35 Burst results for "US Supreme Court"
House Oversight Committee, Attorney General Bill Barr And Donald Trump discussed on AP News Radio
"There are new details of how Donald Trump pressured the justice department to investigate his unsubstantiated election fraud claims before leaving office the house oversight committee has released emails from the White House is showing a push by the president and his allies to challenge the election result even though former Attorney General bill Barr had said there was no evidence of widespread fraud the email sent to acting AG Jeff Rosen and others included de bont and unfounded conspiracy theories including one that Italy was using satellites to change votes which the deputy acting AG called pure insanity one email included a draft legal briefs for the Supreme Court Sager
DOJ Seeks to Reinstate Death Penalty for Boston Marathon Bomber
"Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to reinstate the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Now president Bannon is actually called for an end to capital punishment. What is making an exception in this case? Federal appeals court threw out the bombers Death sentence last year signing jury bias The Trump White House challenge that and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case.
Merrick Garland's Radical Plan To Combat Voter Suppression Is Not What It Seems
"Garland. I wonder the Democrats. Desperately wanted him on the United States Supreme Court. He's not a moderate, He's not thoughtful. He's not reasonable. Is another one of them. Them. Radical. I want you to know what he's doing. We have the head of the Civil rights division of the Justice Department who is a flat out her name is Clark as I recall flat out racist, she said, and written some of the most unbelievable stuff. I think Susan Collins voted for confirmation to but nonetheless, there she is. And having secured that position. At the request of Biden and this attorney general. What's happening now? According to Yahoo News, John Ward. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Said that the Department of Justice will dramatically increase its focus on preventing voter suppression. Now you have to understand something. Voter suppression for the Democrat party means what Means state legislatures having rational voting systems in place. Not anarchy. So he's going to increase its focus on preventing voter suppression by doubling the number of lawyers in the civil rights division. In response to a rash of lawsuits or look Excuse me. Laws that have been made made it harder to vote in many states. Now you have to understand how lousy the media Made it harder to vote in many states. So if I want to leave Virginia and vote in, say, Maryland and they say you can't because I'm not a citizen of Maryland. You see, Maryland has just made it harder for me to vote in Maryland. Mr. Producer you understand? It's just disgusting. Our media have really killed this country. We will use all existing provisions to ensure that we protect every qualified Americans seeking to participate in our democracy, Garland said in one of his Castro like speeches Garland compared his action to that taken by former Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who said the Justice Department needed a lot more lawyers to combat laws and said says nothing to do. With what Robert Kennedy had to do during segregation. This is so outrageously disgusting. They're going to double the lawyers and the civil rights division and unleash them on our country. Harass the state legislatures try and push this H R one s one into law, forcing states to adopt them. Because Congress couldn't pass it. That is exactly what's going on here.
Groups ask judge to block Arkansas' near-total abortion ban
"Abortion rights supporters in Arkansas have asked a federal judge to temporarily block new legislation that nearly bans the procedure the American civil liberties union and Planned Parenthood asked a federal judge for a preliminary injunction to stop the abortion ban from going into effect July twenty eighth as they launched a constitutional challenge the legislation bans abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother a lawsuit was already filed last year saying that this band will inflict significant and irreparable harm and patience the U. S. Supreme Court next year could decide on a challenge to a Mississippi abortion ban and that could affect similar legislation in other states I'm Jackie Quinn
Supreme Court Asks DOJ to Weigh in on Harvard Case
Justices Defer Harvard Case on Race in College Admissions
"The Supreme Court is considering adding a third blockbuster issue to its agenda the justices are already looking at abortion and the guns now they may be adding the issue of affirmative action in higher education this morning the court put off a decision on whether to hear an appeal claiming a Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants the justices want the justice department to weigh in which typically takes months five years ago the court ruled for three that colleges and universities may consider race in admissions rejecting discrimination claims from a white applicant but two members of that majority are gone and with three trump appointees in place a more conservative court may be more likely to again take up the issue Sager mag ani Washington
Judge Tosses Houston Hospital Workers' Vaccine Requirement Challenge
"A lawsuit from Houston Methodist Hospital workers over the requirement that they get vaccinated against Covid 19. More than 100 workers sued the hospital, claiming federal law prohibits employees from being required to get vaccinated because the Covid vaccines have only received FDA approval for emergency use, and not full FDA approval. Judge though dismissed that argument, saying that law doesn't apply to private employers. Jared would fill. The attorney for the employees is vowing to appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. National
State Bar Investigating Texas Attorney General
"The state bar of Texas is investigating whether state Attorney General Ken Paxton engaged in professional misconduct surrounding efforts to overturn the November presidential election in December after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton petitioned the US Supreme Court to block Joe Biden's victory in four other states the head of the Galveston island Democrats filed a complaint with the Bar Association calling Paxton's challenge frivolous and on ethical Kevin Moran shared his complaint with the Associated Press along with letters confirming the investigation initially the bar declined to investigate but a tribunal overturned that decision last month it's another setback for Paxton already facing a previous criminal case an FBI investigation and a Republican primary opponent ready to pounce on those controversies I'm Jackie Quinn
Supreme Court Rules on Case of Immigrants
"With temporary protection are not eligible for permanent status. Temporary protected status. A humanitarian designation for immigrants facing war or disaster back home does not extend the permanent legal status if an immigrant Status. There are currently about 400,000 people with TPS status from 12 countries. The House of Representatives has passed legislation that would give all
Supreme Court Rules Against Immigrants With Temporary Status
"The Supreme Court says thousands of immigrants living in the U. S. for humanitarian reasons cannot apply to become permanent residents a unanimous High Court says federal immigration law bans people who entered the country illegally and now have what's called temporary protected status from seeking green cards the case hinged on whether those people were actually admitted to the U. S. under immigration law justice Elena Kagan says they were not writing for the court in a case that pitted the Biden ministration against immigrant groups who argued many of the people in question have lived in the U. S. for years and put down roots the house has passed a bill making it possible for TPS recipients to become permanent residents but the Senate prospects are unclear Sager make ani Washington
High Court Won't Review Men-Only Draft Registration Law
"The Supreme Court will not review the law that requires only meant to register for the draft the military selective service act is one of the few remaining federal laws treating men and women differently women's rights groups had urged the High Court to take up the issue saying the law imposes a serious burden on men but not women it also sends a harmful message that women aren't less fit to survive three justices though say Congress is weighing whether to change the law which is a reason for the High Court not to take the case the constitutional question could be seen as one with little practical impact there hasn't been a draft since the Vietnam War at the military's been all volunteer since Sager mag ani Washington
High Court Asked to Review Men-Only Draft Registration Law
"The Supreme Court could announce as soon as today whether it will hear a case involving the military selective services act which requires men to register for the draft the justices are being asked to decide whether it's sex discrimination for the government to require only men to register for the draft when they turn eighteen the registration requirement is one of the few remaining instances in which federal law treats men and women differently the director of the American civil liberties union's women's rights project ria tabacco Mar says it sends a harmful message that women are less fit than men to serve the country and that men are less fat than women to stay at home it's care givers my camp in Washington
Federal Judge Overturns California’s Ban on Assault Weapons
"Federal judge has overturned California's three decade old ban on assault weapons ruling It violates the constitution. It is ruling, the U. S district judge wrote. Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular A ar 15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. He says the state's definition of illegal military style rifles unlawfully deprives law abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the Supreme Court. He also said murdered by knife occurs
U.S. Judge Overturns California’s Ban on Assault Weapons
"A federal judge overturned California's three decade old ban on assault weapons ruling on Friday it violates the constitutional right to bear arms it is ruling the U. S. district judge wrote like the Swiss army knife the popular A. R. fifteen rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment he says the state's definition of a legal military style rifles unlawfully deprived law abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the Supreme Court he also said murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle governor Newsom said in a statement the comparison to a Swiss army knife is a slap in the face to the families who lost loved ones to these assault rifles and the state says it will appeal the ruling I'm Julie Walker
Justices Reject Johnson & Johnson Appeal of $2B Talc Verdict
"Brody. The Supreme Court is leaving in place a $2 billion verdict in favor of women who said they developed ovarian cancer from using Johnson and Johnson talc products. The justices did not comment today in rejecting Johnson and
Johnson and Johnson Asks Supreme Court to Void $2B Talc Verdict
"A major drug company wants the nation's highest court to review a verdict over it's talc products. The Supreme Court could decide tomorrow whether or not to get involved in a nearly $2 billion lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson. Johnson and Johnson wants a verdict in Missouri review that initially resulted in a nearly $5 billion verdict in favor of 22 women who developed ovarian cancer refereed using talc products. An appeals court cut that verdict in half but upheld findings about the products containing a specialist lace talc. Johnson and Johnson says that verdict is at odds with decades of scientific evaluations. Just the Samuel Alito is expected to recuse himself from consideration after reporting he owned Johnson and Johnson stock. Cox is Jared Helper, and Johnson and Johnson has faced hundreds of lawsuits across the country over tell products with mixed results.
California DA Won't Seek New Death Sentence Against Scott Peterson
"A district attorney in California says she won't seek a new death sentence against Scott Peterson who was convicted of killing his pregnant wife in two thousand five the killing of laci Peterson is back in the news because California Supreme Court threw out the death sentence for husband Scott Peterson because potential jurors were improperly dismissed after saying that they opposed to capital punishment that prompted the Stanislaus county district attorney Burkett flattered to announce after speaking with laci's family she won't seek a new sentencing hearing in the case but Scott Peterson could also be facing the prospect of a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct a judge has to decide if that warrant a new trial and if so it could again raise the specter of the death penalty for Peterson convicted of killing his wife who was eight months pregnant around Christmas time two thousand two I'm Jackie Quinn
How Racism Is at the Root of White Evangelical Power
"Welcome dr butler. Thank you so heavy. Be here for right. So let's just jump right in there Tell us about why white evangelicals named donald trump king cyrus who who was this biblical figure. What do we need to understand about. Why former president trump was likened to him by some people. Well i think one of these. We need to understand about this. Is that the way that Evangelicals especially white evangelicals think about donald trump is that they see him as a savior and king. Cyrus was xavier in hebrew bible old testament world of the israelites at when they were going through. A terrible problem isn't that he was. You know a especially holy king he was just a powerful king who guarded them. And in the particular case of evangelicals they see donald trump as the person who has guarded their interests who has protected them who has provided them with over two hundred judges and three supreme court judges who has been against abortion. End care less about anything if he's done in his personal life because it really doesn't matter to them anymore in your book you talk about how former president trump used the phrase american-carnage during his inauguration as well as other times and what is the belief that america is on the decline. What is the relevance of that belief to what we're talking about well it's really important for evangelicals because they always believed that moral decline means moral decay. It also means it's the end times may be jesus coming back sue but they also want to save the nation. It's as though they have two competing things one is. Everything's going to hell in a handbasket but the other side is. We're the only ones who can fix it. And so this this combination of the two things are very potent and powerful force for them. There's a third piece to two and the third piece is is that they like to put themselves as the persecuted party. And so when you have this. Mix of persecution decline and salvation. You have a very powerful mix for evangelicals to be able to reframe the american framework. You know morally a politically. The way that they want to. Not the way that things are really actually going
"us supreme court" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes
"The smartest way to hire Just, moments ago the Senate voting by a tally of fifty to forty to confirm judge Amy Conybeare to court becomes the ninth justice. She is the third justice confirmed by Donald Trump you'll remember, of course, the first of those neal gorsuch was for a slot open by the death of Antonin Scalia in March of two thousand, sixteen, a seat that was held open immediately a notice put out by Mitch McConnell upon the Death Scalia that. Despite the fact that was marked, there would be no consideration and no hearings, the nominee and they held that open and then they push through Brad Kavanagh and now with a few days until the election, Amy Coney Barrer will send to that seat. Are All eyes are on the Supreme Court? Is it will face a number of extremely charged cases in fact as Allie. Mishal noted their top program a five three decision with the five conservatives. Ruling over the three liberals to make it harder to count ballots that arrive after election day in the state of Wisconsin, this is where we find ourselves this hour just eight days before the Election Speaker Nancy Pelosi who will be key player in all of this joins me right now speaker Let's first start about your reaction to this confirmation and what it means for you because should you be speaker in the next Congress? Any sort of expansion of the courts, any balancing of the courts would have to be done through. Law Making that happened in your body, what is your reaction to tonight and what are you open to in the future? I. We say Chris. Thank you for your focus on every aspect of what is happening here from Kalona virus and its connection. To this, taking up this confirmation instead of taking legislation to quest virus this is a very sad day for our country within the past twenty, four hours seen the president of the United, states say in his delusional state, we've rented the curb on this rebounded the turn we haven't. We've heard his chief of staff. Tell us what is wide open. As you said, this is a decision they do not intend to control the virus. Over eight million people infected. Get getting close to a quarter million people who have and now we know they never wasn't just ineptitude. It wasn't just politics. It just wasn't their defiance of science. It was a decision a decision not to crush the virus and what that means you education of our children, the economy of our country and the rest, and what do they do but rush rush this. Supreme Court nomination through which has also has an impact on the health and wellbeing of the American people. It's only eight days until the election people are voting. Now in Juneau over sixty million people have already voted. So in the middle of an election, they're putting this Ford v eight days until the election fifteen days until the first, the oral arguments on the affordable care act and the president said within this past twenty four. Hours anyway, it was reported in the past twenty four hours that he was there to overturn the affordable care at an all that means for pre existing conditions, people who need access to quality affordable care they're coming after you as the expression goes. So it's very sad because it's it's the undoing of the system of checks and balances. Well, if that's if that's the case I just want an all all of what you said. Broadly in line with the way that I view things right now in terms of the state, the country's in and their decisions. But if all that said checks and balances could be reasserted I, you know Abraham Lincoln expanded the size of the court. FDR famously attempted to win the new deal was sort of bringing on the shoals of that conservative court. Until it sort of changes jurisprudence are you as speaker of the house? Are you open to efforts to do that in the future? Joe Biden has given us a good path. To have something that people can stand why this is important on a like with something that Bryant said about not justice Supreme Court, but the other courts, it was a one hundred. Eighteen, seventy, nine, and eighteen, seventy, six, there were nine. Is On the court, our population has grown enormously since. Should we expand the court? Let's take a looking sick but not, and that relates to the nine district courts. Maybe we need more district courts as well, and one other thing we need. We need for these justices to disclose their holdings. All the rest of us have to disclose their holdings madison appropriate. But not if you're justice of the Supreme Court there in this ivory tower and again a the one branch of government. Appointee the other branch of government with the acquiescence, not already acquiescence of the bully bully bully actions of the of the United States it's appalling. You just mentioned the coronavirus relief and this sort of testing gap and I want to. State to you how I understand the state of things. which can feel a little bit like a like a dark comedy or an absurdist play like waiting for Godot where we're constantly talking about like they're making progress, they're making progress and I'm making progress. My understanding is that the problem isn't the top line number which can be negotiated the size of the package. Minor problem is that there are huge differences substantively between what? You want to see a package in terms of what it commits the White House to doing testing and suppressing the virus and what they are willing to do, and it seems to me that if your position the Democrats position is we should suppress contain the virus and the White House position is no we should not. That is not a negotiable negotiating to be done there. That's exactly right and thank you for putting it that way, and you will recall that about ten days ago they finally said okay. We'll go along with the testing plan. We're just GonNa make a light touch on the language. The light tank touch was taking up to fifty percent of the language changing must of what we are saying that you shell the Administration Shell do this they shelled ministration may do this requirements, requirement became recommendations and the like so. that. The money would be just again a saas phone for the president so that he may do this or that rather than requiring but we thought, okay, this is just a power play. Then they made a fuss they came back and said, all right. Were there with you but they still have not come back and that's what we asked for today we said we can get something done before the election at least an agreement if not a law if you. That we can. We must fresh the virus people are dying. People are sick making speaker matter speaker you obviously, you know the state of this better than I do your party this you have negotiated many deals in your life I have to feel like saying I'm watching this there's no deal happening like to. Thank. There's a constant. In front of their Netflix, that's not happening, right? That's on people said except the deal was like. They haven't agreed to but that's what I mean though this idea that there's I mean, I guess you're still talking, but it just seems to me like the reality here is that there is an incommensurable difference between how the Democratic Caucus approaches the.
"us supreme court" Discussed on True Mysteries of the Pacific Northwest
"In either case, a simple majority of the Senate must approve the appointment member. So the Supreme Court appointed for life terms. Wow, terminal wife. Anyway. Though they may be expelled if they are impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted in the Senate. Now only one justice has been impeached that was Samuel Chase who was acquitted in eighteen o five in nineteen, sixty, nine Abe Fortas resigned under threat of impeachment for alleged financial improprieties unrelated to his duties on the court. So these guys have to be pretty straight shooters today. The Supreme Court self regulates the number of cases at handles the Supreme Court, which now enjoys almost exclusive discretion in determining. Its caseload hears about one hundred cases per term, which began on the first Monday in October and typically ends in late June. So the supreme core doesn't necessarily work year round on cases each year, the court receive some seven thousand case requests. The number of these requests increase some fivefold since World War Two, a reflection of the country's population growth progressively more litigious legal culture you know so. That's why they're getting more and more cases a surge in the demands placed by citizens on the government. The number of cases decided by the Supreme Court has declined since nineteen fifties and sixties when civil rights cases dominated the dock at US justices have opted to hear fewer cases. So you can see how zigzag back and forth or maybe roller coaster back and forth, but this begs the question. How does the court to sign which cases to review I in a vote that is usually kept secret the justices decide on the merits of a case. Then they issue the official written decision of the court. The first judgment determines who will write the official decision by tradition at the chief justice is in the majority in his opinions he selects which justice including himself will author the court's verdict. If he is in the minority. The longest serving member of the majority makes the decision writing in an appointment SESA era of John Marshall Chief Justice from eighteen o one, eighteen, thirty five has been common practice for the court to issue formal opinions to justify decisions to defy. Though the Constitution does not require it to do. So drafts of all opinions circulating among the justices and all justices may concur with or dissent from any decision in full or in part the final decision effectively represents the supreme law of the land. Still. How does the Supreme Court justice rule fairly on an issue that he is biased or she is bias on when the founding fathers wrote the US Constitution they intentionally made do judicial branch of the government to be the least powerful that includes Supreme Court justices and all federal judges judges were supposed to be politically neutral and rule on a constitutional and legally pass laws and not on political bias. But judges are still human is subject to their own beliefs and understandings. So the constitution loss, therefore, it is impossible for any judge to be totally unbiased. So when the president nominates any person to serve as a Supreme Court justice for Federal, Judge for that matter, they tend to share the judges tend to share some of the political ideologies of the nominating president. So with that kind of biased with. That kind of partisan appeal. How can affair decision be made? So if you go back to my original question and that was it, how can the Supreme Court fair and biased decisions when they are so partisan divide divided the answer is they can't the partisan nature of the US Supreme Court was produced here night owl sound studio.
"us supreme court" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"'cause you, you'd have a better perspective than me, but also think that the industry. Has Come to live with the agency. Especially, especially, the major players, banks and mainstream players, not the bottom, not like the. Fringe players, right and and what what those people and institutions want is regulatory certainty. They want to know what the rules are, and so the idea of. You know messing this all up by going in and having Congress fight over the structure of the agency. After this case I I don't I just don't see that happening. While I. Don't see it happening either. I thought at one point. There might be some hope the the industry I agree with you, they. I don't hear any Hue and cry to abolish the agency. really haven't heard that in the longtime, but the industry I think. Does not like. does not want the agency to do one eighty degree. turnabouts every four years. I mean right. It's nuts by you know, have one director promulgate certain regulations and have other director Undo everything that the other director did and we have a pretty good example of an agency. That's avoided that kind of. turmoil resulting from the change of administration, namely the FCC Five Commissioners. Majority under the. Control of the whoever is. In charge of the presidency at that time, and seems to work pretty well, and that's originally the way that the bureau was supposed to be structured at least when the the bill passed by the house, it called for five member commission, and that it got changed in the Senate. That's true and. I think. In retrospect lease, my belief is that. That was not a wise idea that it was very. At the time recognizing that Obama Democrat was going to be in charge and was GONNA pick the first director, but you see what happened. you know after Obama's term is over I. Think the thinking is for an agency like this given the power of the industry in question given how much political power it has in its ability to capture. Any regulator. We recognize. There might be some periods where it's not gonna be as effective, but at least let it be good in the good years it least let it have someone. The possibility that there is someone who's who's going to be aggressive. And is going to. Do the kinds of rulemakings that need to be done and not just. A seed to whatever the industry wants. So you know I, think it's a it's a tough question about institutional design, and it's hard to know empirically. Better, but there are a lot of examples of regulatory agencies that are incomplete stasis. Because they are multi-member bodies that do nothing like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or actually the the Federal Election Commission the some of these agencies they're basically are incapable of doing anything and so there is a kind of paralysis that can set in what looks like balance can also ended up being paralysis. Whereas in the CFPB's case the way it's set up and I still think this will be true after the Supreme Court's decision. it is capable when it's in the right hands of doing a lot of good and it did know knits for several years it stepped into a marketplace that was badly in need of of being cleaned up of marketplace where there were practices that were so. Harmful to consumers that they didn't just harm. The consumers affected. They actually threatened to cripple the united. States economy in intern, the global economy and so something something had to be done..
"us supreme court" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"I don't think was nineteen thirties. There was a case that raise the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission the way they were structured because they are under the Federal Trade Commission Act Commissioners that. It was a five there. Five commissioners supposed to the sole director of the CFPB. But they were removable by the President. Only for 'cause language similar to what's in the consumer financial protection at and the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality. Of the Federal Trade Commission Act against a similar kind while it came up in a different context, but and so, how did the Supreme Court get around that case? In order to reach the conclusion that they did they they, they clearly didn't overrule that case. It's and the the name of the case I know has the word as stated in it's. It's humphries executive. Resist executive right so Humphrey's executor is kind of the cornerstone of the administrative. Right it's been around since the new deal and it's it's how we can have. Independent agencies where the the heads of the agency are protected by four 'cause removal, and so that was a really big question. In this case, this was the court going to overrule or chip away at a Humphrey's executor. And if it had you know, that would be a real threat to agencies like the FTC. All these multi member commission that we've come. To rely and expect as as part of the administrative state, and and there are many conservatives. Who are not fans of Humphrey's executor, who really want to roll back the administrative state to before the new deal? So how? How did the Supreme Court addressed the issue? Basically what the Supreme Court did is. It sidestepped the issue distinguished. Humphrey's executor. And you know, there are several obvious ways to distinguish it. First of all Humphrey's executor was about a body of You know expert heads. WHO. Are Multi member commission. It's not a single director, and so this difference between. A multi-member body of Of experts who deliberate consult with one another at least in theory that's supposed to work I and a single director of the the CF PB with a five year term guarantee. Is Pretty Different in the court's view. And then they also say that that The the CFPB director has powers that are that are different. They have sort of quint is the court calls it quintessentially executive power. Including the ability to unilaterally issue final decisions that award of legal, legal and equitable relief in administrative adjudications. And the ability to to to seek daunting monetary penalties against private parties. The court says that basically the structure of the agency and the powers vested in the director. Make it fundamentally different from from the FTC. Okay so It a distinguishes Humphrey's executor. Although some people I've read, some accounts that say it doesn't really do that Clear job of distinguishing yet in that the FTC today is different than the F. T. C. in nineteen thirty and it may possess it. It doesn't of course have the right to supervise institutions. It's got enforcement power I guess it can get monetary penalties initially if I got for someone has to violate a consent order before they can get the monetary penalties, but in many respects and it end doesn't quite issue.
"us supreme court" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"That's sort of unusual. That doesn't happen very often that you have a justice shortly before joining the court weighing in so strongly. On one side? And then you know that case evaded a supreme. Court review for some complicated reasons may be. Don't WanNA get into here. And so the search was on for a replacement vehicle, right and I think. It was really. I think in some ways. A battle between the the lawyers the various lawyers who would represent sees these entities to figure out who would get their case. To the court I. Think as as the case reaches the court. There's anything terribly special about Salia Law as opposed to the others It doesn't end up mattering to the court's decision. What kind of action? the agency was taking because the court just approaches. This is a question of whether the structure of the agency is unconstitutional, and as I'm sure, we'll discuss supreme court basically ducks. Any. Question. About What on the ground impact, this is GonNa have for various agency actions that that have taken place. Yeah, you know so. All right. The the court grants erred from the Ninth Circuit decision upholding the constitutionality of the bureau brand then CFP does. One Eighty I guess. The best way I could describe it. The PB and the Solicitor General decide that they agree with the the Seila law that the statute is unconstitutional for the reason that seal a law proffered and then the US Supreme Court. needs to. Appoint an Amigos to defend the Constitution Alley, the statute and they they certainly appointed. A very good advocate. I don't think I know. You know him quite well on of litigator. GET AGAINST MR. Yes. I've litigated against and also with him and I think really highly of him. I think they could have done better. And it was I believe it was justice Kagan who has circuit justice for the ninth. Circuit made that choice and I think she chose wisely in part because she was trying. I think to select an advocate who would who would speak? To the to the Conservatives on the on the court. I you know I will just say it's worth positive to think about how unusual it is that the Justice Department switched its position and that the federal government didn't didn't defend the statute. There is a really strong presumption. That the Department of Justice should be defending the work of Congress that's their job and it's I think it's disturbing when in the same case DOJ has taken a position and then just completely flips. Its position because the the political leadership. Decides that you know they disagree with the statute passed by Congress. It's a it's a disturbing. Precedent because it cannot be that statutes. Passed by Congress. fail because the administration fails to defend them. so as you say the court had to. To this. Option which it does has has it ever happened before Deepak? Where that's happened. Yeah, so actually. I was appointed by the by the Supreme Court to argue a case this past term so every term or so. For variety of reasons often when the government has flipped position, the court will appoint someone to argue but I think what you're asking..
"us supreme court" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"Now, in terms of our podcasts. We've been doing that for almost two years now. we launched it shortly after Labor Day in thousand eighteen Done about one hundred podcasts The casts are available on our website, or you can get them wherever you are. Whatever your favorite podcast platform may be. be it apple podcast Google, play spotify etc, We released a new podcast show generally every Thursday except for a few holidays Our topic today is the recent US Supreme Court opinion in CEELO law versus the CFP. and I'm very pleased to be joined today. By our guest. Deepak Gupta. Deepak is the founding principle of the firm of a Gupta Wessler. He's the lecturer at Harvard. Law School will he's briefed and argued a wide range of cutting edge issues and the US Supreme Court in State and federal courts nationwide in twenty twenty. He will argue to major personal jurisdiction cases before the US Supreme Court. He. I don't know what the count is up to now, but I'll ask Deepak in a moment when. when we begin, but he, he's handled people cases before the US Supreme Court and I guess qualifies. To be in that very elite category of being known as the Supreme Court advocate. which is a rare breed of lawyer prior to or forming his first forming his law firm He was an a a lawyer, the CFP, he was the first appellate lawyer that was hired under Elizabeth Warren's leadership. He previously worked for seven years as an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group and they are founded and directed the consumer justice project so Deepak. Welcome to thank you for being on our program. Thanks Allen thanks for having me. It's great great to be here and this. I can't imagine a better topic to be discussing with you than than this decision just came down. So Deepak. How many cases have you argued in the Supreme Court I think by this fall it'll be six. I was supposed to argue the personal jurisdiction cases. You mentioned in April because you know before the pandemic. That's that that's how the court had scheduled argument and then. It turns out. The court didn't know what it was going to do. A once the pandemic hit and they rescheduled most of the cases to the next term. And and just held a few telephone oral arguments, and I was pretty glad to be among the guinea pigs for that first batch of arguments right right? Okay we're GONNA talk about a an extremely important case today Dome remember where they're headed. By the when you were still at the bureau, it had not know isn't the issue of this constitutional question was there from the beginning, but this case started after I left. Yeah, just curious Deepak. With this issue that you were worried was going to have to be dealt with at some point or another. either. You know at the time you join the CRTV or even going back to the enactment dodd-frank. Yeah, absolutely. I mean I think it is an interesting fact about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the most heated debate. Over, the bureau was not about the substantive consumer law or the specific authorities that it would have most heated debate I. Think was always about the structure about You know whether whether it was okay to have this single director insulated from appropriations with money coming from the Federal Reserve that was always a big topic of controversy, and honestly Allen, when I joined the bureau. I kinda thought..
"us supreme court" Discussed on PRI's The World
"The I have to be really careful, and then as in our culture in slum restart the conversation by saying Salaam Aleikum but. That's been kind of qualify it as illegal in China right now I just start by saying hi, and then every so we talk about is. That could be really careful before we speak out. The Chinese government is actually labeled you a terrorist. Will you be speaking out about all of this? And you worry that continued activism could end up by targeting your family back in China so. Called me as a terrorist. I, haven't got any direct threat to myself. My family here in the US but. The indirect threat is through my mom, so all those limitations is mainly the larceny and dip, pushing me to stop speaking from speaking all, but I got I got no other choice. Forget jaw dot is a software engineer in Virginia. He's active in the wigger. Human Rights Community for God. It's good to speak with you again. Thank you very much, thank you. You're listening to the world. Filipina journalist goes to the MATT fighting for press. Freedom I felt like I spent my entire career going to the gym to get ready for this moment I'm Marco Werman journalist Maria Recipe faces six years in prison for cyber liable. She compares reporting in the Philippines right now to working in a war zone her story coming up on the world. I'm Marco Werman. This is the world where co production of the BBC World Service W. G. B. H. and P.. Rx preserving forests is key to fighting climate change, but it is an uphill battle. We lose some nineteen million acres of forest each year today. We're looking at an accidental solution to part of the problem on this week's installment of the big fix. Have come here to let you know that change is coming whether you like it or not..
"us supreme court" Discussed on PRI's The World
"The fact that China has concentration camps. The estimated one million inmates in the west of the country are weaker, a mostly Muslim minority president trump signed a law yesterday authorizing sanctions on Chinese officials involved with US camps, but on the same day allegations surfaced that president trump told. Told China last year. He was fine with the camps. Those details came from a leaked excerpt of a book by former National Security Adviser John Bolton and have not been verified. Bonnie Glaser is director of the China Power Project. The Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington well. We don't know whether or not president trump actually did support or imply that he supported the policy in China of imprisoning weaker. But I believe that it makes sense because president trump has really not paid much attention to right or the weaker issue in particular president, trump has been focused primarily on trade and the bilateral trade deficit that the states has with China. The administration as you know, is defending itself from Bolton's allegation by highlighting the weaker human rights law that the president signed yesterday. What does it actually do well the law itself simply requires president trump and his administration to submit a report to Congress Define Chinese officials and other individuals who are responsible for the detention of leakers without charges and trial. And degrading inhumane treatment of these groups. But apart from that report, it is uncertain whether or not the administration would apply sanctions to individual. Also the legislation gives the administration the right to impose sanctions in this could include asset blocking visa rope revocations, even in eligibility for people to enter the United States, but the legislation really gives the White House room to opt against imposing sanctions. If they choose so so there's no authenticity so there seems to be a glaring contradiction between the new law. Sentiments alleged in John Bolton's book. How are we supposed to square that circle can can both be true? Well the president. In the period of trade negotiations with China I think just did not want to take on any other issues that might disrupt those negotiations in preventing an agreement, the United States in China of course signed a face on trade agreement in January and now the president's priorities appear to have changed. He is now focused on winning reelection and public opinion. Polls show that Americans have a high degree of unfavorability toward China that they see threats emanating from China so I believe that president trump is trying to use this issue to win votes and chief his reelection, so his whole goals have changed. China publicly denies the mass incarceration of the weaker people, but we also know of cases of workers who have been affiliated with Al Qaeda, and Isis so has there ever been to suggestion of China? Justifying the mass incarceration of Leaguers on national security grounds? Yes, the Chinese have explicitly said that there are weaker 's who have been involved in terrorist actions, and there have been a handful of terrorist actions in China over the last ten years, but they're his not a great deal of evidence that upwards of two to three million people are connected to some terrorism Bonnie glaser will leave it there. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That was Bonnie glaser director of the China Power Project of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In Washington Weavers in the United States have been following all of this very closely. Forgot jaw dot is a software engineer in Virginia. He's worked to get the weaker human rights. Law enacted so for cod now that it's been signed by president trump how you feeling this really exciting. kind up became relief for all of us will have been drinking all we can do while risking our family. Members were still living inside China so it is really a huge step into victory I will say. It comes at the same time, as John Bolton's excerpt from his upcoming book, in which she alleges trump okayed detainment camps, concentration camps in China for weavers and other Muslim minorities. Does that change at all how you feel about the legislation passing? I got feelings at some point that kind of feel as an American, and especially working for the US government as a software engineer, but kind of felt betrayal, because it's really personal to me at my own president will kate that the Chinese government was camps which locked up my mom for more than fifty months, but by saying that a signed a bill, and then made it to into low. It was kind of leaving so just hope is bill. You'll be the first major step interviewer history, so we can put more sanctions and immoral limitations to the Chinese government or the officials, and then put an end to the camps as though forced labor. This is personal for you for caught. Your family is still in western China when we spoke last year, you described how your mother has been affected by this. Are you able now to be in touch with her? Yes, I can talk declared, but the communication has been Rowley Limited especially after last. November of my mom's story has published in the new. York Times pods guests, and later on there is a documentary about my mom storing the EJ loss Internet at home. This cutoffs an also this year mid February stopped working so it visibly worries Tom Perez as I wasn't able to talk more than forty five days, and after that she got another number as permit by the Chinese police. But now I don't WanNa talk the chorus through 'cause I can't even do facetime or because with my mom. And how free do feel to express yourself to her and she to you? In those calls there is there is no freedom at all everything recap to talk. Is We all know that's listened? By the Chinese police? At some point, you must be wondering whether she is self censoring or whether there was a kind of brainwashing going on. Do you think about that just couple days ago? The Chinese local government appreciates the came to her house and hurts right a statement saying that she was well. By the Chinese government, though local government officials, and then just praising how she has been taken care of. Has All of this affected your relationship with your mother? If you feel like you're not hearing the truth, because of censorship or other reasons, I mean that's got gotta be difficult. It is because I used to talk to my mom about almost everything..
"us supreme court" Discussed on PRI's The World
"It's one of several groups supporting the Filter Hotel here in Wada's and along the Mexican border, migrant shelters are to control the spread of covid nineteen, so they can't just immediately take new people in this filter hotel offers safe place to quarantine before people can go to a longer term shelter after new guests wash up. Money leads them to a waiting area and explains the setup thick. Remember. Know. There's health screening than guests are assigned a private room letitia Chavarria is the hotels. Medical Coordinator is let mcgann dealers. Years ago what the day on the hearsay Chavarria says! This hotel is taking migrants off the street and away from the risk of potential infection. There's an isolation wing for people with covert symptoms, and there's another wing for everyone else. Protocols are strict once a doctor goes up to the `isolation area. She can't come down until her shifts. Anything, she needs gets in a bucket on the end of a rope. It's like a makeshift elevator chevet jokes. There's room for one hundred and eight guests here right now. It's nearly full. Some of the migrants because of the trump administration policy must wait in Mexico as their asylum cases. Play out in the US. Others like this woman from Honduras were rejected at the US border based on public health order about Colvin nineteen. She asked not to use her name out of fear for her family's safety standing outside her room. She takes in the fresh air. Her four year old son plays with blocks next to her. Recover. Look been there. For sustained, she says she sold candy and Hunter S. earning just enough to get by then. Gang tried to extort her, but she couldn't pay them, you know. What the cellular in! Methodical. She says the gang told her she had less than twelve hours to leave the country or else. She fled with her two children. They managed to cross the Mexico border, but she says they were detained by US officials. American-arab, she says the officials grabbed her worse than you would. Animal and that her shirt was ripped. She says her family was then dropped off at a bridge that connects El, Paso and Juarez Memorial. Follow. He didn't tell me anything. She says it was really ugly. Mexican officials brought her to the filter hotel. She says she's grateful to be here, but isn't sure what's next. She can't go back to her country. For now though she has a safe place to stay, it's home here. There's colorful flower pots on the windowsill and paintings by kids around. Everyone gets checkups from volunteer doctors unique sequence. Solace is one of those doctors all women who work here as something William Difficult for. Made Anti. Kansallis identifies with the guests, she's an asylum seeker. She left Cuba last year and has been living in Wada's to waiting for her own court date in the US..
"us supreme court" Discussed on Radio Free Flint
"In that courtroom while it is in session I flew to Washington DC to sit in on some cases. Getting a measure of your opponent opponent is important, too. It helps to read your opponent by intangible cues like basketball. If you have to make adjustments in a courtroom, you have to make adjustments in the courtroom on the fly. If your opponent has a temper, he. Has a know it all demeanor, etc, the new adjust your game and exploit it to your advantage. One of the most important things I learned from years of arguing cases and being involved in politics was that if you want to win the hearts and minds of jurors or the public yet better argue to the middle of the case, or the or the policy were seeking. Extremists get the headlines, but lawyers who find the sweet spot in the middle when the game. A courtroom is like a stage. You have a captive audience. Those justices had to suffer me for the time allotted. My goal wasn't to just show up for bragging rights I wanted to win, and not just when I wanted to kick. That arrogant lawyers ass. The meeting in Detroit at Coney Island with a defense lawyer had its desired effect. It lit me on fire to prove he wasn't any better in the courtroom than me. Once the big show started. It was obvious that Moran Had A. Was a lot better at writing briefs than dancing in the courtroom under fire. He struggled at reading the justices that day. Justice Ginsburg engaged in a withering exchange with Moran. My experiences in courtrooms involved thinking on my feet. Maran's experiences were writing and research at a desk. My skills learned both in the streets of Flint and in the county courthouse. Were that my fastballs were placed exactly where I wanted them to go. I took that confidence to Washington. While I am at this on this rant. What really gave me another gear to win? was as condescending interaction with me. Lumping me with all prosecutors who he thinks, don't care about poor black people from flint. He was wrong on that one. He never met anyone like me before because I had more education than him and a whole bunch of street smarts earned from the University of dixieland subdivision. My guess is that until mirant started representing poor people on appeals, he had few encounters with poor black people. My hunch was proven right when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went after him with questions about what he would tell his client if he had been at at the trial and been that Vincent's lawyer in that flint courthouse. Moran Red in the face, and began to flounder badly, never gave an answer I knew at that moment he had lost the case. Any way back to the supreme, court. I shook his hand and wished him well. I learnt I leaned in his direction and joked. I said you're very lucky. I see in my last name. That with good humor shot back now. I am lucky. My last name is not Gore. Then suddenly. The clerk called the courtroom with an admonition to draw near to the business of the United States Supreme Court. And the justices appeared. On Q. In like a Vaudeville, act. Allowed Bell Rang. And, the Velvet curtains opened. There were nine justices. We're standing behind the bench staring at me. The show was to begin. My first thoughts were these these guys are really old? There's old is Moses. Leaving the court I thought to myself. Those justices were alum lot smarter than me. Justice William Rehnquist than called the case I arose, nervously addressed the court with the traditional salutation MR chief justice, and may it please the core? I confidently delivered my introduction, and thus began the longest and most thrilling twenty minutes my legal career. And there. I stood fielding questions from the justices of the United. States Supreme Court. All, that preparation kicked in. All that I had learned as a kid. Streets of Flint Michigan gave me the will to win. This was no different than playing basketball to win on the asphalt courts in dixieland subdivision. I wanted to win didn't want to win I really really wanted to win. For All the right reasons. I kept thinking. If I got to tell my grandkids about this case I sure and a how didn't WanNa? Tell them that I lost it. The justices zeroed in on questions about four sentences into my argument. Just Justice Scalia wanted to drag me off into some radical far-right swamp with an argument I didn't agree with it all. Being a prosecutor, my guess was he was GonNa vote for my position whatever they were in this case. It was those on the liberal side of the equation. I wanted to convince in order to win nine to nothing. It was necessary to find the middle of this group and go at it as hard as I could. My heart was pumping hard like I was riding my bike up the rocky mountains. My ears were beat red. I left. I left having left every bit of myself in that Tornado courtroom. Left there, knowing that all the courage and effort author risk taking in all the bobbing and weaving in that courtroom necessary to win. It was the best that I could give. I also left with two white quilt pins compliments of the court to commemorate this once in a lifetime experience. I won the case.
"us supreme court" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"The US Supreme Court ruled that the trump administration can divert military funds to pay for the construction of a border war also the Irish government gives a negative response to the new British prime minister's attempts to renegotiate the brexit backstop agreement he seems to have made a deliberate decision to set written on a collision course with the European Union on with our lives in relation to the president CH I think only he can answer the question as to why he's doing this and with this throughout the program DJ Zhang Chinese author and journalist and Sebastian Volga German journalist and correspondent in London for the Tigers Spiegel that's here on weekend coming to you today from Beijing this is the latest BBC news with rose Marie creek the US Supreme Court has agreed that the trump administration can use Pentagon funds to build sections of the president's promised portable with Mexico leading Democrats denounce the ruling from Washington Chris buckler the long border between the United States and Mexico has been at the center of a long battle between president trump on his political opponents in Congress Democrats have consistently blocked his attempts to secure funding to build more and bigger barriers between the countries he's repeatedly argued that the surge of migrants making their way to the US has created a crisis at the border and he said that left him in a position where you should be able to redirect billions of dollars from defense department funds to pay for the wall unlike the Supreme Court has agreed overturning a decision from a lower court the United States in Guatemala have signed a two year agreement so migration that covers US bound migrants from home to rest in El Salvador pulsing three gotcha Mona migrants will be required to fast seek asylum in Guatemala before being eligible to apply to enter the US in exchange Guatemalan farm workers will get easier access to work in the US will smile as president Jimmy Morales said his country would benefit is on the bubble made in one apple C. simply here this will put us in a privileged position as a privileged partner for the United States and as a privileged partner for the United States I say this because the United States is all main part now pro democracy demonstrators have been gathering in Hong Kong from March to the scene of a sort some protesters last Sunday by suspected underworld gangs the protesters were angered by the slow police response to last week's assaults Stephen McDonell reports whole whole police have denied permission for today's rally chief secretary Matthew troll number two in the whole Colin government has apologized for the slow police response when groups of men carrying homemade weapons assaulted protesters at a train station if demonstrators of accused some officers of colluding with triad gangs the calling for an official inquire a riot police and the black clad activists already gathering here in your long with fears of more street violence today.
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC
"The first supreme court nomination of modern history that starts out without the filibuster option because they changed the filibuster rules for supreme court nominees during the neal gorsuch one in april of two thousand seventeen so the republicans go in already needing only a majority simple majority and they have fifty one votes so they're they're close to it already and they might pick up a they might pick up one or two red state democrats because three of them voted for neal gorsuch north dakota joe manchin of west virginia joe donnelly of indiana right exactly right and you know i'll share my theory with you on this by the way told me if you i think it was really smart of mitch mcconnell once again i'm talking about pure political plays here i know the democrats are still enraged that he held open the seed didn't give garland to hearing and all of that but by going nuclear and changing the rules and making it fifty only fifty one under with gorsuch instead of trying to do enough democrats and get to sixty right which may have been a tough tallorder anyway a closely divided senate at the beginning of the trump era but by choosing the of the former and going nuclear he did it on the easy low stakes gorsuch substitute for scalia one for one of a of a conservative had he had mitch mcconnell waited for the kennedy vacancy to go nuclear and change the senate rules it would have ignited i think he's still would have done it he would have had the votes to get it done but the backlash i think would have been so much greater and charged around this vacancy than the one around the gorsuch favorites the exclusion i completely agree and you know why i have been tracking mitch mcconnell on judges forever and just like three days after president obama was sworn in on january twentieth two thousand and nine mitch mcconnell already was calculating what he was going to do to block the force of president obama for lower court nominees and as you and i both know within within an hour of him secretly finding out that justice scalia had died he found out through a family connection he was ready to do exactly what he did that night of february thirteen two thousand sixteen saying we ain't gonna act on this person who it is and now the payoff for him is going to happen this phone terms of potentially really having this this real ideological shift from sw potential swing five four to a much more conservative holding in let's just bring five circle full circle for why it matters this is a man who does not like campaign finance regulation and he has and this court has come through that way this court will forever come through to continue lifting campaign finance regulations you know mitch mcconnell has a lot of issues that matter but that's one that that the court has delivered on is there anything else we talked about abortion but just before we go is there any other issue where kennedy played a role where the notion of precedent as you said is potentially at risk yeah i'll say one right away and that's on racial affirmative action and there's a case already in the works a challenge to harvard you know usually we see these cases challenges like the university of california challenges to the university of texas public public universities but there's been a challenge since november of two thousand fourteen against harvard private university brought in the name of asian americans even though it's actually been coordinated by conservatives who are trying to get rid of affirmative action for traditionally disadvantage blacks and hispanics that case is percolating along i think that justice kennedy might have been interested in trying to preserve affirmative action on campus because that's what happened two years two years ago in the texas case i think by the time that harvard case gets up to the supreme court or any other there will easily be a majority to get rid of yet another racial remedy amazing just the ramifications are endless and they're so huge joan biskupic thank you so much for bringing it down with us i really appreciate it thank you david that does it for this addition of the daily dc thank you so much for listening hope you'll tune in again right here next week.
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC
"First things you said about each one of those people was their age and president trump said when he was campaigning in north dakota this week he said and we're looking i'm looking to put someone who's going to be there for forty or forty five years so age is a factor here he's looking for for a real long game legacy here which would skew towards somebody in their forties early fifties it's absolutely right in fact i was telling a very educated friend of my saying that republicans tend to put him on younger and he said to me wouldn't both parties do that no the democrat intech merrick garland was sixty three when he was nominated by president obama but the republicans traditionally have looked for them young and committed and tested clarence thomas was only forty three when he went on john roberts at age fifty when he was named chief justice of the united states was the youngest chief justice in more than two centuries well wow and did your friend that you were talking to have any theory as to why democrats don't do that now i think it was just that most people think no i think he was just he he's not a lawyer anything i think he just thought well why wouldn't both parties but i can give you mine i think the for example ruth bader ginsburg was sixty sixty when president clinton named her in one thousand nine hundred three i think they don't have that same that they are looking for the democrats have traditionally been looking for someone who has tested someone who believes in the kinds of liberal liberalleaning principles the president would believe in but it hasn't been a maker break thing the way the republicans the republicans have so committed to this that's so interesting so we don't know when we're gonna get this name do we we don't have a sense of that but we do know from each mcconnell that he's hoping to get this done in the fall clearly before the midterm elections and it seems to me that the democrats are just making a lot of noise on ono this should happen after the midterm elections but they have no lever here to poll to have any sway in that mitch mcconnell is going to run this show the democrats have no hand to play really and this is why this is going to be.
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC
"The cnn political director i am joined here in the studio with my colleague joan biskupic she cnn's legal analyst end supreme court biographer joan first of all i've always thought for the last couple of years when the one of the smartest things politically that donald trump didn't his presidential campaign was to put out this list that was vetted by the federalist society of conservative justices saying i will only choose my supreme court nominees from this list because donald trump remember in the heat of a very divided republican field in a contentious nomination season was trying to prove to the right to the conservative base to the religious right evangelical that he was not going to pick some potential liberal or a surprise suitor kind of thing from new york and what he knows in his circles that he was going to pick a ruby red conservative and they had nothing to worry about here's the list i'll choose from any of the loud i mean it worked politically for him it really made some conservatives who may have felt concerned about donald trump come on board and it's now giving public of vetted list so that there are probably likely to be few surprises when the nomination gets underway in terms of something we didn't know about one of these nominees because we have this list of twenty five names absolutely first of all he i think there's an argument to be made that the death of the incident scalia in february of two thousand sixteen got donald trump elected because he he then use that vacancy as mitch mcconnell did to say this is why you republican base out there need need us need this this nominee and the list cord on the ballot and the list gave confidence to people the list probably also altered some behavior of lower court judges in cases if they were being watch they might have that's a good point you know and that has always bothered me and it's a hard thing to say you know that you judge so and so might have pulled that you pulled your punches here just because you thought hey i could be elevated you know that kind of thing but i think it's real these people are human beings and the most recent list we have from november of seventeen is a list of twenty five individuals many of them many of whom were on the list from may and september during the campaign in two thousand sixteen their names that your list will be familiar with i'll just mention six right off the top of the bat brick kavanagh he's fifty three years old he's a us appeals court judge on the district of columbia circuit he's a former kennedy clerk raymond catholic he's fifty one he's also a former kennedy clerk and he sits on the sixty sixties court of appeals based in michigan is where he's from originally a man by the name of opole they par who's forty nine and he's a mcconnell person mitch mcconnell from kentucky new judge the par he helped get him elevated to the sixth circuit as one of president trump's first appointees to the lower courts and he would he's indianamerican so he would also have a distinguished diversity for the supreme court thomas hardiman fifty two he is on the third circuit he's on the court that president trump sister marianne trump on he was she active ciller she seen she she senior senior he was sort of the runner up wasn't he the so i he met with the president i think the president liked him but the president obviously went with neil gorsuch to less names amy coney barrett she's forty six she's a former notre dame law professor who president trump put on deck by putting her on the seventh circuit based in chicago and then finally just for kicks will throw in a senator mike lee fortyseven from utah whose brother happens also to be on the list now i don't know if you remember rex lee i remember rex lee vividly he was the us solicitor general the first one under ronald reagan and these are two sons mike lee senator since two thousand eleven i believe and tom lee he us on the supreme court of utah so i i don't think it will come to either the lease i think we're more likely to get another one of these individuals and it might be someone who i haven't mentioned because there could be a dark horse here who somehow who surrogates have jockeyed and gotten him in play now i want to focus in on one of the.
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC
"Enact outright bans that in prior years would have been struck down and lower courts they wouldn't even the supreme court hasn't even had an opportunity to rule on an outright ban in decades just because the states it would never get up there so so a state could do that but as i say i think they'll be these other measures first and then it gets up there and this is the thing with that's political there's no case right up there that they have before to ban so so predictions of anything happening in just a manner of a few months or even eighteen months might be wildly pessimistic but here's the other thing that i i would say that isn't legal it's more political i just wonder if republicans might not want what they wish for here can you imagine how energizing it would be to the democratic party to suddenly say that women nationwide do not have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy because it's been it has been socially economically the public portfolio is overwhelming in terms of the no matter how controversial it's been the the the history of public support here is really been on the proabortion right side a majority of the country for the basic right for the basic right exactly that's that's correct and i think that the that i think many republicans understand that and i think frankly john roberts understands that john roberts who cut his teeth in washington with the reagan administration i believe he understands two things one is the court that bears his name now both figuratively and officially nobody will be calling the kennedy court that strikes out abortion this court does he want to be leading a court that reverses a precedent from nine hundred seventy three and one that might unleash a backlash to the republican party amazing a jones they were they were to take a quick break and when we come back we will look at who are the potential nominees to replace a.
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC
"Declare a right to same sex marriage in two thousand fifteen he has he started to dilute his position against affirmative action in to end in two thousand sixteen voted to uphold a university of texas at austin rachel affirmative action program he also had been embitterment on abortion rights but casts the decisive vote in nineteen ninety two to reaffirm planned parenthood of southeastern pennsylvania against casey which upheld bro the nineteen seventy three landmark that made abortion legal nationwide and he has supported abortion rights since then very important there so let's i want to stop on abortion right there with you so nineteen seventythree you said rovers is wade becomes law the land if indeed and so let's say anthony kennedy's gone and he's been part of the block that is upheld that and a believer the president campaigned and republicans for decades have said roe was wrongly decided and we should appoint justices who will overturn roe this is a stated political goal of the republican party for some time so if indeed that happens can you walk us through how quickly might that happen how does that happen does a case get there really quickly and is it likely that rogue gets undone okay i do not i'm asking this without knowing who the nominees yet but let's presume it's a cone of neal gorsuch okay let's say neal gorsuch number two or even osama lido number two that's kind of thing in let's say this person opposes abortion rights that's not the end of the story because i'll take it from a couple of different directions one is this court is supposed to have regard for precedent they talk about it all the time this is a nineteen seventythree case it even though it has been enduringly divisive it is a precedent if people relied on that and even conservatives talk about taking that seriously now this week in the labor union case they reversed a precedent from nine hundred seventy seven one that is you know a of the same era of roe v wade where we should add anthony kennedy was with the conservatives exactly right that's exactly right so the justice is not only will be thinking about are we going to completely reverse rove e way because we don't like it simply because we don't like it what will we say about precedent and i think there's a political overlay but before i get to that political consequence about you know in terms of the republican party let me just say that i expect that the right to abortion will be restricted curtailed trimmed in many ways before would be outright overturned and i'll tell you how it can be done for example in the texas case i referred to from two thousand sixteen where justice kennedy was the fifth vote to strike down texas regulations on clinics on physician to perform abortions things that measures that frankly caused texas health clinics to shudder because they shudder both with deanna team but mostly shy her isn't closed down because they were too restrictive and these these groups couldn't remain in business so i think that we're going to see more of those kinds of regulations we might also see regulations about how soon government can actually regulate a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy right now under the casey ruling from nineteen ninetytwo government has much more leeway after a fetus can live outside of its mother after viability and what some states have tried to do is to say that they want to impose more limits on women for example at the twentieth week before a fierce would be viable so that would affect that would really narrow the choices for women in further restrictions of access happened and what ruth bader ginsburg and abortion rights advocates across the country of said you know what's going to happen it's not gonna be a legal across america it will be legal in certain states and people who've got the money to travel will be able to have abortion it will the if the right is kurt tailed it will fall disproportionately on poor people and what you did what i didn't hear you say you don't anticipate right away out of the gate some state to actually try to make it illegal in their state and then have that be the test case that goes there are already cases percolating up our on restrictions not outright but what i would say is that the resignation of anthony kennedy is an invitation to state to to.
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC
"Know what i'll take i'll take a great news story yes we all will and there's nothing better than the supreme court vacancy it's a great it is a great washington story because it has such huge ramifications for the country don't just about justice kennedy as a person the thing that struck me about his retirement was his desire to go to the white house and the hand deliver his retirement letter to the president is that tradition or is that a specific thing of justice kennedy's there is so smart of you to ask because typically the justice does notify the president directly but i can tell you how it's happened in the past it hasn't been handdelivered like that you know as a matter of routine for example sandra day o'connor gave the marshal of the court a letter to deliver to harriet myers who then was white house counsel to george w bush that was in two thousand five in before she knew she would one day be a supreme court nominee the harry yes right right like this executive but then for example when byron white left in nineteen ninetythree he gave the letter to ron lane who you know well who happened to be a former law clerk who was working for president clinton at the time so members of the court wanting to retire will get their message sent to the white house but typically they don't go over themselves so what does that tell us about justice kent well i can tell you that he has had a bit of a relationship with president trump he did not have one prior to that although there have been plenty of news reports about his sons having been friendly with president trump sons they're all in business in new york and he over the remember he went to the white house to swear in neal gorsuch in april of two thousand seventeen they met then so i think they had developed a relationship also i know that white house counsel don mcgann president trump's right hand man on choosing nominees to the lower courts as well as the supreme court had been in regular touch with justice kennedy so there is a relationship building there and i think that frankly justice kennedy has faith in president trump and whoever he's going to nominate and what have we gotten an again i asked tradition wise and if this is different have we heard reaction from the other justices yet to the kennedy retirement oh yes they said plenty publicly but like praising him yes those kinds of things like he was wonderful we love serving with him thirty years it was great we love we love tony kaye those kinds of statements they haven't said no in fact that's what i said yesterday when i observed just as briar on the bench looking pretty easy going in happy he did not know at that point and i we kiddingly say and why is that man smiling because he does not know the liberal justices have to be devastated because justice kennedy was their fifth vote if they were ever going to be in the majority you have referred to the sometimes it's the kennedy court correct and you're now defining what that means he is this swing vote although i think it's i haven't done a fool analysis maybe he's probably cited more with the conservative or more than he has with the liberals but when he does go with the liberals especially on some of these social issues whether abortion or gay marriage or the death penalty those are big high profile national hot button moments and he gets you know we swings that other way if indeed as we anticipate that fits vote doesn't become so swinging and it really does become more of a reliable conservative five four kind of setup on the court that is change ideologically the composition of the court no absolutely absolutely because in you're you're right to point out some of these social policy wants because frankly i'll tell you right now justice kennedy was with the majority in citizens united versus the federal commission justice kennedy has always been a leader on trying to lift campaign finance regulations he's very much about the first amendment being very broad for corporate coverage as well as individual rights to the first amendment so there is speech money as speech and he also was one of the five votes for shelby county versus holder would seriously curtailed the voting rights act of nineteen sixty five but we're just as kennedy went with the four liberals to uphold gay rights across the board and then to.