35 Burst results for "U. S Supreme Court"

Trump campaign loses appeal in Pennsylvania

KOGO Weekend News Edition

03:49 min | 1 hr ago

Trump campaign loses appeal in Pennsylvania

"Appeals court on Friday denied the Trump campaign's effort to revive the federal lawsuit challenging the election results in Pennsylvania ruling the claims have no merit. The judges also rejecting the president's motion to one do Pennsylvania's certification of oats. The state on Tuesday certified its general election results in Pennsylvania, formally awarding President elect Joe Biden 20 electoral votes. There are those now who think that this rejection, But the federal appeals court will help the Trump campaign effort to get a case before the U. S. Supreme Court for it to decide the Supreme Court the night before Thanksgiving handed down a favorable ruling for many of the supporters of the president when they said the governor of New York's covert restrictions on some Catholic churches and synagogues Should be tossed out. So what does it mean for the future of the fight by the President's campaign, Mark Larsen from AM 7 60 talked to CBS News correspondent in Washington. Major Garrett about these cases, the third circuit in the most recent decision that came down today out of Pennsylvania case set. You need facts and law to be in dispute and we have neither. There's no evidence. There are no facts there. No presentations. There are just accusations and happily because court should not jump in when there are no facts and no relevant allegations and no dispute. About the underlying walk, no courts to jump in and do that They're not and they're not going to and nothing is going to get the Supreme Court that's reversible. And everyone says Oh, my gosh. Supreme Court said that Religious organizations are protected from certain covert restrictions. Of course they are in the First Amendment. There's a higher standard that's been part of U S law. The very beginning it's in the bill of rights. It's the First Amendment. Yes, there has to be a higher standard and a higher standard has been in law for a long time. It's not a departure. It's a verification, so they're separate things. Oh my gosh. The Supreme Court protected religious organizations and how they observed from covert restrictions. Yes, yes, There's a higher standard, right. Let's talk about that for a second. That was a big deal. Amy Cockney Barrett's first big swing vote opportunity there, and this puts limits on New York on Cuomo. When it came to, he was imposing attendance limits, like kind of like we have here in many cases with his own version of the color codes. 10 people in red Zones 25. People in orange zones seem to be disproportionately getting to the Catholics and the Orthodox Jewish congregations and so forth. So so this is a is a big deal. That sort of happened just over the holiday here in the court. Said. What the court has always said, which is Because it's in the First Amendment because it's in the bill of rights because it's in the Constitution. There's a higher standard that must be met. If you're going to restrict this activity. You better have a compelling state reason to do that. Mm. And if people have the volition to decide which they do, And you have to let them operate within the freedoms outlined in the Constitution that to meet is that doesn't strike me is radical and it doesn't strike me as something is his dangerous now did the chief justice when it was an eight member Supreme Court before him. He called me Barrett was nominated confirmed. Keep it for four. Yes, he did. So the chief justice comes down differently. But this didn't seem to me to be a radical departure that would should make us all breathless are nervous about what the court's going to do. And for the same reason, if any of these cases which I don't ever imagine they will get Supreme Court get there. The Supreme Court's not going to say you know what What doesn't matter, and we're going to keep President Trump in office, and it's not going to do that's not gonna happen. There's nothing that is meticulously legitimate about the assertions made so far and they've had plenty of time to find something and they found nothing. And that's the way it is. Major

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Mark Larsen Major Garrett Appeals Court Joe Biden Amy Cockney Barrett Cbs News New York Washington Cuomo Barrett President Trump
High court takes up census case, as other count issues loom

AP News Radio

00:44 sec | 5 hrs ago

High court takes up census case, as other count issues loom

"President trump's attempt to exclude people living in the country illegally from being counted in the twenty twenty senses heads to a Supreme Court showdown the justices will hear arguments Monday over whether the trump administration can remove for the first time millions of non citizens from the population count it's an idea that has been rejected repeatedly by lower courts but the trump administration argues that both the constitution and federal law allows the president to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment count the census determines how many seats each state gets in the house of representatives as well as the allocation of some federal funding might help in Washington

Trump Administration Donald Trump Supreme Court House Of Representatives Washington
Trump campaign loses appeal in Pennsylvania

Weekend Edition Saturday

00:15 sec | 7 hrs ago

Trump campaign loses appeal in Pennsylvania

"Is pledging to take its challenge to the election results in Pennsylvania to the Supreme Court, despite a federal appeals courts assessment at the campaign's claims have no merit. Asked. Face really was the latest legal setback among dozens for president Trump

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Donald Trump
Trump loses appeal of Pennsylvania election case

KOGO Weekend News Edition

00:33 sec | 7 hrs ago

Trump loses appeal of Pennsylvania election case

"Friday denied the Trump campaign's effort to revive the federal lawsuit challenging the election results in Pennsylvania ruling the claims have no merit. The judges also rejecting the president's motion to one do Pennsylvania's certification of oats. The state on Tuesday certified its general election results in Pennsylvania, formally awarding President elect Joe Biden 20 electoral votes. There are those now who think that this rejection, But the federal appeals court will help the Trump campaign effort to get a case before the U. S. Supreme Court for it to decide the Supreme Court

Pennsylvania Joe Biden Supreme Court
"Frankenstein’s Monster": Judge Slams Trump Team's Efforts to Overturn Election Results

KYW 24 Hour News

00:45 sec | 10 hrs ago

"Frankenstein’s Monster": Judge Slams Trump Team's Efforts to Overturn Election Results

"Federal appellate court has rejected an appeal by President Trump's campaign to toss ballots. In Pennsylvania over claims of election fraud, Ky. Debbie's Crime and Justice reporter Kristin Joe Hansen has more. The panel of three judges, all appointed by Republican presidents sided with with the the lower lower federal federal court, court, which which called called the the Trump Trump campaign's campaign's complaint complaint of of Frankenstein Frankenstein monster monster haphazardly haphazardly stitched stitched together. together. In In their their opinion. opinion. The The appellate appellate court court judges, judges, right right quote quote free free fair elections are the life blood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious, but calling an election unfair does not make it so charges require specific allegation. Ends and then proof we have neither here. Pennsylvania certified the election earlier this week for President elect Joe Biden. The Trump campaign could file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Federal Appellate Court Kristin Joe Hansen Trump Trump Donald Trump Pennsylvania Debbie KY Joe Biden Supreme Court
Trump loses appeal of Pennsylvania election case

BBC World Service

00:54 sec | 16 hrs ago

Trump loses appeal of Pennsylvania election case

"Dismissed the Trump campaign's latest effort to throw out the state's presidential election results. Suit claimed the election had been marred by widespread fraud. Appeals court wrote that calling an election unfair does not make it so charges require specific allegations and then proof, saying we have neither here. From campaign lawyers say they'll appeal to the Supreme Court. Carl Tobias is a law professor at the University of Richmond. He says he'll downstate that they'll get very far. I think it's a thorough repudiation of What the plaintiffs are asking for, And I don't think the Supreme Court is going to be any more generous and is likely didn't Hae an appeal, But we'll see. The Trump campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits challenging the election results. Most have been dismissed or withdrawn. In Ohio

Carl Tobias Appeals Court Supreme Court University Of Richmond Ohio
Appeals court rejects Trump challenge of Pennsylvania race

AP News Radio

00:58 sec | 17 hrs ago

Appeals court rejects Trump challenge of Pennsylvania race

"President trump's election campaign suffered two setbacks Friday in the effort to challenge Joe Biden's victory at the polls in Milwaukee county Wisconsin a recount requested by the trump campaign gave another one hundred thirty two votes to Joe Biden Joseph R. Biden Pamela D. here is received three hundred and seventeen thousand five twenty seven his campaign attorney is Christopher Mueller the board cancers found no instances of fraud by any voter or by any election official trump paid to have the recounts in Milwaukee and Dane counties which is still counting in Philadelphia a federal appeals court rejected a trump challenge to the election results based on unsubstantiated claims or fraud one of the judges a trump appointee wrote that calling an election unfair does not make it so the president can appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court Jackie Quinn Washington

President Trump Joe Biden Joseph R. Biden Pamela D. Christopher Mueller Milwaukee County Joe Biden Wisconsin Donald Trump Dane Milwaukee Philadelphia U. S. Supreme Court Jackie Quinn Washington
Trump loses appeal of Pennsylvania election case

Night News

00:51 sec | 17 hrs ago

Trump loses appeal of Pennsylvania election case

"End for President Trump as he continues to challenge election results, naming Joe Biden as president elect a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania completely dismissing Trump's claims of election tampering. CBS has been Tracy with the details. The president's campaign was hit with another stinging legal defeat in one of its last attempt to overturn Biden's win in Pennsylvania. In a scathing ruling, a Trump appointed federal judge says calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof we have neither hear that campaign plans to appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court, even as the Trump administration's transition to President elect Biden is well underway. Earlier this week, President Trump said quote this election has to be turned around and again falsely claimed that he won in Pennsylvania.

President Trump Pennsylvania Joe Biden Biden Donald Trump Tracy CBS U. S. Supreme Court Trump Administration
Supreme Court won't get involved in Louisiana pastor's case

AP News Radio

00:58 sec | 18 hrs ago

Supreme Court won't get involved in Louisiana pastor's case

"The US Supreme Court is staying out of a dispute for now between the state of Louisiana and a pastor charged with violations for repeatedly holding large church services pastor Tony spell of the life tabernacle church your baton Rouge requested the nation's highest court intervene in his case pastor spell sued state and local officials after being charged with violating corona virus safety limits lower courts have ruled against him and the Supreme Court has now turned away his request to hear the case on Wednesday the high court did rule in a case in New York siding with the diocese of Brooklyn and other religious organizations who argued against strict limitations for houses of worship while other businesses could remain at full capacity bishop Nicholas dimarzio first amendment rights are much more powerful than the right to ask for somebody to shop I'm Jackie Quinn

Tony Spell Life Tabernacle Church Us Supreme Court Baton Rouge Louisiana Diocese Of Brooklyn Supreme Court Bishop Nicholas Dimarzio New York Jackie Quinn
Appeals court rejects Trump challenge of Pennsylvania race

All Things Considered

00:43 sec | 20 hrs ago

Appeals court rejects Trump challenge of Pennsylvania race

"Campaign has suffered another legal blow in its attempts to overturn the election results as NPR's Windsor Johnston tells us a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania today tossed out a lawsuit. It was seeking to undo the state certification of President elect Joe Biden's victory. The judge in the case said the lawsuit lacked merit and failed to provide evidence to support its allegations of voter fraud in a tweet. The Trump campaign said it plans to appeal the Pennsylvania case to the U. S Supreme Court. But it's unclear whether the justices would agreed to hear arguments in a case that has been rejected for lack of evidence. Trump would still lose the election. Even with Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes,

Windsor Johnston Pennsylvania NPR Joe Biden U. S Supreme Court Donald Trump
Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling

Mark and Melynda

07:08 min | 1 d ago

Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling

"A lot for being with us on this day after Thanksgiving. It was right before Thanksgiving late Wednesday. When the U. S Supreme Court The majority said, even in a pandemic You can't put away the Constitution. Now. In New York governor Cuomo says that he issued these restrictions on places of worship. Based on science. And safety. And so this is a fascinating ruling. In many regards number one. It's a big plus for religious freedom. Number two. It was just this past summer. That the Supreme Court ruled basically the opposite. In a case and there's some other cases that are being considered. I believe some cases California, New Jersey, Louisiana, So this is all about the Supreme Court blocking New York's governor from enforcing 10 and 25 person occupancy limits On religious institutions. Courts, the restrictions would violate religious freedom. And are not neutral because they single out houses of worship or especially harsh treatment. Or said there's no evidence that the organizations that brought the lawsuit have contributed to the spread of cove in 19. And this was one of those 54 decisions. With Chief Justice John Roberts. Going along with Justices Stephen Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. And in their descent. Chief justice. Roberts said he saw no need to take this action because New York had revised the designations of the affected areas. Governor Cuomo essentially Said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did rule on it and also in the sending opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this unlike religious services, Bike repair shops and liquor stores generally don't feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more. She went on to say justices of this court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials. About the environments in which a contagious virus now infecting a million Americans each week. Spreads most easily. Those are the words and the dissenting opinion from Justice. Sonia Sotomayor, your Down the majority, and this may be the new power five and this is one of the key developments out of this ruling. A new power five on the Supreme Court. Barrett Gorsuch. Thomas Alito. And Cavanaugh. Three of whom, of course, were Appointed By President Donald Trump in the Majority opinion. Justice, Gorsuch said this, he noted that Governor Cuomo had designated among others, the hardware stores acupuncturists. Liquor stores and bicycle repair shops as essential businesses. That were not subject to the most strict limits. Like these places of worship work. Gorsuch said. We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well. When we do So it Zbig deal for the Supreme Court. It's a big deal for I mean, let's face it all those evangelicals that voted for President Trump. They've got to be doing a victory lap today, right? Maybe you are a swell 51283605 90. If you'd like to be a part of the program here, you give us a call or send us a text on K. O. B. J. It is because Amy Barrett just got on the court. Right, So it's really The first significant indication Of a rightward tilt to the court. And I mentioned this and may and July Supreme Court rejected challenges. Virus related restrictions on churches in California and Nevada. At that time, the Chief Justice John Roberts, Joined the courts Democratic appointees, which of course, then included Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And those rulings they stress that state and local governments required flexibility to deal with a dangerous and evolving pandemic. So The New York Times, Right said. This is just One example of how profoundly President Trump Has transformed the Supreme Court. This New York Times P, says Justice Bharat Help the chief justice of body blow. Casting the decisive vote in a 5 to 4 ruling. On religious services in New York. And New York Times says this is most certainly a taste. Of things to come. About this 51283605 90 here on Caleb E. J. It is an interesting question, right? In the summer time. Even the Supreme Court said, Look You may not like it when these local officials are trying to close the church. But You're dealing with health and safety issue. And there are rights. Given to local officials in the event. Of health and safety issues. Well, not in this case, the governor there in New York, Andrew Cuomo. He criticized the Supreme Court. Or overturning their restrictions. He said It was Morrell Astrit Ivo of the Supreme Court than anything else. He called the ruling irrelevant. Said it would have any practical impact because restrictions Are not in place and had been dialed back well. You know, it's interesting that even in the Opinion. That was written by Sonia Sotomayor, right? When she was talking about The court plays a deadly game and second guessing the expert judgment of health official. Let's stop right there.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Gorsuch Cuomo Sonia Sotomayor New York Stephen Bryer Justice Sonia Sotomayor President Trump Barrett Gorsuch Thomas Alito Governor Cuomo Elena Kagan Zbig U. Amy Barrett California Louisiana New Jersey Cavanaugh
Supreme Court Strikes Down New York COVID Restrictions

The Mock 'N Rob Show

06:35 min | 1 d ago

Supreme Court Strikes Down New York COVID Restrictions

"The new Supreme Court has spoken, and it is a much different message as it relates to Covad restrictions from the government. 93 w A. B C. It's the Mark and Rob. Show him Rob Mok is out Abdul in for Mok. And obviously, this came down late on Wednesday. With yesterday being Thanksgiving. We didn't get a chance to get to it. But the Supreme Court essentially striking down the order from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, putting a limit on how many people could attend certain religious services again simplifying a very complex issue, but basically saying Hey, If you say liquor stores and bike shops can have whatever. Then you can't say religious institutions can't have a two almost soon. You say they got it wrong. Um, not necessarily. I think they got it right. But it was the question Woz. Um Did the rule really apply anymore? Because the mayor of New York City had sort of lift exits. The Governor York had sort of color coded like from orange thread in the synagogue to church. We're back in the orange category. Not the red category. So the question was. Is this really an issue at all? But what this gets, too? And it's going to sound really where I got to get in the weeds for just a little bit Sure, because we should point out the people hearing your voice. You are a man of all you are an attorney license in two states, which means we gotta start paying my annual to send to stop it. It's gonna cost about 350 bucks. There is this issue was called muteness and rightness. Muteness basically means that the issues over and the court doesn't have to deal. With it right. This means the issue isn't ready yet for the court to deal with, And so what? I'm thinking what the Supreme Court did Well said, Hey, technically, the issue is moot in the sense that no. They change the color code. This game and all charges. You got to go back to 50%. But they said this could come back up again. And so we want to make sure that the issue is is sort of settled, at least for right now, and that's why I think that's I think that's why they did what they did because you can't Treat religious institutions differently unless you've got a really, really good reason to do it. It's like it's got. Let's just all the strict scrutiny analysis and I'm like really delighted, said It's truly with the girdle on which is what he said. It's like No, that's that's not it. It's no, that's not it. Um In a nutshell. You you have a situation where I don't see why. I just couldn't remember to everybody the same, which is like a 15% capacity across the board. 25% capacity across the board. You gotta social distance and that'll that'll take care of it. But now we got the mayor. The Governor York City say the courts rule doesn't matter because we're no longer in that red So we're now in the Orange zone. But still, the court could say, Hey, this will come back. We just want to make sure that we know exactly what's going on. Because, well, well, I do agree with with in principle with the theory that hang in the Constitution doesn't stop for pandemic. You still have to You're still you're still in the pandemic. I have so many legal questions off of this. And if you are really ever you see the read these articles and said, But why did you this This is this is writing Abdul's wheelhouse. So the first question I have is when a ruling like this comes down because we've seen people like in the state of Indiana be very upset that the governor and in the early days of the pandemic said Well, religious liquor stores can stay open. But these places have to close and go into a liquor store. But you can't go in here. Does this apply across the country now? Does everybody have to look at this and go? Okay. This is the new law like how do we snow? Because this we're basically dealing with emergency orders, so the emergency order only applies to the emergency. The order. You need actual case X again up to the Supreme Court. So what does that mean? Cause I would look at this and say this is a This is a case. So what? No, it's no. It's Zen emergency hearing. Um For lack of a better term kinda figure how to explain this in like 10, seconds or less. Since keeping relatively simple in a nutshell, The court will hear cases like you know. Plessy vs Ferguson served Kendall versus shabbas or something like that has gone through the district Court, the appellate court and then to the Supreme Court. Then the court will also hear these sort of emergency orders, which is Hey, our rights are being violated. We need to know a quick opinion. Next. Why Z, which which gets to need to where I was going to go? Which is? How does the court decide? I was gonna ask you that question. This seems like it came very quickly versus these cases that sometimes you know, we'll hear an argument in October and they don't rule until June. Or you give it I say that it takes forever to go to go through. These sort of things are for those specific issues. So like Trump may appeal Some ruling related to the election, and that would be just for that specific thing. It wouldn't have some overarching. Apparently it was in the emergency order category, for example. Hey, we need to throw these ballots out right now. Because December 14th, the Electoral college is going to do X Y Z so the court will now the court can hear things on an expedited basis. I'II Bush versus Gore. Which, interestingly, which, by the way only applies to Bush versus Gore. Well, so let's let's let's branch off that rabble by the whites, The mark and Rob Show Mark is out, Rob here of duels in for Mark, We're talking a little bit about this. Ruling by the Supreme Court. Limiting of the governor of New York's ability to restrict religious activities were trying to from a legal perspective sort through what that means. One of the fascinating things for me reading about this is how Gorsuch was sparring with Roberts in their legal written opinions now wouldn't Jerry Springer they weren't yelling at each other on stage, but the different articles I was reading, say, said, this is pretty intense for supreme for two Supreme Court justices. This is basically their version of sniping at each other is that is that unusual for judges? It is not uncommon for judges to take little pot shots at each other. Supreme Court has done it even on that level on that level yet because they're all so they're still human beings. But you know this because I want to lead us to another look, they clearly they are brilliant whether you agree with their their judicial philosophy or not there. They're brilliant legal people, So they know they're smarter than everyone else, right? I mean, that comes off a lot of times when you hear them question the people at the court, But this this is unusual for them for one, the leaders to take shot and another elitist and it is in the sense that you have both know too conservative judges what may be a bit more ideological conservative than the other. But it is not uncommon for judges, too. Occasionally taking taking ticket but sort of a backhanded compliment to each other. So to speak, Okay? I did

Supreme Court Rob Mok Governor Andrew Cuomo Covad Abdul's Wheelhouse ROB Mark Plessy New York City New York Ii Bush Government York City Gore Indiana Kendall
Trump Celebrates SCOTUS Decision on COVID Restrictions

WBZ Morning News

00:51 sec | 1 d ago

Trump Celebrates SCOTUS Decision on COVID Restrictions

"CBS News correspondent Natalie Brand is that the White House Where the president is Also celebrating a Supreme Court ruling President Trump sent a happy Thanksgiving tweet Thursday morning Retweeting News of the Supreme Court's decision issued late Wednesday, blocking covert restrictions on houses of worship in New York in a 5 to 4 ruling with President Trump's latest appointee, Justice Amy Cockney Barrett. Now on the bench, the high court ruled in favor of religious groups, saying the state's coronavirus restrictions effectively barring many from attending religious services. Strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, issuing a statement applauding the court's decision, saying that they are gratified and appreciate the court's recognition of a clear First Amendment violation in urgent need for relief in that case.

Natalie Brand Supreme Court President Trump Justice Amy Cockney Barrett Cbs News Donald Trump White House Roman Catholic Diocese Of Broo New York
Supreme Court blocks New York’s virus-imposed limits to religious services

Bloomberg Daybreak

00:42 sec | 1 d ago

Supreme Court blocks New York’s virus-imposed limits to religious services

"Bring in Michael Bar to tell us what else is going on in New York and around the world. Thank you very much. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says the Supreme Court ruling that barred him from reimposing strict capacity limits on religious services was an expression of the court's philosophy and politics. And 54 ruling, The high court blocked the limits on New York City's synagogues and churches, saying rules he issued amid a nuke over 19 wave unfairly single out houses of worship. Cuomo says the ruling is a relevant I fully respect. Uh, religion, and if there's a time in life when we need it At the time is now but we want to make sure we keep

Michael Bar Governor Andrew Cuomo New York Supreme Court New York City Cuomo
High court blocks New York virus limits on houses of worship

America in the Morning

00:44 sec | 1 d ago

High court blocks New York virus limits on houses of worship

"The Supreme Court blocks New York's coronavirus limits on houses of worship. Correspondent Mike Can't that explains the high court is far in New York from enforcing limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus. The justices voted 54 with new Justice Amy Cockney parrot in the majority. The three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. The vote was his shift for the court earlier this year when Pierre it's liberal predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was on the court. The justices voted 54 to leave in place pandemic related capacity restrictions. Affecting churches in California and Nevada.

Mike Ca Amy Cockney New York Chief Justice John Roberts Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Pierre California Nevada
Supreme Court rejects COVID limits on New York houses of worship

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

00:44 sec | 1 d ago

Supreme Court rejects COVID limits on New York houses of worship

"The. Us supreme court ruled five to four wednesday evening to struck down an order by new york governor. Andrew cuomo that placed restrictions on the number of people at religious gatherings justice. Amy barrett on the bench for a month. Was the key swing vote. In this case barrett sided with four other conservatives. The majority wrote in part quote even in a pandemic. The constitution cannot be put away and forgotten chief justice john roberts sided with the liberal wing writing. It was not the courts. Place quote to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic. Twenty five other states have similar cases before various courts across the

Amy Barrett Andrew Cuomo Chief Justice John Roberts Supreme Court Barrett New York United States
Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on New York houses of worship

All Things Considered

04:14 min | 1 d ago

Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on New York houses of worship

"Of New York state's strict attendants limits on religious gatherings. The rules were designed to help slow the spread of the Corona virus. It's 5 to 4 decision highlights tensions that have grown during the pandemic between secular leaders and some religious groups that also opens a window on the new makeup of this court. Now that Amy Cockney Barrett is on the bench. NPR's Brian Mann is in Westport in upstate New York and has been following developments have Ryan Hey, happy Thanksgiving, Ari. Same to you. New York has seen tens of thousands of covert 19 deaths. So what immediate impact is this ruling going to have on the state's attempt to fight the pandemic? State officials say there's no immediate impact. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish groups brought this legal challenge and state officials have already rolled back the so called red and orange zones that covered their churches and synagogues. So the rule limiting attendance to his fewest 10 people, even in big religious spaces. It wasn't actually being enforced. But the ruling could limit new restrictions here in the future at the number of cases really surges again in New York, and this also sends a message. You know two other governors around the country how the Supreme Court will look it at any of their restrictions. What's the reaction been today from the religious groups that brought this case? Yeah, they've declared victory. They say this is an important win for religious freedom. They point out that New York was still allowing so called essential businesses to operate in Corona virus hot spots without the same level of restriction. And this win for religious leaders is reversal from the Supreme Court's posture just last summer that gave governors ah lot more leeway fighting this pandemic. I spoke about this with Douglas Laycock at the University of Virginia, he's legal expert on religious liberty. Governor's orders in New York, where some of the mystery Cockney and in the country the first case where Amy Cody Barrett really makes a difference is compared to respect her Ginsberg and it slipped the result and they're not going to be different from the governor's anymore. They're really going toe examine closely for signs of discrimination. And Laycock points out, Ari that governors can still restrict religious gatherings. They just can't restrict them in ways that are different from rules for businesses or government buildings. And now New York governor Andrew Cuomo was named personally in the lawsuit. How did he respond to the ruling? He described this as a political statement being made by this more conservative bloc that now defines this court. But in his daily coronavirus briefing today, Cuomo did also acknowledge the complicated tension here. Look, I'm a former altar boy Catholic Catholic grammar school Catholic high school Jesuit, said college, so I fully respect religion. And if there's a time in life when we need it at the time is now. But we want to make sure we keep people safe at the same time, and and that's the balance we're trying to hit, especially through this holiday season. And I should add, are that this isn't really new. Here. We've seen deadly Corona virus outbreaks in New York around religious communities following ceremonies, funerals and weddings, for example, right from the start of this pandemic, and religious leaders have clashed repeatedly with caramel, also with New York City's mayor. Over how far elected officials can or should go to limit new infections. Now, you mentioned that this reflects the new makeup of the Supreme Court, and there was some tense language in the opinions tell us about what the justices said. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurrence of green with this decision that was pretty biting. He wrote that, according to Governor Cuomo, and I'm reading here, quote it may be unsafe to go to church. But it's always fine to pick up another bottle of wine shop for a new bike or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. That's Reference thereto acupuncture clinics that remain open in New York. Meanwhile, in her dissent, Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that in the past, the Supreme Court has given public officials broad leeway in cases involving religion where public safety is a concern, she pointed The fact that the Supreme Court upheld President Trump's ban on immigration from certain Muslim countries. So justice Sotomayor suggesting that this ruling reflects a double standard. NPR's Brian Man, Thanks a lot. Thank you worry. It's a tough call to make telling your family you won't be

New York Amy Cockney Brian Mann Ryan Hey Supreme Court Douglas Laycock Amy Cody Barrett Governor Andrew Cuomo Westport NPR Roman Catholic Church Barrett Laycock University Of Virginia Ginsberg Cuomo Neil Gorsuch Governor Cuomo Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayo New York City
Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on New York houses of worship

KNX Midday News with Brian Ping

00:47 sec | 2 d ago

Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on New York houses of worship

"Surge again nationwide. The U. S Supreme Court is barring New York from enforcing sort in attendance limits in the House is worship in areas designated is hard hit by the virus. The ruling was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's liberal minority and the descent. Oil law school professor Jessica Levinson says This shows the importance of justice Amy Cockney Barrett on the bench. When Justice Ginsburg was on the bench, we saw the Supreme Court, essentially breaking 5 to 4 in favor of the government imposing krone virus restrictions. Now we see a different split. Now we see the court breaking 5 to 4, at least in this case against those restrictions. Court sanctions will on have any immediate impact. Since the state that already lifted the restrictions of the covert situation of those areas has gotten better.

U. S Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jessica Levinson Amy Cockney Barrett Justice Ginsburg New York House Supreme Court
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

07:34 min | 2 weeks ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"At five, now back to the best of the Jim Bohannon show. We're joined by former South Carolina congressman Trey Gowdy, whose new book Out is titled It doesn't Hurt to ask. We'll talk about that in a moment, but of course we must lead off. By asking you a bit about where we stand now in this, not yet decided election your thoughts. Yeah. I mean, my initial fall. It is our our country can split an atom. Uh, we can build the most amazing things we can produce Halle Berry, but we can't count votes in a 48 hour time period. I mean, I know it's frustrating. You know? Each state gets to decide its own state laws. So there's a difference between being unlawful and being irresponsible and and and I do think The better argument for responsibility. Isto have some paradigm, some scheme where we're not two days into it and still have hundreds of thousands of ballots left to count. So that said I'm off. I'm a fax guy. Amon evidence guy heard the allegations, but they've got to be proven on. There's a difference between mistakes, errors, omissions and fraud. And You know if you're going to allege systemic, widespread fall fraud, That's a really big allegation, and there has to be correspondingly high amount of evidence to support it. What about the charges that have been made that you know a number of instances, Republican observers to the vote county process have been denied close access. No, no, no, no. I mean, I view that kind of you in a couple of different ways were the rules governing the elections where they lawful where they where they constitutional and were they enacted by By the right group. And what I mean by that is the legislative a legislative body. Not a not a court, which is what the Constitution provides. General won. What are the rules? Are they being followed? Are they being applied equally? And what you referenced? Kind of falls in that are they being applied equally? If you don't have a meaningful access to the vote count, um, you know, trying to be fair about it. You do want to save Gord. Um, the confidentiality and anonymity of individual voters. So I understand being careful about any identifying information, but I can't imagine what they would be on the ballot. So there's not a name. There's not Ah, driver's license. No, we're not a so security numbers, so be cautious with identifying information because people vote for is private and no one's business. That said, Unless you have a bionic eye you can't see from 25 yards away. So I think the courts are coming down least one I've heard of in the last couple hours are coming down on the side of you have to allow meaningful acid access so you can determine whether or not the rules being applied fairly and equally Here's one thing in the Constitution Article one section for the Times and The Times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature. There of it goes on to add, but the Congress made any time by law, make or alter such regulations. Except as to the places of choosing senators does not say anywhere that the state Supreme Court gets involved, right. And that was the argument that you know That that the Pennsylvania you know how long Khun ballots be accepted that they tried to get that before the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court deadlocked 4 to 4. Of course, I think it was a Lido, Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas and Kavanaugh wrote. You know, they're They're position was exactly what you just laid out that the Constitution says. Legislatures for a reason. It doesn't say the Supreme Court and if members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court want to get involved, there is a perfect way of looking at right. We've known for 150 years that Election day was going to be Tuesday. That's how long that statue has been on the books. 150 years is how long we've know that And the pandemics been going on since March. Right, so the Pennsylvania Legislature has had plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to allow for balance received. Postmarked by election but received thereafter be to be counted and they and they never availed themselves of that opportunity. In fact, they said, explicitly, no. So who's the Pennsylvania Supreme Court? Undo or override with the Legislature's done at the Supreme that the U. S. Supreme Court should have said so. But they for some reason, I don't understand. They took a pass on what is the the thing about the U. S Supreme Court failing to take on certain hot potatoes? I'm really afraid they're gonna lose the New Hampshire primary. Oh, wait a minute. That's right. Supreme Court members don't have to run in primaries or any other election. We give them life tenure for, you know, Actually, the Constitution says, for the period of good behavior, But we have interpreted that to be four life. My guess if I were trying to look at it in the light, most favorable to them, My guess is they don't want to be the the arbiter of who wins presidential elections. They don't want to get involved. And what they perceive to be a little cool matters. They would like it to be worked out before he gets to them. But that's really about the only societal referee. We have left anymore. Well, it is and something else that they might have thought about. They could have tackled this case some time ago, when it would only have been a case of the U. S Supreme Court straightening out and clarifying the rules of the game. By not acting then they're now likely to have this dump squarely in their labs when they will be perceived, whether they like it or not, as picking the next president. In other words, if they wind up being in that situation, they have no one to blame but themselves. That is true. If they were on the call with us, they would probably say, although And you know, I don't know this to be a fact haven't pulled the Nevada voting regulations or Arizona or Georgia. If one of those legislative body said Look, if it's postmarked by election night, you can count for three days or for seven days to keep him on the theological college. The electors don't meet until December. 40 Which is why I began with the responsibility argument. I mean, it is irresponsible for any state I get you have the power to do it. It is irresponsible to lead the rest of the nation wondering who the president's going to be. What do you think is a good idea to vote smudged postmarked ballots for for two weeks. I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm saying it's irresponsible for you to allow that. Having noted all that we've just said the track record of people challenging initial election outcomes either being through recounts or through lawsuits that the track record of those challenging is not very strong. Uh, inches benches inches, Not yours. And Miles Thie on Lee..

U. S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania Supreme Court U. S Supreme Court Supreme Court Constitution Legislature Jim Bohannon president Halle Berry fraud Trey Gowdy Pennsylvania Legislature South Carolina congressman Congress Pennsylvania Amon Constitution Article
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM

KLBJ 590AM

03:22 min | Last month

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM

"The news. Radio, K o b. J 10 31 Hope you have a great day. If you're just joining us, one of the things were discussing Is a 44 votes and the U. S Supreme Court last night. This effectively allows Pennsylvania's new mail in voting rules to stand The state Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, is upholding these new rules that were created by the secretary of state not elected state lawmakers. This was challenged in the U. S. Supreme Court deadlocks. Therefore, the state Supreme Court ruling stands and it says that mail in ballots must be counted up to three days after the election. Ballots received that have no or an illegible postmark must also be counted. And so there you have it. This will stand in the state of Pennsylvania. Sam is on Mo Pack a 10 32. Hey, Sam. Good morning. How are you doing? Hey, Good morning, guys. Great shows always Melinda really enjoyed watching you are listening to you grow in the station. It's been a pleasure. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to kind of talk about the last guy. I was, um, I guess referencing as faras. We're going to catch the fraud A couple of years later that silly in states where they may even investigate that hyper fraud. I doubt that's going to go down and Pennsylvania Illinois. Um and when there's a little bit of crime on the surface that gets caught, there's always a ton of it underneath. So that's kind of where I'm at with that. I'm glad we were catching this stuff. But you don't hear enough of these stories that you know it's going on Maurin these little races and, yeah, that guy got elected by a few votes. But what did he fill out on the rest of the ballot for the Congressman? Senator, You know the congressional vote and all the writing. It's concerning. To me. These rules on elections should be created by the elected members of the Legislature. It shouldn't be up to one. A specific person to unilaterally change. The rules that are in place by the elected representatives agreed because you have a situation like we do this year, and that is okay. Well, there's been come some concern about Melun ballots and you have them people deciding, Okay, we're going to send a melon ballot to everybody and let them send it in, and we're going to change the rules as to when you have to have it in and what it has to look like when you do so. But if you do that, what's the point of having rules for election if they could just be changed per each election? Listen, You have a great day. Thanks very much. 51283605 90 Frank is in round rock at 10 34 with Mark and Melinda. Hey, Frank. Good morning. Hey, Good morning. I hope you guys are doing well. I really enjoyed the show. Thank you. One of the thing and I'm not a native Texan. But I do live in Texas. And I'm proud to live in Texas and I've lived here for several years now and one of the things I've noticed. Recently. Is that in the political ads, why is it that these candidates are afraid to state their party affiliations? You just don't see it? It used to happen, but you don't see M. J. Hagar saying she's a Democrat. You don't see John Cornyn saying he's a Republican..

Pennsylvania U. S. Supreme Court Supreme Court of Pennsylvania U. S Supreme Court John Cornyn Sam fraud M. J. Hagar Texas Frank Melinda Maurin Congressman Senator Illinois Mark
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO

Newsradio 600 KOGO

01:35 min | 2 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO

"Those nominations that he's had for the U. S Supreme Court as I'm speaking I hear the flourishes is coming in a lot on the podium. We'll take you now live to the Rose Garden, a man Fox marriage and family. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank.

U. S Supreme Court Rose Garden Fox
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:49 min | 5 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal law does protect gay and transgender workers from job discrimination it's a watershed decision that gives millions of LGBT people in dozens of states civil rights they have sought for decades Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg store explains more about what the justices were actually deciding this is a matter of interpreting the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act that law says that you can't discriminate against somebody on the basis of sex and the core question for the court in this case was a somewhat technical question which is whether that freight words sacks covers sexual orientation and gender identity identity and the Supreme Court today said yes it does justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals in the six to three majority covered nineteen cases can when.

U. S. Supreme Court Greg store Neil Gorsuch Chief Justice John Roberts Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

07:30 min | 7 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Another reminder my dad will be that's why he's on the broadcast today I will be before the U. S. Supreme Court tomorrow usually we'd be in Washington DC right now joining fan it would be crammed into the studio there and he probably wouldn't be on busy preparing for tomorrow's oral argument but I didn't he would be walking into the Supreme Court the morning taking our seats I'd be taking my seat that you're with the attorneys table or at the but the bar and they'll be joined there too and a lot of family and my dad be presenting before the U. S. Supreme Court representing president trump we live in a different world right now is Kobe date T. the Supreme Court is doing these oral arguments by phone what's unique for you hi what would they be bizarre for us but unique for you is that because they're done by phone and I think this is cool for everybody including all of us you can actually listen live they're actually putting these out live so you're gonna get to hear a case and there's two of them there's actually three two were combined into one that's a house case trying to get the president's tax returns for no legitimate purpose in that it Hey the second case my dad is arguing with the local DA try to get the president's tax returns I I get a state official state law for service to try to criminally investigate a present you'll hear a lot about tomorrow if you listen did while they're in office which is exactly what the founding fathers didn't want to happen there are thousands of local district attorneys around the country nothing against any of them maybe do a fine job but if you allow them to start investigating presence United States many are elected on a partisan basis you can see where this could cause a lot of concerted impeding the work of the presidency which is what the founders had in mind is that this would be the work of the presidency so again my dad will be arguing we'll be live streaming it so the first case starts around I starts at ten AM eastern time they've been pretty good about starting all the time so that's ten A. M. eastern time at these cases user always our site can usually tell you Hey but that'll be up right at eleven but because it's been done by phone a live they've some of road as long as an hour and a half an hour you know an hour and a quarter so I mean if you like I what I would say is prepared for my dad between eleven fifteen at eleven thirty is safe thank you for your if you're watching online if you're walking through our through our social media will be sure probably C. span or if you're watching C. span and hope is the cover it live do you have to worry about commercials I think some you know some of the cable news will go in and out of that because it involves the president at the US Supreme Court but they may wait for the audience died and then go to it if you don't worry about commercials and things that you're gonna watch on TV at home I think the best is to go to sea span I did a media we follow the argument so probably as late as one PM probably not too much earlier than that eastern time but it's going to join you on Facebook live to break down the argument for you and maybe even take some of your questions about it so again a unique experience for all of you who have followed his career offers some of you for many many years for many decades yeah I go back to his first Supreme Court case who's younger than I am today now a representing the president of the United States before the US Supreme Court it what the media's call if it's well it's a it's a it's controversial it's Abbas presidential power and I think it even though it's on the ACLJ case I always say this the fact that our chief counsel the ACLJ chosen by the president to present the president's case before the highest court in the land says a lot about the legal professional legal abilities of those was the ACLJ and our chief counsel specifically his work before the Supreme Court happens we might as well but then I think it's just a cool moment for everybody who is fall the ACLJ for a long time it even though even newcomers who may be K. because of my presence who've come to the I learned about your position because of my dad's ended ours represent that it divest outside the cells a representation of the president have come to know more about the ACLJ it's really cool opportunity because they get to hear it live live audio which is just unheard of it's never happened before yeah no question about it Jordan I really do think it's a can't miss opportunity look I think there's a Primark court arguments being streamed live is can't miss for all Americans honestly but for those who have a relationship through this program with your dad in which through the ACLJ and know about the other work that we do the opportunity gets for that real time glimpse into really how your dad built his career in the place where some of this the most formative moments at work Jordan I think it's absolutely can't miss I think everybody should be tuned in and quite frankly I think they should take a look at the rest of the schedule as well and and learn more about how the court proceeds and while we're in this unique time you know Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough said an email to Samantha power and Susan rice right after the election saying that at present bomb was going away for awhile for awhile and and she should to it's pretty significant especially given ricin power's unmasking roll thing and end this idea that they weren't going away for a while in fact they were cute they were figuring out exactly how to stay and keep their minions working even when they were going to be leaving the White House they weren't ready to say goodbye to the Susan rice was the water color reference right that we did everything by the book here at the White House noted everything finished out by the book at the White House that in fact they they were continuing to make sure that their directions were clear to those officials who become their friends those bureaucrats to become their friend at the FBI and DOJ about what to keep doing to undermine the incoming administration that they hated so much yeah I do and I actually think this is really significant we told our audience time and time again that part of our for your practice we would get a lot of pieces to the puzzle that may not make sense until later but you always had to be prepared to sort of match them up against current news and our fourteen was reminding me about this email but just a few minutes ago she present Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough after the election sending a message to Samantha power and Susan rice saying that the president is going to quote go away for a while and they should to Jordan when you lay that against the news that we're talking about right now that president Obama was really at the spearhead of this scheme and then Samantha powers and Susan rice were to the individuals that were frequently unmasking individuals inside the administration inside the government American citizens of Jordan it tells you a lot they're they're gonna quote go away for a while and that that instruction is really being given to Samantha power and Susan rice as well we don't know L. all of the strings that this leads to right now but I think that's another telltale sign when laid against the news from today Jordan that president Obama was at the very top of this and he was giving orders down through the ranks I think those two officials probably saw it as their queue that this would be in the background for a while but guess what president Obama seems to be out front on this again I mean I know that was a leak from that call Jordan leaks from calls in DC those are very rarely accidental he I think he was intentionally absolutely present via one of the troops know what to do how to start writing those op as what to start saying how to mimic what Adam Schiff said that this is set justice back in changing the justice process that sickens me when you see somebody was wrongly charged wrongly charged and and the wrong is starting to be righted and they're so upset about it because of.

U. S. Supreme Court Washington
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KCBS All News

KCBS All News

03:24 min | 7 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KCBS All News

"For the third straight day the U. S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments via telephone today's high profile case involving the trump administration rules that broaden the number of employers that can claim religious or moral objections to providing free birth control coverage for women under obamacare for more we're joined live on the KCBS ring central news line by Laurie Levinson law professor at Loyola law school professor Levenson thanks for joining us this issue was addressed during the Obama administration how does today's case differ what difference here is that the trump administration when they came in expanded the regulations they gave exemptions to companies based upon not just religious objections but quote moral or conscience objection to having to pay for contraceptive care or having their insurance companies pay for contraceptive care for their employees and so now we're in a situation where the estimates are my guess is the prior that the over a hundred thousand women could be affected by not having their employer cover these costs when it looks like Congress did intend for these costs to be covered and that's because what an agency is done not Congress when you move into moral objections that can be kind of vague Canada very much so and that was one of the key arguments here which is even if you think that there is religious protection what does moral objection being one of conscience and this is just an out for companies even publicly traded companies who don't want to pay for women's care the arguments typically lasts sixty minutes today they went an extra forty minutes longer should we read anything into that I don't think you should read more into that other than the approach that they're using now which are the telephonic argument it's harder for the justices to cut off the lawyers and it's harder for the Chief Justice to cut off the other just this is so I think what we see here is that two things one on the side of the government they allowed the lawyer for the little sisters of the poor to argue as well that added to the time and also I just think allowing for a full and complete answer added to the argument so if today's arguments succeed and this rule is allowed to move forward who's going to pick up the cost and our state's gonna pick up the cost are they objecting to this in any way this case was brought by the state objected to this saying that in fact if the employers do not bear the burden these women need to get the care somehow and that's falling on the state one of the key issues in the argument was do the states have the standing to bring that argument two little sisters of the poor have a role in this after all it's not really affecting them directly it is really affecting the states that have to pick up the coverage in professor Levinson a final quick question for you win what might we expect a decision on this case well usually we would say you would expect a decision by the end of the term which is the end of June but everything is different this year so I think we're not gonna hear decisions from this until throughout the summer in one of the things about this case is the number of justices including the Chief Justice who kept saying can't you reach a solution plan to reach a settlement to this isn't there some area in between that would resolve this case S. R. Levenson thanks for your time this afternoon that is Laurie Levenson a law professor at.

U. S. Supreme Court
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO

Newsradio 600 KOGO

12:05 min | 7 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO

"Coast to coast and we'll take your calls as well what was it like before the United States Supreme Court mark with that must've been intriguing well I'm a member of the U. S. Supreme Court I've not yet had the honor of arguing a case before them but I've found that a number of the justices and you know they're kind of like the high priest of the religion of our law I mean out of them being making a joke there but it's it's really cool because I've been able to sit down and talk to a couple of them on a one on one level and it's really nice when you meet somebody in such an exalted position this is the down to earth person C. R. bard certainly college for the advancement of psychic science tell me about that that it was set up by a Arthur Finley and he was good friends with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and ladies oil you wrote he Sir Arthur Conan Doyle road Sherlock Holmes but both Sir Arthur and ladies oil were medium and Arthur family as well as a medium and when he died he left as a state in his his fortune to fund this college for the advancement of psychic science and so it was really quite an interesting experience in going there because everyone there is a psychic and it was fascinating being in a hundred percent psychic environment I mean it even got to the point where you know we gone to town the town a stance that on the local people give you this look you know it's like you know we came out a hog warts and they're looking at us like you know but it was really nice being able to studied mediumship in a in a clinical environment in in a a very positive and upbeat manner so do those on the other side communicate with each other I mean are they saying now Hey there's a psychic on coast to coast radio who we got a listen and we might be able to talk to our loved ones do they communicate with each other absolutely I'd like to explain the other side as think of your souls a drop of water in when you pass a drop of water leaves your brain in plunges into the eternal sea of consciousness that I call the collective consciousness which is part of you know the electromagnetic energy that everything is in connect and they can communicate with each other George in a way that we can't even begin to understand they can transfer vast amounts of data back and forth and that's why many times like in the the one reading I did were the gentleman you know he lost the the little girl it will give me medical information that far exceeds or any type of information that far exceeds the scope of anything that they knew in this world because a spirit is linked to other spheres that are linked to other spheres and a link to other spirits and so they're able to draw on this universal mind worth of energy and information do you believe in reincarnation mark absolutely and every near death experience that I've met with and talked to believe that it is well and once again we go through a series of lifetimes energy is neither created nor destroyed only transferred from one form to another this is what the case is baffling for me with reincarnation and the buying through a psychic medium if the individual soul has reincarnated already then explain the process for how that soul can still communicate with the psychic medium if they're already in another body for example that's because we're actually multi dimensional beans and even though our soul resides in the brain we are interconnected with the collective consciousness which you may call our higher selves so think of your higher self as a librarian and the librarian has read several different books I've worn piece diary of Anne Frank the godfather the great Gatsby and so you've been expired and all those books yeah and the characters may not recognize each other but the higher self does so let's say that you were you know Jay Gatsby in one life and then a reincarnated as you know Michael Corleonesi in another life and when your relatives want to communicate with Jay Gatsby even though you have reincarnated the higher self maintains the memories and personalities of all these various incarnations so you can still interconnect with those and it's really fascinating when when you start communicating with people that specially of them that have lived quite many many years ago I mean I was doing a reading for this woman and her grandfather came through and in a in a in in in I said okay our grandfathers is African American gentleman and then I said there's a dark skinned guy not a stark issues commentary go looks like Donte I mean I know that sounds weird but he looks like Gandhi and she's looking at me because that isn't weird at all in the nineteen thirties my grandfather lives in India and he studied nonviolent resistance with Gandhi interesting that's asinine yeah it was like a mistake I just communicated with Condit in you had no idea I had absolutely no idea sections a radio show host and I'd been on the show and she said Hey would you do a reading on me I don't know anything about and and who knew that her grandfather was part of the civil rights movement and studied nonviolence under my you could not yes that no you can't look at someone go out that your grandfather studied with Gandhi back to the calls we go and in Sacramento once a little information on his father hi and thanks for calling your they ARE done I'm doing great okay I'm gonna mail energy coming through in thing is my head is is is filled with a lot of pressure so I'm getting like a blood pressure surge in my head and I'm getting a lot of coughing coughing coughing occurred like that and I'm feeling a lot of long dysfunction and obstruction it could be something like COPD emphysema I'm type of lung disease but but my head feels like it's just going to explode and what are my enemy to be so graphic but I'm getting this blood pressure surge going into my head now this could be a heart attack but this could also be a small growth and the other thing I'm getting is these electrical singles and shocks going through my body which indicates that there was some type of neurological component or problem with with this gentleman prior to his passing is any of this make sense you yeah yeah okay and Hey somebody connected to your and your dad affiliated with law enforcement because the spirit keep holding up a batch it's holding up a badge and a solid sure star it's like you know the shield type badge that imminent me municipal police where probably wouldn't happen today with the rounding okay so so it may not necessarily be your he's in law enforcement but something connected him involving law enforcement all right that makes sense hold on hold on what's with all the checkbooks if I put you in the Czech books checkbooks ledger sheets if you I don't want to excuse you of losing a check I mean me I I'm I'm I'm a steak using the sofa you just like surrounded by ledger sheets and checkbooks at granite we you know we all have financial issues and statements but he stopped by you and check check check what does that make any sense you know not at the moment I will find out Hey you know he won't give up on the checkbook thing there could have been some type of financial issues in the wake of his past could there be maybe there will be marked absolutely many times spiritual thing bring up things that have not yet come to pass in this thing isn't it George thank you for pointing that out because I'm getting a loss check or something ledger sheet that doesn't add up or is is out of sync so what your dad could be doing is tipping you off to something in your own personal accounting your business that you need to be on the look out for okay the other thing he's done is he's holding up this big heavy rain as a very masculine look to it there's a red stone in it that feels like a garnet and a guard is the birthstone for the month of January this could be an indication of a significant birth death anniversary or event connected you or your father or someone close either review within the month of January super good luck and hope everything works out for you next one we're going to Louise in Louisville Kentucky who believes by the way that she is the reincarnated Cleopatra and she also wants information on Cleopatra hi Louise right thank you for accepting my call we don't want to know is the two ladies that worked with Cleopatra when she died they would know what happened because at this time no one knows what happened so you attach it to see if she falls through mark that would be interesting yeah that would be interesting but I normally don't do past life readings I mean that's not really evidential because there's no way that we can prove that so with all due respect and I appreciate you know your police I'm gonna take a pass but I mean can you contact me Patrick if Cleopatra wanted to come through but I'm not getting anything in that particular van right here you know in in one of my lectures on reincarnation there's a woman of her name was announced that he and right right yeah you you're you're aware of study yeah and yeah and she a verifiable facts of what happened in a previous life according to her during the reign of studies degree and she said that everybody comes the Egypt looking for evidence of past lives in one of her her comments was you have no idea how many Cleopatra's I have that must there be some bond between the living and the dead in order for the communication to occur that I'd say ninety five percent of the time a lot of times somebody in the other five percent somebody may come through that the client did not personally know but that person knows them I disappear come through for us who died in nineteen twelve based on the descriptions that I gave us sing imagery the Titanic in the way of stress and all that which I knew was nineteen twelve and the client said that she was doing a genealogy in our family and I described is great great uncle who had died in nineteen twelve and basically what came through is what what she needed so that that is is possible both like when Michael Jackson died people call me up going all old city contact you yet as well unless the you know look toy or germane Randi gives me a call why would he let's go next to Donna in Cleveland Ohio wants information on her father hi Donna morning thanks for calling have you been well Natchez guide but I just don't know what's what's the matter my own my my cancers come back gosh well we're gonna say a little prayer for you absolutely done I'm so sorry going through that.

U. S. Supreme Court
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

08:18 min | 8 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Please and for the ranks of those adapting to the pandemic by working from home and it might never have been an option before and the U. S. Supreme Court on Monday the court announced that it would hear oral arguments in ten cases still in its docket next month by what they call telephone conference no those are oral arguments ironically there will be more open to the public than in normal times as the press will be able to listen in and record them and play them back on shows like this it's usually no cameras or microphones at the Supreme Court this is gonna be different those coming cases include ones dealing with the release of the president's taxes and other financial records and members of the electoral college might refuse to follow how their states voted the so called faithless electors and someone told me Ruth pater Ginsburg is still going into the Supreme Court building to use the gym Kate McKinnon take note so to talk about what we know about how this will all work and what's at stake in these actual cases I'm joined by Jamie Floyd W. N. Y. C.'s All Things Considered host and legal analyst Hey Jamie hello Brian so the court has postponed its work before because of pandemics I understand that's why isn't right there there is a little history but you know the court is low that to alter its calendar Brian not after sandy they only postponed by one day even though the rest of the capital shut down it carried on after nine eleven despite national turmoil into the month of October so the court is only postponed after the nineteen eighteen flu pandemic they noted this in the press release in March related to covert nineteen and shorten the term once in seventeen ninety two and again in seventeen ninety eight in response to yellow fever outbreaks so very very few postponements or curtailments of the calendar the only postponement really after the nineteen eighteen flu pandemic so this is really quite unprecedented they love to follow precedent at the Supreme that's correct at least they say they do so this one is unprecedented but not only will they hear arguments by telephone conference but as I said they will allow for a live audio stream and that's also unprecedented usually the audio was released only much later reporters cannot record anything while covering the court and so the folks only here live if they're in the room so do we think this might allow the live audio to take root and keep going even when they get back to the bench well there's the good the bad and the ugly of this moment of course they could not hear arguments the chamber holds five hundred people so that was out of the question and as you say Brian on Monday the justices announce that they will hear ten of the remaining cases set for argument by telephone not zoom not facetime teleconference why why do you think not soon let's say I you know I think it was their comfort level and you know it's interesting that you ask that Brian because it's worth noting that state supreme courts have been hearing arguments with video but the Supreme Court stopped short of taking that step up but as you say they will for the first time open a live audio feed so it's good and it's bad you know there are some difficulties I think for the court you know they like to cut in and interrupt each other and the attorneys so they're going to have to set some ground rules I like asking questions perhaps in order of seniority that might be my humble suggestion for doing this over the telephone it's also going to be I think challenging for the attorneys a lot of oral argument Brian if you've been in the in the courtroom or in any court room is an in person affair facial expressions of a wink and nod some humor all of that lost on the telephone it's even lost in video conference to some extent but it's really lost on the telephone so this is going to be challenging but as you suggest Brian the positive is that there will be this live audio feed the first ever and we will have this opportunity to hear for the first time the arguments in real time and you know there has been in the past Brian an opportunity to receive a feed after the fact as you've you and I have many times experienced over the last twenty years or so are there have been thirty cases if you were really about twenty seven cases that they've released the live audio feed for after the fact but and of course we get transcripts but never in real time have we had an opportunity to hear the arguments as they happen so we'll see Brian if it sticks right I don't know they've been very much against cameras in the courtroom maybe this is the chief who has indicated an openness unlike his predecessor Chief Justice Rehnquist and openness to cameras maybe this is his stealth way of opening the door to that possibility will not be able to report on and crucial Supreme Court arguments with sound bites on the same day instead of leaving it to Nina Totenberg to describe in detail copy she does so well is that part of the study to did you say that the Supreme Court justices frequently interrupt each other during oral argument I know they interrupt the lawyers to keep them on point and keep them moving but they interrupt each other is a gag rule so politically correct what is it I think it's with a little touch of humor they'll jump in and I sort of fill out a foster interjection in addition to a question I so yes there's there's interruption of the attorneys which is part of the sort of a playful way in which they are moving the argument along if they feel they've heard enough of a particular answer the way Brian sometimes you'll move me along and and yes they will interrupt one another as well I'm not as much but sometimes they do yes and that's going to be next to impossible I believe in a telephone oral argument and as I said also difficult for the the attorneys to read the judges and and difficult for reporters to read the judge's Nina Totenberg and the like to read the judges as we so often tried reading tea leaves I think maybe it'll be a favor for us because I think often were wrong citizen in Manhattan has a question about these telephone oral arguments houses on your on W. NYC with Jamie Floyd I thank you I'm just trying to find out if those oral arguments are going to be available to the general public yes good yes that is that is the exciting for court watchers news the exciting news here is that for the first time ever we will be able to hear these arguments in real time on Monday the justices announcing that we will be able to hear these arguments as they happen J. O. N. E. we're not in any person with a phone can call in and listen in no I think it will be through through us Brian through news media and I have to say much of this Susan is yet to be worked out we don't even know which arguments we will be hearing when because the schedules of the attorneys need to be worked out the court is still working out exactly how this technology is going to work they simply announced that for the first time now I'm quoting from the press release they will open a live audio feed as the court hears arguments in ten cases and I know buying you wanted to talk a bit about what those cases will be what Susan the precise details of it eight including with which cases will be heard when are still being worked out by the court so we'll take a very short break right now then we'll come back and talk about those cases that.

U. S. Supreme Court
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KDWN 720AM

KDWN 720AM

02:26 min | 8 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KDWN 720AM

"The ruling went up to the U. S. Supreme Court and the conservative majority they're blocked extended voting in Wisconsin by a vote of five to four well of course the Supreme Court is used to voting while social distancing everybody knows is they at least six feet away from Brett Kavanaugh after he's moved is this this these she it's so the the I welcome back folks on.

U. S. Supreme Court Wisconsin Brett Kavanaugh
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

01:54 min | 9 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Stop by our side today and try your luck at winning the luck of the Irish giveaway the U. S. Supreme Court established on the principles of fairness dignity and impartiality but it's really a mess finally on the phone and I want to tell you about a new show I'm working on called five to four nine justices to compose the Supreme Court not the smartest people in the country now we are that every Peter Rhiannon and Michael are gonna take on a legally dubious Supreme Court decision listen and subscribe to five to four free wherever you get your podcasts from the Westwood One podcast network conversations what's going to happen with grace and the life but that's not a reason to stick your head in the sand like an ostrich it's a reason to be proactive and not reactive because the person who plans is going to.

U. S. Supreme Court Peter Rhiannon Michael Westwood One
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

01:34 min | 9 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Or stop by our site today and try your luck at winning the luck of the Irish giveaway the U. S. Supreme Court established on the principles of fairness dignity and impartiality but it's really a mess finally on the phone I want to tell you about a new show I'm working on called five to four nine justices to compose the Supreme Court not the smartest people in the country now we are that every leader Rhiannon and Michael are gonna take on a legally dubious Supreme Court decision listen and subscribe to five to four free wherever you get your podcasts from the Westwood One podcast network conversations why this we work until midnight seven days a week so you never have to take off work to meet us you guys are the.

U. S. Supreme Court Rhiannon Michael Westwood One
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

02:39 min | 9 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"The U. S. Supreme Court was established on the principles of fairness dignity and impartiality but it's really a mess finally on the phone and I want to tell you about a new show I'm working on called five to four nine justices to compose the Supreme Court not the smartest people in the country now we are that every leader Rhiannon and Michael are gonna take on a legally dubious Supreme Court decision listen and subscribe to five to four free wherever you get your podcasts from the Westwood One podcast network conversations great news we found a pot at the end of the rainbow but it wasn't full of gold it was full of four thousand dollars in cash and we want to give it to you I think you have the luck of the Irish teacher to win the luck of the Irish giveaway today and you could win a pot full of cash this will be a Saint paddy's day holiday you'll never forget to add or stop by our site today and try your luck at winning the luck of the Irish giveaway Dr yes the breezy chapters of this wonderful book speak of eternity but they also remind us that we don't have to wait that long to do god's work and further his designs yet rabbi Joseph protest X. new book just give me a minute insights from the radio rabbi go to just give me a minute dot net sponsored by power express mortgage why pay more than you have to go to power.

U. S. Supreme Court Rhiannon Saint paddy Michael Westwood One rabbi Joseph dot
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

02:13 min | 9 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Stop by our site today and try your luck at winning the luck of the Irish giveaway the U. S. Supreme Court established on the principles of fairness dignity and impartiality but it's really a mess finally on the phone and I want to tell you about a new show I'm working on called five to four nine justices to compose the Supreme Court not the smartest people in the country now we are that every Peter Rhiannon and Michael are gonna take on a legally dubious Supreme Court decision listen and subscribe to five to four free wherever you get your podcasts from the Westwood One podcast network conversations great news we found a pot at the end of the rainbow but it wasn't full of gold it was full of four thousand dollars in cash and we want to give it to you I think you have the luck of the Irish teacher to win the luck of the Irish giveaway today and you could win our pot full of cash this will be a Saint paddy's day holiday you'll never forget to add or stop by our site today and try your luck at winning the luck of the Irish giveaway.

U. S. Supreme Court Peter Rhiannon Michael Saint paddy Westwood One
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

06:26 min | 9 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"U. S. Supreme Court was established on the principles of fairness dignity and impartiality but it's really a mess finally on the phone and I want to tell you about a new show I'm working on called five to four nine justices to compose the Supreme Court not the smartest people in the country no we are that every Peter Rhiannon and Michael are gonna take on a legally dubious Supreme Court decision listen and subscribe to five to four free wherever you get your podcasts from the Westwood One podcast network conversations and why tomorrow you may take a while you always learn something my glove and he is on the radio no more margin on talk radio five sixty KSFO show the pool fees for the conservative media diet then now eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one may I say something in my own defense actually made on behalf and it's not intended to be braggadocious and anyway stick with me I'm not looking to make a headline I'm not looking to separate myself from everybody else I look at the facts have a lot of experience in campaigns I am looking at this information reporting it to you in what people were saying Joe Biden was out after Iowa and they were saying he's really out after New Hampshire now they're saying is really really out A. for Nevada I said listen nobody's really voted yet just hang in there he may be out he may not be a I don't know if he's out or not but it's way too early to say he's out with South Carolina coming in even after South Carolina super Tuesday it's just not the case and it's not the case I was never the case nah I'm not gonna tell you who was way out on a limb but people want to go way out on a limb so they can see I told you I'm smarter and analysis I don't who cares it's not about me it's not about them check I'm telling you what's coming in now but the numbers are it looks like Joe Biden could have a pretty damn good night but it also looks like Sanders will do okay if not well he's got California but I suspect Biden's gonna win Texas she got a real horse race going on here yes I keep running to the left but you know what I mean people are projecting their once on to their analysis I'm not projecting my once one of my now I want them all to be defeated especially want Sanders to be defeated I don't hide that but that's not the point I've been around way too long I worked in the seventy six Reagan campaign were lost state after state after state after state police sitting president Gerald Ford and then comes North Carolina a firewall built by Jesse Helms in any wins anyways state after state after state after state I don't remember the exact number but Gerald Ford had a little over a hundred more delegates than Reagan that's it in seventy six so that's my experience I was involved in that campaign so I know enough to say you can't write biting off yet no bags no rackets and I said it's also binds no regular but Sanders a crazy yes may I say with all due respect somebody's got that going for but they're just not enough states and just not enough votes after three very small states come in terms of population have people not Biden is an idiot and I will say this our wonderful president has been blessed with idiots running against Scott a Marxist he's got a moron it's got a fake Indian and he's got an oligarch as soon as this team lined up even before this at the beginning but Cory Booker and this guy Bennett and come out Harrison that Gillette branded on and on and on I told you I've never seen a weaker group of candidates for me the party never it remains a very very weak group and that's a good thing but don't underestimate the power of the media don't underestimate what they've done to our voting system don't underestimate how they've changed the demographics of this country so the president still is up against it and we must fight every one of these battles like we're way behind like the military fights we have to fight politically without the weapons obviously but politically that's how I've always you this and every election now it's at least twenty five dead after tornadoes said Tennessee folks that's a lot of people and the devastation is unbelievable in Nashville Tennessee and again I'm only mentioning this in context with the corona virus because people are worried about what the corona virus could become I am too I understand that the look of mother nature is capable of horrible horrible things pretty tough to get out of the way of a tornado when you're not sure it's coming when you're sleeping at night just flopping around like a nothing Charbel you know you pay off your I. arrested if he could but you can't right you know the money you get further and further behind then you panic now you're asking this important question is this the day the IRS shows up at my.

U. S. Supreme Court
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on WJR 760

WJR 760

03:11 min | 9 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on WJR 760

"The U. S. Supreme Court agrees to decide a lawsuit that challenges the Obama health care law correspondent Sarah Murray provides some details such a huge deal they decided to to to take that to decide the fate of the affordable Care Act but because the next term does not begin until October it will likely not be decided until after the next election cruise ship passengers quarantined at the Travis Air Force base in California for the past two weeks are set to be released here's correspondent Dan Simon in Fairfield California in a very long ordeal for these folks who've been basically holed up in a motel here at the Travis Air Force base for fourteen days under this federally mandated quarantine we understand approximately two hundred or so passengers here they'll go to some merry ports and then hop on flights and then hopefully reconnect with their friends and family here is what is at the heart of stock market fears of coronavirus correspondent Christine Romans explains how companies are reacting there are companies already making very big plans for keeping people at home for canceling conferences for restricting travel for having people really kind of retrenchment retrenchment is something that you know will save some companies money but means they'll be less economic activity right now the Dow Jones thirty industrials are up seventy five the number of corona case buyer a corona virus cases in the U. S. has increased to eighty nine the first two deaths were confirmed the director of the National Institute of infectious diseases Dr Anthony Fauci explains the concept of community spread whenever you have a respiratory disease that's easily transmissible you're going to get community spreading this have become difficult to pinpoint the source of each and every infection and that's exactly what we're seeing in Washington state and now in several of the states throughout the country an outbreak in northern Italy has overwhelmed the public health system there officials are seeking to bring doctors out of retirement and trying to accelerate graduation dates for nursing students as of February twenty second in the current season there were at least thirty two million cases of flu in the U. S. there were three hundred ten thousand hospitalizations for flu and eighteen thousand flu deaths in the U. S. according to the CDC hospitalization rates among children and young adults this year by the standard flu have been unusually high with super Tuesday coming Bernie Sanders was in California giving his final pitch let me tell you something that you already know the candidate who wins in California has an excellent chance to win the democratic nomination Jack Welch has died a long time chairman and CEO of General Electric for twenty years he was considered by many of the business were what is the top CEO of major American businesses he also was vilified by his opponents for cutting thousands of jobs and turning G. from a manufacturing giant into financial services which led G. eat to failure later on after he left Jack Welch was eighty four the computer services company copy where it is being sold to B. M. C. a company based in Houston once again the Dow is up one hundred seventeen.

U. S. Supreme Court
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:34 min | 9 months ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"A U. S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear religious rights case several other same sex couples should be able to be foster parents in San Francisco I'm at Baxter this is Bloomberg thanks a lot you are listening to Bloomberg business week more headlines coming out about the impact of the corona virus on big global companies MasterCard saying that he sees lower revenue growth on the impact of that virus seen growth two to three percentage points slower than previously discussed now seeing euro you you're over your net revenue growth of nine to ten percent in the first quarter that stock falling roughly two percent in the after market Carol yeah debit to half percent the company saying stressing the fundamentals of our business remains strong as our search volume and switch transaction growth remain in line with our expectations expectations however cross border travel and to a lesser extent cross border border e-commerce growth is being impacted by the corona virus as a result we now expect that if the trends we have seen recently primarily in our cross border drivers continue through the end of the quarter year over year net revenue growth in the first quarter will be approximately two to three percentage points lower than discussed on our January twenty ninth twenty twenty earnings call I mean this is the point isn't it you know the longer it goes on it is going to have a material impact on various companies and their businesses so they've got a you know they have obligations to investors to lay it out there and so the longer it happens in this is business that you will not necessarily get back right at some point right going to have to move forward but you know I'm not surprised to see on a day like this for companies are coming out the markets were battered stocks overall were battered that if you want to kind of dump some bad news this is not a bad time to do it well I'm glad you said that because that's exactly what it feels like to me as well that like this is the moment where everybody's going to come out and say okay I'm I'm just gonna put it out there maybe even if it's a little bit more conservative in saying that you know could be this bad or whatever it is so to get that out there now I mean certainly the idea master card in United both coming out and saying look folks things are going to be different they're going to be worse than we thought it can always rebound by that sort of getting that bad news out on the table as you say it may be that played a Kerr all right you're listening to Bloomberg businessweek kalma so along with Jason Kelly coming up we'll talk about brand intimacy this is Bloomberg I do check out today's Bloomberg business week podcast for a thorough discussion thoughtful discussion two of today's selloff with Randy wants to William o'neill and we get an inside look.

U. S. Supreme Court
"u. s supreme court" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

02:05 min | 1 year ago

"u. s supreme court" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Use the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the trump administration can divert military funds to pay for the construction of a border war the Chinese government has attracted attention in the past for trying to police the everyday behavior of its people as before the two thousand eight Olympics Beijing band spitting on sidewalks and used a variety of methods to encourage locals to form orderly lines when boarding buses one band this year is raising eyebrows inside China and out it's a new rule instituted into Chinese cities that prohibits men from wearing bikinis no not the bikini your probably imagining it's a ban on the so called Beijing bikini the look some men sport in the summer when they roll up their T. shirts even their torsos bear ironically Beijing bikinis aren't banned in Beijing itself so earlier this week it didn't take me long to come across a few during a walk in the city I'm in one of Beijing's beautiful city parks that the sun is just starting to set on a very hot muggy summer day here all week the temperatures have been in their thirties and this is the time of the day when the park starts to fill up when the temperatures are just cool enough for people bill to come out and relax and enjoy themselves and I have seen one one real Beijing bikini a man wearing denim shorts and running shoes he took his black tee shirt and pulled it up and tucked underneath his armpits exposing his spelling out that men in particular had quite a flat stomach but let me tell you there have been some quite we found Beijing bikini valleys on display as well but somehow it all just kind of fits in nobody really that's an island at the sight of of a man's torso a man's round stomach on display it's just part of the scene here the Beijing bikini is still allowed in China's capital but it's now bands and a few major cities in China team then and since you come.

U. S. Supreme Court Chinese government China Beijing