15 Burst results for "U.S. Court Of Appeals"

A Top BLM Leader Is Accused of Stealing From the Organization

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

01:12 min | 2 months ago

A Top BLM Leader Is Accused of Stealing From the Organization

"There is a very amusing controversy involving Black Lives Matter and involves a guy, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter stealing from Black Lives Matter. So this guy and I got to say a little bit of a tribute to him because he's kind of ingenious in the way he defends his thievery. And we'll come to that. Basically, his argument is that I'm a thief, but I'm stealing from an organization based on thievery, and moreover, he says, you know, these are people who have basically said the justice system is racist and they basically said the cops are racist and they've said essentially that a black man can get a freed fair trial in America. Now they're trying to go after me and do what? Put me into court, accuse me of thievery, appeal to the courts, appeal to the justice system. He goes, I learned from them that the justice system can't be trusted. So I can't be tried in that kind of a system, so I love this because here's a guy basically it's sort of like one of the crooks calling out these crooked principles and saying, didn't we all agree that we're crooks? Didn't we all agree that we don't live by the law? If you are an outlaw organization, why don't you tolerate an outlaw like me within the organization?

America
"u.s. court appeals" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:01 min | 11 months ago

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

"Had behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel Your honor Joining me is Liga litman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leah this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued But the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state law That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court set the case back now to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you test the Supreme Court need to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow Texas to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is Zola fiing people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay its resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case just higginson in the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court appeals after the federal oral argument on this motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as in a meeting because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court confused case wrong And so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite casti oral argument Thanks Leah That's professor Leo lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg You you come into bed Hun Yep honey I'll be right there Just gotta turn.

Supreme Court United States Texas Supreme Court Liga litman Texas University of Michigan law sch Court of Appeals judge Higgins Edith Jones Texans Zola fiing FDA United States Court of Appeals U.S. court roe wade higginson Leo lit Leah Netflix
"u.s. court appeals" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:01 min | 11 months ago

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

"Behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel No your honor Joining me is Leah littman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leo this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued What the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state laws That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court sent the case back now to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you have the Supreme Court need to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow Texas to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is Zola fiing people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay as resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case judge higginson and the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court appeals optic federal oral argument on the motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as in a mucus because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court's office case wrong And so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite casby oral argument Thanks Leah That's professor Leo lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg Introducing venture.

Supreme Court United States Leah littman Texas Supreme Court Texas University of Michigan law sch Court of Appeals judge Higgins Edith Jones Texans Zola fiing FDA United States Court of Appeals U.S. court roe wade higginson Leo lit Leah Netflix
"u.s. court appeals" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

07:52 min | 11 months ago

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

"Circuit Court of Appeals considered the most conservative circuit in the country held oral arguments over whether the Texas Supreme Court should weigh in on the Texas law banning most abortions I've been talking to professor Lea littman of the University of Michigan law school The Supreme Court sent it back to the 5th circuit specifically and then the 5th circuit should have sent it back to the federal judge who initially decided the case Yes I think that that's correct The reason why the United States Supreme Court sent this case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th circuit is that they the United States Supreme Court technically heard this case on what is called a petition for surgery before judgment in the court of appeal And when the Supreme Court does that they will often then staff the case back to the Court of Appeals But here there really wasn't anything for the Court of Appeals to do given that the United States Supreme Court had resolved the arguments in the case about whether the defendants were proper parties to be sued and they both could and should have immediately set the case back down to the district court to do what was next on the district court list of things to do which was considered the providers request for an injunction against the law Now the district court judge seems inclined to find in favor of the abortion providers I mean could we consider that as a reason why the 5th circuit didn't send it back to the district court judge I think absolutely The district judge in this case has issued one injunction against FDA that was in the case that the United States brought against Texas and it seems earlier in this case the case brought by the providers to be on the cost of entering an injunction against FDA And we know that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th circuit didn't think that there should be an injunction against this law It's days that as it put on hold the proceedings in the district court in the case involving the providers So this case And then it previously stayed the injunction that is put on hold the injunction that the district court had issued in the case brought by the United States So it seems like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th circuit is very rare that the district court is inclined to enjoin this law and that they don't think it should be enjoyed I don't understand why the Supreme Court took this route instead of just do they just want to avoid deciding the ultimate question There's no way of knowing that but it just seems like this is this is a ridiculous to be sending it back to the 5th circuit Based on how the Supreme Court wrote the opinion in this case it did not seem like they thought there was any need for expediency to get this law off the book and to stop it from being informed even though they heard the case on an expedited schedule they took their time deciding the case and then they did not issue a stay against the law while they were considering it And so it doesn't seem like a majority of the court believes that it is an urgent matter to put this law on hold and allow abortion to resume in Texas And again the way the justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the core made clear that their conclusion that the providers could sue the state licensing officials with merely because of their interpretation between cores interpretation of how this state law was written And so they invited and opened up the door for this challenge that the Supreme Court has not interpreted the state law correctly The dissenting judges the chief justice together with the democratic appointees made clear that basically no matter how the state wrote this law the providers could add a minimum to the state court clerk and the state attorney general But because the majority dismissed that possibility they created this universe in which the providers lawsuit rose or fell depending on the proper interpretation of the state law and who was gained enforcement authority to So the judges if the Supreme Court upholds Mississippi's abortion law how does that affect the Texas abortion law It will certainly make it more likely that the Texas abortion law could be upheld if a court were to reach the merits of the lawsuit Tactically the issues that the course are deciding right now are not whether the law is unconstitutional but instead whether the law can be challenged in federal court Now if the Supreme Court upholds in Mississippi statues in either overrules formerly roe versus wade or dramatically modifies then that would create the possibility that were a federal court to reach the merit of whether Texas SBA is constitutional They could possibly hold it One of the judges said normally this court isn't litigating on behalf of one side or the other And I know I've said isn't this unusual Twice already during this interview but that also seems really odd for a judge to say There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case Just higginson in the dissenting opinion when the U.S. courts appeals after the schedule oral argument on this motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as an amateur because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right on the other hand you have the two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes that the oral arguments suggesting the Supreme Court got this case wrong and so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite testy oral argument It seems like a complete and total uphill battle for the abortion providers Just it seems to indicate how smart it was for the right to life people in Texas to frame the law in this way I think yes and no These arguments only had a chance of succeeding given the change composition of the Supreme Court as well as the very very conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th circuit The two judges on this panel include one who has written an opinion criticizing roe versus wade is urging the Supreme Court to overrule it So this is a very favorable panel And I don't think honestly much depended on the fact that the law was crafted this particular way rather it depends on the composition of the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court and the fact that they are very hostile to the rights to an abortion What about the Texas Supreme Court The Texas Supreme Court I'm not as familiar with them but I don't think anyone thinks of them as a left leaning court I don't know however what they might say were the issue to be certified to them as I expect it will be Thanks Leah That's professor Lee lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Supreme Court seems hesitant about the vaccine mandate for most workers This is Bloomberg For the Jewish community.

Supreme Court U.S. Court of Appeals United States Texas Lea littman University of Michigan law sch district court Court of Appeals Texas Supreme Court FDA Gorsuch Circuit Court of Appeals roe versus wade Mississippi higginson SBA wade Lee lit University of Michigan law sch Leah
"u.s. court appeals" Discussed on Uncontrolled Airspace: General Aviation Podcast

Uncontrolled Airspace: General Aviation Podcast

09:39 min | 1 year ago

"u.s. court appeals" Discussed on Uncontrolled Airspace: General Aviation Podcast

"Lee loud back in the air shows does demonstrations in the mustang of video has a letter abbreviation authority to you. Know grants him the ability to do this without violating and erects. They also give in just straight up flight instruction in the to place mustangs that they've got rights and i haven't reached out to find out whether they've suspended pending the clarification from the faa But no one knows folks. Whether do they're not going to risk their whole operation doing this. This whole thing got started because a florida base operation with a to. C p curtiss p forty in certificates unlimited limited category basically refused to get a letter of of deviation from the faa even after the faa came with them and said. Hey guys you know we see you're doing this. You're you're violating the rags. I'll let us help you get a lotta to hand. And they basically reviewed said. We're going to keep doing what we're doing. And which were this case arose. Who was who was the plaintiff in the in the original suit who who actually parv justice. So faa wasn't it wasn't a suit it was an enforcement action okay and and the operator appealed or questioned the faa's ability to. I don't remember the exact legal basis that it went to court and went before judge but the judge in that rented this decision. That said you know you're carrying somebody get a grip here guys. And that's not the way this works. Yeah i hadn't realized that the faa was quote unquote plaintiff Which kind of in my mind begins to explain. Why the faa didn't immediately turn around and say no never mind. This is not that they sort of have to defend their position And so anyways. I gotta figure this is a question is gonna come up in the meet. The boss sex session if it happens. It's going to be a meet. The boss i sure. Of course. I don't know i also we're talking about oshkosh folks and One of the one of the annual sessions usually anyways is the meet the administrator which people have been nicknamed meet the boss I haven't used to be called. meet the boss. I think they. I think in the under jane garvey. I think but in but somewhere along the line it became much more efficient. And it's now me talking to talk the administrator or something like that and but regular folks attendees to stand up in the audience and ask questions. And i gotta figure that this would come up if if that session happens. Which time'll tell speaking of which. I got a kick out of the letter that the Alphabet set yeah. Just one sentence here made me smile. Says and i'm quoting here. Labeling the agency stance a reflection of quote unnecessary and unwarranted guidelines based upon irrational legal positions. A group of eleven aviation organizations respond to the joint letter calling for an immediate revision of the agency's position that this requires a letter of deviation authority and that the training is flying for hire when it's flying for flight instruction you pay the flight instructor and what about two guys it using our own airplanes. If they're not in a one thirty five operation they allowed to do that. It just makes things crazier and crazier it does. And that's really kind of tack. That i took my. I started looking at this at this. Was if if any is basically saying that flight instruction is a commercial operation. And that's okay. That's the real. I think long term danger here. I think they could. They could put up for him up on the website. Here's your loda sinus and back to a. Sometime and be done with right but they're not. Yeah it's it's. It's a mess because it's based on i mean You know that Traditionally this is this whether or not this is against some rule. It's rule that's been accepted accepted. Kurt forever and the agencies given up over time its ability to regulate this activity in this fashion because they chose not to so yeah for years for decades anyways. We'll see what happens. We'll report back but against right now because you cannot prohibit flight training that's just nuts. It's f for those that are interested. This little bit of bureaucratic foo bar came from an april two ruling by the. Us court appeals for the district of columbia is denying a petition. to review. emergency cease and desist order issued by the f. a. against florida-based vintage. Flight school warburg adventures. You know there's no desist and other courts in federal court. It seems like crushing. it doesn't mean anything anymore. Well the okay. That's a that's we'll bring that up on the on the on the legal industry podcast anyways. All right moving on here so camp after dark had hey. I had eight nine c. okay. I had a really nice segue a minute ago. But it's gone now so we're a little over two weeks away from air venture oshkosh and it's You know in these pandemic times it of course is going to be an interesting adventure First of all let me just say a few words about About uncontrolled airspace at at Air venture So we going back to the spring we as everyone knows or most people know we chose not to attend sunan fun because we felt like the conditions were not conducive at that time and i think that was still the good decision. we I'm going speak mostly for myself. And the number. Let you guys chime in here. Conditions have improved dramatically since the spring. And i personally believe that is reasonably safe with certain precautions to hold an event like air venture And so i you know. I sort of endorsed that they are going to go ahead with air venture and and i personally intend on attending At least for part of the week. I'm mary may not stay the entire week mostly unrelated to kobe just for personal reasons. I may not stay the whole week but But i do expect to go and so i'm a i'm all excited quite frankly Oshkosh in general and oshkosh returns and air flying's return and all this. I'm looking forward to it I'm i'm driving on the lender two weeks two weeks from yesterday theoretically drive away and going to pitch my tent in camp bacon again this year and visit with all my friends and coworkers from airplanes and do some stuff and so So there's that we we're going to do very limited or reduced you cap presence at oshkosh. Even though some are all of us will be there. they will not be a sunday morning live show from the from the announcer stand Mostly because it's unlikely to all three of us will still be there on sunday morning We up sadly we've decided to not do tie-down party this year. And i know a lot of people look forward to it us included but For a number of different reasons. We're not gonna do a tie-down party at at our venture this year I fully expect. It will return next year but not no tie-down party this year and I would imagine that we will do some sort of daily episodes For whatever duration were therefore so So it's kind of it's it's it's not nothing but it's not like usual hats and it's gonna be fun i it's going to be a crazy show. I think it's going to be huge crowds but having said that. What are you guys. Want to say about your intentions and plans and whatnot for air venture into weeks now. My yeah i know i'm honestly on defense right now. Yeah but unrelated to kobe right. You apparently unrelated to kobe. Just raise it that you know unrelated to covid. There's personal stuff going on. That makes it difficult for you to be there. That would work okay So what's your situation. Well i've got a lot of conflicting deadlines. Work work related deadlines. I also don't have a place to stay since we're not doing the trader thing again this year.

faa jane garvey florida Air venture Lee oshkosh Kurt columbia Oshkosh mary Us kobe
"u.s. court appeals" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

James Wilson Institute Podcast

04:59 min | 1 year ago

"u.s. court appeals" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast

"Josh hammer. Josh is newsweek. Opinion editor a research fellow with the edmund burke foundation he previously worked at kirkland ellis in clerked for judge james c of the. Us court appeals for the fifth circuit. He'll be s from duke university and a j d from the university of chicago law. School josh is on to discuss his new harvard journal of law and public policy as a common good originalism. Our tradition and our path forward. The essay grew out of a piece that he wrote. As part of symposium with claremont institute's publication. The american. Mind that i our founder and director hadley arcus also contributed to its for a lot of a potential exploration of path forward for conservative jurisprudence. And so we're really pleased to have him with us. Also joining us on. Podcast is one of our interns. Tom's roof tom. Why don't you get started josh. Give us a sense of what you understand. Conservatism to be specifically. How does the common good relate to conservatism as a value. Right because leftism has collectivism as a common good value. But why is that antithetical to your project from the left. And then from the right. What distinguishes you from someone. Like professor adrian mule and his concept of common good constitutionalism. Sure yeah so garrett and james wilson's shoot. Thanks so much for for having me back. I i take pleasure in hinting. A return guests of this wonderful program so happy that you're kicking us off on this. No because i think defining what conservatism is or at least have as i construe it is definitely kind of a necessary precondition of sorts for understanding. Why the our understanding why what is currently offered as a purportedly conservative jurisprudence simply does not rise to that occasion. So you know look i A lot of this is going to be Beyond the confines of what we can talk about here. I think scholars continue to debate. What conservatism is. But you know speaking. Personally my own you of of what. Conservatism is is definitely informed. Quite heavily by my my colleague In many ways kind of One of not my of preeminent mentor Which is a euro-zone as the president of the burke foundation. Where research fellow. And he's understanding. What conservatism is which i think most clearly outlined the twenty seventeen american affairs journal long-form essay with our other colleague for your high avery. Abi i think it's closest to what i have in mind when i talk about conservatism..

burke foundation Josh hammer kirkland ellis judge james c harvard journal of law and pub claremont institute hadley arcus josh adrian mule newsweek duke university university of chicago Josh james wilson garrett Tom tom Us avery
What will the Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation mean for the 2020 election?

BBC World Service

04:00 min | 2 years ago

What will the Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation mean for the 2020 election?

"We can talk about murder boards. Because Amy Cockney Barrett has just being doing them. I've never heard of murder balls before One of our guests was saying it's the American phrase for a Nintendo practice interrogations where you get people to take you through what you're about to go through. If you're about to go through, for example, the confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court because she is President Trump's pick to fill the vacancy of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Her appointment would cement Conservative majority on the Supreme Court with enormous political implications. Eyes like nothing seen in U. S history, so close to a presidential election, his Barbara Plata Amy Cockney. Barrett is a dream nominee for those on the right, but it is my honor to nominate One of our nation's most brilliant And gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court Appeals court judge is a formidable intellect, a devout Catholic, a supermom with seven Children. While I am a judge, I'm better known back home as a room, parent, carpool driver and staunchly conservative, although at this White House ceremony, she distanced herself from partisan divides. If confirmed, I would not assume that role for the sake of those in my own circle. And certainly not for my own sake. I would assume this role to serve you. It's just weeks from the election, but nothing is getting in the way of the rush to confirm the new Supreme Court Justice, the third nominated by President Trump, the stakes are just too high. Processes nomination consistent with rules. And I look forward to coming days will be a lot of fun. It will be fun for them. See Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and other Republicans because it's an unprecedented chance to secure a conservative majority on the court for a generation. And also to recharge the election campaign by energizing the base help Amy Barrett and President Trump Fight back stand up for conservative values Republicans But also Democrats have adjusted their campaign adverts to address the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court is rushing through a Supreme Court nominee to do just that step away care from millions of Americans and pre existing condition protections for Democrats. This is a nightmare, a job for life. A court that sets the nation's social and cultural direction on issues like gay rights, gun control, abortion and Obama care. Judge Barrett is very fair, but fans of Judge Conti Barrett are convinced she's the best candidate for the job. She's a popular law professor and Laura Walk was one of her students. Judge Barrett is not swayed by any type of personal preferences or things like that again. Witness that in the classroom no one ever knew what Judge Barrett thought about an issue. She never let her students he never Pressured them to think a certain way. Everything was hyper focused on the law. Democrats don't have the votes to stop this, and they're furious about the politics. Today I am nominating Chief Judge Merrick Brian Garland to join the Supreme Court. In 2016, Republicans blocked President Obama from filling a Supreme Court seat because it was an election year. But now that they're in power, they've changed their tune. And the conservative media is almost giddy with excitement. This is going to have a massive impact on the American judiciary, thus gonna have a massive impact. On American culture and society. If Donald Trump secures the Supreme Court seat, even if he doesn't win the election, his presidency will be deemed a success by the ideological right and by evangelical Christians. That's why they voted for him, and it will be remembered as a turning point for the nation on some of the issues that matter the most to Americans.

Supreme Court Amy Cockney Barrett President Trump Chief Judge Merrick Brian Garl Barack Obama Murder Ruth Bader Ginsberg Professor Nintendo Amy Cockney Senate Judiciary Committee White House U. S Barbara Plata Graham Laura Walk Chairman
Uber gets 18-month London license after winning court appeal

The Paul W. Smith Show

05:58 min | 2 years ago

Uber gets 18-month London license after winning court appeal

"Quarter uber lost $1.8 billion because of the covert pandemic. I mean, think about it. How often have you called up an uber or a lift? To catch a ride since the pandemic hit. I mean, I know personally, we used these uber and our family quite a bit a couple times a month between the five of us now we probably haven't used it twice. In four or five months. The company is trying Teo, you know, survive and come back and part of that involves expanding and having rideshare all around the world, including London, where Uber was able to get their license back after winning the court challenge and join us on the phone Now to talk about this is Simon Oh, and Fox News correspondent Welcome to the Bobby Smith Show. My morning, Kevin. So sort of walk us through this. What is what has been the history of uber in London? And then where do we stand today? Why's this ruling so important? That is a troubled history. But this is certainly a crucial victory for uber the taxi service that, as you say, spread all over the world in in recent years, But that rapid expansion as bean bumpy at times on DH no less so than here in the British capital on who ended up being stripped of its license to operate here last year. There's bean a Serie of skirmishes with the transport authority before that, on DH Uber was then told last November that that was it. It was being banned for what transport for London said with a pattern of failings, including summit said that puts passengers at risk well. Uber appealed that ruling. Went across it apologize. It was contrite. It accepted there had bean flaws in the past, but it said it had changed, but it has put things right on DH. Now A judge has sided with the company and the magistrate who heard this case. 10 a crime, said that while Uber wass guilty of historic failings, he said, its record Was improving on that he was satisfied that it is now in the words they used fit and proper to hold a license. So whoever is back it is very happy. London today particularly lucrative market it count 3.5 million regular customers here, so those 3.5 million people can continue to use. That the service transport regulator says it will be watching you that very closely. Yes. So you know here in the states, uber had a bumpy start here is well, And the biggest concern, of course, was people safety and there would be a report here and then a report there and and all of a sudden people were very concerned about how safe they were getting in a car with a stranger. But uber seemed to put together quite a lengthy list of Of things that they that they go through to make sure that the rider's air safe the background checks and being able to identify that driver actually is a driver. The biggest problem after they started went through their their safety checks was, you know, making sure customers got in the right car that they were supposed to be getting in more than anything else? I have had They done that in London. Do they have the same safety procedures? Do they? They make sure that they do background checks on all of that on the drivers, and they do checks on the cars. You know, At first, there were there were not Checks on the actual fitness of the automobiles, But they changed that as well. The car's all have to go in and get checked out before somebody can become another driver. Well, I mean, it's certainly change from the kind of it's almost quite loose seeming ride, hailing service that it used to be way you accepted that it was just going to be a stranger, perhaps rolling up in their car, making a few dollars on the side and taking you around now it's very much much more like a taxi company on duty, said that it'd have increased its safety precautions that said that this verdict is a recognition of its commitment to safety and that it will continue to work constructively. With the regulator. But transport for London laid out a series of floors that it that I had identified last year and perhaps the most car racing complaint from the regulator. It's said that there was a florin uber systems that was allowing unauthorized drivers to upload their photos to another drivers accounts essentially borrow the accounts and make some money. For themselves, and so uber had Bean saying, You know, we've got this sorted. We're doing background checks on the drivers. They've overto have accounted their photos on. And then it turned out there was this huge loophole in the system that meant that wasn't really a promise that was worth more than the paper. It was. It was written in because transport for London said that those uninsured rides involving an unauthorized drivers It says that they carried out more than 14,000 rides before uber fixed this floor so pretty kind of damning indictment from the regulator now at the same time Stream, a half million regular customers. That's a lot. That's a significant proportion of London's population. And so I think this is probably quite helpful for the transport regulator and the mayor of London as well because they had officially kicked to browse and got rid of it. Then you would have some Customer to kind of got attached to ever much cheaper than traditional black cabs here. And so this perhaps works for both sides that the Duke said it has tightened up its safety precautions on for the regulator. It's able to keep you were operating and keep happy that the three million Londoners who use it

London Uber Bean Kevin TEO Fox News Simon Oh Bobby Smith
Uber spared from London ban despite 'historical failings'

WSJ Tech News Briefing

01:44 min | 2 years ago

Uber spared from London ban despite 'historical failings'

"Uber can continue to operate in London for now last year regulators there decided not to renew the ride hailing giants licensed to operate but yesterday the company won its court appeal of that decision our reporter Sam Schechner has more. Regulator said that they had found instances in which unauthorized drivers swap their phones with others, allowing them to pick up writers themselves, which is obviously a a safety issue. Uber's been operating this whole time in London but under the threat that they could be shut down if their appeals don't win and so they court found that has implemented new safety protocols and while not perfect, it is fit to hold a license in the UK. For Uber London is one of the company's biggest global markets and the news comes as Uber is working to build trust with regulators there and around the world under former CEO, Travis Kalmyk. The company often pushed the regulatory and legal envelope to try and speed up growth and in doing. So they often clashed with lawmakers Kalmyk departed as CEO in two thousand seventeen and left the board the last year. And you may remember that Amazon had to postpone its annual Prime Day sales event earlier this summer at that point, the company was struggling to keep up with the crush of orders as the pandemic set in. Now, we've got a new date for prime day and actually it'll be two days October thirteenth and fourteenth while the event normally helps pull in sales during the lull of summer shopping this year, it could help the company break its fourth-quarter earnings record retail analysts are expecting a big showing because of the combination of Prime Day holiday shopping and the general consumer shift to ECOMMERCE.

Travis Kalmyk Uber London London CEO Sam Schechner Amazon Reporter UK
Uber gets back London license after winning court challenge

AP News Radio

00:45 sec | 2 years ago

Uber gets back London license after winning court challenge

"But can keep operating in London after the ride hailing company won a court appeal against the refusal by transport regulators to renew its license the American company had challenged transport for London's decision in late twenty nineteen not to renew its private high vehicle or PHEV operating license over safety concerns involving imposter drivers the magistrate says he took into account whose efforts to improve oversight and didn't find any evidence of a cover up of the driver photo fool problem however he says he wants to hear from lawyers from both sides before deciding how long was last and should be under what conditions it should operate Charles the last month London

London Charles
Washington DC’s highest court grants bar exam waiver for recent law school grads

WTOP 24 Hour News

00:45 sec | 2 years ago

Washington DC’s highest court grants bar exam waiver for recent law school grads

"He sees highest court has made a ruling that opens the door for more law school grads to practice in the district. The D. C. Court appeals approves an emergency waiver related to the pandemic, known as diploma privilege for grads to be licensed in practice law without taking the bar exam. Olivia Carson with diploma privilege for D C, which petitioned the court says they're happy with the order but does produce obstacles for currently employed grads to get the wave. It's leaving out people who We'll have a hard time getting a supervisor to sign off on every single document that they have to produce. CC becomes the fifth jurisdiction in the country to offer the waiver. Ken Duffy w T. O P News

D. C. Court Olivia Carson Ken Duffy W T. O Supervisor
The Cat and Mouse Game at the Mexico-U.S. Border

The World and Everything In It

09:21 min | 2 years ago

The Cat and Mouse Game at the Mexico-U.S. Border

"Paso del Norte Bridge Pass of the North here people crossed from Horace to Al Paso or Paso to warez every day they crossed by car and foot to go to work to school to shop to visit family chaos and clutter hustle and bustle and adjacent train trestle called Black Bridge crosses nearby the scene of the tragic shooting. So many years ago. US border, patrol agent shot, and killed a fifteen year old Mexican boy after that. So what happened at the Rio Grande? Well, the facts are disputed. So we'll tell both sides of the story was talking about the circumstances that brought about the shooting the boy's parents say Sergio was playing a game with friends run across the border to the US side touch defense run back without getting. Caught kind of like a game of chicken. Yeah. I mean what kid hasn't played some version of that Game Kisha branch works for Barra Borderland Connections a nonprofit helping asylum seekers. She spends her days at shelters in El, Paso and shelters in Horace. She works closely with migrants and Border Patrol agents all that to say she's familiar with the area and the dichotomy of working with both sides. There are some kids that that play at the border, the border in New Mexico in an opera. There's a community right beside the border wall. There's a a lot of land and there's a trash pile, and so sometimes, the like moms will go out in like pick things out of the trash Powell for their homes like for household items. There are people that go into that space like where we go to visit the wall there some kids that come up to the wall and they talk to us and we'll just have conversations with them. So. Yeah. Are Kids that play in that area, but they play in the area because it's their backyard. But that's in an opera. What about downtown in the Rio Grande Canal by the bridge where the shooting happened according to my cabdriver it's not generally an area where kids play. Do kids play around the fence around the border. No. They don't let them get near. So that leads us to the other side of the story. Border Patrol says, Sergio was a coyote helping undocumented people illegally cross into the United States. coyotes often use coordinated distraction techniques. Draw the agents attention away from his surroundings victim. An Harrah's was the chief Border Patrol agent out of Paso when the shooting occurred he's now retired we used to call those still do they would call it a sacrificial room. Send someone a across or group appeal across to get the agent to react get the agent to start chasing a group and and what they do is soon as the agent leaves that that high. Position they say whatever they want to send. WHAT THE REAL INTENT It's almost like a diversion. So that happens all the time dangerous game, the game of cat-and-mouse. The boys ran back and forth across the border agent Mesa detained. One of Sergio's friends Sergio ran back to the Mexican side. He hid behind a pillar under the train trestle. That's when agent Mesa shot him in the face. Mesa says Sergio and his friends were throwing rocks, both men, Harrah's and George Gomez. The agent I talked with at the beginning of this episode, Say agents are trained for physical assaults cures, Gomez. Goh, there's different scenario that we run the training. Obviously, I think covered drive away from the air run seek cover and backup call for backup deescalate. Behavior. Here's the thing I don't want to downplay rock-throwing. David. With Iraq agent Mesa may very well have been endangered. Peres. Getting right and he's got a he's hunched over the guy that he was arresting. And you got your back towards man. You're you're you're really at risk even under the high pressure of split-second decision making the use of lethal force here has been criticized bystanders video captured the fatal shooting. In the video Sergio unarmed again, Kisha Branch who works at the border. The story that came out in the news is different from a story that we hear from the agents themselves. So I don't. I don't I have I have no answers Sergio's parents of course, do want answers and a legal remedy. Meaning an award of damages, the family believes the US. Constitution. Guarantees Sergio certain rights now the constitution of the United States setup the framework for the American government and the various rights people have with respect to the government right and the constitution applies to more than US citizens the preamble the very beginning of constitution says we the people of the United States so it doesn't specify Melvin Odi is a constitutional law professor at Faulkner University. which generally talking about in the way, the courts interpret these things into generally talking about the people who comprise the United States. We the people of the United States People Citizens Resident Aliens International Travelers in this country on holiday or for business when you're in the United States, those protections apply to you. But when you go back to wherever your home country is, those objections do not apply United States meaning of course, that's going to be. The Continental United States, but also include The US territories the special maritime jurisdiction of the United States which would be like on the seas. As far as the borders. The constitution applies within our borders and again sort of the territories that we control. Chris Galindo is one of the lawyers who represented the Hernandez family. Here's a clip from a video called Justice for Sergio Audio and Spanish here from a univision news investigation. Dominicano. Wasim Anthem Nisa. He says, can we sue the American government to be sure Hernandez was in Mexico and is Mexican the American government said we can't sue them because this is Mexico. Not The United States we're saying not bullet originated in the United States and they have to pay for the injustice. They did Moses Shindo is guy. I WITH MY NEIGHBORS GET TICKET WINDOW GOES ON WE are saying there are certain laws and certain ways. The Border Patrol agents need to treat human beings Mexican or American according to United States Laws Federal K. K. K. K.. You the Sergio's mom pleads God for help for justice this is going to haunt me until I leave this world. This acronym you can. Okay. Vido. Sergio's parents sued agent Mesa in Federal Court for excessive use of force. They claim Mesa violated Sergio's rights under the fourth and fifth amendments. Now here's a reminder of what those are faulkner professor Melvin Odi. Okay so The Fourth Amendment Fifth Amendment each sort of presents a bundle of rights but the fourth amendment in particular. Presents a list of restrictions on government agents were investigating crimes. Okay. So the prominent one is protection against. Searches and seizures. The court has interpreted seizure to include killing the taking of human. Life. Would have been saying. This was an unreasonable search and seizure the fifth amendment includes several closets. Relevant one, but there's a catch all. Near the end of the Fifth Amendment that says a person can't read deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. So. In this case, the young man's life was taken. And the Fifth Amendment says, you can't do that without due process of without fundamentally fair legal proceedings. The first time this case worked its way through the court system the fifth US Circuit Court. Of Appeals dismissed the case it held Sergio's parents were not entitled to fourth and Fifth Amendment protections under various legal doctrines, but the Supreme Court said the fifth circuit and properly applied those legal doctrines. So it vacated the decision rendered null and void that was Hernandez one in. Two thousand, seventeen, the Supreme Court then remanded the case with specific instructions. It's at another question needed to be addressed. I is a givens remedy available. The Fifth Circuit said, no in this Supreme Court, appeal followed Hernandez

Sergio United States Border Patrol Mesa United States People Citizens Us Circuit Court Sergio Audio Paso Del Norte Bridge Pass American Government Rio Grande Hernandez Supreme Court George Gomez Horace Fifth Circuit Harrah Barra Borderland Connections New Mexico Melvin Odi El, Paso
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives at courthouse for start of corruption trial

Weekend Edition Sunday

03:32 min | 2 years ago

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives at courthouse for start of corruption trial

"A big court room drama has begun in Jerusalem today the state of Israel versus Benjamin Netanyahu the longest serving prime minister in Israel's history is now the country's first sitting prime minister to face criminal charges while still in office if convicted he could spend years behind bars corruption scandals are brought down other leaders in Israel but not Netanyahu's just begun a new term NPR's Daniel Estrin is joining us now from the courthouse and we should say there is some delay on the line Daniel what was the scene when the turn of a right to the courthouse and he gave a surprise fifteen minute speech on live TV he was surrounded by some of his ministers any alleged that this is all one big conspiracy he said the police justice officials the media are all trying to take me down he said the left wing doesn't like that I won't remove Jewish settlements in the west bank and the left wing couldn't vote me out for more than a decade so they're trying to take me down in courts we journalists were in the courthouse we watched the hearing on closed circuit TV screens everyone in the courthouse wore face masks including Netanyahu and throughout the whole hearing you could hear Bibi Netanyahu supporters right outside the courtroom and the courthouse if they were with loud speakers they were playing music they were singing BB king of Israel so no backing down either from the prime minister or his supporters quickly remind us what charges he's facing well the most serious charges bribery he's accused of using his power to pull strings with government regulations to help a media mogul make hundreds of millions of dollars and in exchange getting secret control over a leading news website he allegedly got to dictate what headlines and articles would appear and that apparently went on for years including he was running for reelection and then he's also charged with fraud and breach of trust for other alleged deals with other media moguls and Netanyahu's defense here is that the charge is totally bogus no leader in the history of democracy has ever been accused of bribery for press coverage what is expected for how the trial will play out and whether it will affect Netanyahu's new term in office well today the toenails lawyers argued that they need about a year and a half just to go over all the evidence and prepare before the trial can actually start in full swing and then when it does the entire trial could take a couple years more there are hundreds of witnesses his former aides may testify against him in court and he doesn't have to step down until a final conviction in the Supreme Court appeal if there is one so for years you know he will try to project in this as usual but every move he makes every decision he makes as a leader there will be speculation you know is he trying to distract from his trial this is never happened before an Israeli prime minister facing a criminal trial and also running a country at the same time what does this say about where Israel is right now but on the one hand I think it says it is a strong message that no one is above the law in Israel not even the prime minister on the other hand it's on you know is sending the message that he is an exception you know other senior officials who were indicted on corruption charges have resigned Netanyahu refuses and you know it shows that he is strong politically his political opposition is weak none of this for years all these bribery allegations none of it brought down that's on you know

Jerusalem Israel Benjamin
Bill Cosby appeals conviction over testimony from other accusers

Lance McAlister

00:30 sec | 3 years ago

Bill Cosby appeals conviction over testimony from other accusers

"Bill cosby appealed his sexual assault conviction today asserting he has been wrongly convicted of assaulting envious constant bill cosby filed his appeal with the pennsylvania superior court appeal said cosby's conviction was not based on any credible evidence but on flawed erroneous in prejudice rulings cosby accused the court of abuse of discretion in allowing accusers other than constant to testify and the defense also said cosby's deposition from a civil case in which he admitted to sharing quayle's with women serve no purpose in the criminal case but to

Bill Cosby Quayle Assault Pennsylvania
Convicted Danish submarine killer loses appeal

Dennis Prager

00:32 sec | 4 years ago

Convicted Danish submarine killer loses appeal

"The convicted killer of journalists Kim wall has lost his Copenhagen court appeal. Charles de LA desma reports say dish submarine inventor. Peter Madsen already guilty of the torture and murder of all Swedish reporter last year has lost his appeal against his life sentence. The prosecutor had argued that the life sentence should be upheld saying the motive was sexual and the crime was planned in Denmark, a license is on average sixteen years, but can be extended if necessary that's and wants to time limited sentence. Not an open ended prison term.

Charles De La Desma Kim Wall Peter Madsen Copenhagen Prosecutor Denmark Murder Reporter Sixteen Years