the fabric of American society. Imagine you've done everything. Right your entire life. Studied hard. WORKED HARD Maybe even graduated at the top of your class. Only to suddenly face the threat of deportation to a country. That you know nothing about. With, language that you may not even speak. That's what gave rise to the Dream Act. Fast forward to the two thousand sixteen campaign trail. We will immediately terminate. President Obama's two illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law, and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately five million illegal immigrants five million. We're president. Trump may dismantling the program one of his central promises. Who is entered? The United States illegally. Is Subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country. Otherwise, we don't have a country. To promise in his first year in office in two thousand seventeen. Announcing that he would end the program through an executive order, arguing that President Obama didn't have the legal authority to create the program in the first place. Trump's executive order was immediately met with legal challenges, eventually finding itself in front of the Supreme Court in November of last year. We'll here argument I this morning. In case eighteen, Eighty, seven, the Department of Homeland, security, versus regents of the University of California and the related cases, and the central question in the case was this. Head. The administration given adequate reasons. For shutting down the program. Given the makeup of the court with five conservative justices in the majority, two of them appointed by president trump. A lot of court watchers expected it to rule in favor of the trump administration. The Department of Homeland Security reasonably determined fed, no longer wish to retain the DACA policy based on his belief that the policy was illegal. Put on Thursday in a five to four decision with the majority opinion written by chief justice, John Roberts. The court ruled that president trump was not free to shut down the program. It said the reasons. The administration had offered for doing so. which were basically that President Obama had acted unlawfully in the first place. were, not good enough. And that the administration had failed to grapple with and take account of two key things. I. It hadn't adequately considered chief justice Roberts, said whether every part of the program needed to be withdrawn. He asked whether it was really necessary to deport people instead of just withdrawing other benefits from them, notably the right to work. The other thing chief, Justice Roberts said the administration failed to grapple with was what lawyers call reliance interests, and he suggested that these young immigrants had come to rely on the program in a way that it was simply unfair to yank it out from under them. That, they had gone to school made lives here gotten mortgages gotten jobs contribute to society and in a minimum the administration should have considered the fairness of making them throw all of that away. But the latest is, this isn't over. The opinion didn't say it would be impossible for the trump administration to give good reasons for ending the program. The Department of Homeland Security. Can Shoe saying here are reasons? We've grappled with the points the Supreme Court has talked about and we still want to shut down the program. and. They will almost certainly issues such a memo. That will give rise to another set of legal challenges. The case will drag on probably for years certainly past the election. So this decision is not a show stopper. This rolling still surprised a lot of court watchers. You were brought to this country by your parents at the age of six. This is obviously very important day, but I wanted to first of all. Get your reaction to the supreme. Court decision that just came down I'm actually very pleasantly surprised. I had been on the end for the last few months just. Worried, you know to death on on what the decision of the Supreme Court was going to be. This. Is the second time this week that a fundamentally conservative court elated liberals. On Monday we saw the quarter firm workplace protections for LGBTQ employees in a six to three decision in that case to chief. Justice Roberts was in the majority. Now the chief justice is fundamentally conservative. He's an appointee of President George W Bush but he has turned out to be a not entirely reliable vote on matters of grave consequences to conservatives. With the addition of this latest opinion, he has established himself as the first chief justice in more than eight years. Who is also the swing justice, the member of the court who is likely to cast the decisive vote in closely divided.
"supreme court" Discussed on Deep Background with Noah Feldman
"Transfer wise says over six million customers who saved three million dollars every day in bad rates and hidden bank fees. That's over a billion dollars in savings every year. Try them out today and get your first transfer for free by visiting transfer Wise Dot. com slash podcast. Let's shift now to talking about the issue? That's major here for lawyers beyond the huge win for the Lgbtq community, namely the ascendance of the theory of Statutory Interpretation Known as Textual ISM, and to give the listener context, the argument for Textual Ism, using that term more or less begins with Justice Scalia and has been the cause has been taken up by a group of academics including my Dean at Harvard Law School John Manning and you and your co author at the time Phil Frikkie, we're engaged in what I would call an academic battle royale for years with the. The textualist offering your own an alternative, which you guys called dynamic statutory interpretation, and others have attached to different names to it I have been watching this with great fascination at attention for many many years now release since I was a student I've always been on your side of the debate. I'm still on your side of the debate, but now the Supreme Court seems to be almost entirely on the other side of the debate, so I wonder if you would start by just giving us a one. Oh one on what you think. Textual ISM is according to its proponents. And then you can tell us why the textualist. Even though in this case, they've given you just what you wanted. Well, no, I'm with the spirit of your question. It's very interesting. This is a great debate in the US Supreme. Court and it's entirely a textual debate. With gorsuch writing for the majority Cavenaugh, writing for himself in dissent, Alito writing for himself and Thomas and descent so textual ism, it seems to me is the dominant mode of discourse in all three of the opinions, but they have different inflections they start the proposition that ended enacted in law is the text of the statute. The job of the judge is to interpret the text as an ordinary reader would do full stop. Don't look at legislate history. You don't care if it goes against the statutory purpose, though you might follow some steps toward precedence, and there's some division of textiles camp on back. And just to explain that again for for non-lawyers, the idea is that when you're interpreting a statute. If you're a judge instead of asking, Gee, what are the people who pass this statute thing? What did they say to each other? What are they put in the congressional record? What were their purposes? What can we reconstruct about what they saw or should have thought or might have thought you should ignore all of that according to textual them and just look at the words. The strictest textualist would say exactly that. And they would say that it doesn't matter subjectively what the enacting legislators thought or what their goal was. All that matters is the way that it's received by the body politic, we the people or the audience and call to control the meaning of the statute. That's their argument. I would care tries. Fill frikkie and my approach as a pragmatic approach, and I think that is still the reigning approach in the Supreme Court. And that is that in a very hard case of statutory interpretation involves looking at a number of sources, the text of the statute statutory precedence, and then you also in our opinion of to consider alleged history agency and regulatory history and larger norms. Now I believe the gorsuch opinion, and this is exactly the argument made by Justice Alito in his to set. The gorsuch opinion is a brilliant synthesis of Textual Ism, and what you're calling and I call sometimes dynamic such interpretation. Because the Lido points out. This is a very wildly evolutive approach to these words and Alito says the nineteen sixty four. If you'd asked a member of Congress, are you protecting women shore protecting men, sometimes they might scratch their heads, and say may be at held out homosexuals protecting mail, and Justice Alito jumps down from dozens of pages at said no, they were considered psychopaths and criminals, and all sorts of other things, so he says this cannot be the original ordinary meaning of the statute and Gorsuch is response is no. You look at the words. And then you apply the words to today's circumstances now here's the step that's missing, but he in the majority are making. Between, sixty, four when the statute has passed and today you when we have the decision. The object of the discussion has changed. Indeed, language has changed. In nineteen sixty four days member of Congress. What about those gay people remember caller said I like happy constituents. That's all it would've met, but if you'd said what about homosexuals and other sex perverts, Congress's Oh. Yeah, there are very big danger to society and so forth. So literally what's going on in the background. This is always what's going on with textual them. Is that society has changed. Language has changed. And they're not unrelated to one another. So let me pause you there. Because at this point I think someone who is not taking the advanced average course on stature interpretation I think might be forgiven for feeling a little confused. Let's walk people through it. The Supreme Court majority here, Justice Gorsuch says I am textualist I. Am not doing what s grid says I am doing. He says I am not looking at the evolving meaning of the statute I'm not looking at. It changed sociocultural context. I'm just reading. The words and Gorsuch insists I'm reading exactly the way a person would have read them. Had they been exposed to this logic in nine hundred and sixty four when the law was passed? The. Dissent Justice Alito injustice cabinet on two different descents say no, that's not true, gorsuch. You're actually doing the very thing that is bad from our perspective, namely s style statutory interpretation that looks beyond the words, and of course it does responses. No I'm not the upshot. Is that all of the opinions for the court? Everybody claims that the worst thing you can do. is to engage in dynamic stature. Undertake the official orthodoxy. The stated Orthodoxy of all of the justices here is text realism textiles textualist ascendant now I hear you making the argument which is fascinating. That in fact, the majority is not doing. It thinks it's doing textile ISM, but it's not really doing textual ISM, and therefore that the dissenters are correct in their characterization of the majority opinion and Gorsuch is just wrong or possibly in your view lying about what he's in fact doing, so let me ask you a psychological question. Do you really think that Gorsuch? WHO's trying very hard to take up the mantle of justice? Scalia is. Deceived about what he's doing that. He thinks he's doing textiles and he doesn't or do you think he's doing something different than maybe a little more secretive, well I'm not going to psychoanalyze poor justice gorsuch, but will say is I think it's a synthesis. It's he's both a textualist ended dynamic interpreter. Let.
"supreme court" Discussed on Deep Background with Noah Feldman
"From Pushkin Industries. This is deep background. The show where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news I'm Noah, Feldman. Until Monday, of this week it was lawful in more than half of the US states to fire an employee for being gay, bisexual or transgender. That is no longer true. The Supreme Court has now ruled the title seven of the Nineteen Sixty. Four Civil Rights Act which prohibits employment discrimination because of sex protects such workers. To discuss this landmark case, we're joined by Professor Bill Ask Rich. Bill is quite literally the perfect guest to discuss these topics. He's a professor at Yale. Law School, he's a pioneer in the study and the teaching of gay rights law and he spent much of his career, focusing on the interpretation of statutes. He's also the author of the forthcoming book marriage equality from outlaws to in-laws. A. Bill thank you so much for being here this morning. It's very rare for there to be an exactly ideal guest in response to an important news story, but in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on antidiscrimination law for Ganz transgender people. You I knew you were the exact guest. Because not only are you a pioneer in the law of gay rights? You're also one of our leading experts and statutory interpretation, so literally the two topics of the moment are both squarely within the domain of your expertise, so I guess I want to start by saying congratulations. You must be feeling happy about the decision in Bostock against Clayton County. That probably understates it. Very surprised it was six to three. Not at all surprised that if we won as we did. It would be textualist opinion. I've been saying this for two years. The cases coming for two years. My mantra to all the LGBT groups that would listen to me. Is that we need to understand thoroughly the text and structure as well as the precedence surrounding title seven. And I think justice. Gorsuch got it so great for the Supreme Court and maybe great for the country to and for gay and transgender people. Let's start with a little bit of background history here on why the decision was a surprise to many. How long has it been? Since people in the gay rights movement have been arguing that title seven, which prohibits discrimination because of sex properly interpreted, ought to also include within that discrimination against Gay Lesbian people are against transgender people well for most of my lifetime. LGBTQ people didn't even dare. Come out as gay or lesbian or whatnot at work, so there were not a lot of arguments for most of my lifetime. I would say in the Nineteen Ninety S. The argument becomes prominent because by the nineteen nineties. The A. Lot of lgbt tea and increasingly Q. People who were out of the workplace and then the Bayern Lewin case in Hawaii. said that. If you exclude from marriage a woman because she's marrying a woman rather than marrying a man well, that's sex discrimination in the same way that it's race discrimination if you exclude a white woman from marriage because she's marrying a black man. And so the confluence of both the social. Factors and this legal development in Bayern, Lewin, generated a lot of talk within the LGBTQ and academic communities. So this has been an argument that's been going on a conservative measure for thirty years as many as thirty years from the perspective of someone who's not a lawyer. It might seem kind of weird that. A right to have sex as a gay person was decided by the Supreme Court in the early two thousands that are right to gay marriage, was decided by the Supreme Court in the middle of the two thousand ten's, and yet it took until two thousand and twenty to achieve something that one might have imagined at least as a non lawyer was more obvious, namely a statutory right not to be discriminated against in the workplace. Lawyers know that the difference has something to do with a constitutional decision, which to all the Supreme Court's gay rights decisions until now of great consequence had been at a decision interpreting federal law. which is what this case was. Why do you think it took longer for the Supreme Court to reach this conclusion with respect to a federal statute than it did with respect to the constitution. Well unfortunately, that's an easy one to answer. And that is that the whole gay marriage issue arose again in the nineteen ninety s there had been some gay marriage cases in the seventies, and they'd all lost in the nineteen nineties There was a revival of interest. I actually was the attorney in the first case one in DC. And then the Hawaii case which was also unsuccessful, but God love publicity. was also in the mid nineteen ninety S and. Once marriage got on the horizon, both as an aspiration for the. Movement. And something to react to the marriage issue sort of sucked up most of the oxygen, so the sex discrimination argument was there was made in the Vermont tastes in one thousand nine was made in Massachusetts case in two thousand and three, and in some of the subsequent cases, but judges were afraid to pick up on it because of the negative reaction to bear in lieu the Hawaii case in nineteen ninety-three. And so the argument. Sort of existed in the ether. But judges and even attorneys were afraid to raise it. Because it did sound or Thog inal to the basic equality arguments that we're making in cases like Rome versus Evans in Nineteen ninety-six Lawrence versus Texas Sodomy case in two thousand and three and even Windsor. And the United States the defense of Marriage Act case was decided in two thousand, thirteen followed by Obama felt the marriage case. It seems on the surface again to a non lawyer. If I can pretend to.
"supreme court" Discussed on The Daily
"Tell us about this ruling on Monday. The Supreme Court issued a huge ruling very consequential ruling. It said that all across the nation it's no longer permissible for employers to fire people simply for being gay or transgender. Then you might think that's already state of the world, but in twenty seven states there's no federal protection for gay and transgender workers. Gay People have a constitutional right to get married have since twenty fifteen they could get married on Monday morning. And when their employer found out about it Monday afternoon, they could be fired without consequence simply for being gay until Monday's ruling from the Supreme Court. So in the national debate over the rights for gay and transgender people this was. Untouched, area employment. Right it's sort of surprising I. Mean Most people I think think it's unlawful to discriminate against them for being gay or transgender, but until the Supreme Court ruling on Monday, people were without protection in about half the nation, and remind us of the specific cases that are involved in this ruling I know we've talked about them in the past on the show. So. There are actually three separate cases two of them involving gay men one involving a transgender woman. The cases involving gay men were a government worker in Georgia. And a skydiving instructor, both of whom alleged in their lawsuits that they'd been fired for being gay, and the third was a transgender woman named Amy Stevens, who Michael. Your listeners may remember because you had a conversation with her, and she described how when she announced she was going to assume the gender identity. That she believed was hers. The reaction of the funeral home from she worked was to fire her. Write this letter that she had spent years composing in her head, and on paper that told her friends in our colleagues and her boss who she was was actually. What ended up getting her fired. That's right and Adam. What was the central legal question pose? In these three different cases, the question in the case is whether title seven of the civil. Rights Act of nineteen sixty four a landmark piece of civil rights legislation, which prohibits discrimination based on? Race religion ethnicity and sex applies to sexual orientation and gender identity, discrimination, and drilling down just a little bit more. The key question is whether the phrase discrimination because of six covers, sexual orientation and gender identity. As I recall from talking about these or arguments with you many months ago. The, case, very much rested not just on what the entire court thought of the phrase because of sex and what it meant, but specifically what the conservative justices on the court who are now in the majority what they thought that phrase man. That's right I. Mean You have a court where the four more liberal votes pretty much locked in? You know what they're going to do and they have to pick up A. A Conservative vote and the question with dischord was the conservative vote. They would ordinarily be picking up. was that of Justice Anthony Kennedy? Who wrote all four of the major gay rights decisions before this one, but he retired in two thousand, eighteen replaced by justice, Brick Kevin off and so the court has a five justice, conservative majority, and for the Liberals to win. They'd have to pick off at least one of them. And it sounds like they did. In fact. They got to justice gorsuch president trump's first appointee. And they also picked up chief justice. John G Roberts so. You got a six three decision the end. And Michael Just to put that in context, this is a very conservative court. This is a court. The gay rights advocates were terrified of so to get a six three victory from this court. Mental, consequential, stunning, vastly important decision is really something. So! Let's talk about these true conservative justices who sided with the liberal justice in this case. Well the key justice justice, gorsuch he writes the majority opinion. He's the only one who's language. We have in front of us. WHO's reasoning? We know for certain and he says it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on six. Consider for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are to the employers mind materially identical in all respects, except one is a man and the other woman. If the employer fires male employee for no reason other than the fact, he's attracted to men. The employer discriminates against him for traits actions tolerates in his female colleague so of course, which is arguing, you can't divorce discrimination based on. Sexual. Identity, sexual orientation from. Gender and perhaps cultural expectations of gender. That's right, he says listen. It may not be the only factor, but it's a factor, and that's good enough for this law right, and therefore by his logic that word that phrase because of sex in nineteen, sixty four. Clearly, applies to gay and transgender people today. Exactly right and so, what explanation to the other conservative justices who did not join gorsuch in the majority? Give for breaking with him and with Roberts. If gorsuch and Roberts found a pretty conservative justification for extending these rights to gay and transgender people. So. They're two separate dissents, but the theme that runs through both of them Michael. Is that it's just not a natural way to read this set of words, then in one, thousand, nine, hundred sixty four. Nobody thought that they were prohibiting discrimination against gay people in transgender people, and just as Kevin on his descent, says even today. When you ask people what because of sex means to them, they will typically say oh, that means because of sexual orientation because of gender identity. Then, Alito and Thomas, but not cavenaugh. Go on to talk about what Dave you is the very pernicious consequences of the majority decision, which they say will have an impact on restrooms and locker rooms and college sports, and maybe professional sports and religious employers and freedom of speech justice. Alito even says it might prohibit people from using anything other than the preferred pronouns of the people to whom they talk. Right but of course in the end, those three justices were outvoted, and two of their conservative allies went in the other direction, and I have to say I. Don't know if this is the case for you. It seems surprising that the majority opinion in this landmark gay and transgender rights. Case was written by a conservative member of the court. Oh, yeah, now I think it's a big surprise to me. Big surprise to gay rights advocates big surprise to. The LGBT community I will say this. Michael that if you'd asked me in September with the outcome of this case was going to be I would have said it's classic five four conservatives against Liberals. You said that on our show you said this was, but once it was argued once we saw gorsuch struggling with this textual question at the argument in September I started to think that there was alive. Possibility would be five four the Liberals Press Gorsuch, and I guess the chief justice.
"supreme court" Discussed on The Daily
"Today. The Supreme Court Begins Rolling out a series of major rulings on the jury system immigration abortion rights and Presidential Power Adam lip tack on the High Court in the middle of the pandemic. It's Tuesday April twenty first here. We Go Adam Michael. You has the birds chirping at. Maybe I can close the window. I have a window that's cracked open a bit and I I could deter Parizek. Okay here we go. Okay thank you. Thank you for turning off your birds. We used to Adam. We usually talk to you after you spend a morning over the Supreme Court in the chamber watching the justices and I have to imagine that the routines of the court have completely changed. The Supreme Court is turned invisible to me. I cover the court now from my Home Office whereas on days like this when the court issues decisions you typically have packed pressroom and people listening to the justices announced decisions from the bench but They've postponed two sets of arguments and just recently have decided to hear ten arguments by telephone. Which is a brand new appearance for all concerned and we'll let the public listen in on those arguments which also brand new experience of live audio from the Supreme Court. Saw a lot is changing so as different as everything is for the justices and for you covering them. There was a major ruling that was handed down on Monday. So tell us about this case will so. I'm sitting at my desk hitting the refresh button right before. Ten o'clock in the case comes up. It's called Ramos versus Louisiana. It involves EVANGELISTA Ramos. Who in two thousand sixteen was convicted of murder by a Louisiana jury but only ten of the twelve jurors agreed that he was guilty and it presents. A really significant question can states. Let Juries convict people when they're not unanimous and just one clear the man at the centre this case Ramos was charged with murder in Louisiana and he was convicted of that charge even though only ten of the twelve jurors believed that he was guilty? That's right two states Louisiana in Oregon allow non unanimous. Juries Louisiana's recently changed its constitution so going forward even Louisiana doesn't have this rule anymore but that only applies going forward so Mr Ramos was still on the hook for this and lots of other defendants and prisoners have been convicted in Louisiana by non unanimous juries. So the cases quite consequential four perhaps thousands of people who states and on what grounds do his lawyers make a case that somehow gets up to the Supreme Court. Well they have. What would seem to be a pretty strong case? The Supreme Court has said that we're federal. Juries are concerned the sixth amendment which guarantees your right. A fair trial requires the jury be unanimous. In general the bill of rights applies to the states just as it does to the federal government. So you would think that if you have this right in federal court you ought to have it in state court to and that's the basic point. Ramos's lawyers pressed and so how does this case unfold before the justices one fascinating aspect of the case? Michael is that the history of these non unanimous jury. Laws were deeply tainted by racism. Louise used to require unanimous juries but after the civil war and after a Supreme Court decision that said that Louisiana and other states couldn't exclude blacks from juries. They held a constitutional convention. These stated purpose of which was to ensure white supremacy and one upshot of it was to say okay. Maybe we can have a couple of black serve on juries but we WANNA make sure that they will be powerless to alter the conclusion. And how does a non unanimous jury verdict disempower Black Jurors will? Let's assume you're a black defended and let's assume you're in the deep south where an all white jury would be predisposed against you but if you have a black juror or two on that jury who might be more willing to hear your story and might be more willing to give you the benefit of reasonable doubt that could end up in a hung jury and it would prevent would otherwise. Be An all white jury from railroading you. That would be the theory of it. We'll here argument next in case eighteen. Fifty nine twenty four Romo's versus Louisiana Mister Fisher. And how does this racial history come up in the orchids strategic justice? I'm pleased the court. Well Ramos's lawyer makes clear that the presence of all sorts of minority voices on a jury deserve to be considered in heard and shouldn't be shut out if you have one or two members of a minority on a jury. It could be a racial minority. It could be a political minority. It could be a religious minority. Are we really prepared to say that those one or two votes can be utterly canceled out? The idea of the American jury system is that gets a vote and the community as a community is meant to reach consensus not for ten people to outvote to people. And how did the justices approach this question of race? Well nobody seriously disputes that. The roots of these laws were ugly. That the rule in question here is rooted in racism in Justice. Kavanagh went on about the ugly history of Louisiana's requirement rooted in a desire apparently to diminish the voices of black jurors in the late eighteen ninety S. So there was no real dispute. That obviously racially warped jury systems are bad but at least some of the justices thought that what was true in the eighteen. Ninety S is not a reason in twenty twenty necessarily to strike down these laws in which justices made that argument. Well the leading and to my mind. Most surprising proponent of the argument was Justice Elena Kagan Obama. Appointee a liberal. But she said that. Listen SOME STATES. Do it one way some states do it another way. We've been doing it this way for a long time. And there's no reason to reverse course at this point And what did you make of that? I think that if Justice Kagan were writing on a blank slate she would surely be on the other side. But she's the courts leading proponent of respect for precedent and. There's a precedent in play in this case in one thousand. Nine hundred seventy two. The court in a fractured decision allowed these kinds of laws. And this is an outlier in our incorporation doctrine. There's no question that it is but it's been an outlier fifty years it's been completely administrable. It's been completely clear. States have had every right to rely on this for fifty years. It doesn't matter whether it was wrong because overruling something requires more than just the decision. Be Wrong it's been there states have relied on it. There's no reason to change it. The End starry designed for Justice Kagan. It's more important to stick to that president than to drive herself to the result. She might otherwise want. She's playing a long game and that long game includes the day when a challenge to Roe V. Wade the one thousand nine hundred ninety three decision establishing constitutional right to abortion reaches the court and she wants to have as much firepower as possible to insist that the court respect precedent in that sitting and she's willing to make the argument in every setting because she thinks the stakes are high enough so she's making a larger point about the need for the court to remain faithful to president. That's right I think she's nervous that this new conservative majority on the Supreme Court is poised to undo all sorts of presidents and in particular. She's nervous about abortion rights and she's nervous that the court will take up a challenge to Roe v Wade and so she is trying to marshal as much evidence and as many arguments for adherence to precedent. And it's important to the rule of law instability and respect for the court. Is She in okay so with that in mind? How did the justices including Justice Kagan and a ruling on Monday in this Louisiana case so the vote is six to three to strike down Louisiana law? And it's a really scrambled lineup. It's very unusual lineup. Justice gorsuch wrote the majority opinion and he was joined by all of justice. Kagan's usual liberal allies This is Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Brier and Sonia Sotomayor and also in large part by justice. Brad Kavanagh Justice Thomas Road. His opinion offer himself but agreed on the bottom line that the laws were no good and on the other side. You have to conservative. Justices Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined by Justice Kagan. The liberal and their descent is completely focused on respect for president. I have no reason to think they think this Louisiana law is a good idea but they also say that lowering the bar for overruling are precedents is a bad idea. And I think the Audience Justice Kagan was speaking to was not her liberal colleagues but her conservative. Saying I'll come along with chief justice roberts injustice leader on this one and I'm hopeful that when today comes that we confront the same issue in a setting where your policy instincts might go in a different direction. Youtube will respect precedent. In other words. She sang all come with you on this case. And I hope you'll come with me when Roe v Wade is challenged or when there's a major abortion case that's right and of course that day may be coming up quite soon. We may have an abortion case. The court will almost certainly decide by June a very quick answer the question of whether Justice Kagan got anything for her. Vote in this jury..
"supreme court" Discussed on We The People
"Leading experts on the US Supreme Court and and so honored to welcome them. Chamie Santos is a partner in the appellate practice at Goodwin law where she practices a Pellet Complex Civil Litigation in federal courts and she is co host of the Supreme Court. Podcast strict scrutiny. Jamie thank you so much for joining. Thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here and Jonathan. Adler is Johan Memorial professor of law and director of the Coleman P Burke Centre for Environmental Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of law. He has repeatedly testified before. Congress and his work is often cited by the Supreme Court. He is a contributing editor to national review online and a regular contributor to the volokh conspiracy. Jonathan is wonderful to have you back. Great to be here. Let us begin. Friends with the recent Wisconsin election case. The Supreme Court in Republican National Committee versus Democratic National Committee overturned a decision of Wisconsin District Court to extend the postmark deadline for ballots to be counted. It was a hobby contested. Decision you both written about it Jamie. Tell us what was the reasoning of the courts majority in stopping the ballots from being counted unless they were mailed by election day? And what was the defense reasoning? And which do you agree with sue? This is a really interesting opinion because it is it comes out during a global pandemic A public health crisis and the majority's opinion actually didn't mention the word pandemic. It mentioned Kobe. Nineteen only when discussing what the court was not deciding and it cabinet's decision In a way that said you know this is really narrow. Were just looking at a narrow question about whether absentee ballots have to be mailed and postmarked by election day or as you mentioned whether they could be mailed and postmarked after election day as long as they're received by April thirteenth. So what the court says is a few things first. They say a critical point in this decision is that the plaintiffs didn't even seek this postmark by day relief in their motion. And we're not going to say it's forfeiture but we think that's very important And what the District Court did here. Is it kind of reached out Decided something that wasn't even sought by the plaintiffs And did so in a way that violated what the court called the per cell principle which is based on a two thousand six election case and the court said the principal means that lower courts. Shouldn't alter election rules on the eve of an election because otherwise it will result in judicially created confusion and intervening now could really affect the integrity of the election process. And then the rest of the court's decision largely focused on what the descent said and responded to those issues so the dissent was authored by Justice Ginsburg and it focused almost entirely on the public health crisis on the impact of that crisis on voting and the fact that this public health crisis was causing a massive backlog on absentee ballot requests and absentee ballots in county clerk's offices so Just as a tiny bit of background in a normal election year there might be one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand absentee ballot requests this year. Just at the time of the district's decision. There were one point. One million ballot requests Which meant that county. Clerks offices were being overwhelmed. The US Postal Service was slowing down mail And as a result the district court found that there would be tens of thousands of people who wouldn't even receive their absentee ballots ballots by the by the time of the Election Day. And so what justice? Ginsburg said is we're in the middle of massive pandemic and the majority's decision is going to result in massive disenfranchisement and that massive disenfranchisement greatly outweighs any of the concerns that the that the majority had about kind of judicial overreach. This is a an unprecedented situation and Any any concerns. The majority had pale in comparison to the the right to vote and then she closes by focusing on really the dire consequences of the majority's decision and she says tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens will have to risk their lives or give up the right to vote And that's a pretty weighty way too close an opinion As far as my views. I think it is certainly possible. And reasonable to in a in a normal case have a concern with a district court. That doesn't just uphold or enjoying a law but rewrites it which is what the District Court did hear rewrote election procedures. It said a new date and it changed State Law and I think in normal cases people would say that's not the role of a district court to play but this isn't a normal case and so I think that for the majority to take an extremely long thoughtful opinion by a district court that catalog the in favor of of providing relief to voters and to kind of cast aside with three pages is troubling to me Particularly in the middle of pandemics. I tend to think that the descent had the better of the arguments And I think that the these circumstances are just so different from any of the other cases the court Refer a tale Jonathan inured discussion of the Wisconsin cases The Falcons spiracy making sense of the Wisconsin Election Supreme Court decisions you quoted posed by Marquette University law professor Chad old father who wrote a fairly balanced assessment of the legal issues. Fresno old father said the abstract I wouldn't consider characterize The case as easy and that it essentially comes down to a willingness to account for unique circumstances the majority does Tend toward a business as usual approach. Dissents do not which you tend to and tell us more about the principal and how that principle tells courts about how to accommodate unique emergencies short jeff so I think In terms of the per cell principal The Supreme Court for Awhile has endorsed the principle that federal district courts should not make changes to electoral procedures in the days just before an election that that for elections to happen or in orderly fashion There shouldn't be an incentive for parties to run to court to try and change the rules midstream and that's really not a the role that federal courts should play and that principal certainly was a big factor for the majority here. That that this opinion came out Just a few days before the election was supposed to be held. It came out very late in the day under Wisconsin Law in terms of applying A- for absentee ballots and under normal situations late in the day in terms of when absentee ballots would have to be mailed and the majority certainly thought that that principle needed to be upheld The other thing that I think affected the majority's reasoning. Is that the way. The District Court Modified Wisconsin election law. Is that it would create the possibility that people could cast their ballots after the election. Day perhaps even with knowledge of what preliminary results were and that that is is particularly problematic. The District Court said that election results weren't supposed to be released until the deadline But of course we know that exit polls and other things often leak at a time and the court was concerned about that. I think that there are two other things that Were throwing one which is just a problem with this sort of litigation generally. It's it's done under incredibly tight time constraints and so that means that that the litigants don't always have the time to fully develop their arguments. The courts might not always have the time to consider every factor so one factor really hadn't been considered by. Anyone is the fact that a lot of absentee ballots actually aren't ever postmarked Because The Post Office doesn't postmark everything if you have you have prepaid envelopes and things like that. They often get mailed without any postmark at all. And that certainly affects whether or not A postmark can be ro deadline. And that wasn't really considered by by anyone and so I think that's an important factor the other thing that's just in the background here is what should federal court is due or not too when political officials who clearly have the ability and the power to solve the problem. Don't I'll live in Ohio. And we faced a similar sort of issue and here The governor and the Secretary of state acted very forcefully and aggressively to move our election day and two weeks before so legislature to to accommodate that Wisconsin for a variety of reasons. That did not happen and Yeah I think we can all say. I certainly think that Wisconsin legislature was very derelict in its obligation to ensure that elections can occur in an orderly way and in a way. That doesn't put anybody at risk but that doesn't necessarily mean that federal courts necessarily have the power to intervene the last minute and to rewrite a statute in ways that weren't necessarily even asked for up by of the parties so it's a very unfortunate decision and and I think what it highlights is that state legislatures really need to be thinking now about how they're going to make sure that elections can proceed if were still in a situation where people congregating and polling places is something. That's that's not advisable when we have our follow elections. Champion your commentary on Wisconsin Case. You wrote for those crying judicial activism by the District Court. What exactly would you have the remedy be? You've got a violation of the right to vote on one hand and no way of preventing it on the other and you have noted that indeed there were six hundred and eighty two ballots without a postmark. The election officials have decided in the end to count that and also that justice. Ginsburg was correct to predict that. Many people who requested ballots wouldn't receive them in time to mail them on election day. So.
"supreme court" Discussed on Geek News Central
"Would is not considered essential and shall be Blocked not salt and she. He extended that to greenhouses and other places that this time of year in any event please understand my perspective in Michigan. It's time to plant gardens It's time to get. It's time to put seeds in the ground It's just about pass because Michigan is not necessarily a southern California or silicon the San Joaquin Valley. Where the the you know? You have one hundred and ten degrees and you get he. Basically you have a good growing season. The growing season in this state is relatively short and most people that plant gardens do so by by going starter plants by starter. Strawberries You just you name it. They buy a bunch of starter plants and typically. That's what most people here do is. That's how they plant their garden A lot of people by family included Cans an incredible amount of an incredible amount of of vegetables Tomatoes is one of the biggest ones we obviously pick strawberries and I don't think he can strawberries. But there's a number of things beings and if they don't meet their planning schedule they will not get these vegetables out the back end now. Home Depot doesn't necessarily sell a lot of vegetables starter. Plants also comes from nurseries and But at the same point you've got people in this rural community and they're all locked up in their houses and part of this ban. They can't buy paint the can't buy a whole bunch of stuff. Now that is deemed non-essential. So I'm thinking okay. The stores already doing social distancing they are already being there watching people in the store When I went into by what I have to buy headed by some hardware because I had something on a gate that needed adjusted essential right and I waited on the end of an aisle until people left the aisle and went down and didn't go any crowd in an aisle so we're crossing paths with shopping cart and that's what everyone was doing and Yet we cannot sell paint. We cannot sell all this other stuff now because it's not essential. Why is a little bit of common sense not being able to prevail here at this time? What why why would S- and I know that people that you don't be people that don't garden don't understand this You buy your vegetables from the grocery store that's great but some people Don't it's almost I wouldn't call it a religion but people pretty serious about the guard sweetcorn. It goes on and on and on right now sweetcorn you got a plant with a C. There's NO STARTER. Sweet corn per se Typically that doesn't go until about may fifteenth anyway. So it's a little early April fifteenth. Or so maybe a little early for sweetcorn but why this obsession of telling us what we can't do when it seems reasonable common right so people are pissed. I MEAN UPSET. Now they reacted. There was people were positive. People are negative people were saying. Oh you you're not being responsible. We're also should distancing and at some point in this community. I think there's twenty cases and like a thirty by thirty mile area so it's not like there's big community spread here. Everyone's being Being very careful watching what they're doing You can go to Walmart you can go to. Meyers. You can go all these buy groceries which is essential obviously but it just seems like it's a little extreme and what's going to happen his his you're GonNa have home depots and Places IT Salvi Garden supplies and these plants that you know. I'M NOT. I'm not talking about going. Get flowers and planting flowers K. We all can live without some flowers but some of this stuff is essential to people at least my definition essential. Not some other people's but boy I don't go do it. You're GONNA get someone sick and you know it's I think everyone's pretty much understanding what's going on here and understand the rules and what we're supposed to watch out for and But people protesting and hostility and facebook. His jacked way up. People are yelling each other. It's it's it's it's a little political it's crazy and we talk a little bit on the last show. A couple of shows ago about the hydrochloric zine or whatever it's called and it's people take a breath take a breath now. What's curious is that my sister cells see A pharmacy and that would be wheat soybeans corn. I don't know what else she self. She sells. Basically drop to the farmer semi rolls up the have a forklift download. You know five thousand pounds of Of seed is going to go on a planter. And she's trying to do business over the phone. She cannot go her company. Rules said no farmer visits nothing like that so she's scrambling or sometimes she's like on the edge of the road while the semis there and she's talking with the farmer making sure that the the load the order was correct and what she's hearing from. Some certain farmers is there stare freaking because they can't get some supplies and they're worried about being able to put drops new ground because of perceived restrictions. You know certain types of stuff. Oh it's not essential that businesses shut down with that businesses. A essential business center has a central product that needs to be delivered that farmers so that essential farmer can put his crop in the ground and There's real problems and they're saying. These farmers saying we might grounds ready. The we can't start planting yet and that should raise concerns and of course a call on the governor and China. Make you know make them understand that this particular product I need. You're not letting this company sell because you've shutdown is gonNA delay crops going into round and It's not just here in Michigan. It's other states to tractor supplies. Yes tractor supplies which are often guess what they have. They have a garden section. Paint to all being lumped together. Lots of stuff. That is in the gray area. People are afraid to do so because they're feeling if they follow side the quote unquote restriction. They're going to get you know they're going to get a ticket or get arrested or the shirt store is gonNA get shut down. So why is a little common sense not not being utilized here and you can't? The politicians can't cover all scenarios. But if my sister is on the phone with a farmer and he's she's hearing this same concern again and again and again and not getting any response. It makes you go Just a little bit. Because you know tractors need oil needs gas lubricants not all come from the same place. They need Additives they need stuff to throw in with the seed they need just goes on and on and on and I don't know the specific issue or spray they need spray. They need fertilizer on and on and on and on all this stuff that they way they feed America and we'll get the stuff in the ground so that you know come October. September October that the the harvesters out there poll nick corn wheat soybeans off the field. But if it doesn't get in there I because of narrow thinking of legislative people that are got near plea state Victorio controls at this point but you know I know most of you don't care you're sitting at home. Maybe in the inner city middle or not inner city but maybe city maybe in the burbs. But it's interesting being in the country. Now when I hear my kids and Shoko talking about different stuff that's happening in Hawaii. Then that's its own whole whole whole different thing. Where they're you know a you can go to the Beach. Zong as immediately get in the water and go Surf Newton Surf and then come back and immediately get in your car. Don't sit you can't sit on the beach. You sit on the beach by yourself with no one around you. Five thousand dollar fine one year in jail factor is taking people straight to jail. So you can't even go on an open beach so it's things like that. Are the father that took his daughter to the park which was allowed playing catch and please try to resting did justice. People have lost their minds so Now if you're hanging out with a group of twenty having a party drinking beer shame on you. You should be arrested. You shouldn't get a ticket you know but It's been a month. It's been a month and people get pissy. They're getting very very busy so anyway. That's the beginning of the show. I think lost half the audience. All right You don't want to hear it. It's okay love you guys to all right so let's go ahead and move into the stack. The Supreme Court Supreme Court is going virtual. This is the first SRT. Spring Port will start hearing cases by teleconference and it streaming itself live. This is a major change. Spurred by the novell corona virus economic for six days and may the court will hear cases that were postponed last month and clothing some related. The president's tax returns also stream live audio feed another first for the court. So if you want to listen if you're home of course cal- California year lockdown until June or something You'll be able to listen on me. Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and Twelfth and Thirteenth. In if we're still locked down here I'm definitely going to at least listen to one. It's kind of cool to be able to hear the Supreme Court right in order Don't you think that'd be cool? I think it'd be awesome to hear. And so changing time and situations and getting back to business so Presley Pressley says Ali provided to news media. Oh but according to Scotus blog it's actually being made public not just dream for accredited professionals are credited. Press so I guess you can already find recording so oral arguments online. Didn't know.
"supreme court" Discussed on Slate's If Then
"In January? Facebook made its first attempt to answer that question in detail. It released a set of bylaws covering everything from the makeup of the board to the individual appeals process for content. So how's it going to work? Let's say that I post something. It gets taken down for whatever reason then what happens so what will happen is let's say posted pictures of your cat and some flags it for violence against animals and gets taken down incorrectly. Do you appeal. That wants to facebook through their internal mechanisms. And then you'd appeal it again. If you get to that level you will get a code and you will take that code and copy paste it and it will go to a website that is not facebook and you a copy and paste that code into generate your file and to give permission for facebook to allow your private information to be reviewed by an outside body and then it goes before a case selection committee which functions a little bit like writ in the Supreme Court Which is kind of their decide whether or not your case is worth reviewing if you're cases selected it's brought before a five person panel of Oversight Board members and they then write a decision explaining why they gave their answer and saying whether they would take down or keep it up even decision around a particular piece of content might be representative of a larger issue. Then that small five person panel can flag it with the larger forty person board if they've made a policy decision or a policy recommendation that facebook has to reply to that policy decision. And say why it is that they are implementing that policy decision or why. They're not and that is also a public statement. Then all of those decisions are put into a database. That is searchable on the website. And we'll be able to kind of have a common law type Database that allows us to see similar facts or similar rulings and all of this is supposed to happen within ninety days of making that initial complaint. Yes exactly which is insane. It's insane it's insane for like it. Well it's insane for two reasons. One is the idea that you can do all of that within ninety days and then the other part of it is that both seems very slow and very fast. It feels very fast to give that amount of due process of someone I mean court cases languish for years right but at the same time. It seems really slow because there is in the life of the Internet with an eighteen hours things might no longer be relevant from the user perspective. It's really supposed to be about signaling erroneous decisions or decisions that people want change on facebook's policy about to an outside board when time is not really of the essence. I listen to you detail all these steps. And they're frankly sort of dizzying in their complex about it Boy It seems like a lot for an individual user. It is a lot for an individual user. But I think that we're kind of at this point. Where these transnational private companies that have got privately governed are public rights of speech. I think it's maybe time it's these issues have certainly are not new. They have been happening for the last twenty years and so I think that people will become so much more literate in such a short amount of time and I think this is just the tip of the iceberg of that kind of civics and cultural literacy around this issue. This appeals process. Kate is describing. It only applies to content. That has already been removed from the platform. So if you're a user and you WanNa see something come down. The Oversight Board can't help. It is narrow though because this is just about content that gets taken down. It's not about whether my neighbor is posting vaccine misinformation that I would like to see taken down. Yeah and so at the beginning. It's only gonNA be about removal. And so if you think about this actually from a privacy perspective this makes a lot of sense. Let's say that. You flag a piece of content that your neighbor posts right and facebook says no keeping it up and you want to appeal that decision for you to appeal that decision given the process that I just gave you. You would be sending someone else's data off of facebook and into the outside world from a privacy perspective. You just can't. That's very difficult to do when I think about how. The typical person uses facebook. Do you think this is going to change their experience all that much? I don't think most people will appeal this type of content but I think it might be part of a broader industry. Change that ends up happening. I see this kind of going one of three ways on one hand. It might end up being that this just stays at facebook the other way that you could think about it. Is that other websites twitter. Google whatever chip into the trust and then also want to use the oversight board and the people on the oversight board as their own adjudicators of their own types of content. And the third way it gets you going. Is that each of these platforms decides to create. Its Own Oversight Board to review their own content based on their own rules and values and in that case what I see happening for users markets of rules you are very explicitly going to certain types of platforms to be able to say certain types of things with the understanding that even say certain types of things on some platforms forms.
"supreme court" Discussed on Slate's If Then
"For years ago. A Norwegian writer named Tom egland posted that same photo to facebook. It is a photo of a a nine year old girl running naked the streets and it was removed under the Child. Exploited imagery rural. That's Kate Clinic. A lawyer and writer whose research is focused on facebook and it happened to have been posted by very famous Norwegian author who got very upset and threw a fit on facebook after it was removed and the Norwegian prime minister than posted it and it was removed and then there was a a letter to mark. Zuckerberg was published on the front page of a Norwegian newspaper. Said Dear Mark Zuckerberg mark caved tonight and it was a whole lecture about censorship. I I you make rules. That don't distinguish between child pornography and important war documentary photos. Then you practice these rules without sounds judgment. Finally facebook eventually allowed the photo to go back up but the whole controversy. Kate says was a turning point. I think that they had failed up until that point to recognize how much these content moderation decisions could not be solved just by taking things down and it was just as important to make people feel that they were hurt and that they had voice as it was to remove content that they didn't want to see in the years. After the controversy over the Napalm girl image facebook has continued to struggle with these decisions. They've created huge content moderation operation and endured scandals over doctored videos and D platforming. Facebook simply couldn't settle on a clear system that determined what stays up and what comes down so right now. The company is trying something new creating an independent oversight board separate from the company that will decide what content stays and what goes a group users can appeal to and one that will try to police. What two billion people put online think of it as a Supreme Court for facebook? You're a lawyer. You've written him thought a lot about this. What was your first thought when you heard that they're doing this? I mean I follow these breakouts more than probably anyone. Even I was kind of like well. I'll believe it when I see it. So Kate asked to watch and facebook said yes. For most of the past year she's been an independent observer embedded inside the company as it wrestles with what it Supreme Court Tannen should be. And there've been moments where I've been very skeptical that it's all going to come together and survive and then there have been moments of kind of grandiosity in which kind of like. Wow this is maybe going to change the world forever.
"supreme court" Discussed on What Next | Daily News and Analysis
"So opportunity this town that we're talking about this. Little Fraction of Anaconda called Opportunity was actually lied deliberately. Built in the path of the smoke by the Anaconda Company to prove that it was safe. So there was this constant back and forth with ranchers and farmers in the valley and the company You know people are saying to that. Crops wouldn't grow the livestock getting sick and the company was insisting. No it's perfectly safe. We're going to build this little town here right in the plume just to prove that it safe and my understanding is that they actually wrote into to the fine print of these agreements with people when they sold them land and opportunity that the company reserved the right to pollute the atmosphere. I mean I think that they had such A. They had an uneasy deal residents of this town. They knew that it might be dangerous at the same time. It was a job that allowed then to make a good living and it just talking about this this brotherhood or this bond that they formed was very strong. It seemed like as the years went on. Montana's began to see the pollution affecting their everyday life in various ways and they wanted to address it. So what happened in nineteen seventy so. This date rewrote its constitution and it. It's a very progressive document in. It's been kind of held up as a model of progressive state constitution for other states. One of the key things that makes so progressive is they wrote in a clause that gives Montana's a guarantee to a quote clean and healthful environment and there isn't really a definition provided for what that means you know because this is just the overall governing document minor standing is the hope was that Montana's could use this clause in constitution to protect themselves from the kinds of pollution that were building up in Ama- conduct and Butte from the mining operations. I was struck by how intentional it was like. I found his speech from a judge. WHO's involved in writing rating the Constitution in nineteen seventy writing? I guess and he said I'm a Fourth Generation Anaconda N- and he told a story about falling rolling into the river and his watch stopped working. Eighty brought it to a watchmaker. WHO said all everything inside has has dissolved? I shouldn't laugh but it's the kind of straight you care if you spend the day As people everyone has a story like that I mean everyone knew that it was that things were bad. When did the federal government come in and say listen? We really need to clean this region up. Well I think. SUPERFUND sites were declared pretty soon in the eighties. The federal superfund law gives the EPA the power to investigate investigate and clean up places with hazardous materials. They can also hold companies accountable for the pollution. That caused this series of sites was designated needed. There's sites butte citing the content. There there were sites all the way up to Missoula one hundred and twenty miles away down the Clark Fork River so that all happened and through the eighties but because the superfund program was so new no one knew exactly what that was going to need and here we are for decades later still a battle to try and figure out exactly what it means. When you've written a little bit about the jockeying for which place gets cleaned up first because missoula this bigger town? which is you know? Further other down the river. It cleaned up I. Yeah so Missoula is wealthier. It's much larger. The headwaters of the river that flows into the Zula actually starts in Butte and there was a damn outside of Missoula that had built up toxic sick sediment over a number of years and there were concerns that the dam was going to burst and flood into Missoula with toxic waste. So pretty early. On when the SUPERFUND program started a group of very vocal missoula residents who did know how to work the system. They lobbied for cleanup. They got the the Dan removed. And initially the sediment that had built up behind the dam was supposed to be placed right outside Missoula but that changed and they unloaded this toxic sludge into rail cars and brought a hundred miles back up river and dumped it outside of opportunity so these communities that were dealing with their own toxic waste and their own environmental challenges all all of a sudden. They're also home. To missoula's toxic waste exactly and it just became this symbolic fight between you know the larger much wealthier town and the smaller poorer town that was constantly getting dumped on and that really was bruised to people blinn Anaconda and opportunity that simply by virtue of Zula being missoula they got this cleanup. I because if you think about it. It's a little bit counterintuitive to clean up downriver river I instead of cleaning up the headwaters I yeah I mean that decision was an EPA decision. It was an EPA decision but EPA decisions are driven by public pressure with that clause in the state constitution to protect them residents from the town called opportunity. We are trying to exert their own public pressure. They organized in the two thousands to bring a lawsuit against Arco. That's what everyone calls. The big company that now owns the Mining Complex Flex Arco and EPA had agreed to bring the level of arsenic in the soil down but residents of opportunity. They want them to go further ten times sometimes further. That's the crux of this lawsuit. Residents in opportunity want to levels restored to pre contamination levels. And that's a little bit vague. What exactly that might be? But it may be between maybe around twenty five parts per million so it's a tenth of what the EPA it did. How did the EPA decide on that threshold of two hundred fifty parts per million? As far as I can tell this a minimum standard for human health minimum. Yeah it's not necessarily a the best standard. There are other superfund sites in the country that have much lower levels in their remediation plans. So so there isn't for example. A set law about this is what you get. When you get an earth cynic remediation in your town? This is the level they. It doesn't exactly work that way. It's negotiated associated based on all kinds of factors. Like what is going to cost what the damage was like. You know what the land was like before. So the residents of opportunity were really unhappy with this two hundred and fifty especially because they know they're other communities in the country that have had there. Arsenic levels brought down much lower. Was it purely a compromise between the EPA and the company that was responsible for this pollution in or were was the community involved in the decision making it all the community was involved. They were there were public meetings. There was public input. They don't believe their concerns. Were listened to the people who filed this lawsuit. They don't believe that their concerns were heard. We should be super clear about exactly what happened. There are about one hundred families. Is that right correct. Yes and some of them have had some cleanup by the company and others haven't and they basically decided to sue and they ended up at the Montana Supreme Court. That's right what happened. In that case. The Montana Supreme Court said that they had the right a to pursue further cleanup based on the state's constitutional protection our constitutional guarantee to clean healthful environment And I I think the plan was then to pursue jury trial to figure out a settlement in all of this. I mean if you look at the numbers. The amount the estimated needed amount of further cleanup that they're asking for is not that huge. It's it's a maybe twenty percent of the money to Arco has already spent on this site It seems that what Arco Slash. BP is afraid of here is the precedent of allowing a group of citizens or exceeding to to a group of citizens request to go beyond EPA mandated cleanup. That is the decision that's now before the. US Supreme Court is the Montana Supreme Court's decision. Yeah it sounds like pretty much immediately. The company said no and went directly to the Supreme Court is my understanding. That's right and that surprised price. Everyone that surprised opportunity residents that surprise the lawyers for the opportunity residents that it didn't go through the system. It went straight from Montana precourt to US Supreme Court and they were also surprised that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. So I think that it. It took everyone. Yeah took everyone by surprise. The Supreme Court heard arguments for this case on Tuesday for the reporters covering it. The general takeaway was the justices were leaning towards a ruling in favour of Arco and the EPA. Some justices seemed skeptical of opportunities argument. Which is very interesting to me? You know I mean the the residents.
"supreme court" Discussed on Talking Politics
"`This is really interesting. Scott nothing nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit but what you've seen in that case is the use of the common law as yardstick and going forward once we leave leave there will need to be some sort of other constitutional principles which have to be developed to do with the problems that the e you have already dealt with for example example interference with the free movement of goods. Scottish Parliament says minimum alcohol pricing that affects the right of English manufacturers to sell Oleg goods at the price they want to in Scotland. They want to challenge that. How do they do that the moment they do it as saying it's country to the EU treaty when that's been taken away will they then have recourse to some common law principle that says that there should be no discrimination between manufacturers there was an obvious irony here which Che's reasoning around Brexit was about to return to parliamentary sovereignty but then as you get closer to the the UK's exit from the European Union Union. What do you find you find that in the vacuum left by the inability to rely on e. u. Legislation you find British legal institution starting to fill it rather than parliament in some ways. I think what's happening is changing. I think there's no going back. We are in new territory for the British political silence relationship to the judiciary it will not be the same as it was post Brexit for the reasons that you were saying Catherine but it still seems to me that what we're seeing about the role of the Supreme Court today is somehow tied I to the crisis within parliament palm it hasn't been operating as it would have done normally the party system as we saw over the course of the last two three years essentially essentially broke down and that I think is the vacuum that's being filled by by the Supreme Court at the moment and I think once parliament is able to to reorganize itself around parties that have some greater sense of loyalty and are able to sort of follow the whipping system vote in ways that are more predictable along party lines then then I think maybe the recourse to law will not be as in might not be just a lasting change that when should be an if you think we will definitely just snap back into a more discipline okay yes if if that if those sort of parliamentary practices returned in a more party sort of system ways and the need for I think probably won't be as essential essential but I I think there's two different things going on and I don't think you can separate out of this the Kuban issue because it is because the opposition and Pisa these are unwilling to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister that we are in this ludicrous position where we have a government with a negative majority that is being maintained in office by the House House o Commons while the House of Commons and trust act or send the executives delegate of the legislature in order to conduct negotiations..
"supreme court" Discussed on Talking Politics
"Hello my name's. David Runciman and this is talking politics. The prorogation cases reached the Supreme Court. We're right in the middle of it. It's complicated. It's really important. We need lawyer. Luckily we have one the talking politics is brought to you in partnership with the London review of books which is celebrating celebrating its fortieth anniversary for the next few months with an unimproved -able offer get a year subscription and limited edition El Arbi tote bag for just forty pounds by using the Euro Alabi. Don't me food slash birthday in the Catherine Bernard is with US professor of E. You Look Chris. Bitten haven't Thompson when we had Kenneth a couple of weeks ago we had to begin by getting into the Clair's interest because he was party to the case that reach this goal. You'll know no excellent did you watch should instantly panic Kuam. I think gives a master class in how to be a good lawyer rotten the barrack-room liar. Can I watch the afternoon so I watched the other guy. Lewd keen on a lot of people said this is really like watching test match cricket. No exciting Ben Stakes test match cricket but kind of grind devotion where you can do other stuff at the same in time and then suddenly something happens and you think well. That's not it. I watch bits of it is William. I didn't watch any of the Catherine. Let's just kind kind of sketchy in some of the background here. So where do you think we are in this. We've had the the main case laid out by both sides. The commentary is making it quite clear. Ah The issue whether it's justifiable if that's how you pronounce it and then if it is whether the government acted for the motives that panic is saying therefore illegitimately absolutely or unlawfully which one is weighing most heavily at the moment panic skill seemed to be to kind of bury the justifiable issue till the end and really focus on what the government during the justifiability issue is is always very vexed one vicar that goes to the core of our constitution separation of powers traditionally the courts are highly reluctant to get in volt in second guessing political decisions because they are very mindful of the fact that they are not democratically elected and so the approach taken by the High Court of England Wales where they said this is high politics and therefore we the court should not get involved is very much the standard approach and so they ruled the motto wasn't justiciable Scottish. Court takes a very different line they he said no power should be limited. This quite well established case law that says slipped even prerogative powers can in certain circumstances be judicially reviewable and in this case because what the prime minister did so undermined our constitution that not only is it justifiable. Nope we find that there is no peace and so really the reason why this case is quite important is it's really looking under the bonnet of our Constitution to try to understand the constitution actually means yesterday given what you said that was therefore surprising focus on the other side of it. Most of the arguments revolved around what the government was doing including the question of this length of time for appropriation. Could it be justified in terms of the government was justifying it to prepare for Queen's speech to to allow for the party conferences given there was going to be a recess only count seven days. The justiciability issue did seem to be in the background role in the foreground grant. This is the thing I'm struggling to is the justice sh- ability issue simply the court will have to take a view on Amazon. It will come to this area questions surpri question you can't take view on the substance unless there is to use a legal term lockers the right to actually hear the case away with the lawyers for both so is focusing on the secondary issue because they hope that by emphasizing the second issue rubbing the secondary but the second issue it will strengthen drinks and the case for the court find it is justiciable matter because the point they're trying to get across is what certainly the point that. Deena Miller is trying to get across what Boris Johnson did so undermines parliamentary democracy that therefore something needs to be done hence the court should give itself self the right to hear this case what more of senator who question before I bring others and when you look at the government side was really focusing on what it soars was the weakness is in the Scottish judgement so it was so inviting the court to see Israel not as setting some grand principle not as taking a step back and deciding what kind of constitutional order we are but simply reacting to two previous judgments. You're the Supreme Court. Here's the judgment of Scottish court. They made a mistake. He went on about this. They misunderstood the nature of recess. They got it wrong having made a mistake it's easy for you. You can just say that one cook it right. MANCO got it wrong and that's your job as a supreme court it simply to pass judgment on lower court's decisions plausible it is plausible and it may be the appealing way forward out of decision which is so high profile and whichever way it goes will cause considerable shot ground if they were to find against Boris Johnson than it clearly raises serious questions about his continuance as a prime minister if they find against essentially this the Scottish court if they say this isn't just issue master then it paves the way the Nicholas Sturgeon to say look do caught in London. Don't listen to our judges. This is our highest court and you've ignored them if they say the Scottish just made broadly broadly speaking a technical mistake does that give them an out. This is sort of my question because it seems like the government seemed to be hoping we're giving you away out here which is to find find that the Scottish court simply he kept saying it. Lucchini kept saying this was his big reveal. Wasn't that exciting but he said they got it wrong. They made a fundamental mistake. They they say that during recess parliament can recall itself and it calmed but not that much to do with the rest of the case but it's like here's a mistake his euro an end it may be that they go for a very simple solution. They may also say in principle. These cases are justiciable but on the facts of this case there hasn't been abused so this is the sort the middle ground outcome because I suspect what does Laurie them is that you have some power which is totally early on limited and without control and by that I mean I Johnson I think rather cleverly paroled for only five weeks and it was wrapped up with the party conference season but if you take the logical consequence of that you could say well actually he could Perot for a whole year. There's nothing to Asto or three hundred sixty four days. The only one day that punt would need to sit would be to sign off on money issues or more realistically parliament lament is Perot every time a difficult legal issue or difficult or controversial issues heard so the fact that prorogation can be used to turn on and turn of parliament without any control. It'll might be deeply and appealing to the judges they'll just remembered something that Lord sumptious that a couple of nights ago because I didn't come that question was put to and he said well one is tax tax almac to also mention he could've batted away this possibility that the prime minister could simply for extended periods of time parole given up until the next general election action's something like that so there are reasons why poem had to sit but also now under the Northern Ireland executive formation. There's got to be a regular reporting but the point is that it it would be possible to repeal act and then it is possible to have the right to provoke which executive function and if there is no judicial control atol it could be abused and that may be what would trouble the courts. I think the problem though this argument is I it completely ignores the fact that the space to be a political control roll over how the executive uses his power not come through the House of Commons ultimately the electric. We don't have a constitution. That's based on the idea that the only recall so there is to the beasts of power is legal in fact we have a constitution is based on the idea that the recourse for the abuse of power is supposed to be political and I would say that if we end up with the Supreme Court's in this is judicial and finds that Johnson is used the protein in power illegally we into department completely new constitutional territory whether all of the judiciary is concerned at the very same time we've departed into completely new constitution Asian territory where we have an executive that has not confidence in any shape or form of the House of Commons and we have executive that has a minus forty five the majority this executive should not exist and it's it's it's in some kind of constitutional Zombie states far as our constitutions conserve so if we depart accompany on the political side with really long standing constitutional principle that the executive has to have a majority in the House of Commons whilst with departing company on the on the judicial issue side of saying that the judges aren't supposed to assert some higher principle of constitutional law that they opposed over parliament then went completely. I mean I can't begin to think where we are L. Constitution. It doesn't make sense the the paradox is that if the courts were to say that the probation is unlawful. What does that mean in practice. Does that mean that you revert to the order of the Scottish court which is to say that the prorogation Helen for it therefore you set the clock back to the date of per Gatien and therefore all of the bills that have fallen then get resurrected including the bill on domestic Vance and then does that allow for aw the executive then to say actually. We're going to Peru again the day after this one issues it came from the Supreme Court yesterday. Another part of the government's case is that go back to a Halama saying parliament could have stopped this where roots for parliament to assert yourself against the executive and also to prevent prorogation chose not to it focused on preventing no deal in the article fifty issue so we're doing this in the context of parliament having chosen not to assert itself except it is a power of executives prog power a so. It's quite difficult see how palm could have stopped it or Palman could have replaced the exact conwell tons of government on it. I mean this did it. Choose not to or was that actually to simply simply not even try and produce emotion couldn't produce the motion saying that wouldn't accept the use of the progress of couse pound wasn't in session and was it it was because he did it in only twenty gate of August beginning of September. There was enough time for parliament to accept the principle that they needed to move to a general election rather than take the route twitch they took which was to put as a priority not general election avoiding no deal in legislative terms maybe with knowledge in fact that that then meant that that the recourse would have to be through the courts rather than through parliament that seems to me that that was a conscious choice at least not maybe our conscious everyone together but that was a consequence of the way parliament uh hey. I it is important. I think to see as well as there is a reason why parliament the majority in parliament chose this route is is because there are too many people in the opposition including leading the Labor Party who do not think that the opposition leader is a fit person to be prime minister. If that weren't true then parliament could and would have acted differently. I think that this moment we wouldn't be in this position so wanted to come onto the white a question of how g think Katherine the Court sees its role here not just on this issue but more broadly because it's getting the kind of scrutiny it's it's never had I mean this is huge. There's real pressure on them but there was one aspect of it yesterday that struck me. Neither side can talk about one of the primary summary reasons..
"supreme court" Discussed on Skullduggery
"It's tough enough to confirm him would have been tougher yet to change the rules to confirm at that point so you know the strategy that goes on looks good at the time but abernathy was definitely boost to the republican side <hes> question. We've talked about don mcgann. Who's in the news. These days is because the democrats house judiciary are doing everything they can to get his testimony about obstruction of justice by the president as as well as testimony from rob porter corey lewandowski. These are all in the courts right now and will almost certainly wind up up in the supreme court. What does this supreme court do when it gets these cases about whether they can require these his former white house officials to testify or answer mike why we think that cavanaugh ahead they look favorably on executive power who knows but that was part of the reason at the time. They were racing this nomination through. They wanted to get somebody else on the court because they they thought maybe molars whole tenure. What's going to be subject to supreme court decision. I think the general sense out there. Is that the you you know. This is a court. That's friendly to the trump administration. I think this is a big problem with the whole. This is the whole on air for the democrats will get nowhere in these things will ultimately end up in the supreme court and if they don't even gun control say you can do but this is my whole underlying argument in the book that all this politics ticks is poisoning the well so badly here in washington that people are gonna lose confidence in the courts neutral go right but i mean it's getting getting having the only the chief justice. John roberts is concerned about that right any kind of lower the temperature but you can't put things off forever got some point. You have to make a decision and you know bottom line. You don't see these confirmation wars. The intense partisan artisan politics around in all of this getting dialed back. You know he's time soon. I give all these talks and talk about this and people get so depressed in some ways but i like how do you how how do you dial it back. Why would one party when they're in their say. Okay you know we did all this stuff now. We're going to give up some power and and because they know that the other side can can just do it again when they get back in. I don't see this. It's going to take some major change in the culture of these nominations to. I have some kind of breakthrough and i don't see it or legislation changing. The makeup of the corduroy pants are talking about but that's going to be super partisan too i. I think that you know we're stuck with this for a while. You don't see mitch mcconnell slowing down on these judges. He's not saying oh you know we overdone it. No he's saying more and more and more on that uplifting thanks so much for joining us great congratulations on confirmation bias inside washington's war over the supreme court from from scully's death to justice cavenaugh. Thanks guys all right thank you. Have you ever wanted to speak another language. Whether you want to speak.