35 Burst results for "Us Supreme Court"

Biden Purposely Set up Accounts to Avoid Medicare and Obamacare Taxes

Mark Levin

02:05 min | 1 d ago

Biden Purposely Set up Accounts to Avoid Medicare and Obamacare Taxes

"First birthing woman of the United States, actually birthing person in the United States and her dimwitted low EQ husband. They had their account and set up these two s corporations I've told you about before, and actually I learned about it from Christopher Jacobs, First in the Wall Street Journal, then on the Federalist. In order to avoid what in order to avoid paying Medicare and obamacare taxes. For two years at the height of their income. They didn't pay Medicare in obamacare taxes. Biden's families plan. Proposed using Some of the same money to pay for his new entitlement expansions that is Medicare money. And obamacare money, including expansion of obamacare subsidies, estimated to cost 163 billion over 10 years. That would siphon more than two thirds of the revenue that's supposed to be going towards Medicare, so he's going to bankrupt Medicare faster. But don't worry, we can always print He says. We've seen this gimmick before. Obamacare raided Medicare to the tune of 716 billion over a decade to pay for that laws, new entitlements by the way, the Supreme Court was happy without. Oh, sure, of course you can. Right there and constitution. Kathleen Sebelius than the secretary of Health and Human services infamously testified before Congress that there's 716 billion could both save Medicare while funding obamacare. Wow. Of course, that's Absolutely impossible. Only Washington politicians can claim with a straight face to spend the same money twice. Biden, who has spent the last half century in Washington wants to do just that. His budget takes a page out of the Obama play, but so now if you did this on your taxes You'll be going to prison. Now. If Donald Trump did this on his taxes, he be going to prison. Instead, Biden's doing it. On all of our taxes for the whole country, and he's being celebrated.

Christopher Jacobs Medicare United States Biden Wall Street Journal Kathleen Sebelius Health And Human Services Supreme Court Washington Congress Donald Trump Barack Obama
The Goal of the American Marxist Is to Destroy the Current Society

Mark Levin

01:42 min | 1 d ago

The Goal of the American Marxist Is to Destroy the Current Society

"Depression in this country. The Democrats know it. Keep something in mind. The influence of the American Marxist on the Democrat Party is significant. And what is their goal, ultimately, to destroy the existing society, replace it with some kind of Rube Goldberg Marxist socialist system. They're never very clear about what it is, but it doesn't really matter. Any important storm critical race theory, critical immigration theory Critical trends theory. I call them those things and that's fine. And so for them. It's a win win. But they have to also control the political system. That's precisely why They want to control the Supreme Court. I don't know why they pretty much control it anyway. You can see. Tony Barrett Kavanagh. They've already buckled. John Roberts wants to be the next, uh Chief Justice Warren, So that's three. Um Pretty much there's there's three Constitutional is left on the Supreme Court to in particular one most of the time. And that's where we are. But that's also why they want to change our election laws. They're breaking their backs. They're afraid the house will be taken by the Republicans. Given the economic situation that's right on the horizon. To try and institute with no majority in the Senate. They don't the majority in the Senate. It's the Constitution that gives the vice president of vote. They have no significant majority in their house. They're hanging on by a thread. And by the way, the finished thread in 100 years.

American Marxist On The Democr Tony Barrett Kavanagh Rube Goldberg Chief Justice Warren Supreme Court Depression John Roberts Senate
Supreme Court in 7-2 Ruling Rejects Challenge to Obamacare

The Joe Walsh Show

00:43 sec | 2 d ago

Supreme Court in 7-2 Ruling Rejects Challenge to Obamacare

"Despite worries by Democrats that it might be overturned. The U. S Supreme Court ruled that the affordable Care act better known as Obamacare remains valid, rejecting a claim by a group of conservative states that a recent change to the law made it unconstitutional by 7 to 2 vote. The court said challengers did not have legal standing to sue because they did not make us strong enough showing that the law harm them in their descent. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have taken the case and declared it unconstitutional. The law's challengers 18 Red States, led by Texas Urged the court to rule that Obamacare's requirement for nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay an income tax penalty, known as the individual mandate was unconstitutional. And for that reason, they said, the entire law must be

U. S Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch Samuel Alito Red States Texas
Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Affordable Care Act

WBZ Morning News

00:50 sec | 2 d ago

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Affordable Care Act

Supreme Court in 7-2 Ruling Rejects Challenge to Obamacare

Houston Public Media Local Newscasts

00:57 sec | 2 d ago

Supreme Court in 7-2 Ruling Rejects Challenge to Obamacare

"It was a texas challenge to the affordable. Care act the. Us supreme court tossed out this week. From austin ashley lopez reports. The ruling came down as more. Texans are relying on the law for healthcare coverage texas attorney. General ken paxton along with more than a dozen other. Conservative states argued that the law also known as obamacare is unconstitutional. The court ruled that the states were in no position to make that case because they couldn't prove they were injured by the law. This ruling means that the affordable care act and programs like the online marketplace created by. The law will continue to offer health insurance plans to people who don't get insurance from an employer or any of the country's safety net programs according to the episcopal health foundation. More texans have enrolled for these plans through healthcare dot gov this year compared to last year. Federal data shows enrollment is up sixteen percent with more than one point. Two million texans now signed up for those plans.

Ashley Lopez Ken Paxton Texas Supreme Court Austin Episcopal Health Foundation United States
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Affordable Care Act

AP 24 Hour News

00:44 sec | 2 d ago

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Affordable Care Act

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Affordable Care Act

This Morning with Gordon Deal

00:32 sec | 2 d ago

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Affordable Care Act

"And then also pay attention to local officials as well. Landfall may occur anywhere from near the Texas Louisiana border to the western part of the Florida Panhandle number two the Supreme Court's latest rejection of a Republican effort to dismantle the affordable care act signals and knew that the GOP must look beyond repealing the law off if it wants to hold the nation's healthcare problems into a winning political issue. Thursday. 72 ruling was the third time the court has rebuffed challenges to the health care overhaul. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Affordable Care Act has

Florida Panhandle Louisiana Supreme Court Texas GOP Senate Chuck Schumer
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Fighting for Voter Reform

Mark Levin

01:59 min | 2 d ago

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Fighting for Voter Reform

"Me ask you a question. This is, uh Actually very important and interesting question. The camera wealth of Pennsylvania, My home state. The legislature's Republican The Legislature wants to pass. Voting reform. Because of the way the Democrat Party Destroyed the voting system in the state of Pennsylvania. Both attacks on the state Supreme Court. It's hack governor. It's hack. Attorney general attack secretary of state and the rest of them. Now under our federal constitution. As you know, as we've talked about Endlessly. The state legislature. Not the state. Not all branches of the state. The state Legislature is specifically Granted the power To determine the means by which elections will be held to select electors. Excludes the courts. It excludes the executive branch. Now in Pennsylvania, particular, which I am familiar. As is my wife would litigate it up there. The opposite happened. You had a court on multiple occasions. Majority Democrat elected Their highest court was rewriting the state election loss. You had the executive branch, rewriting the state election laws through Guidance and directives to the counties. They have no constitutional authority to do any of that. So the state Legislature is trying to claw some of its power back and not deny people the right to vote to deny people who aren't supposed to vote the right to vote.

Pennsylvania Legislature Democrat Party Supreme Court
Florida Supreme Court Nixes Recreational Marijuana Ballot Proposal

Glenn Beck

00:20 sec | 2 d ago

Florida Supreme Court Nixes Recreational Marijuana Ballot Proposal

Gov. Greg Abbott Should Go Forward With Building Wall Along U.S.-Mexico Border

Mark Levin

01:45 min | 2 d ago

Gov. Greg Abbott Should Go Forward With Building Wall Along U.S.-Mexico Border

"So a state has the power. Has the power To use private property. To pay for it. The market rate Under the fifth moment. I want you to look around. Look in your own community. You have schools. You're fired the department buildings you have police department buildings. You have libraries and so forth. This is an all land that was owned by communities. At times they've had to. Use private property. Called the takings clause of the Constitution. They take it. They're supposed to give fair market value for it, And it's supposed to have a real public purpose. The controversy in the Kayla decision was there wasn't a real public purpose. They were doing it for private. Developers. The Supreme Court stretched it to say while the taxes that would come from it would benefit the town, Okay. Let me ask you a question. The state of Texas If it needs to build a wall to protect its state and its sovereignty. Is there a bigger public purpose? Of course not. Of course not. Now The problem is, the state doesn't have enough resources. To build much of the Wall 250 million, or a quarter of a billion. A quarter of a billion dollars. But the governor is trying And they should go forward and do the very best that they can.

Kayla Supreme Court Texas
The Obamacare Decision by SCOTUS Shows They Are Cowards

Mark Levin

01:54 min | 2 d ago

The Obamacare Decision by SCOTUS Shows They Are Cowards

"The obamacare decision by the Supreme Court today is expected. And I'll tell you why not, for reasons so called legal analysts have to say. Because once these unconstitutional laws take hold They're almost impossible to undo. So the Supreme Court by 5 to 4 with Justice Roberts, the chief justice, flipping Wasn't 12 years ago. Turning into a tax case. He wrote The, uh, really the the law into, uh And for two forever Ville. And so no challenge will ever upset it. And Justice. Alito's dissent was brilliant. Gorsuch joined with him. We got all this head counting going on on T V. You know what? But they don't get at any of the substance, of course. This was a tax case. That's what the Supreme Court turned it into. And then when the tax issue Was repealed on the individual mandate by Congress. Suddenly, it's not a tax case anymore. Suddenly it's a standing case. So the Supreme Court turned itself three times. Now on this law, Obamacare into a pretzel. And those lawyers who really are not constitutional lawyers, but maybe their former federal prosecutors or former defense lawyers. Maybe I don't know. Former bankruptcy laws or whatever this is how they use their green eyeshades. And so that's that's not what's going on here. These justices are demonstrating over and over and over again. What a bunch of cowards there. Comey Cavanaugh really, so far disasters. Hopefully, that will change over

Supreme Court Gorsuch Justice Roberts Ville Alito Congress Comey Cavanaugh
Supreme Court Rules Catholic Group Doesn't Have to Consider LGBTQ Foster Parents

AP News Radio

00:43 sec | 2 d ago

Supreme Court Rules Catholic Group Doesn't Have to Consider LGBTQ Foster Parents

"The U. S. Supreme Court has sided with the Catholic foster care agency that cited its religious beliefs for excluding gay couples as foster parents it was unanimous decision considered a victory for religious groups as the court said the city of Philadelphia was wrong to curtail its relationship with Catholic social services because the group wouldn't work with same sex couples the decision was based solely on the facts of this case and is not a broader ruling on how to balance religious freedom with anti discrimination laws L. G. B. T. Q. groups say that they're glad this wasn't a blanket ruling three conservative justices said they would have gone much further Jackie Quinn Washington

U. S. Supreme Court Catholic Foster Care Agency Philadelphia L. G. B. T. Q. Jackie Quinn Washington
Supreme Court Rejects Third Challenge to ACA

WSJ What's News

01:31 min | 3 d ago

Supreme Court Rejects Third Challenge to ACA

"The supreme court has rejected another legal challenge to the affordable care act the signature. Healthcare law passed under the obama administration in a seven two decision. The court found that a case brought by texas and other republican leaning states lacked legal. Standing is the third time the court has considered the two thousand ten law and the third time that the aca has prevailed for more on. Today's decision i'm joined by wall street journal. Legal affairs reporter brent kendall. Hi brian thanks for being here. Thanks for having me so brent. Tell us more about the court's reasoning here. This is the third time. The court has had to wade into this area. I mean in some ways. This was the most unlikely of three cases. This was all setup because congress a couple of years ago there's a mandate in the law that most people buy insurance and there was a penalty associated with that if you didn't and so what congress did a couple years ago as part of a tax reform package zero out the penalty so now even if you don't have coverage and your technically supposed to. There's no monetary penalty for doing that. The complication is supreme court previously upheld the law and the idea that congress could use its taxing power as a justification for the mandate in the first place and so then republicans stepped in and said. Well there's no tax anymore you can't justify the law under the taxing power and so what the court said today as well. You don't really have any valid basis for making that argument because nobody is hurt by. The government charging us zero dollars for not carrying insurance. The end we don't say anything else in the case.

Obama Administration Brent Kendall Supreme Court Congress ACA Wall Street Journal Brent Texas Brian
Northwestern Band of Shoshone Sues Idaho Over Hunting Rights

Native America Calling

01:07 min | 3 d ago

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Sues Idaho Over Hunting Rights

"Tribe in utah. Suing the state of idaho for the right to hunt off reservation. The mountain west news bureaus savannah maher explains twice in the last twenty years citizens of the northwestern band of the shoshoni nation have been cited for illegal hunting on traditional shoshoni territory in idaho in federal lawsuit filed this week. The tribe argued those citizens. Actions weren't illegal at all but that they were exercising their treaty rights to hunt on the quote unoccupied lands of the united states. That language comes from the eighteen. Sixty eight four birger treaty. George governor is the northwestern bands executive director. He says the tribe is suing to be acknowledged as a on that treaty because tenant of that treaty. And that i've signed it. In good faith. The united states of america the eastern shawnee and shoshoni bannock tribes are already acknowledged as signatories. The suit comes two years after the. Us supreme court upheld crow tribal citizens off reservation hunting rights which are derived from identical treaty language but the state of wyoming is still fighting to block kortrijk hunters from exercising that right for national native news. I'm savannah

Savannah Maher Idaho Utah Shoshoni Bannock United States Of America George Us Supreme Court Wyoming Savannah
'Obamacare' survives: Supreme Court dismisses big challenge

AP News Radio

00:58 sec | 3 d ago

'Obamacare' survives: Supreme Court dismisses big challenge

"The Supreme Court has dismissed another challenge to the Obama era health care law preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans the Supreme Court has just ruled the ACA is here to stay Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was quick to hail the ruling by seven to two vote the justices left the entire affordable Care Act intact ruling that Texas and others who sued to have it scrapped failed to show they have the standing to attack it as unconstitutional they've gone after the laws mandate that people have health insurance or pay a penalty but that requirement became toothless when Congress reduced the penalty to zero four years ago meanwhile poll suggests the law has grown in popularity something president Biden and other Democrats like Schumer are looking to build on and now we're gonna try to make it bigger and better established once and for all affordable healthcare as a basic right of every American citizen Ben Thomas Washington

Supreme Court Chuck Schumer ACA Barack Obama Senate President Biden Texas Congress Schumer Ben Thomas Washington
High court dismisses challenge to Obama health law

AP News Radio

00:44 sec | 3 d ago

High court dismisses challenge to Obama health law

"The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to the Obama era health care law by seven to two vote the justices left the entire law intact ruling that Texas other Republican led states and two individuals had no right to bring their lawsuit in federal court the law's major provisions include protections for people with pre existing health conditions a range of no cost preventative services and the expansion of the Medicaid program that ensures lower income people including those who work in jobs that don't pay much or provide health insurance also left in place is the laws now toothless requirement that people have health insurance or pay a penalty Congress rendered that provision irrelevant four years ago when it reduced the penalty to zero Ben Thomas Washington

Supreme Court Barack Obama Texas Congress Ben Thomas Washington
Amazon's Poor Treatment of Workers Is Catching Up to It

The 3:59

01:21 min | 4 d ago

Amazon's Poor Treatment of Workers Is Catching Up to It

"Days right around the corner but amazon and the news for other reasons and not good roger. Chang and this is your daily charge. You're talking about amazon. And the faces is an ecommerce. Beat reporter atallah. There are number of amazon stories that came out yesterday taking a critical look at what it's like to work there. It's not pleasant Before we get to those stories you had a piece about Specifically looking at the long lines wait times at some of these amazon warehouses Brief summary of what your stories about So right now. A group of amazon warehouse workers are suing over ovid nineteen helps checks as they wait to enter the workplace in coffee in and they say can take place twenty five minutes so they're not paid for they happen before clock in And they're suing thing. They should be paid. An amazon has a history of being sued for unpaid time like that. They also underwent a series of lawsuits over not paying for people to stand in line for security texas. They left the building at the end of their shifts. And took that all the way up to the supreme court So right now. There's just sort of battle over what's paid time. What's not paid time even if it's something that amazon requires that employees

Amazon Atallah Chang Roger Texas Supreme Court
OnePlus Will Reportedly Release a Super Cheap 5G Smartphone

Daily Tech News Show

01:54 min | 5 d ago

OnePlus Will Reportedly Release a Super Cheap 5G Smartphone

"The. Uk's competition and markets authority announced an official investigation into the mobile device ecosystem looking into the dominance of ios and android and the control that both have over at marketplace's results of the investigation are expected to be published within a year. The previously announced an investigation into whether apple unfair unfairly favored itself in the app store. The us supreme court has overruled a twenty nine. Nine hundred ninth. Us circuit court of appeals decision. That had barred lincoln from preventing heike labs from harvesting personal data from public profiles. If you're not following it. The decision was heike. Labs can harvest the details from lincoln and the supreme court said no. We're thrown out. That decision the appeals court had ruled that the computer fraud and abuse act did not apply when no authorization was needed to access public user data. In other words. It's just there on the web The ruling was sent back to the ninth circuit by the supreme court to reconsider in light of the supreme court's own june fourth ruling on the computer fraud and abuse act which did find that someone could not be found guilty under the law for misusing information on a system. They have permission to access so it could end up with the same decision. It just needs a different legal justification. One plus announced the nord en a two hundred five g for two hundred forty dollars going on sale in the us to t mobile and metro customers. June twenty-fifth it will also come to canada or three hundred twenty canadian dollars. The in twenty five g has a six point. Four nine inch. Hd ninety hurts. Display qualcomm snapdragon. Four eighty chipset. So this is a budget phone with four gigs of ram and sixty four gigs of expandable storage. The end two hundred has three three rear lenses with a thirteen megapixel main sensor sixteen megapixel front cam. Five thousand million battery is returnable using an eighteen. Watt fast charger

Competition And Markets Author Us Circuit Court Of Appeals Supreme Court Lincoln Us Supreme Court Heike App Store UK Apple Qualcomm Canada United States
"us supreme court" Discussed on True Mysteries of the Pacific Northwest

True Mysteries of the Pacific Northwest

04:10 min | 9 months ago

"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 Supreme Court Senate Samuel Chase House of Representatives Abe Fortas official US US Constitution John Marshall president
"us supreme court" Discussed on True Mysteries of the Pacific Northwest

True Mysteries of the Pacific Northwest

03:42 min | 9 months ago

"us supreme court" Discussed on True Mysteries of the Pacific Northwest

"While kits myths and mysteries Kit Chrome today, your host is nationally recognized social political analyst, Ray Ruckus Good morning ray political mystery will you be unraveling for us today? Well, the morning. I'll be looking at the Supreme Court and how it could possibly make unbiased decisions when it is so partisan driven while. Good sounds like you got your hands full hope you've done your research ray. Yeah. All the time research research research well, take it away. When he says Takeaway well, anyway I in this in this discussion about supreme. Court I needed a point of reference. So I researched what the purpose of the Supreme Court is and I found the following Supreme. Court plays a big role in our constitutional system of government. Remember that I as the highest court in the land it is a quarter of last resort for those lucky for justice second due to its power of judicial review. It plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government. Remember we have three branches recognizes the limits of its own power. Basically, the Supreme Court is the Final Court of Appeal in Spas Eter of the Constitution of the United States within the framework of litigation. The Supreme Court marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation state and stayed in government and citizen. You need to pay attention because we're about to get into some manipulation of the highest court in the land, the Organization of the federal judicial system including the size. So the Supreme Court is established by Congress from seventeen eighty, nine to eighteen o seven, the core comprised itself of six justices in eighteen o seven, a seventh justice was added followed by an eighth and ninth in eighteen, thirty seven and a tenth in eighteen, sixty three. The size of the court sometimes been subject to political manipulation. Oh, boy. Here we go. For example, in eighteen, sixty, six congress provided for the gradual reduction through attrition of the Court to seven justices to assure that. President, Andrew Johnson whom the House of Representatives later impeached and the Senate only narrowly acquitted could not appoint a new justice. The number of. is reached eight before Congress. After Johnson had left office, they adopted legislation eighteen, sixty nine setting the number at nine where it has remained ever since or kind of the idea of nine is not to have a tie in the nineteen thirties President Franklin D Roosevelt ask Congress to consider legislation, which is subsequently rejected that would have allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for each member of the Court Age Seventy years or older who refused to retire. Now, remember our justices in this prim court are there for life according to the Constitution appointments to the Supreme Court and? To lower federal courts are made by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate though presidents have rarely consulted the Senate before making a nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee ordinarily conducts hearings on nominations to the Supreme Court and a simple majority of the full. Senate is required for confirmation when the position of chief justice vacant, the President may appoint a chief justice from outside the court or elevate an associate justice to the position of chief justice..

Supreme Court Final Court of Appeal Senate Congress Senate Judiciary Committee President Ray Ruckus political analyst President Franklin D Roosevelt Takeaway Andrew Johnson Spas Eter House of Representatives United States
"us supreme court" Discussed on PRI's The World

PRI's The World

07:19 min | 1 year ago

"us supreme court" Discussed on PRI's The World

"This is the world I'm Carol. Hills the US Supreme Court weighed in today on the question of presidential power and in a big way. The justices decided seven two two that prosecutors in new. York must be given access to president. Trump's financial records White House lawyers were arguing that trump should be immune from criminal proceedings, but that argument did not fly. It means executives financial institutions who've done business with Donald trump are now going to have to decide how to respond Deutsche Bank headquartered in Frankfurt Germany is one of them. David enrich is the author of a new book called Dark Towers Deutsche Bank Donald Trump in an epic trail of destruction David. Enrich joins US now from new. New York. David Tell me about the relationship between Donald, trump and bank. They go back a long way, right? Yeah, they go back nearly two decades at this point and for Donald. Trump he was actually a pariah in the banking world for a very long time, because of his tendency to default on loans and stiff, his business partners, and doing to bang starting the late nineteen nineties was the one mainstream financial institution that was consistently willing to do business with trump, and so over a period of many years the bank lent him two billion dollars, and currently with him in the White House. He's still owes the bank more three hundred million dollars in debt to the bank. What kind of reputation does Deutsche Bank have very very bad? The banks been around for one hundred and fifty years with a brief interruption when it was the Nazi Party's Bank of choice and. Twenty years or so, the bank became a much bigger player on Wall Street, and became frankly just much greater, really pursued short-term profits above absolutely everything else, and as a direct consequence, the bank gotten all sorts of trouble for intimate every offense under the sun money laundry attacks of agent, violating international sanctions, ripping off its customers, ripping off investors, governments and doing business with kind of a WHO's who of bad people, whether is Jeffrey Epstein or Russian oligarchs or alleged terrorist organizations. So, don't you? Banks done a lot of business with Donald Trump. Presumably, they have a lot of records on trump's financial life. What is don't you bank now? Bank knows just about everything. There is to know about Donald Trump's finances. Really I mean they have tax returns of of trump's companies, family members they are able to identify the shell companies that are used by trump and his business partners around the world to boot money, and they also have detailed records about essentially suspicious transactions that have taken place in the trump accounts. That's something that we know about. Because there have been some whistle blowers who tried to raise red flags and were thwarted by the bank, so it really represents a huge treasure trove of the president's financials. Why don't you bank a Federal Court last? October that it did not have trump's tax returns. That is a very good question. The odd thing about this is that as I was reporting. My book our powers. I talked to people at Deutsche Bank. Would personally seen trump's tax returns in previous years, so the bank did have his tax returns, and if you take it at face value that they no longer do that, means they somehow got rid of them? which might reporting suggest the most likely case is that they returned them to trump maybe shortly, worried again present, what today's ruling then couldn't Deutsche Bank be called upon to release this financial information including tax returns that so many people would like to see well I think a lot of ways today's ruling. A pretty big victory for president trump issue is not settled yet, and it's going to go back to lower courts to hash out the details of how these units will be enforced, and exactly what information is being ended over, but the trump families goal from the moment these subpoenas were issued last spring as been to delay delay delay, and as a result of today's. Supreme Court decisions. There's almost zero chance that join tobacco or maize ours. The firm will hand over anything to anyone before the election so I think trump is probably reading a bit of a sigh of relief right now. David enrich author of the new book Dark Towers Deutsche Bank Donald Trump in an epic trail of destruction. Thanks a lot David. EXE Any. We know that the legal system here in the US can work differently for people who are citizens and those who are not now during the pandemic, those differences can put some immigrants at greater risk, including people just released from prison. The world's Monica. Campbell spoke with one of them i. ask how he's feeling. I woke up all right, but right before you calls having a coughing fit now. I'm talking to you got laid on my chest to control it. Will you need a second? Take it? Just needs to keep myself on my bed on my. Stomach okay SHANTANU. Bun is in San Francisco and. He tested positive for the coronavirus, but his spirits are high. Feel great even about to go through this. It's such a great feeling. Ben was just released from San Quentin State Prison. He's spent the past twenty three years inside since he was eighteen for an armed robbery of a computer store, nobody was injured. He had braced himself for a far different scenario. The day he got out the Friday before I was released ice came in interview me and said they were picking me up from Cambodia. He arrived. Arrived as a refugee when he was a kid, he has a green card, but his criminal record makes him a target for Ice Immigration and customs enforcement across the US prison officials normally notify ice when they are releasing eight non-citizen that the agency wants in custody, but things have become more complicated. Transferring people from prisons to immigration detention centres now is incredibly risky and controversial, because many of these places are rife with corona. Virus Bunn started to feel sick during his last days in San Quentin and this. This made his lawyer nervous. We were deeply concerned and knows getting letters from Bonn as he was watching the outbreaks spread around him. A new PERSAD is a longtime immigration lawyer in San. Francisco, he was feeling increasingly panicked and felt like a sitting duck. Santa's solid I was just a matter of time clock of came and got him so the idea that fun feeling. SEC would be transferred from prison to a crowded detention center seemed wrong. We knew very well that if he gets transferred ice, he very. Very well May, in fact, other people, and he may not survive preside and his organization the Asian Law. Caucus launched a public campaign. We had been holding rallies and call and actions. This seem to work. Because when Bunn was released from prison ice wasn't there to pick him up. which is extremely unusual. Every year thousands of immigrants are released from prison and put into detention where they face deportation immigrant rights. Activists have been fighting this policy for years, but it's come under renewed scrutiny with the pandemic some. Lawmakers want the ice transfers to stop particularly with the threat of Covid nineteen last week..

Donald trump Deutsche Bank trump David US US Supreme Court president San Francisco York New York Jeffrey Epstein Nazi Party San Quentin State Prison coughing White House Bunn Federal Court San Quentin Cambodia
"us supreme court" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor

Consumer Finance Monitor

04:29 min | 1 year ago

"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.

Supreme Court Humphrey Federal Trade Commission CFPB director executive humphries President F. T. C.
"us supreme court" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor

Consumer Finance Monitor

04:11 min | 1 year ago

"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..

Supreme Court US Supreme Court. Justice Department Ninth Circuit justice Kagan federal government Congress Deepak CFP Congress.
"us supreme court" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor

Consumer Finance Monitor

05:03 min | 1 year ago

"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 lecturer Deepak Gupta Supreme Court Consumer Financial Protection Allen Gupta Wessler apple spotify Federal Reserve Harvard Elizabeth Warren CFP Google Public Citizen Litigation Grou attorney director
"us supreme court" Discussed on PRI's The World

PRI's The World

02:07 min | 1 year ago

"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..

Marco Werman Chinese government China software engineer US Human Rights Community Philippines BBC Virginia Maria Recipe W. G. B. H.
"us supreme court" Discussed on PRI's The World

PRI's The World

07:07 min | 1 year ago

"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..

president China trump United States John Bolton Chinese government China Power Project Center for Strategic and Inter Bonnie glaser Bonnie Glaser National Security director software engineer Washington Tom Perez Virginia Washington Weavers
"us supreme court" Discussed on PRI's The World

PRI's The World

03:14 min | 1 year ago

"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..

Filter Hotel US letitia Chavarria Wada Mexico Kansallis Colvin Hunter S. Gang Medical Coordinator William Difficult Paso Honduras Juarez Memorial El Cuba
"us supreme court" Discussed on Radio Free Flint

Radio Free Flint

06:44 min | 1 year ago

"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.

United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Maran Justice Scalia Moran Red Flint basketball Washington prosecutor Justice William Rehnquist Moses flint courthouse Flint Michigan University of dixieland subdiv Detroit Bell Rang Coney Island Gore Vincent
"us supreme court" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

03:10 min | 2 years ago

"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 two year
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC

CNN's The Daily DC

04:13 min | 3 years ago

"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.

two years three days
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC

CNN's The Daily DC

02:05 min | 3 years ago

"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.

trump north dakota intech merrick garland obama clarence thomas united states ruth bader ginsburg clinton president mitch mcconnell forty five years two centuries
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC

CNN's The Daily DC

04:23 min | 3 years ago

"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.

political director analyst cnn joan biskupic fifty three years
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC

CNN's The Daily DC

01:56 min | 3 years ago

"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.

democratic party john roberts washington kennedy court republican party reagan eighteen months
"us supreme court" Discussed on CNN's The Daily DC

CNN's The Daily DC

04:38 min | 3 years ago

"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

CNN's The Daily DC

04:32 min | 3 years ago

"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.

thirty years one day