18 Burst results for "Warren Court"

"warren court" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

02:54 min | 6 months ago

"warren court" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

"The Supreme Court thinking outside. Things always works In nineteen fifty four with Warrants FIRST YEAR ARRIVING COURT HANDS DOWN. Brown versus education and After that begins we slow but eventually fairly successful project of desegregating schools in the south and the same time. They are transforming many other areas of law. This is the period in which we got the Miranda decision. Which leads to tell you that you have the right to remain silent before the question. You we got giddying Wainwright wainwright which promised every poor criminal. Defendant the right to a lawyer. We got Decision striking down the poll tax. We got decisions striking down Force prayer in public schools so in many many areas. The Warren Court was Transforming Society for the better When you say activists I mean what made the Warren Court activists? Well the Warren Court was not afraid to strike down laws or to Issue orders to institutions when it's thought unconstitutional things going on so for example Striking down laws. We just didn't south segregating not just schools but you know Jim. Crow segregated every aspect of society. The court was willing to strike those laws down in the way that the court had not been before. But also you look at the decision like Gideon B wainwright guaranteeing every indigent defending the rights to aware. That's a huge thing with that is imposing on every jurisdiction in the country and affirmative obligation to come up with lawyers for people that was inexpensive ruling for every city and county and state in the country. The Warren Court wasn't afraid to do that when they thought it was a constitutional rate that had to be vindicated. And let's just I so there's really two different elements to activism in this context. One is A willingness to strike down laws and really in some ways act contrary to a Legislators legislative will based upon the Constitution. And then the other is to create mechanisms or requirements to protect constitutional rights. As in like you said in Gideon I think that's right exactly and these were thing that the court had done at some time in the past it it more often that the conservative direction In nineteen twenties court was being activists to strike down progressive legislation including laws against child labor. But here in the sixties Starting fifties mainly the sixties. We had a liberal quote was actually willing to do this activism on behalf of the most disadvantaged members of society. Okay and so.

Warren Court Supreme Court Transforming Society Wainwright wainwright Gideon B Brown Miranda Crow Jim
'Supreme Inequality' Argues That America's Top Court Has Become Right-Wing

Fresh Air

08:29 min | 7 months ago

'Supreme Inequality' Argues That America's Top Court Has Become Right-Wing

"Us my guest is Adam Cohen he's a lawyer and a journalist and author of the new book supreme inequality the supreme court's fifty year battle for a more unjust America it's about how the Supreme Court has grown more conservative often ruling against the poor against workers rights against voting rights while favoring corporations and the wealthy overall contributing to income inequality you read that in the five decades since the Nixon presidency there've only been three Supreme Court chief justices and they've all been conservative burger Rehnquist and Roberts yes and they've had a conservative majority behind them the whole time and that's really stunning right because if you think about going back to nineteen seventy we've had so many changes in the White House right we've had conservatives we've had you know we've had Reagan we've had George W. bush and we've had Clinton we've had Obama Congress has switched parties multiple times right back and forth back and forth we have just had a right wing court for sixty years so do you think that's kind of coincidence that justices tend to to leave or die during Republican presidencies or it do you think that Republicans are better at getting Supreme Court justices appointed well the game the whole system much better than Democrats do in many ways so one way is that they do tend to step down in strategic ways that Democrats often don't so Anthony Kennedy stepped down at a time when he knew that trump would be able to replace him and get his nominee confirmed by Republican held Senate with Peter Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer did not step down towards the end of the Obama administration's that's one part of it but another part of it really is that they just do the skulduggery a little bit better to write so when Obama nominated Merrick garland it's garland had been confirmed that would have restored a liberal majority to the court for the first time in half a century and look what the Republican Senate did they just said we're not interested what I can do anything so you're actually say in the book that these are kind of two book ends on the the half century that Nixon steals for this is C. and Mitch McConnell refuses to allow a Democrat to fill Scalia's seat and the both propped up the current conservative majority there's something about the process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices that seems to have changed now you mention the McConnell blocking the Merrick garland nomination but you know trump named his potential justices during the campaign that that's kind of unheard of isn't it's gotten much more political and just the way in which trump is saying you know I we were putting together this list and we're consulting with the federal society and and I think it's pretty much acknowledged that you know trump in many ways was not very traditional right wing presidential candidate by background by temperament to many other things one thing he clearly did to solidify his support from the right wing from fundamentalist Christians and all that was to make it clear to them we're going to choose the kind of justices you walked and they've been very emphatic about doing that it used to be the was not supposed to be a litmus test for Supreme Court justice but now both Democrats and Republicans seem to be boldly mentioning their support of a litmus test I mean some democratic candidates have said that yeah they would choose you know Supreme Court justice who supports abortion rights at that would be essential so I think that's something that's changed too with that you know intentionally stating to the public yes this this judge is coming in with you know certain points of view in advance I think that's right the mask is falling off right everyone can see what's really going on you know in theory if the court is the sort of legal body we like to pretend it is what present should be saying is I'm gonna look for the best interpreter of the law I will look for someone who maybe got very good grades or road very good lord you articles or who is a fabulous teacher or who has shown just a general you know excellence in the craft but that's not what they talk about it all is as you say they talk about the politics because everyone's pretty much admitting now that the court is a political institution you read that the area in which the Supreme Court has changed the most is in the area of economic class give us an example of that sure during the war in court which we were talking about the court really embraced poor people and their problems so we began to see them being very active around issues like the poll tax but also really about welfare right I mean welfare used to be something that was kind of disparaged and embarrassment people didn't talk about it we looked out the people who are on welfare well the Warren court comes along and says no welfare is an important thing in our society that allows people to subsist and the and actually right after the Warren court ended with the momentum of the Warren court in nineteen seventy the Supreme Court did an amazing thing in a case called October versus Kelly they actually ruled that under the due process clause localities cannot remove people from the welfare rolls without giving them a formal hearing first chance to be heard so that's that's something that is you know it would have been unheard of a decade earlier so that was the kind of new approach the court took to the poor but then when the burger court rises and when the Nixon justice is really begin to take control the quick very quickly turned his back on the poor and and it's actually just a couple weeks later that the court issues a ruling that really sounded the death knell for the poverty law movement case called energy Williams where the court not only said that they were going to uphold really discriminatory unfair local welfare rule but he basically said you know we're washing our hands of welfare law cases where it's you know it's the this is something we're pretty much going to leave to the government to do as they want and after that Dandridge case although not in on the court began to rule against the poor and to make clear that they didn't care about things like whether welfare was fair by the controversy over whether the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should include poor people as a group with special protected status yeah this is one of the most fascinating things that was going on during the war in Europe so there is this notion of a suspect class is there certain classes that the court says I have a higher standing under the equal protection clause so it it's mainly you know racial minorities religious minorities non citizens groups like that and the idea is that if you're a discreet and insular minority that is unable to really effectively protect itself through the political process which is often true of the groups I just mentioned the court will give you extra care so the court had been for years identifying different groups it considered to be in this class and if you get in this class the court is that much more likely to strike down any laws that puts a burden on your disadvantages you and for years the court was edging close to putting poor people in this category they would say things like you know what lines with the government draws against poor people are very similar to lines of the drive against racial groups and you know everything but actually calling the suspect class and we don't know what the Warren court would have done if it had been allowed to continue but one of the first things the burger court did in that dentures case as I mentioned was really make clear no the poor not could be a suspect class and they're not getting any special attention from us so if the court had ruled differently and said poor people were a protected class how might that have changed things the poor would then be given a very powerful legal tool to use in a lot of different context to challenge a lot of ways in which their heartbeat so right now we have very unequal distribution of of welfare around the country there are some states that if you live in California New York not that welfare is munificent because it is not but with the other states where you get almost nothing you know if you're if you're in Wyoming and you need help so things like that could have been amenable to being challenged by under equal protection for people to say look we're not being treated equally by the federal government how it distributes well for so there are a lot of categories like that we're we're populars would've been able to step up and say this is a way in which a law is really hurting the poor and remember there are a suspect class my guess is Adam Cohen author of the new books of freedom and

Adam Cohen America Supreme Court
"warren court" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

03:48 min | 1 year ago

"warren court" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Side is map versus Ohio. What does this tell us about how the war in court addressed the fourth amendment issue that you just spoke to? I'm sorry. The Warren court was interesting. I they try to really expand the idea of privacy of beyond were had been historically. Understood. They tried. Summit successfully to make it very difficult for the government to ever use information that came upon without a warrant. So if you look at the text of the fourth amendment, it says to Shelby, no unreasonable searches that's the first part. And then the second part the amendment says, and there should be no warrants issue except on probable cause of a crime. So specific specificity. So what the Warren court did is it merged those two phrases. And it said there can be no searches without a want kind of read the word reasonable out. And so matters is the court said if the government does a search if it collects information and didn't have a warrant about you. Then it'll be suppressed it won't be allowed to be used at trial. Even a great liberal Justice Justice Louis Brandeis complained about this. And he said because the constable stumbled does that mean guilty criminal shall go? Free. This complaint was. If we want to correct, how does searches let's regulate the garment, but that doesn't mean that we should let people who are guilty of committing crimes go free as the remedy for. It is often held up as one of the great examples of the Warren court's activism that they stepped in and basically said the federal courts in the supreme court alternately, we're going to review how every police department police officer in the country does their job I learned from you that there's another case for the war in court. That is helpful to understand the challenge for the Roberts court here in the digital universe that we live in that is cats versus United States nineteen sixty seven how does that illustrate the war in courts carefulness with regard the fourth amendment and warrants? So this is the interesting thing is cats is in the late sixties, but what is grappling with is merchants of telephone which was much much earlier lakes, and again under the old doctrine now talking about if you had sent something off, you know, giving it away to third party the courts generally said Venice, no longer private. So seems you keeping your house on your person. You know with the fourth McCall's your home's persons affects papers, those would be protected. So cats was a case about a phone booths course now catches a relevant 'cause you never see any phone booths anymore. I was trying to remember the last time I saw public. But so casual about public phone booth and the government wiretap did. And they said when they record phone call as he was a mobster. They said guy was running illegal gambling. And those governments said look he's out in public. He's using public phone booths. How can anyone think he has a right to privacy? And public would hear the Warren court really tried to create a kind of framework to race to address these new questions of the new technology the telephone, and they said, he's the interesting thing, they they're not going to draw bright lines. These things are private theses are not private what they're gonna do say does society believes.

Warren court Justice Justice Louis Brandeis Ohio Shelby United States Venice McCall Roberts officer
"warren court" Discussed on Newsradio 950 WWJ

Newsradio 950 WWJ

01:35 min | 1 year ago

"warren court" Discussed on Newsradio 950 WWJ

"There could be a few flurries later tomorrow night into Wednesday morning complete AccuWeather forecast is coming up sunny. Thirty four degrees right now at Detroit city airport. WWE news time three oh three do this afternoon. A couple of peers in the Warren court today to be arraigned on murder charges in connection with the drug related death of their eighteen month old daughter, w w j NewsRadio nine fifty Sandra McNeill is live and local with the story for Sandra. Greg Antonio Floyd. And shawnise Barksdale are charged with second degree, murder and other felonies in connection with the Christmas day overdose death of their daughter Ava. The medical examiner ruled that the little girl had ingested a fatal dose of the narcotic sentinel arraigned by video Barksdale asked the judge to explain the charges killing Floyd. Without premeditation or deliberate understand that. Now Floyd has several previous felony convictions. And impact was out on bond awaiting sentencing for Warren, home, invasion, the judge denied bail for both. He and Barksdale reporting live, Sandra McNeill, w w j NewsRadio nine fifty meantime, a stepped up effort to take on the opioid drug crisis in McComb county, WW J NewsRadio nine fifty s. Vicki Thomas has more Warren police Commissioner Bill Dwyer's says the statistics are staggering federal immigration officials seized enough vetnar last year. To kill newly twice the entire population of the United States for him. This war on drugs through the new phantom task force is personal Dwyer lost fifty five year old son in November.

shawnise Barksdale Greg Antonio Floyd Sandra McNeill Bill Dwyer murder Detroit city airport AccuWeather Warren WWE vetnar Vicki Thomas United States McComb county WW J Thirty four degrees fifty five year eighteen month
"warren court" Discussed on The Electorette Podcast

The Electorette Podcast

05:06 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on The Electorette Podcast

"Slow. Yeah, that's my core teas. So, and I love the decision by the Warren court. They're like, no, this is dealing with that pernicious evil that has systematically stopped a segment of our population from voting despite the fifteenth amendment. The Voting Rights Act is constitutional. South Carolina was like, dang, but no. But as I say, it really is all of these cases are laying the groundwork for what John Roberts would pull upon for the Shelby county v holder decision. And then there was where Mississippi and Virginia then try to say, okay, we can't do a full frontal assault on the Voting Rights Act. But let's see if we can do an in run around it and get the Voting Rights Act really limited to like the big nasty, big ugly things. No poll tax. Great. Because now we've got a constitutional Amendment, No literacy test, but maybe drawing our own different kinds of boundaries or changing the way that people have to do a write in ballots that's really not worthy of having to get pre clearance. And so you. You can see in that they're trying to then find ways to tinker with voting rights that can steal keep African Americans disfranchised, but just the way the Mississippi plan figured out how to do it on this side of the fifteenth amendment. Now, Virginia and Mississippi were trying to figure out how do we do it on this side of the Voting Rights Act and they tinkered and they tinkered and the supreme court came back again, this is the Warren court going, no Satan, not today. I need to stop that. Yeah, they're like, you know, this deals not only with, you know, in and again, the ruling was very clear this deals not only with the kinds of big things, but also the subtle changes that have as its effect disc franchising populations. And you could see that darn, but it doesn't mean that they stopped over and over these states, these jurisdictions are pushing the boundaries, pushing the limits, seeing how much they can get away with and each decision each each or no, as the supreme court changes really begins to provide the fodder that John Roberts uses in his decision. Shelby county v holder to basically dismantle so much of the Voting Rights Act and its effectiveness. Yeah. So I wanna I wanna roll back a little bit because they're two really important things that happened before it's too Shelby county versus so one of them is in this is my favorite element of voter suppression, right? It's my favorite because it's just so so cynical voter fraud, right? The claims of voter fraud, right in, you know, win. Those whisper started to happen. So the thing about that. That's so interesting to me is the level of gas lighting. So use cheating. You use cheating and deception. Keep people from voting and then you accuse them of cheating. It's like being married to a crazy man. Right? Did you? It's like that movie gas lighting were Ingrid Bergman is there s she thinks she is losing hall my because she sees the gaslight going down and her husband's baby. What did you say? She knows handkerchief in person and all of a sudden it's not there, and he's. She's like, I love that movie right. Go to the poll. You try to vote. They say, oh, you're name was in here, but then later you hear on the news that their Keesing your your community of trying to cheat, you know. So let's take the two thousand election. Yeah, I know please take it. Yeah. Yeah, right. So in that two thousand election, we, we've paid a lot of attention to Florida because Florida was a hot mess. What was happening there with a combination of Katherine Harris, Harris's, secretary of state and Jeb Bush as governor while his brother George W is running as the Republican nominee for president. That's where the focus was hanging chads purge voter rolls, having police officers stationed in the black neighborhood in Jacksonville in the only road coming into the precinct polling station. I just like really, really, but Saint Louis. I remember that party book. I was reading them..

Shelby county Warren court Mississippi John Roberts Ingrid Bergman Virginia South Carolina Florida Katherine Harris Jeb Bush Jacksonville assault Saint Louis George W president
"warren court" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

03:16 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

"And we are in los angeles george hey mark davis in for dennis welcome how are you oh i'm doing well and i always appreciate talking with you i just wanted to say how much i appreciate it your explanation about this story and that will be weight is not a law it is a judicial ruling interestingly enough cobbled together a first amendment right of freedom of speech belief all this stuff with a a a right of privacy implied from the forest event you know like a patient the privacy of patient talking to their doctor right and it was many many years later that the congress followed up with the hippo laws the no the health information patient yeah so it things between a woman and her doctor well we recognize a kind of a sacredness to that when we look at this and of the holy bible says there is no life without blood and those cells they divide cuss flooding blood and blood brings things and more i don't know if you've ever knew this but the growing fetus actually controls the mother as if it is a host and it controls the mothers of you know there's there there's a tow believe you may any any who's ever has ever seen a pregnant wife knows full well that that that baby runs the show in certain ways in terms of what happens with moms biology couple of key words their privacy you're right that is the that that is the tool that the warren court used to jimmy open constitutional logic and hijack it completely and find the right to abortion they based it on a on a privacy right are you kidding me this is as far as anything between a woman and her doctor sure there plenty of things that if they truly are only between a woman and her doctor that truly is nobody else's business it becomes somebody else's business when another human life is involved if there's anybody walking around or anybody tries to pull that around here and it'll it'll be interesting and everyone will be treated with love and respect of course but that's a call that will go interestingly hey it's just between a woman and her doctor well that ghoulish leave somebody out of the out of the equation and the left will try to to walk around with this and they're the ones who save it they are pro child and they're the ones who say that they wanna give voice to the voiceless and defend the.

los angeles mark davis dennis congress warren court jimmy
"warren court" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

C-SPAN Radio

02:18 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

"The number of cases reception number of cases you have a prosecution and defense attorney for each case and then there were two friend of the court arguments one by solicitor general work for the united states and one by the california attorney general what the question for both what was the overall attitude of the borger court towards criminal justice cases are we learned a lot about the warren court and its approaches to criminal justice how 'bout did the burger court establish a sort of worldview adoring it's time yes i mean what many people talk about the counter revolution in criminal procedure wrought by the burger court so the the warren court had been known for establishing many procedural protections in criminal cases such as the miranda famous miranda warnings the application of the exclusionary rule to the states for unconstitutionally seized evidence the extension of the right to a jury trial in the states which had not been mandated until nineteen sixty eight the requirement of a right to counsel in all serious criminal cases for defendants which should also not been extended to all of the state so that was the warren court's criminal procedure revolution the burger court really tried to walk that back and established many more limitations on the rights created by the warren court in addition to death penalty what are some of the criminal justice cases the court took on that established his reputation well i don't think that reputation i think it's a bit overstated i don't think would qualify as a counter revolution he did not push much further in and there were some cutbacks but i think on the whole it was a a fairly mild correction to the huge change that happened during the warren court era we did see the growth during this period of the beginning of the good faith exception to the exclusion role for example but the exclusionary rule itself still stands we saw some exceptions to the miranda rule but the main miranda rule is still there so there are some movements back in the other direction that not not a huge one naughty naughty revolutionary change direction let's return to your phone calls next up this mark in carey ohio hi mark hi my question to the panel ears should.

united states borger court warren court burger court ohio attorney california miranda
"warren court" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

C-SPAN Radio

01:37 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

"Moving so fast that often states have not pass laws regulating for example g locational privacy before congress has there's been a bill pending in congress that has bipartisan sponsorship that would regulate geo locational privacy it hasn't passed yet and not enough of the states have regulated it to give the court guidance which makes the whole enterprise frustratingly amorphous and makes originalist and textualist justice gorsuch prefer to look to property standards and justice alito said to state based trespass rules to try to identify something objective this is what justice black was upset about and to give him his due he was right that there's something mushy and shaggy dog like about this reasonableness standard and i think both sides are recognizing that it's not satisfactory historical question from your on twitter asking do you feel that url warren expanded civil rights because he felt guilty about the denial of japanese rights during world war two when he was governor of california and then going to dc to see further denial especially to blacks do we know anything from his writings or his commentary about the motivation will we know that he was very upset at the end of his life about his role in the japanese internment and his autobiography and revising he expressed regret for his role and then he wept however real warren was not soft on crime contrary to popular conception of the warren court in those impeach warren banners he sided with law enforcement frequently he was a former prosecutor and did not view this.

congress twitter california warren court prosecutor alito
"warren court" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

C-SPAN Radio

02:43 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

"A dramatically different lights suggests that he was actually involved in the crime himself and was serving as the lookout for the perpetrators of the crime as opposed to this innocent eyewitness he was able to point out that basically given the phone booth he was at and where he was looking he probably couldn't even seen in the pool well hall there were all these things in the government's case that looked so different when you had a lawyer there who was able to very effectively cross examine the star witness and then make a closing argument that brought it all together for the jury so this is a perfect illustration of the point that the courtroom is governed by these very technical rules at evian evidence the star witness against him and gideon asked him have you ever been arrested and that was objected to and but but the lawyer was able to bring out well you know have you ever been convicted in the fellow said well not quite and it was you know was there was probation blah blah blah so the lawyer knew how to navigate the rules of evidence in a way that gideon didn't so the impact of this decision for criminal defendants how did it affect the the system beckley gives us a tweet to ask that how did get in v wainwright case affect the criminal justice system with regard to the sixth amendment right to speedy trial so what happened more systemically systemically what happens is that this right now becomes a nationwide right it is the the gideon case is a impetus for reforms in the federal system providing appointed counsel and creating the financial structure so that somebody can actually provide this service and make a living is a lawyer and become expert and providing criminal law you have public defenders offices that are essentially put in place after this decision you know there's there's an interesting way to that this gideon decision is related to the rest of the warren court's revolution in criminal procedure because the warren court is giving criminals new rights but the complicated new rights that you'd really need a lawyer to take advantage of so it's not clear to me that you could have had the rest of the warren court criminal procedure revolution if you didn't have gideon in place there are two kinds of fundamental rights that really are best understood the.

gideon beckley warren court evian wainwright
"warren court" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

01:32 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"Settle what legal claims are so so that's kind of the one point that this the second point that that i would make with respect to the political change argument and this and by the way you're giving voice to a position that people gave voice to in the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies right like when the supreme court it's most controversial decisions when the supreme court was the furthest left and as i would point out when the supreme court issued the opinions that gave right to the the the warren court that gave rise to all of the things that we think of as our key rights today right all of those pretty much came out of the warren court and and and there were lots of people in society that made the argument of hey look we've got a court ordering school districts to boss black kids into white schools and this may be a great idea but this should be something that is handled by the legislature this shouldn't be something that is being handled by the supreme court if we want to have that fight let's have that fight we're fighting over civil rights right now but let's not have the court to it and and my response back to that is i think that is profoundly deeply unamerican in in terms of our history and in terms of the way our founders envisioned that judiciary would work and so if i can you know kind of drill down on that a little bit.

supreme court warren court
"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

Omnibus

01:46 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

"Earlier of taking the antipatriotism argument right but three years later a nearly identical case came back up and the court ruled six two three that just kidding you can sit out the pledge if you have your convictions demanded is this the warren court does this oral warn era no harline stone was articles achieve justice in the 1940s do jehovah's witnesses make that case about a swearing on a bible in corks or pledging allegiance to the united states in it when they joined the military yes i believe so they you know you have the option to affirm rather than swear and if that's not nothing a loophole for them i think they i think they're just given a pass right and today it's you know there's a challenges from all kinds of humanist an atheist organizations on the same grounds pride and even the idea that i kid sitting given the opportunity to opt out of the pledge of the texas pledges not a good solution because it again it isolates the kid and and so ties is him or her do we live now in an era when people do not say the pledge in schools i haven't been in a a cool at dawn in a time it's interesting so washington state law we live in the grace that are washed in washington dictates that the pledge of allegiance should be set every morning in my experience there is almost no seattle public school but does so and in fact a local school with a kind of a global who internationalised flavor took a lot of heat from parents a couple of years ago when it started saying the pledge you know hey we took our kids here to have more of a touchy feeley one world united federation of planet survive sure and this is really harshening are melo every morning so all the schools in seattle or not in compliance with state law i feel i feel like there's maybe a crackdown if maybe that invalidates the education that all these kids are getting their diplomas are actually no good.

warren court united states seattle melo texas washington feeley three years
"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

Omnibus

01:45 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

"Of taking the antipatriotism argument right but three years later a nearly identical case came back up and the court ruled six two three that just kidding you can sit out the pledge if you owe your convictions demanded is this the warren court is this earl warn era no harlan's stone was articles achieve justice in the 1940s do jehovah's witnesses make that case about a swearing on a bible in court or pledging allegiance to the united states in when they joined the military yes i believe so they you have the option to affirm rather than swear and if that's not enough in a loophole for them i think they i think they're just given a pass right and today it's you know there's a challenges from all kinds of humanist an atheist organizations on the same grounds pride and even the idea that i kid sitting given the opportunity to opt out of the pledge of the texas pledges not a good solution because it again it isolates the kid and and so ties is him or her do we live now in an era when people do not say the pledge in schools i haven't been in a a school at dawn in a long time it's interesting a washington state law we live in the great unwashed in washington dictates that the pledge of allegiance should be set every morning in my experience there's almost no seattle public school that does so and in fact a local school with a kind of a global who internationalised flavor took a lot of heat from parents a couple of years ago when it started saying the pledge you know hey we took our kids here to have more of a touchy feeley one world united federation of planet survive sure and this is really harshening are melo every morning so all the schools in seattle or not in compliance with state law i feel i feel like there's maybe a crackdown if maybe that invalidates the education that all these kids are getting their diplomas are actually no good.

harlan united states seattle melo texas washington feeley three years
"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

Omnibus

01:45 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

"Of taking the antipatriotism argument right but three years later a nearly identical case came back up and the court ruled six two three that just kidding you can sit out the pledge if you have your convictions demanded is this the warren court does this oral warn era no harlan's stone was articles achieve justice in the 1940s do jehovah's witnesses make that case about a swearing on a bible in court or pledging allegiance to the united states in it when they joined the military yes i believe so they you know you have the option to affirm rather than swear and if that's not enough of a loophole for them i think they i think they're just given a pass right and today it's you know there's all challenges from all kinds of humanist an atheist organizations on the same grounds pride and even the idea that i kid sitting given the opportunity to opt out of the pledge of the texas pledges not a good solution because it again it isolates the kid and and so ties is him or her do we live now in an era when people do not say the pledge in schools i haven't been in a a school at dawn in a long time it's interesting so washington state law we live in a grey said a washed in washington dictates that the pledge of allegiance should be set every morning in my experience there's almost no seattle public school that does so and in fact a local school with a kind of a global who internationalised flavor took a lot of heat from parents a couple of years ago when it started saying the pledge you know hey we took our kids here to have more of a touchy fealey one world united federation of planets vibe sure and this is really hard shing are melo every morning so all the schools in seattle or not in compliance with state law i feel i feel like there's maybe a crackdown if maybe that invalidates the education that all these kids are getting their diplomas are actually no good.

warren court harlan united states seattle melo texas washington united federation of planets three years
"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

Omnibus

01:45 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

"Of taking the antipatriotism argument right but three years later a nearly identical case came back up and the court ruled six two three that just kidding you can sit out the pledge if you have your convictions demanded is this the warren court does this oral warn era no harlan's down was articles achieve justice in the 1940s on do jehovah's witnesses make that case about a swearing on a bible in court or pledging allegiance to the united states in it when they joined the military yes i believe so they you know you have the option to affirm rather than swear and if that's not enough in a loophole for them i think they i think they're just given a pass right and today it's you know there's all challenges from all kinds of humanist an atheist organizations on the same grounds pride and even the idea that i kid sitting given the opportunity to opt out of the pledge of the texas pledges not a good solution because it again it isolates the kid and and so ties is him or her do we live now in an era when people do not say the pledge in schools i haven't been in a a school at dawn in a long time it's interesting so washington state law we live in a grey said a washed in washington dictates that the pledge of allegiance should be set every morning in my experience there's almost no seattle public school that does so and in fact a local school with a kind of a global who internationalised flavor took a lot of heat from parents a couple of years ago when it started saying the pledge you know hey we took our kids here to have more of a touchy fealey one world united federation of planet survive sure and this is really hard shing are melo every morning so all the schools in seattle or not in compliance with state law i feel i feel like there's maybe a crackdown if maybe that invalidates the education that all these kids are getting their diplomas are actually no good.

warren court harlan united states seattle melo texas washington three years
"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

Omnibus

01:59 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

"So uh during our time even when i was still a kid the first controversy about pledging allegiance to the flag started to bubble up when some kids somewhere declined to pledge allegiance and i think it was for religious reasons it goes back to their 30s and 40s when jehovah's witnesses want is interpret biblical scriptures about idolatry to mean you should not swear an oath to anything that would include a big piece of cloth in the classroom and they took it to the supreme court which relate to one the nope sergueios witnesses this is part of our national identity you're going to say the dam pledge is that right so even in that short amount of time it had a become such a part of of our way of life that the supreme court would uphold the pledge of fake thing like a marketing gimmick yeah it was 940 france had just fallen and i think america was terrified of as you as you were saying earlier of taking the antipatriotism argument rights but three years later a nearly identical case came back up and the court ruled six two three the just kidding you can sit out the pledge if you owe your convictions demanded is this the warren court does this oral warn era no harlem stone was articles achieve justice in the 1940s do jehovah's witnesses make that case about a swearing on a bible in court or pledging allegiance to the united states in when they joined the military yes i believe so they you know you have the option to affirm rather than swear and if that's not enough in a loophole for them i think they i think they're just given a pass right and today it's you know there's a challenges from all kinds of humanist an atheist organizations on the same grounds pride and even the idea that i kid sitting given the opportunity to opt out of the pledge of the texas pledges not a good solution because it again it isolates the kid and and so ties is him or her do we live now in an era when people do not say the pledging.

france warren court united states america harlem texas three years
"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

Omnibus

02:12 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

"But nearly forty years later this cases left more questions than answers in what may be atlanta's darkest secret i dunno today whether he's all guilty from the producers of up in vanished and how stuff works you present an all new podcast atlanta monster subscribe to atlanta monster right now on apple podcast be the first to hear new episodes every friday so uh during our time even when i was still a kid the first controversy about pledging allegiance to the flag started to bubble up when some kids somewhere declined to pledge allegiance and i think it was for religious reasons it goes back to the 30s and 40s when jehovah's witnesses germs witnesses interpret biblical strictures about idolatry to mean you should not swear an oath to anything that would include at a piece of cloth in a classroom and they took it to the supreme court which relate to one the nope sergueios witnesses this is part of our national identity you're going to say the dam pledge is that right so even in that short amount of time it had a become such a part of uh of our way of life that the supreme court would uphold the pledge of fake thing like a marketing gimmick yeah it was 940 france had just fallen and i think america i was terrified of as you were as you were saying earlier of taking the antipatriotism argument rights but three years later a nearly identical case came back up and the court ruled six two three that just kidding you can sit out the pledge if you owe your convictions demanded is this the warren court does this oral warn era no harline stone was i'll achieve justice in the 1940s do jehovah's witnesses make that case about a swearing on a bible in court or pledging allegiance to the united states in it when they joined the military yes i believe so they you know you have the option to affirm rather than swear and a fast not nothing a loophole for them i think they i think they're just given a pass right and today it's you know there's a challenges from all kinds of humanist an atheist organizations on the same grounds and even.

atlanta france warren court united states apple america forty years three years
"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

Omnibus

01:59 min | 2 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on Omnibus

"So during our time even when i was still a kid the first controversy about pledging allegiance to the flag started to bubble up when some kids somewhere declined to pledge allegiance and i think it was for religious reasons it goes back to the 30s and 40s when jehovah's witnesses germs witnesses interpret biblical strictures about idolatry to mean you should not swear in house to anything that would include a big piece of cloth in a classroom and they took it to the supreme court which relate to one the nope sergueios witnesses this is part of our national identity you're gonna say the dam pledge is that right so even in that short amount of time it had a become such a part of uh of our way of life that the supreme court would uphold the pledge of fake thing like a marketing gimmick yeah it was 940 france had just fallen and i think america was terrified of as you were as you were saying earlier of taking the antipatriotism argument right but three years later a nearly identical case came back up and the court ruled six two three that just kidding you can sit out the pledge if you have your convictions demanded is this the warren court does this oral warn era no harline stone was hungover achieve justice in the 1940s do jehovah's witnesses make that case about a swearing on a bible in court or pledging allegiance to the united states in it when they joined the military yes i believe so they you know you have the option to affirm rather than swear and if that's not enough of a loophole for them i think they i think they're just given a pass right and today it's you know there's all challenges from all kinds of humanist an atheist organizations on the same grounds pride and even the idea that i kid sitting given the opportunity to opt out of the pledge of the texas pledges not a good solution because it again it isolates the kid and and so ties is him or her do we live now in an era when people do not say the pledge in schools i haven't been.

france warren court united states america texas three years
"warren court" Discussed on Reasonable Doubt

Reasonable Doubt

02:02 min | 3 years ago

"warren court" Discussed on Reasonable Doubt

"Takes whatever sort of crew tonnes that they're left with and turn it into a seven course meal yeah and and and and we'll just shape it will steer it and obviously if you can evoke the military the fighting man right you know and then all of a sudden it so what what happens is as you go i'm all for his right to take any he can express himself any way he'd lightly and if he doesn't want to face the flag doesn't have to face a flight but i had to face at flight when it was draped over the coffin of my son and i think got off the c one thirty and that same flag that car break that was over by sense coughing and if you wanna disrespect my son well then this is the way and now the sunnier stark on no i don't want to disrespect any two atr's con sun comes home and a bodybag where the flag on it like south easy right it's an easy turn that they make i mean that's kind of what you know it's interesting in the criminal justice system when they started having the victims bill of rights which i always thought and they made it constitutional the kind of ram through the country and obviously is part of the pendulum swings them been there was during the 50s there was the warren court chief justice warren swung one way and then you uh that it's swings back under burger and one of the things they did was to label anybody who came into the courtroom who was a complaining witness that you were transformed into a victim already you already wore the mantle of victim right as you came in and so it was always the defendant and that's a great way when you say defendant a great way to strip somebody of their humanity and just kind of europe now the verbiage is great i both sides hobby lobbies denying their employees access to perth charlie.

justice warren europe warren court perth