18 Burst results for "Ted Olson"

"ted olson" Discussed on Amanpour

Amanpour

07:31 min | 9 months ago

"ted olson" Discussed on Amanpour

"And their employers and their children in jeopardy for being deported. Why would we do that? These are people that if we're not going to deport everybody. These are the last people in the world. We want to deport. And we made the argument in the Supreme Court that the president had the power to adopt priorities with respect to deportation. But he had to do it with a reasonable explanations irrational process. We have what we call due process in this country it was the administrative procedures. Act You have to explain why you're doing that and the decision can't be arbitrary or capricious or just plucked out of the air. You have to take responsibility for explain. Why you're doing this administration did not do that. We argued to the Supreme Court. Well whether or not you could do it if you did it right. You did not do it right. And therefore that decision has to be overturned. We're still waiting for the Supreme Court. We argued that case in November. We don't have a decision yet. I'm hoping it will come out the right way. Because it is the right solution to an important problem. And I spent a lot of time with groups of dreamers individuals. Indeed Walter one of the things we did. One of the members of the dreamer community had gone to law school. He borrowed his roommates books. In order to stay up all night to go to law school he graduated from law school. He is admitted to practice. Law we arranged for him to be admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court and he sat next to me during the oral argument in the Supreme Court the First Dreamer to be admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. Think of the symbol. This man who work hard created a family now a member of the Supreme Court Bar. Should he be deported? Though in the past fifteen years you've tried to find common ground. You seem to have shifted a bit helping the dreamers gay marriage with a shift in your philosophy and if so what happened. I don't think there was ever shift in my philosophy. I remember wanting to be a conservative Republican going back to college or even before that but part of that I grew up in California. Part of that was individual rights and individual freedom respect for one another. I'll California's a melting pot was then and it is now. I was on the forensics team in college. And we debated the you know those debate tournaments. You're on the affirmative one hour. You're on the negative the next hour and one of the things at that teaches. You is to listen to the other side to understand what the other side has to say what. The arguments are on the other side and I think that helps understand different people different points of view so I don't think I've changed so much but the opportunities and they come along and my law practice If there's something that I find interesting and some of the cases you mentioned I found very very interesting. I don't think there's a whole lot of inconsistency there although I've been accused of and so tell me why you took the gay marriage case. Was David Boies. Who had been your opponent in Bushwick? Gore? Let me back up a second and say that was November eight of two thousand eight proposition. Eight passed in California adding a provision of the constitution. That said marriage was permissible and recognizable. Only between a man and a woman it took away a right of individuals in California to marry the person they love to is the same sex. Interestingly that was the same election that President Obama won overwhelmingly in California so here California was enacting Or adopting or electing The first African American president at the same time was taken away rights of its individual citizen. Rama wasn't in favor of gay marriage. He wasn't he finally came around but up. There seemed to me anomalous and it seemed to be inconsistent with what I grew up in California. It seemed to me to be inconsistent with the California that I sort of really liked and loved the respect for individuals the respect for differences the respect for people and keeping government out of people's lives. So when I was contacted about it I thought if I can help the individuals restore their right to their happiness. I'd be happy to do that. Respect for individuals respect for diversity. Things you just talked about you think conservatives who moved away from that principle of Liberty. I don't think conservatives have an. I wrote a long piece that was on the cover of Newsweek. At the time I started this case an headline was the conservative case for gay marriage and I made the point that in that article at some length that a marriage between two individuals who wanted to be part of the community and who wanted to raise a family and wanted to pay taxes and that's a conservative value. There was no reason why conservatives should be against it. Public opinion was against same sex marriage at the time by about fifty six to forty four percent. It changed over the period of time that David and I handled that case. My mother Who was quite a bit older and very conservative. Said why are you doing this? We sat down. We talked about it and she later said if you understand the issue you'll agree that it is wrong and we need to change and now look at this in this country now people think relatively nothing of it. There's gay marriages all over. The United States and people are not threatened by that it hasn't threatened Andrew sexual marriage. It hasn't had threatened anyone. It is a happy thing that has occurred. It's one of the really good things that has happened in the last fifteen twenty years in this country Ted Olson. Thank you very much. Thank you appreciate and finally earlier in the show. We discussed corona virus now. Iran is very much the epicenter of the outbreak in the Middle East but for many women in that country the bigger fight is for their own human rights. Dozens of Iranian women are in jail right now for just wanting equality under the law among them is the prominent Human Rights Attorney. Nasrin Sotoudeh date who serving a thirty three year sentence. Twelve of quote promoting immorality and indecency. Sh she wrote a letter from Avian. Prison this International Women's Day calling on Iran to end its animosity with the rest of the world. She wrote that. This last year has been one of illness and tragedy for the Iranian people. A consequence she says of hostility and enmity coming back around to US also imprisoned with her. A some of the women arrested on International Women's Day last year for handing out flowers on a Tehran subway without wearing the mandatory headscarf. Now we keep covering these stories here because we to believe that women's rights Human Rights. And that's it for now you can always catch us online on our podcast and across social media. Thanks for watching and goodbye from London..

United States Supreme Court California Supreme Court Bar David Boies United States president Iran Tehran London Nasrin Sotoudeh Walter Newsweek Bushwick President Obama Gore
"ted olson" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

03:05 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on KTRH

"This is Houston's morning news with Jimmy Barrett and sheriff fryer five eighteen now here on Houston's morning news. So what do you suppose one of the biggest stories on? On CNN was yesterday. The biggest stories on CNN was the lawsuit that CNN has filed along with Jim Acosta to try to get his White House press. Passback they've hired in attorney in order to go ahead and file that lawsuit. His attorney or CNN's attorneys. You can imagine was on CNN yesterday explaining the lawsuit and what it is. They hope to prove in a court of law. This is a very very important case. This could happen to any journalist by any politician. We cannot the first amendment is one of the most important bulwarks of our liberty and our freedom presidents over history have complained about it. But most of the president's at the end of the day of realized the first amendment is absolutely necessary. It is the public's window into what public officials are doing this. Journalists cannot be silenced censored or intimidated. And that's the end of the. The line the White House cannot get away with this. That's her attorney Ted Olson, by the way, I guess my question would be. Under what circumstances are CNN's first amendment rights being taken away. They have like nine other people that have presses. They though they have to do send somebody else in there to covered. Nobody is preventing even Jim Acosta from watching the press conference. Hijack he hijacks the press conference. That's no different than someone standing up again in a theater in yelling fire. He doesn't have the right to do that. In fact, here's what the White House is said further about Mr. Kasich said after Mr Casa asked the president to questions each of which the president answered he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern. So that other reporters ask their questions? This is not the first time. This reporter has inappropriately refused to yield to other reporters. The White House cannot run an orderly and fair press conference when a reporter acts this way. That's all we're trying to we're trying to run an orderly and fair press conference. He's attempting to hog it. Input the attention on himself. And he doesn't have the right to do that. That's their position on it. Here's my thing. I don't have a White House press past you Shera. Does everybody have a right to the White House? Now, the do two times that I was in the press office at the White House. Would you have to go through in order to be allowed in and not being a regular? I mean know, it's not easy. It's a very finite. Ruined is not a lot of space. What does what makes Jim Acosta so special that he should ever press, passive misbehaves? I don't think we've been ever press pass. Oh, I think the public can see that. Yeah. I think you're right about that. We'll see how far this lawsuit guests. I'm sure they're looking shopping around for. A liberal judges. We speak five time for traffic and weather. Let's get you up to date on.

White House CNN Jim Acosta attorney Mr. Kasich president Houston Jimmy Barrett reporter Ted Olson Shera intern Mr Casa
"ted olson" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

WCBM 680 AM

04:46 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

"Jim Acosta. Have hired a couple of top gun lawyers. Filed one of the most pathetic lawsuits have ever rent. This is not a freedom of the press case. CNN has reporters at the White House. CNN has reporters have presidential press conferences. If anything the freedom of the press argument is on the White House's side how so. Because the purpose of a presidential press conference is to allows many reporters as possible to ask pertinent questions and for the president to answer them. In other words, they press conferences for the American people. One of the difficulties the other members of the press and the president are having communicating with each other including tough questions to the president. And thereby informing the American people Jim Acosta. When Jim Acosta disrupts the press conference. Monopolize the time and basically gives his political opinions about a president who he constantly calls a liar. We learn nothing. We learn absolutely nothing. And I would tell the lawyers who filed this lawsuit you filed a very dishonest. Brief your recitation of the facts are not the facts. And we the people watch this press conference, you left out an awful lot of information that is harmful to your client. And I can tell you that when the Justice department defense against this. They actually might put the actual transcript in the brief to show the court how you misled and you're not standing up for the media in the country. You're not standing up for the press in the country, CNN and Jim Acosta. You're not in any way. There's one hundred and fifty reporters in that room. Jim Acosta is one. This isn't about freedom of the press. Know what this is about is an individual who is provocative. Who wants to create drama? And not about news, but about him and CNN and CNN wanting to get their ratings up. Now, this could go in front of an Obama court or Clinton court, but as a sixty yard pass they're hoping for the best. But in the end, it's nothing more than a press release. Short and simple. Now, let's take a look at this. Let's take a real look at this. We get a lecture about what the framers of the constitution intended. I would remind my friend Ted Olson. Ted Olson, this is A Gibson Dunne lawsuit. Ted Olson was Ronald Reagan's lawyer Ted Olson represented parties in the same sex marriage case in California on the side of same sex marriage and Ted also now's taken up the cause of CNN, and Jim Acosta unfortunate. They talk about the framers of our constitution. First of all the Bill of rights. The first ten amendments were not originally part of the constitution were they? So the framers of the constitution in Philadelphia had nothing to do with the first amendment matter of fact, it was the states. That insisted. On various amendments to the constitution. And it was James Madison. John Adams among other who relented? During the debates in the states over ratifcation when the first congress would meet. They would introduce amendments to rectify what some of these states thought were imperfections. That's how we got the Bill of rights from the states. Let's be totally clear about that wasn't the framers of the constitution. Was the attendees at various ratification debates in the states. That's the first point. The second point is since we've had this first amendment. And I hope these supreme court justices are listening. We've had many great presidents and many lousy presidents. We had two out of three really great presidents. Who through journalists in prison? That's not why they were great. It's inspite of that the first being John Adams as I've discussed.

Jim Acosta CNN Ted Olson president White House John Adams Obama court Justice department congress Gibson Dunne Philadelphia James Madison California Clinton Ronald Reagan sixty yard
"ted olson" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

14:47 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"Lawyers who filed this lawsuit filed a very dishonest. Brief your recitation of the facts are not the facts. And we the people watch this press conference, you left out an awful lot of information that is harmful to your client. And I can tell you that when the Justice department defense against this. They actually might put the actual transcript in the brief to show the court how you misled and you're not standing up for the media in the country. You're not standing up for the press in the country, CNN and Jim Acosta. You're not in any way. There's one hundred fifty reporters in that room. Jim Acosta is one. This isn't about freedom of the press. Know what this is about is an individual who is provocative who wants to create drama. And not about news about him and CNN and CNN wanting to get their ratings up. Now, this could go on front of an Obama court or Clinton court, but as a sixty yard pass they're hoping for the best. But in the end, it's nothing more than a press release, short and simple. Now, let's take a look at this. Let's take a real look at this. We get a lecture about what the framers of the constitution intended. I would remind my Fred Ted Olson. Ted Olson, this is A Gibson Dunne lawsuit. Ted Olson was Ronald Reagan's lawyer Ted Olson represented parties in the same sex marriage case in California on the side of same sex marriage. And Ted also now is taken up the cause of CNN and Jim Acosta, it's unfortunate. They talk about the framers of our constitution. First of all the Bill of rights. The first ten amendments were not originally part of the constitution were they? So the framers of the constitution. Philadelphia had nothing to do with the first amendment. Matter of fact, it was the states. That insisted. On various amendments to the constitution. And it was James, Madison and John Adams among other. Who relented during the debates in the states over ratification that when the first congress would meet. They would introduce amendments to rectify what some of these states thought were imperfections. That's how we got the Bill of rights from the states. Let's be totally clear about that wasn't the framers of the constitution. Was the attendees at the various ratification debates in the states. That's the first point. The second point is since we've had this first amendment. And I hope these supreme court justices are listening. We've had many great presidents in many lousy presidents. We had two out of three really great presidents. Who through journalists in prison? That's not why they regret it's in spite of that. The first being John Adams as I've discussed here repeatedly. John Adams was a brilliant, man. He wasn't crucially important founder. He was the second president of the United States. And he lost his seat in part. Due to the alien and sedition acts, which Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans rejected. They campaigned on that. And they want. The second president there are others. But the second president, I'll mention is the great ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Our sixteenth president. One two New York. Newspapers published a fake presidential proclamation during the course of the civil war. Lincoln was furious. And he ordered one of his generals to arrest the editors and the journalists. Who worked at those newspapers? It's exactly what they did. He did more. He shut down those newspapers. And his surrogates. Shutdown almost three hundred newspapers during the course of the civil war. I don't see that mentioned in Ted Olson's brief I don't see John Adams mentioned in tunnel since brief why get that in a second. Then we have Woodrow Wilson one of the founding fathers of the progressive movement in this country. President of the United States in the earlier part. Of the last century a democrat. While he was kind of enthralled but Adams had done and they had an espionage act of nineteen seventeen and the Democrats in congress amended. To add what's called today, the nine hundred eighteen Sedition Act, and of course, Woodrow Wilson signed it. So in addition to being a racist and a segregationist this leading progressive he threw journalists in prison as well as political opponents. Now, not to bore you to death. Let's jump up to Barack Mel house Benita Obama. He sought to throw journalists in prison to various leak investigations there are more investigations of journalists related to leak investigations during the Obama administration, then all hairs modern predecessors combined. He investigated in investigative reporter for the New York Times, he investigated investigative reporter for Fox News. He investigated eight p reporters. And they used espionage surveillance. Never really pressed to tough by any of the people at CNN during a presidential press conferences, as a matter of fact, Barack Obama had a little trick to his press conferences. He do a press conference for thirty forty fifty minutes and there'd be three four five questions tops because he would filibuster. I don't remember any reported jumping up and yelling at the president. And I remember any reported jumping up and calling the president a liar. I don't remember any interference. With his rope. A dope. Except once. Neil Munro of the daily caller at the time. President was doing one of those things out there. The rose garden and the one rodale dare to yell out of question out of turn. He wasn't accusing the president and everything heating call the president anything he wasn't debating the president. He dared to yell at a question out of turn. While the president was conducting one of his filibusters and the media at the event turned on Neil Munro. Attacked him. Remember this? Attack them. So that's a little historical background. That's all missing from this brief as you would expect, but they right on item. Five the framers of right constitution embraced a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited robust and wide open. And that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government of public officials near ties versus Sullivan, nobody's disputing that. We're talking about somebody disrupting a presidential press conference. You can't have street. Protesters dressed up as reporters interfering with a presidential press conference. You see, ladies and gentlemen, I posted something early this morning, which has been regurgitated by the backbenchers all day on. I said this is ridiculous suit. As I say, they're I'm sure they're form shopping looking for an Obama judge or a Clinton judge. But no reporter has a constitutional right to be physically present in the pressroom anymore than the scores of reporters. Are not so lucky to get a hard pass to be there in the first place. You've got reporters all over the country. Local newspapers. Regional newspapers statewide newspapers national website, people involved in national social media, and so forth and national newspapers they all don't get in there unless you're going to have a baseball stadium, and everybody's present. So a line does have to be drawn. Now, it's either drawn by the president or the supreme court. The supreme court has no business whatsoever in this none. It's called separation of powers, and I might add. That the supreme court which conducts itself in secret the supreme court, which does not hold press conferences, the supreme court in which justices like Ruth, Bader Ginsburg, go out and give interviews is in no position to be dictating policy to the president of the United States. This is not about freedom of the press. It's about an administrative policy that the White House is decided on because I got some kid in the back row who keeps up blowing up bubble gum and popping it in the back row and disrupting the class. That's pretty much. What's taking place? You understand that? There is nothing in the constitution that compels the president to hold a presidential press conference period. What's the court order him to hold one? I wrote this all up this morning. So you heard the benches. I'm sure there's nothing in the constitution that compels the president to call on anyone from CNN, let alone Jim Acosta. Period. Kosta does not constitutional right to disrupt the press conference and CNN doesn't either. And CNN doesn't either. Ted Olson and Theodore Boutrous. Are doing grave damage to our constitution. We have made repeated requests for Ted Olson to come on this program. Unfortunately, he won't I've been a friend of his for years. We both served in the same administration. The Lauren Bush versus gore, I still consider him a friend. I haven't seen him in a long time. But I still consider my friend. But I wanted him to come on. So we can have an honest debate about this, you know, to inform the public even though neither of us are government. That would be a nice free speech thing to do. But his office did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls. Didn't even reply. Because his colleague Mr. Boutros, apparently, he's only doing friendly and supportive media. He's welcome on this program to it's an open door to either Ted because I want to have this discussion. I want to have this discussion. And out of control. Provocateur? In the middle of a press conference time and time again with the president or with the president's spokeswoman. Is not a matter of freedom of the press. Jim Acosta is the Morton Downey junior of the media. Now, I have nothing personal against the late Morton Downey junior. But I'm saying when he used to have that syndicated program late at night. That's Jim Acosta. The White House has to decide who gets a hard press pass. And who does not? And in this case, they had huge reasons and justifications to withdraw it for mister Acosta. And we don't need this law firm. The tell us what took place in that room because we all saw it with our own two eyes. And we all heard it whether owned two years, which is exactly why when you get into their statement of the facts in a lawsuit they mislead the court. They mislead the court. When you read item twenty-seven item twenty eight and twenty nine. They leave out key aspects what Mr. Kosta did and said. And in fact, they accused the young lady intern of reaching a cost his body and grabbing the microphone. She shouldn't have had to grab the microphone. It wasn't his in the first place. It's a news conference. Not the UFC. Seem like one did it then they go through a whole list of things that the president has said about CNN and about the Kosta all of his tweets. What does that have to do anything? They're trying to throw chum out there for any left wing activist judge to grab onto you. See the issue isn't what the president has said about CNN or Kosta. The issue isn't even walk Costas said about the president repeatedly on CNN calling Malar. The issue is what took place at that press conference. And what took place at that press conference? Actually undermined the ability of the media and the president to communicate with the American people. It was an attack on freedom of the press by Jim Acosta CNN and Time Warner I'll be right back. Mm-hmm. Balance of nature's fruits and veggies in a capsule had cancer as I do my algebra. I have nerve damage and fatigue. I have fallacy Mia. Glycemic? So my life since cancer I had to learn how to live with it. But starting balance of nature. I felt that the first month I felt different. It made such a difference that wake up my head feels clear I have more energy very rarely does my body cramp up anymore. It's the best thing. It's just amazing. I don't know what to say. I.

President CNN mister Acosta Ted Olson Fred Ted Olson John Adams president United States Benita Obama Jim Acosta CNN supreme court Obama court congress ABRAHAM LINCOLN Mr. Kosta Woodrow Wilson Clinton Justice department
"ted olson" Discussed on KNSS

KNSS

04:59 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on KNSS

"Mark levin. Hello, everybody. Mark Levin here. Our number eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one. CNN and Jim Acosta. Have hired couple of top gun lawyers. Filed one of the most pathetic lawsuits have ever read. This is not a freedom of the press case. CNN has reporters at the White House CNN has reporters at presidential press conferences. If anything the freedom of the press argument is on the White House's side how so. Because the purpose of a presidential press conference is to allows many reporters as possible to ask pertinent questions and for the president to answer them. In other words, they press conferences for the American people. One of the difficulties the other members of the press and the president are having communicating with each other including tough questions to the president. And thereby informing the American people. Jim acosta. When Jim Acosta disrupts the press conference. Monopolize time and basically gives his political opinions about a president who constantly calls a liar. We learn nothing. We learn absolutely nothing. And I would tell the lawyers who filed this lawsuit you filed a very dishonest. Brief your recitation of the facts are not the facts. And we the people watch this press conference, you left out an awful lot of information that is harmful to your client. And I can tell you that when the Justice department defense against this. They actually might put the actual transcript in the brief to show the court how you misled and you're not standing up for the media in the country. You're not standing up for the press in the country, CNN and Jim Acosta. You're not in any way. There's one hundred and fifty reporters in that room. Jim Acosta is one. This isn't about freedom of the press. Know what this is about is an individual who was provocative. Who wants to create drama? And not about news, but about him and CNN and CNN wanting to get their ratings up. Now, this could go in front of an Obama court or Clinton court, but as a sixty yard pass they're hoping for the best. But in the end, it's nothing more than a press release. Short and simple. Now, let's take a look at this. Let's take a real look at this. We gotta lecture about what the framers of the constitution intended. I would remind my friend Ted Olson. Ted Olson, this is A Gibson Dunne lawsuit. Ted Olson was Ronald Reagan's lawyer Ted Olson represented parties in the same sex marriage case in California on the side of same sex marriage. And Ted also now is taken up the cause of CNN, and Jim Acosta unfortunate. They talk about the framers of our constitution, first of all the Bill of rights. The first ten amendments were not originally part of the constitution where they. So the framers of the constitution in Philadelphia had nothing to do with the first amendment matter of fact, it was the states. That insisted. On various amendments to the constitution. And it was James, Madison and John Adams among other. Who relented during the debates in the states over ratification that when the first congress would meet. They would introduce amendments to rectify what some of these states thought were imperfections. That's how we got the Bill of rights from the states. Let's be totally clear about that wasn't the framers of the constitution. Was the attendees at the various ratification debates in the states. That's the first point. The second point is since we've had this first amendment. And I hope these supreme court justices are listening. We've had many great presidents and many lousy presidents. We had two out of three really great presidents. Who through journalists in prison? That's not why they were great. It's in spite of that. The first being John Adams as I've discussed.

Jim Acosta CNN Ted Olson president Mark levin John Adams White House Obama court Justice department congress Gibson Dunne Philadelphia California Clinton Ronald Reagan James Madison sixty yard
Russian extradited to U.S. to face charges over JPMorgan hack

24 Hour News

00:31 sec | 2 years ago

Russian extradited to U.S. to face charges over JPMorgan hack

"And that he was ashamed of a mistake that he had made the judge also pointed out that in many cases like this the defendant is given probation, but he said because of the serious nature of this offense. He felt that he wanted to send a message to the public the lying to the FBI is a serious matter. And because this was a serious national security matter. He wanted to send a message to the public Pierre Thomas ABC news, Washington confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee. Brad Kavanagh wrapped up after four days yesterday. The Senate

Morgan Chase Brad Kavanagh United States Marjory Stoneman Douglas FBI Theft Pierre Thomas Nixon White House Senate Judiciary Aaron Katersky Federalist Society Ted Olson John Dean Ed Donahue Cavenaugh Berg Donald Trump Cavanaugh Elena Eastman
"ted olson" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

Radio Free Nashville

10:48 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

"Brett cavenaugh. He's also been a judge for twelve years yesterday. Republican activists with the Bush administration, and before that he was he helped get George Bush the White House. He and John Roberts advised. Ted Olson on how to argue before Mr. Rehnquist, and before the supreme court in order to stop the recount in Florida in two thousand and December of two thousand and Rehnquist did what they said, and George W Bush paid off John Roberts for that. And now Donald Trump is is pay off Brad Kavanagh for that in my humble opinion. I was telling you about the Chevron deference. Before I just want to finish that thought. None of I pick up your phone calls in the Chevron case. Basically, what the court said was the supreme court said was of course, if you have legislation that says, we're going to create the Environmental Protection Agency that the mandate of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the environment. We are congress. We're not going to sit here for two years with thousands of hearings over hundreds and hundreds or thousands of hours listening to experts decide which of the eighty thousand chemicals in our environment. Are the dangerous ones that need to be regulated? And which ones that the benign ones. That's not our job. Our job is to say EPA, protect the environment. And then give you guys a budget, and you go out, and you bring in the experts or you hire the experts in you decide based on on the parameters of the law. You decide what Regula what regulations are appropriate? What are inappropriate and what the? Penalties should be for violating those regulations, and those will be subject to oversight of the courts. But only if they fall into a couple of simple categories, which is is there is is the is the agency is the EPA in this case. It was the is the APA actually behaving consistent with the law. Are they doing are they behaving in good faith? If so we let them we leave them alone. Or are they behaving in a way that is patently absurd? You know, that that is in the law or even violating the law in which case we intervene. So and Gorsuch versus just mother when she was running the EPA and she ended up resigning disgracing, the a it was a scandal. She argued that in less the law, specifically names, a chemical that the EPA has the authority to regulate. They no longer have the authority to regulate that chemical in this case it was mercury. The supreme court said no the law does not have the name the chemical. The now has to name the goal of the agency. Orrin Hatch this morning. In his questioning of Brett Cavanaugh. Pointed out that he and several of his colleagues is Republican colleagues in the United States Senate who are heavily funded by coke industries are the coke brothers or Exxon Mobil or other, you know. Heavy duty polluters coal companies. And by the way, this doesn't just apply to the environment. This this will get extended if Orrin Hatch has its way has his way this will get extended to the regulation of banks to the regulation of hospitals to the regulation of pharmaceuticals for the regulation of our food supply every area where government is currently protecting us and some billionaire can make a little more money by hurting us. They are going to try to take down that protection. And what Orrin Hatch said debris cavenaugh this morning is that a bunch of him and a bunch of other Republicans are preparing legislation to blow up the Chevron he called it. The Chevron doctrine, it's typically referred to as the difference. In other words, we defer to the regulatory agency to their judgment. It's not the job of the court to make these decisions. It's the job of the EPA to decide what is and what isn't dangerous and the environment. And Orrin Hatch said we're gonna blow that sucker up may obviously not his words, but essentially. And Brett cavenaugh just sort of nodding along with it. And nobody said why what the hell? This is exactly the case of my walking into a seven eleven insane. Gimme all your money. And then going into court and say Neal the law does not say, you may not rob a seven eleven it says, you can't rob banks. There's a lot of blood of retail outlets out there that have the word Bank in their name. Wells Fargo Bank Bank of America. I can't rob them. And there's a specific law about robbing pharmacies. And there's all kinds of companies out there Johnson's pharmacies with Smith's pharmacy act pharmacy, Chicago pharmacy. You can't rob them. But the law does not say, I may not rob a seven eleven and therefore, I'm Robin the seven eleven. As bizarre as that logic is that's the logic that the coke brothers and other billionaires want applied to environmental and other laws. The other one is the men's Raya thing. I mentioned this at the end of by conversation with congressman polka men's I means state of mind. And the so-called criminal Justice reform that the coke brothers and other right wing billionaires are promoting. And the major corporations are supportive of is legislation that would require in cases of white collar crime. That the state of mind of the person being charged be taken into consideration. Now now, certainly state of mind has a place, right? For example. You know, somebody hit somebody with their car, and and her and kills them that's manslaughter. But if they do it maliciously if they do it intentionally hit somebody with their car and kill them. That's murder. I mean, it's a state of mind has something to do with it. So there's a basis for men's rare. Right. I mean is it makes sense at this state of mind? But what they're trying to do is. They're trying to say that if the CEO of a company. Says to the to the senior management and then down the line to management, you know, those safety devices that we have on the machines on the factory floor. We just can't afford those anymore. We're spending twenty million dollars a year on safety devices. We're just gonna do away with them. And as soon as they're done away with Joe blow dies on the assembly line gets his hands chopped off and bleeds out on the floor. You would have to in order to prosecute the person who who got rid of the safety of club. You would have to prove that their intent was to kill Joe blow. Otherwise, you can't prosecute them. Now, if you know, I would say that that's negligence if nothing else, but no they want to blow up the negligence defense. They don't wanna do this. With regard to things like you're driving down the street, and you're texting and you hit somebody, and you know, you should have known better. Right. They you know, they for regular criminals. No problem throw them in jail. But for people running companies if they make decisions that poison people that kill people that injure people that ruin people's lives you have to prove that that was their goal. When that banker decided that he was going to sell these crappy subprime mortgages was his intention to have all those people end up homeless. And of course, you can never prove that they gotta put it on a billboard. Write a letter in most cases, that's not even their intention. I mean, if they gave it any thought, they would know that would be the consequences of their action, but it's not their intention. Their intention is to increase profits. And so these two things blowing up the Chevron deference and building men's Raya end to white collar criminal law. These are this is the wet dream of the billionaire class right now. To essentially completely neuter. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities Exchange Commission, the banking oversight agencies. The consumer financial protection bureau all of these agencies get the food and Drug administration. The US department of agriculture, they all get neutered. If you do away the Chevron deference and the ability to hold billionaires and CEO's to account when the actions that they take cause destruction of lives or property or anything the environment, they want they want to get out of jail free card, and this guy Brad Kavanagh is going to be eager to give it to them. So anyhow. My rant here. And. Chuck in Indianapolis says you disagree with me how so. Well, Tom, I respectfully you bring up how cabin was a Republican activists. I just wanna know. And I'll back off after this is how is that any different than when Sotomayor was up for confirmation. They asked her the same things is it different ask her what the same thing. She was if he was a part of the progressive. I don't remember. The specific words bitch. She was very much active in the democrat party slow. There's no such thing as the democrat party. You can't have an activist Chuck there's no such thing as a democrat party. I know I know the Joe McCarthy back in nineteen forty eight. Said said that you always have to call it the democrat party and emphasize rat because that you know, you don't want it to sound democratic the name. Thomas Jefferson, gave it was the Democratic Party answering the gist of the question, I'll get to the answer your question. But what you do when you use that kind of language you reveal that. You're just interested in promoting Republican talking points rather than talking about the actual issue. Yes, you're right. Sonia. Sotomayor was well known as a as a progressive as was Elena Kagan. And and you know, cavenaugh and Gorsuch are well known as conservatives my point was and thank you for for calling and giving me an opportunity to make my point was that when Cavanaugh was a Republican activists. He was working inside the Bush administration helping make decisions where she is now denying but the documentary evidence supports what little we've seen because the Bush White House's or those lawyer. This is not even an actually an official request from the from from the Trump White House.

Environmental Protection Agenc Orrin Hatch supreme court food and Drug administration Brett cavenaugh democrat party Brad Kavanagh Chuck there Brett Cavanaugh George W Bush Donald Trump Sotomayor Gorsuch John Roberts CEO Joe blow Mr. Rehnquist White House APA
"ted olson" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

C-SPAN Radio

02:17 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

"Case both sides spent a lot of time arguing about whether this was like a ship sailing and war we'll weather publication of this material how we got into the war and got nam was akin to the sailing dates of ships during a war so that nine hundred thirty one case helped enormously was by far the closest case and it wasn't that close but the closest case there was ted olson the espionage act of nineteen seventeen was the law that the government was looking to in this case and i'm gonna ask a what we should know about that law as we think about the questions in case well the espionage act is a very old statute of it is very unclear as to what it prohibits and under what circumstances it would impose punishment on someone who leaked materials you'll communicated interest in information in that in that might do damage to the national security there was an argument in this case about how far it went it did not authorize the government to stop publication of a document it imposed criminal penalties or fines on someone who disclosed national security information the court specifically pointed out in this case that there was no statute that gave the government the power to ask the courts to stop the publication of materials this business about prior restraints is very important because if you stop someone from speaking or stop someone from publishing it won't happen and there's a lot of things that can be done you can take some risks of vice speaking something odd by speaking about something that one thousand nine hundred thirty one case was an attempt to stop the publication of defamatory material was an expose by the newspaper and the statute said well we can stop you can stop the publication of defamatory or scurrilous material and the supreme court said no you can't do that the principle is that if you stop someone from speaking it won't be heard and that's a very very difficult thing under.

supreme court ted olson
"ted olson" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer

AM 970 The Answer

02:41 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer

"Zero one two three four us and the states are stepping up pressure on facebook government officials ratchet up pressure on monday on facebook over its handling of user data with federal regulators saying they're investigating the social media giant privacy policies and thirty seven state's attorney general demanding explanation for its practices for whom does the bell toll it tolls for the mark zuckerberg when the state's attorney general's getting we've represented states my law firm when they get involved in consumer protection cases and judge stephen larson is the name partner larsen o'brien my law firm that means that the state's attorney general go out and they find the expertise they need and they go to someone like larson because he was the assistant united states attorney in charge of organized crime in l a and there was a federal district court judge and he brings federal district court judges are the closest thing to god walking around when they retired from the bench fact to donald trump i say this with some caution if donald trump higher stephen larson after resigned from the firm and so i don't want it really to happen but he is the best criminal defense lawyer in america but he's west coast so he hamels west coast people in the washington dc people don't know but if trump hires judge larson i just gotta quit because it's it's a conflict and that's what i wanted to explain to you conflicts what i just said is true if the phone rang and it was donald trump to judge larson come to town i wanna talk to you larsen comment and say what do you think and i said well if you take it i gotta quit but go ahead and do it deal that's not what happened with ted olson ted olson said no thank you but gibson dunne and crutcher might have some very big conflicts if they are representing anybody on team obama see what we don't know is who has been retained by team obama let me just tell you here there.

facebook mark zuckerberg partner assistant united states attorn america gibson dunne obama attorney larsen o'brien donald trump stephen larson washington dc ted olson ted olson
"ted olson" Discussed on KHNR 690AM

KHNR 690AM

02:10 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on KHNR 690AM

"The basic rule of judicial ethics you can't represent both sides on a lawsuit a lot of people run into this in the world of realty and they don't understand it because sometimes i have a realtor represent the buyer and the seller and try and shave a couple of points out the cost that's not a conflict and sometimes lawyers can have their clients wave conflicts but usually not and it's very perilous so when donald trump called up a lawyer and they say let us check the conflicts that is a very routine deal that's not what happened with ted olson ted olson said no thank you but gibson dunne and crutcher might have some very big conflicts if are repor genting anybody on team obama see what we don't know is who has been retained by team obama let me just tell you here there is a five investigation underway jeff sessions has announced it nobody who's a target of or potentially implicated in that fis investigation for the abuse of the intelligence community who has lawyered up we'll tell you they do not want you to know that they are the target of that department of justice investigation if a lawyer is representing someone in the fis investigation they cannot represent the president or anyone on the president's team that that is the thing that that talking heads in the media do not understand is that there are a lot of democrats with prosecutorial bull's eye on them because of what went on in two thousand fifteen in two thousand sixteen among a handful a not very widespread but the fiso warrant on a couple of people as if the at bash and there was a daily caller article yesterday on my colleague nbc i have no idea if it's true about john brennan and so i'm not gonna comment on the accuracy about that but let's just say that john brennan has hired order to protect the interest whatever firm brennan hired can't work for the president and if if ben rhodes is lawyer if susan rice's lawyer valerie jarrett has lawyered up at president obama's wired up if james comey has lawyered up and he should have given his illegal release of the memos the.

donald trump gibson dunne obama president john brennan susan rice valerie jarrett ted olson ted olson fis ben rhodes james comey
"ted olson" Discussed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell

The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell

02:15 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell

"Profile of suspect i think it's fair to call them and the destruction of justice case suddenly lose criminal defense lawyer and be sitting there with nothing but a spokesperson for the legal team it's a sad state of affairs to have no defense lawyer who will represent you and despite your tweets saying everybody wants to represent me no one will turn me down that seems to be the case and two lawyers in chicago recently turned him down to so he needs to have some legitimate lawyer who will know how the system works and while i'm not defending degen because as a conspiracy theorist he was ridiculous but he was the us attorney so he supervised all these investigations criminal and civil and possibly had some skills he did have a terrible conflict he should've never met with the president that was wrong of him because it was completely unethical when they represented mark corralito for them to even talk to the president about being his lawyer but he needs a lawyer he definitely needs a lawyer and i hope he will get one soon and mark roe was the spokesperson for the trump criminal defense him and he is known to be a cooperating witness for the special prosecutor and david from it's just stunning that that that didn't prevent it shows you really just how illequipped somebody like joe digenova was to come close to being engaged in any of this that he didn't even mention that kind of conflict early enough the lawyer of the president wanted was the lawyer you would want i would want in a similar situation that was ted olson head of the office of legal counsel under ronald reagan solicitor general of the united states under george w bush the winner of more supreme court cases than probably can be tallied let alone remember that's who you would want ted olson turned the president down and didn't just turn him down but the head of ted olson's firm gibson dunne turn the president down in a tweet within minutes of the announcement that the in the new york times that the president was looking at ted olson could not have been more of a rebuff ted olson is a strong republican i don't think he's a trump kinda guy but he's a person with strong republican loyalties.

chicago us attorney president prosecutor joe digenova legal counsel united states ted olson gibson dunne new york times mark corralito mark roe david ronald reagan george w bush
"ted olson" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

02:18 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on KQED Radio

"The case originated with the movie aimed at undermining hillary clinton's two thousand eight presidential campaign a movie produced by citizens united a nonprofit conservative advocacy group because the film had some corporate funding citizens united anticipated the federal election commission would conclude the film violated campaign finance law and would bar the movie from being shown on cable tv close to the election citizens united sued the fcc and the case reached the supreme court so citizens united case before the court and said look the corporations that helped us make this movie have free speech rights just as people do to express their views in this presidential election and what's interesting about the case is that the conservative justices on the court actually went farther than than citizens united lawyers wanted them to go they wanted the kind of wanted a narrow ruling and the justice wanted to have more impact what happened on the eve of the supreme court case citizens united decided to change its lawyer and it hired an illustrious lawyer in washington maine ted olson who sort of the dean of the elite supreme court bar today and all san envisioned the case as a narrow one and tried to win the case with a very narrow ruling arguing that this film didn't fall under mccain feingold so it was no reason there was no reason to challenge mccain feingold several of the justices didn't like that framing and pushed the case to be viewed in much broader terms and indeed the supreme court would ultimately decide on its own to hold rearmament in the case to address the not the narrow issues raised by ted olson but the broad questions of whether corporations could be limited by campaign finance law at all and that was really the justices themselves pushing to decide that question which has raised some questions about the appropriateness of that move right and there was a tradition in the court that you don't decide issues which the parties have not argued and breathe in their pleadings they wanted to really explore this issue of whether or not corporations can be regulated to what extent at all so they they asked the parties to come back for for a second appearance in a second set of briefs and address this much more farreaching issue.

hillary clinton fcc maine mccain feingold ted olson washington
"ted olson" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

02:21 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on KQED Radio

"The case originated with a movie aimed at undermining hillary clinton's two thousand eight presidential campaign a movie produced by citizens united a nonprofit conservative advocacy group because the film had some corporate funding citizens united anticipated that the federal election commission would conclude the film violated campaign finance law and would bar the movie from being shown on cable tv close to the election citizens united sued the f e c and the case reached the supreme court so citizens united case before the court and said look the corporations that helped us make this movie we have free speech rights just as people do to express their views in this presidential election and what's interesting about the case is that the conservative justices on the court actually went farther than than citizens united lawyers wanted them to go they wanted to kind of wanted a narrow ruling and the justice wanted to have more impact what happened on the eve of the supreme court case citizens united decided to change its lawyer and hired an illustrious lawyer in washington named ted olson who sort of the dean of the elite supreme court bar today and all sin envisioned the case as a narrow one and tried to win the case with a very narrow ruling arguing that this film didn't fall under mccain feingold so it was no reason there was no reason to challenge mccain feingold several of the justices didn't like that framing and pushed the case to be viewed in much broader terms and indeed the supreme court would ultimately decide on its own to hold rearmament in the case to address the not the narrow issues raised by ted olson but the broad questions of whether corporations could be limited by campaign finance law at all and that was really the justices themselves pushing to decide that question which is raised some questions about the appropriateness of that move right and there was a tradition in the court that you don't decide issues which the parties have not argued in brief in their pleadings they wanted to really explore this issue of whether or not corporations can be regulated to what extent at all so they they asked the parties to come back for for a second appearance in a second set of briefs and addressed this much more farreaching issue that's right after the first citizens united.

hillary clinton washington mccain feingold ted olson
"ted olson" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

02:21 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"The case originated with the movie aimed at undermining hillary clinton's two thousand eight presidential campaign a movie produced by citizens united a nonprofit conservative advocacy group because the film had some corporate funding citizens united intimidated that the federal election commission would conclude the film violated campaign finance law and would bar the movie from being shown on cable tv close to the election citizens united sued the f e c and the case reached the supreme court so citizens united case before the court and said look the the corporations that helped us make this movie have free speech rights just as people do to express their views in this presidential election and what's interesting about the case is that the conservative justices on the court actually went farther than than citizens united lawyers wanted them to go they wanted to kind of wanted a narrow ruling and the justice wanted to have more impact what happened on the eve of the supreme court case citizens united decided to change its lawyer and it hired an illustrious lawyer in washington maine ted olson who sort of the dean of the elite supreme court bar today and all sin envisioned the case as a narrow one and tried to win the case with a very narrow ruling arguing that this film didn't fall under mccain feingold so it was no reason there was no reason to challenge mccain feingold several of the justices didn't like that framing and pushed the case to be viewed in much broader terms and indeed the supreme court would ultimately decide on its own to hold rearmament in the case to address the not the narrow issues raised by ted olson but the broad questions of weather corporations could be limited by campaign finance law at all and that was really the justices themselves pushing to decide that question which has raised some questions about the appropriateness of that move right and there was a tradition in the court that you don't decide issues which the parties have not argued in brief in their pleadings they wanted to really explore this issue of whether or not corporations can be regulated or to what extent at all so they they asked the parties to come back for for a second appearance in a second set of briefs and address this much more farreaching issue that's right after the first citizens united.

hillary clinton maine mccain feingold ted olson washington
"ted olson" Discussed on KGO 810

KGO 810

02:08 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on KGO 810

"Yeah it's it's an outgrowth of what we've seen him from the rest of the white house of course it seems like nobody quite gets along and the president often seems to like hitting people against one another sometimes in pretty public ways this is a decision that comes as doubt stock is reportedly dropped secular oh is his stock has dropped but he's the one who actually appears to have recommended this hiring and of course it's a cobb is another person who the president doesn't seem particularly happy with you know the the question it is he really going to change his legal representation that this late in the game you know maybe you bring in a few people you add to the to the team rather than firing people and of course i don't know if you saw this morning but president team had reached out to ted olson who's a very little who will be well known to your listeners out there in san francisco was the guy who was conservative activist legal exodus for awhile was president bush's solicitor general trump tried to hire him the guy all but also by the way who let the court case against proposition eight i should say is is the way he'd be not you guys trump card to hire him and we just found out in fact that tighthead olsen has has turned him down so maybe a guy who could have been a steadying force on that team somebody with some real cachet is not going to be a part of the team and the president's left with the other four that we've talked about well the good news i guess if there's such a thing for president trump with ted olson saying we have too many conflicts with existing clients is as i understood about a year ago at least was the last time i saw this ted olson has the highest billing rate of any attorney in the united states of america's maybe president trump saves a couple of bucks by not having ted olson on the team either now yeah you know i it would have been expensive it probably would have been worth every penny he is extremely well regarded he's argued cases both on both sides of the political spectrum i think if he had joined this team it would have really sent.

president ted olson san francisco bush trump tighthead olsen attorney united states america
"ted olson" Discussed on KGO 810

KGO 810

02:08 min | 2 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on KGO 810

"Yeah it's it's an outgrowth of what we've seen him from the rest of the white house of course it seems like nobody quite gets along and the president often seems like hitting people against one another sometimes in pretty public ways this is a decision that comes as doubt stock is reportedly dropped secular oh is his stock has dropped but he's the one who actually appears to have recommended this hiring and of course it's a cobb is another person who the president doesn't seem particularly happy with you know the the question is he really going to change his legal representation that this late in the game you know maybe you bring in a few people you add to the to the team rather than firing people and of course i don't know if you saw this morning but president team had reached out to ted olson who's a very little cu will be well known to your listeners out there in san francisco was the guy who was conservative activist legal activist for awhile was president bush's solicitor general trump tried to hire him the guy all but also by the way who let the court case against proposition eight i should say is the way he'd be known to you guys trump tried to hire him and we just found out in fact that ted olson has has turned him down so maybe a guy who could have been a steadying force on that team somebody with some real cachet is not going to be a part of the team and the president's left with the other four that we've talked about well the good news i guess if there's such a thing for president trump with ted olson saying we have too many conflicts with existing clients is as i understood about a year ago at least was the last time i saw this ted olson has the highest billing rate of any attorney in the united states of america see maybe president trump saves a couple of blocks by not having ted olson team either now it would have been expensive it probably would have been worth every penny he is extremely well regarded he's arcades as both on both sides of the political spectrum i think if he had joined this team would have really sent.

president ted olson san francisco bush trump attorney united states america
"ted olson" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

Radio Free Nashville

02:04 min | 3 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

"The broom bruising primary election season of two thousand eight a rightwing group put together a ninety minute hit job on hillary clinton and rodota one wanted to run it on tv stations in strategic states federal election commission ruled that the advertisements for the documentary were actually campaign ads and thus fell under the restrictions on campaign spending of the mccainfeingold act and thus stopped them from airing corporate contributions to campaigns have been repeatedly banda in various ways since nineteen of seven when republican president teddy roosevelt push through the tillman act citizens you i did the right wing group sued the supreme sued to the supreme court with the rightwing rightwing hit man and former reagan solicitor general ted olson the man who argued bushes side of bushby gore as their lead lawyer this new case citizens united versus federal election commission presented the best opportunity for the roberts court use it's five vote majority completely rewrite the face of american politics rolling us back to the pre 1987 era of the robber barons and if there was one man to do it it was john roberts although he was handsome with an nice smilin' photogenic young children roberts was no friend to average working americans if anything he was the most radical judicial activist appointed to the court in more than a century it work most of his life in the interest of the rich and powerful and was chomping at the bit for a chance to turn more of america over to his friends as jeffrey toobin wrote in the new yorker quote in every may major case since he became the nation's 17th chief justice roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant the state over the condemned the executive branch over the legislative and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff even more than skull leah who has embodied judicial conservatism during the generation of service on the supreme court roberts has served the interests and reflected the values of the contemporary republican party and of quote and the fastest way the modern republic in party could recover its power over the.

hillary clinton gore john roberts justice roberts roberts republican party president teddy roosevelt tillman reagan ted olson roberts court america executive ninety minute
"ted olson" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

Radio Free Nashville

02:04 min | 3 years ago

"ted olson" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

"The break bruising primary election season of two thousand eight a rightwing group put together a ninety minutes hit job on hillary clinton and run into one wanted to run it on tv stations in strategic states federal election commission ruled that the advertisements for the documentary were actually campaign ads and thus fell under the restrictions on campaign spending the mccain feingold act in the stopped them from airing corporate contributions to campaigns have been repeatedly banned in various ways since nineteen of 7 on republican president teddy roosevelt push through the tillman act citizens united the right wing group sued the supreme sued to the supreme court with the right right wing hit man and former regan's solicitor general ted olson the man who argued bushes side of bush should be gore as their lead lawyer this new case citizens united versus federal election commission presented the best opportunity for the roberts court use its five vote majority completely rewrite the face of american politics rolling us back to the pre 1987 era of the robber barons and if there was one man to do it it was john roberts although he was handsome where the nice smilin' photogenic young children roberts was no friend to average working americans if anything he was the most radical judicial activist appointed to the court in more than a century it work most of his life in the interest of the rich and powerful and was chomping at the bit for a chance to turn more of america over to his friends as jeffrey toobin wrote in the new yorker quote in every may major case since he became the nation's 17th chief justice roberts is sided with the prosecution over the defendant the state over the condemned the executive branch over the legislative and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff even more than skull leah who has embodied judicial conservatism during the generation of service on the supreme court roberts has served the interests and reflected the values of the contemporary republican party end of quote and the fastest way the modern republic and party could recover its power over the.

president executive new yorker america roberts court gore ted olson tillman teddy roosevelt hillary clinton mccain roberts justice roberts john roberts bush solicitor general regan ninety minutes