40 Burst results for "supreme court"
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on The Daily Dive
"An op-ed admitting that he performed an abortion despite the new law What came next were actually two lawsuits against him with neither of the plaintiffs having a particular objection to the abortion but rather looking to challenge the law For more on why these two are suing will speak to Elizabeth finnell Texas reporter for The Wall Street Journal Well it's interesting because of course the Texas law was designed so that the state is not the architect of enforcement It essentially deputizes private citizens either in Texas or anywhere else to sue anyone they think might have assisted in abortion and potentially earn $10,000 or more And so after this editorial was public you had two different former attorneys in different states file lawsuits who are not affiliated with any pro or anti abortion groups and are just sort of random dudes Neither of them really object to the abortion in any particular way Like you said they're kind of random guys but they want to test the lawnmower it seems like That's definitely correct One of them is a former attorney up in Chicago And he essentially said that he thinks it's hypocritical of the GOP to try to control people's bodies He said he doesn't believe in some of the pandemic things like wearing a mask being forced to get a vaccine And he sees this law as sort of hypocritical to that vision And then the other man is a former attorney in Arkansas who's actually serving up 15 year sentence for tax fraud So he's on home confinement and he said he read about the case and it made him mad because he thought it was sort of an end to run where his words around established the law and he figured you know if someone was going to make $10,000 it might as well be him or if not he wanted the court to sort out whether this law was legitimate or not Yeah the quote from him on that one As you just said if someone's gonna get that $10,000 it might as well be me who gets that money So I mean you can kind of see where the motivation there is a little bit But as I mentioned first test of the law what would propel this I guess you could say to higher courts up to the Supreme Court where it would ultimately really have to get hashed out to kind of come down on this I mean could both of these things get thrown out The doctor already admitted that he did perform the abortion I think there are a lot of questions at this point because these are the first cases that we've seen under this law So I don't know if we know super well what the level of proof is going to be for establishing what abortion did occur and then which of these cases will move forward if they both continue to move forward both of these gentlemen are representing themselves They don't have more established attorneys handling them right now And so because we haven't seen this before it's hard to know exactly how these cases are going to move But it does seem to be this sort of interesting situation of the law working almost the way it was designed to work with just sort of Joe citizen suing someone he thinks might have performed an abortion I mean you got some statements from the Texas right to life organization One of their legislative director they haven't sued anybody yet And there's kind of even being cautious with this also They said you know we don't really know all the details of this particular case you know when exactly was the abortion performed if they had detected a heartbeat yet So even some of these anti abortion groups are being really careful with this Because as I mentioned you know the ultimate goal of all these legal challenges is going to be to get it to the Supreme Court to put a final decision on all of this Yes And usually when you have that happen there's a test case that people are looking for And I think the lawsuits that we saw filed yesterday are not necessarily the test cases that either side was looking for All right well we'll see what happens with all this You know who knows where this goes but as you mentioned people are looking for that test case and see to see what can happen Elizabeth fendel Texas reporter at The Wall Street Journal Thank you very much for joining us Thank you I appreciate it You're listening to.
House votes to protect abortion rights amid state challenges
"The U. S. house votes to protect abortion rights in a mostly symbolic gesture Washington Democrats say abortion rights are under threat after the Supreme Court allowed a Texas law that would ban most abortions in the state to take affect yourself speaker Nancy Pelosi this is about freedom about freedom of women have choices that the size and timing of their families on Friday the house passed legislation two hundred eighteen to two hundred and eleven that would guarantee a woman's right to an abortion but Republican opposition will doom the measure in the Senate no Republicans voted for the legislation congresswoman Jackie Walorski a Republican from Indiana spoke on the house floor my colleagues on the other side remain obsessed with killing unborn babies in the name of female empowerment Jennifer king Washington
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on TIME's Top Stories
"The toxic relationship between black communities and those who police them it should have been an easy lift. A majority of americans support congress moving on policing but washington is a broken place at the moment. Congress is on the verge of a government shutdown and a government default either of which could wipe out the fragile gains made as the country starts to recover from the cove in nineteen pandemic. One analysis predicted that as many as six million jobs and fifteen trillion dollars in household wealth would evaporate if congress. Let's the government shutdown and default and that's even before you consider they hit to the psyche at the capitol if dual infrastructure proposals fail the policing parties had taken great care not to negotiate in the press. They worked internally to find a compromise blowing past self imposed deadlines slowly though they started to realize sweeping fix was unlikely and started to work on a skinny version that covered some of the basics along the way they picked up a tiny coalition that gave both sides the cover they needed or at least that was the thanking until this week when the parties realized they couldn't get it together. Democrats had dropped their attempt to change the doctrine that police officers to appoint are protected even when they're wrong while doing their job which is known as qualified immunity. Democrats also let go of attempts to rewrite part of the criminal code to make it abundantly clear that public officials cannot deny anyone their constitutional rights. Now really the supreme court in nineteen forty-five agreed with the defense of georgia. Sheriff who argued that part of the law was so vague. He didn't know it was illegal to beat a handcuffed black suspect who later died. Republicans meanwhile seemed paralyzed by the specter of being branded soft on crime so any limits on officers came as non starters the same polling that shows a majority of americans support policing overhauls also shows how split americans are on the topic one. Vox poll shows just thirty. Four percent of republicans consider changes to policing and urgent topic. Donald trump made the badge sacrosanct during his fail twenty twenty campaign and hammered democrats as the party that would quote fund. The police a call to reduce or divert funding to police departments. That became popular among a slice of protesters and activists last year. Polls show americans disagree with that idea by two to one margin some progressive activists and lawmakers had embraced the the police chant but the entire democratic leadership including biden and comma harris rejected cuts to police funding nevertheless republicans branded all democrats as foes of police funding now they have to live in perpetual fear of boomerang back at them which means any reprogramming of policing dollars will be used against them. It's why republicans couldn't even get to yes. On items trump himself had already put on the table just last year during a rose garden ceremony with uniformed officers standing at his side trump announced he was going to leverage federal funds to make local. Police departments prove they were training their forces in de escalation and banning most choke holds..
'I'm Called by the Gospel to Accept You... That Doesn't Meant I Have to Approve of Your Lifestyle'
"Let's go back to two thousand fifteen when you said that. The supreme court makes this law saying that Two men can get married or two women can get married and it's a funny thing right because we can still say well. I love my gay friends just the way that i love my my friends that they don't work they don't walk with jesus i love them but i'm not going to say that's a good thing i'm not gonna say it's great that you're not walking with jesus i'm gonna love you but i have my conscience won't let me affirm you in that. It is a strange thing that you and i have gone to point our lifetimes. We're not that old but we're the quote unquote law of land has for the first time ever become into to what this says in a very bold way so when that happened because i didn't know you in twenty fifteen how many others who else was boldly speaking about this. You know to be honest with ya. Everybody seems to be silent about all the issues. And so i think because i did come out and say something and nobody else. Was everybody just kind of gravitated to us. And so we had this wave of growth not just in the church but most of all on social media and i tell people look. I'm not a jerk for jesus. I know i'm super demonstrative. About what i believe but acceptance and approval or two very different things. I'm called by the gospel to accept you no matter what you choose to do. That doesn't mean you have to approve of your lifestyle. We speak the truth in love but we can't speak love at the expense of truth because if you just speak love and no truth and it's not loving nor is it truthful and so nobody was really saying anything and i saw the nefarious plan. I said look this is going to open pandora's box and we see now that we're fighting what i call the alphabet colt. Lgbtq b. l. Am the whole deal and so we were right. We were right to say that this is going to open pandora's box. It's always been about the kids and it's about the kids now it's about indoctrination of our young people and so that's where we are and now pastors are like oh my goodness we. We don't want to say anything about it because that doesn't make us loving no the gospel proclaims that we have to call seeing what it is.
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Weekend Edition Sunday
"For conducting a presidential election and conducting congressional election which the constitution gives to the state legislature Even a state Supreme Court relying on a state constitution doesn't have the power to do this There were 10,000 such ballots that came in in that three day period And along the way as litigation went to the Supreme Court four justices on the Supreme Court expressed at least some sympathy with the idea that a state Supreme Court relying on a state constitution can not change rules from any deviation set by a legislature in the statute That is the independent state legislature doctrine And justice Alito who was the circuit justice the Supreme Court Justice in charge of this geographic area in Pennsylvania Ordered that those ballots be kept separate Those 10,000 ballots Fortunately the margin in Pennsylvania between Biden and Trump was 80,000 votes So those 10,000 votes whether they were counter or not was not going to make a difference in the outcome of the election But you could easily see that if it had made a difference if it hadn't been determinative there were at least four and I count potentially 6 justices on the court Who would have been willing to accept this very muscular reading of the independent state legislature doctrine that the legislature connect independent of its own state Supreme Court and its own constitution in setting its election rules What you just said I think is a good example of why this is actually challenging for the media to cover It's quite complicated What is the best way to bring this to the public attention in a way that makes it understandable Well I've got an extra story about that with the media angle which is that I gave an interview to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker that ran about a month ago in a story called the big money behind the big lie In which I explained the doctrine to Jane And she quoted me as saying that I was quote scared of us Right after I did that I was put on CNN And the anchor making these arguments the anchors that come out say it say it professor This is cable so you can say it How scared are you about elections going forward Well I never expected to say I'd be scared Son CNN but and then he called me professor potty mouth And so this got a tremendous amount of attention because you know academics are not usually on TV swearing My paper is meant to sound the alarm I kind of feel like I'm the climate scientist who says we're going to have terrible fires and flooding if the earth's temperature raises a degree and a half or like the epidemiologist a couple of years ago who said you know we're really not prepared for a pandemic We're in that same level of potential catastrophic political meltdown and all I can do is sound the alarm and hope that the media are going to listen and they're going to try and tell the story Some of the challenges to election results have happened as a result of changes in accommodations made due to the pandemic Dropbox voting expanded absentee voting Longer deadlines for ballots to arrive If those types of changes in accommodations end do you still see a great risk or is it the pandemic in particular that opens the door to this kind of litigation I don't think it's the pandemic in particular One of the things that surprised me about the 2020 election and the claims of fraud that were made by Trump and his allies was that they didn't rely on even a kernel of truth about election fraud and election irregularities I had worried that the election was going to be poorly conducted because of the pandemic and that there would be some major problem in Pennsylvania or elsewhere And that this problem might make it genuinely difficult to know if there was an outcome determinative problem in the state And that could then have been seized on as a basis for trying to overturn the lectures It's much like Bush versus gore Back in 2020 when the margin of error in how the election was conducted in Florida in 2000 greatly exceed the margin of victory and it was outcome determinative But what I learned about 2020 was you don't even need a kernel of truth If you're willing to shamelessly lie about the integrity of the election And you're able to get enough attention and that you're willing to get millions of voters to pay attention and to go along with the lie then you've undermined voter confidence You create the conditions where an election could be stolen So no I don't think it depends on the pandemic going forward This was just a dress rehearsal for what might happen in a future election So how do you think that news consumers can watch for subversion and upcoming election cycles Because as you say it's often quieter than voter suppression attempts And then what can they do to try to stop it I think the first thing to recognize is that because our elections are conducted in such a decentralized way where it's on the state and local level The rules that might allow election subversion happened on the state and local level as well And so people need to be vigilant They need to be looking at these rules for how elections can be challenged Case in point Texas Texas just passed a very restrictive voting law It's gotten a lot of attention There was that whole walkout of Democrats You may remember all of that But the law ultimately passed when Democrats had to come back to Texas and the Texas legislature had its quorum again But there was a provision in the original law one that would have made it much easier to have state courts overturned the results of the elections It changed the standard of proof It changed the rules for what would have to show in order to overturn an election result That provision after pressure from government groups and civic groups and others that provision was taken out of the law as it ultimately passed So I do think that there are things to do right now in every state For example and perhaps most importantly every state should be voting with paper ballots Paper ballots that can be recounted by an objective group by a court or by an independent body that's charged with doing so in the process of any kind of election contest There's a lot that can be done right now What happens if we don't stop these attempts at election subversion How higher the stakes Well the stakes are the future of American democracy because if you can't trust the vote count you don't have a democracy And so much has been done to undermine confidence in the election process even more undermining of that process would happen if election results were actually stolen This is a really scary moment in American democracy the scariest moment of our lifetimes Rick hasson is the Chancellor's Professor of law and political science at the University of California Irvine and he's also co director of the fair elections and free speech center.
Pastor Greg Locke's Popularity Has Exploded Because He Speaks Bold Truths
"Pastor greg tell us first of all what. What is the website for your church. Quick before i forget it. Globovision bc bible church dot com global vision. Bbc dot com. How long have you been pastoring. where did you grow up. I grew up here in hometown. A profit not without honor but in his own country led jesus said but it was a tiny little five thousand person town and then it's just exploded. We're kind of like the last bedroom community here in nashville came back home in two thousand and six so fifteen years ago. I started the church from from scratch. And now we're in a three thousand seat tenant and people just keep showing up because somebody saying something. And god's given us a voice to the nation so thank god for it well. This is what. I have noticed that. Those pastors who've been particularly heroic and bold their churches have exploded. Because there's a there's a hunger for this out there even among nonbelievers or among people that they don't believe it. But i don't really go to church. People are really hungry for this. So i find it kind of funny that the free market sometimes does really wonderful things I mean it you know if you have a virtuous population they will choose virtuous and good things and that seems to be what's happening. We know that our friends in california jack hibs and others their churches have gone up. The numbers have gone up speaking a cornerstone chapel in virginia. In a few days they've experienced a similar thing. When did you decide to kinda get bold on. This stuff was there. It was there a moment for you. Was it During the last few years when did you decide to be outspoken. And become a target of people who just don't like bold people the damn kind of broke for me in two thousand fifteen when the supreme court made their ridiculous decision for same sex marriage and so i did a video called. I'm coming out of the closet and that was it. I mean we went from five thousand followers fifty thousand followers to the blue checkmark and pretty soon two hundred and fifty five hundred million and then of i started fighting target over the transgender bathroom nonsense and planned parenthood just back and forth with them and so it just seemed like controversy began to build the ministry and jumped on the trump train literally because i did a couple of bus tours for mike lyndale and some others and so it just seems like every time i would just i would say something people would resonate and they would say you are saying what we are pastors would
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"Ones. I believe in term limits. The very first book. I wrote men in black supported term limits. Now that's hold whole the middle. I never hold. That said following a dentist. Said i wouldn't touch damn thing into wherein power that's number one because they will do whatever they have to do. They've already announced what they want to now. There are republicans. I won't go depends on local and state level. There are some who are actually more solid than some of the republicans i've dealt with in my life. Just being honest depends for instance. You get a western pennsylvania. I've done many many times and those democrats are much more conservative than most most republicans in the bedroom community where i was raised but in general i think that's right. I do on the other hand. I also think here's part of the problem. If you believe as high that the republican party is stuck that leadership is stuck that they have no idea what swirling around that. They cut a bipartisan infrastructure. Deal with the enemy the enemy. They're not opponents. they're not adversaries. There are the enemy we gotta start taking our language back and using planning that said. How am i supposed to vote for somebody who keeps cutting deals with the enemy. We have young turks out. There were solid as can be who just needed a chance for being blocked because of a system in washington. Dc where they reward each other every now and then. You have to punish one of those guys in order to make room. How do i know that. Because in one thousand nine seventy six was oregan guy. And i just heard the reagan library. The other day. Chris christie chris christie the reagan library which. I love ronald reagan who. I love ronald reagan. I worked for campaign for it. They're bringing now through a conga line a rhinos. They're going to bring ben sasse in next year and so forth and so on if we don't stand up republicans like that. We can never win. We can't win anything. So that's why reagan was important taking on ford and so this is why trump is important taking on the republican establishment. So i have a little bit of a disagreement on that should tell him and the other thing is in terms of liberals. I'm looking at it a little differently. I see their leaders. I see their followers. Not so much. Catego- categories of nomenclatures and so forth. The leaders of the democrat party are evil evil evil people. They will tell you. They're evil people. They want to destroy the court system. Separation of powers they keep attacking the constitutional system the borders wide open. It's wide open for a reason. They're dragging this country and the bankruptcy and then you have people out there who are just lifelong democrats. Who don't get it or people out there who are reprobates or people out there who disconnect from society and so these democrat leaders. Give them answers the fall america. The fault is white dominant society. The fault is everything but them and their ideology. So i do think we need to make some distinctions about this anyway. What was the question. A supreme court is doing what it's supposed to do. It's really not that complicated. Because you don't use a regulation from the labor department's rocha to control eighty million human beings on this in this country. Clearly that's not the legislative history. Osha was set up in one thousand. Nine hundred seventy one. For god's sake and one other thing supreme court's not always writes cream. Courts been wrong. Allot the supreme court upheld slavery a supreme court upheld segregation supreme court upheld who are matsu the internment of japanese-americans this supreme court and they use the first case. The supreme court jacobson issued thing was nine hundred zero five of the time or something like that. They issued where they said yes. It's the reasonable list has yet the balance in order to compel people that have a a vaccine twenty years later that same supreme court said that the government state and federal government had the authority under the prior case jacob. Some what they called idiot women. The supreme court upheld the sterilization of women against their will sixty thousand of them so the supreme court is not god. The supreme court doesn't hand on the ten commandments. Every time it issues an opinion..
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"The likes of which it never occurred at the supreme court and sites margarite marbury versus madison. Says it's the function of duty of the supreme court to interpret the constitution. But he didn't say everybody's bound by it right but the court takes a sentence context so there's the famous line in that. Were marshall says it is emphatically the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is as we learned earlier in the episode. What that man in eighteen hundred three was at the court could decide what the law is only in the case at hand but in nineteen fifty eight. The court was asserting that it had carte blanche power. A decision in one case apply to everyone everywhere in the country in other words judicial judicial supremacy. We serve the floor and ceiling thing is not everyone was bought into the idea of judicial supremacy. It's greeted with widespread skepticism. Because remember most of the people on the left had fought the earlier court battles. They were roosevelt. People and the idea of judicial supremacy was anathema to their understanding. How could they give final. Say power to a court that had stood in the way of so much legislation. They believed in but there is a new generation of rising liberals. Who seeing an activist liberal court like. Love this so. They embraced the idea of judicial supremacy..
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"It has been twenty years yesterday. The anniversary of nine eleven which is a moment's a day in history that i think changed all of our lives instead assan. Maybe even a different trajectory in life and it was difficult to look back on twenty years and certainly it made it even more difficult with the way that we were led out of afghanistan over the last month by the biden administration. Our first question is for mark levin and sad. We'd like you dr. Sebastian gorka to be our one responder mark. What is our greatest national security threat today. joe biden. i'm not cleaning. I am not kidding. The people he is surrounded himself with a disaster. He's got a secretary of defense that helped create the isis caliphate. He's got a sector stay. Who comes out of the ivy league. Schools really doesn't know a damn thing same with his national security adviser so when you look among those people it's absolutely a disaster. The idea that we've american citizens in enemy territory the idea that we would leave afghan patriots. Who fought with us in enemy territory. The idea that twenty years after nine eleven the taliban will be stronger and bigger control the entire country about ghanistan with the backing of al-qaeda and china and russia iran sees this north korea sees is all of our enemies see this we are in dire dire
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Little rock arkansas and the first phase of the trouble. The white population are determined to prevent college students from getting to the school that end children. Tent picketing the school little rock. Arkansas september twenty fifth nineteen fifty seven. An angry mob stands outside central high school a formerly all white school waiting to see if nine black students will show up mini gene brown. Tricky was one of those students. The world came to little rock to see what would happen. Years of rising. Tensions had led to this moment the sequence of events in the development of the little rock school in one thousand nine hundred fifty to the issue of school segregation went to the supreme court and the case brown v board of education. A lawyer named thurgood marshall then the chief attorney for the end. Acp argued for the plaintiffs. He argued that segregation in schools was a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution and the court unanimously agreed. They ruled that segregation in public. Schools was unconstitutional. Now states across the country had to figure out a way to integrate their schools which made a lot of people especially in the south really angry. They the idea that the federal government could just come into their state and tell them what to do and fable of segregation and supreme court or we are going to maintain segregated schools down in dixie and that included little rock in one thousand nine hundred thousand five. The little rock school board approved a moderate plan for the fragile desegregation of the public schools. In.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"I am from fad under my constitutional duty. The recommend the measures but us breaking nation in the midst of bringing world may require on march fourth. One thousand nine hundred eighty president. Franklin d roosevelt took office and he was up against the worst economic disaster in american history. Augural address the biggest applause for we have nothing to fear. Fear itself was instead that i may have to take on the powers over wartime president negative pound the way they warrick date emergency as great as the power. That would be given to me it. We were in fact invaded by farm wall. He has a mandate which is to do something about the great depression. Prosperity is just around the corner. Say the headlines but around the corners wind the lengthening brett lines and a whole new class of citizens appears in american society. The new poor unemployment running twenty five salt not since the civil war has such pressure political economic social center on the white house and so roosevelt pushes through the first new deal and the court strikes at all down by this time the supreme court was beginning to find its voice again to come out of the shadows. But you can't expect to be taken more seriously and expand your power if you're stuck in a basement. Construction on a new supreme court building was underway when roosevelt took office and not long after roosevelt. Tried to pass the first new deal. The court moved into its fancy. New building amend the architecture glorious grace nations capital. The united states supreme court building is one of the most imposing a are they meeting blaze for the highest tribunal of land whips in seventeen. This was a real step up from their basement quarters. It's big regal. Like something out of ancient greece with a wide oval plaza tall imposing columns lining the front marble statues on either side and a staircase perfect for a.
New Florida bill replicates Texas' sweeping abortion ban
"Florida lawmakers introduced a strict abortion ban that similar to legislation enacted in Texas Florida Republican state representative Webster Barnaby filed legislation that would ban abortions if cardiac activity is detected and grant ten thousand dollar rewards to citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone who aids a woman in getting the procedure Democrats are blasting the bill calling it unconstitutional agriculture secretary Nikki freed the woman challenging governor Ron DeSantis next year for governor calls it disgusting hypocrisy when state Republicans say it's personal choice whether to wear a mask to protect against Kobe and what they want to take away women's control of their bodies strict anti abortion bills in the past have died in the Florida legislature but this year is different after the Supreme Court allowed the Texas abortion ban to go into effect I'm Jackie Quinn
South Carolina's Confederate monument protection law upheld
"Hi Mike Ross you're reporting south Carolina's Confederate monument protection law has been upheld the South Carolina Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the state law that prevents moving a Confederate monument or changing the historical name of the street or building without the legislature's approval but the justices struck down a requirement that two thirds of the General Assembly must approve a move or name change the ruling keeps the state's heritage act in place heritage act was passed in two thousand as part of a compromise to remove the Confederate flag from atop the South Carolina statehouse dome the rebel flag was moved to a poll on the capitol lawn but it was removed in twenty fifteen after nine black church members were killed in a racist shooting at Emanuel A. M. E. church in Charleston hi Mike Rossio
Federal appeals court to hear Missouri abortion law case
"In the latest abortion rights showdown a federal appeals court today will consider whether Missouri can implement a sweeping law aimed at limiting abortions the law would ban abortions at around eight weeks it also would prohibit abortions based on a diagnosis of down syndrome in June a panel from the eighth US circuit court of appeals upheld an injunction prohibiting Missouri from enforcing the provisions but the full circuit then decided to hear the case a ruling isn't expected for several weeks similar laws have been struck down in North Dakota and Iowa Planned Parenthood calls it another troubling signal in a long line of threats to reproductive freedom this case comes weeks after the Supreme Court allowed a Texas law that bans abortions once a heartbeat usually around six weeks can be detected I'm Julie Walker
Texas Abortion Law: US Supreme Court Votes Not to Block Ban
"Earlier. This month in the middle of the night. The supreme court refused to block a texas law that bans most abortions that law is now the most restrictive abortion measure in the nation it bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy and establishes a sort of bounty system. That allows anyone to sue those involved in facilitating an abortion. This is a bigger than texas. The decision could be a blueprint of gutting. Roe v wade. The supreme court ruling that legalized abortion nationally is going to play out in the courts and while it does groups on the ground are figuring out how to adopt is ena. Zamora is the executive director of the fraud data fund they provide support and funding for those seeking abortions in texas rio grande valley. We're gonna talk about what this decision means for those seeking care and where the spite goes from here. A lot of us are in texas right now. We're not looking at this through the lens of someone who was there where using where in texas are you. I'm located in the rio grande valley so deep south texas along the us mexico border. What are you hearing from people in texas. There's a lot of confusion around the law and just people being upset. I think a lot of people think that this law just went way too far the biggest concern for most of the people who do abortion funding work is. How are we going to help. People get their abortion care in your own words. What is this legislation. Do so sp eight what it does is. It bans abortion past six weeks in texas. It is essentially a complete abortion banned because by the time. Most people know that they're pregnant. They're unable to get an abortion and texas. This also has a very cruel and specific civil litigation our civil cause of action that allows anybody to sue anybody else who helps quote unquote to aid and abet someone and getting abortion care in texas past six weeks
Minnesota High Court OKs Ballot Question on Minneapolis PD
"The Minnesota Supreme Court has cleared the way for Minneapolis voters to decide if changes should be made to policing in the city where George Floyd was killed Minnesota's highest court has overturned a lower court ruling that rejected ballot language approved by the Minneapolis city council the question surrounded wording to describe a proposed charter amendment that would replace the Minneapolis police department with a new department of public safety that could include police officers if necessary the proposal is part of the de fund the police movement that gained momentum after George Floyd was killed last year it doesn't define the police but it would take away a requirement that Minneapolis have a police department with a minimum staffing level I'm Jackie Quinn
The History of the Supreme Court Justifies Opinions Against Forced Medicine
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough declared the supreme court in buck versus bell decision of nineteen twenty seven. I'm reading from timeline. Dot com quote. It is better for all the world. If instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecilities society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. That decision was written by oliver wendell. Holmes and forced sterilization became fully legal in the united states. The case came at the height of popularity for the pseudo sciences of eugenics which maintained that negative character traits like criminality and stupidity or the entirely the product of bad genes. The court decision that set the precedent for intervention on the sterilization of women was the jacobson v massachusetts thankfully. Many decades later there was a lawsuit that included deloris madrigal. Who is the lead plaintiff in the nineteen seventy-eight case which brought suit against la county's usc medical center birds nonconsensual sterilization of mexican american women in the nineteen sixties and seventies. It would make sense. Why certain communities are apprehensive of the government forcibly putting medicine on you.
Ex-Cop's Murder Verdict Reversed in Australian Woman's Death
"Hi Mike Rossi a reporting a former Minneapolis police officer's murder verdict has been reversed in an Australian woman's death the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the third degree murder conviction Wednesday of a former Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot an Australian woman in twenty seventeen while responding to her nine one one call the Supreme Court said the charge of third degree murder or depraved murder against Mohammed nor did not fit the circumstances of the case nor was convicted of third degree murder and the second degree manslaughter in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond the ruling means the murder conviction will be overturned and nor will be sentenced on the manslaughter count with more than twenty eight months served if the manslaughter sentences the presumptive for years he could be eligible for supervised release around the end of this year hi Mike Rossio
Justice Dept. Seeks Emergency Order to Block Texas Abortion Law
"The biden administration is taking emergency action to try to stop a new texas law that bans most abortions in that state in a new. Filing the justice department is asking federal judge for a restraining order to temporarily blocked the law while a larger legal challenge. Plays out npr. Sarah mccamman has more the latest action by the justice. Department comes days after the doj sued the state of texas over the law known as sp eight it allows individuals to file lawsuits worth tens of thousands of dollars against anyone involved in helping a patient get an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy in a new emergency motion. The department says that the clear purpose of the law is to quote deny women rights guaranteed to them by the us constitution while attempting to evade judicial review. The us supreme court allowed it to take effect on september first despite legal challenges from reproductive rights groups but did not weigh in on the constitutional issues raised by the law. The case is likely to end up before the supreme court again
Justice Department Seeks Order Against Texas Abortion Law
"The justice department is seeking an emergency order to stop the enforcement of a new state law in Texas that bans most abortions while the case is still being decided the Texas law known as SB eight bans abortions after a heartbeat can be detected usually about six weeks which is booked for most women know they're pregnant courts have blocked other states from imposing similar restrictions but Texas's law differs because it leaves enforcement of private citizens through civil lawsuits instead of criminal prosecutions the law went into effect earlier this month after the Supreme Court declined an emergency appeal in Tuesday night's emergency motion the justice department said the relief is necessary to protect the constitutional rights of women in Texas I'm Julie Walker
Sean Feucht on Saturating Washington DC in Prayer
"Us more about the prayers. The next day the white house all that kind of stuff. Yeah so this is our second year in a row doing this and one of the things we really try to do is is really saturate. The city of dc. It's a. I would call it. It's almost like a pilgrimage. For for believers you know going to the capital city of place of significance that affects every area of our life. And then going to to to to the places in that city that really need prayer so we went to the supreme court and last year we had the largest prayer meeting in ever in american history in front of the supreme court over three thousand people showed up in the rain and it was significant because it was on the eve of amy coney baron getting confirm two supreme court and actually since that prayer meeting every single religious liberties case. It's been brought against the church has been overturned in the supreme court. So that's amazing. Were undefeated since our last prayer so we gathered there on sunday morning and then we went to the white house after the after that and prayed and worshipped at the white house. Eric you're with me together. There and then we moved to the lincoln memorial and we did a prayer meeting there and then we convene for the grand finale on the national mall so we really we hit all areas of dc. We just saturate the city. I mean you could see lettuce worship dear. You know shirts and everything was everywhere. And it's just something that we really like to do. We're going to go and take over the city for a day. Fill it with prayer. Fill it with worship shift the narrative of what people think about that
Schumer: U.S. Senate to Stage Voting Rights Reform Bill Vote
"While republican led states like texas are busy erecting. All the voting impediments they can think of senate majority leader. Chuck schumer is promising action to protect voting rights on the federal level. The republican led war on. Democracy has only worsened. In the last few weeks most notably the governor of texas recently signed into law vile new voter suppression bill that ranks one of the most draconian undemocratic in living memory. This is unacceptable so the senate must act. I intend to hold a vote in the senate as early as next week on voting rights legislation time time is of the essence. Still with us. Professor victoria di francesco. Soto and matthew dowd a professor. I want to circle back to voting rights and a hot minute but first considering texas leading the nation in voting restrictions and choice restrictions tell our audience. What's going to happen. When redistricting comes up. I believe we have about a week until that starts right so we from today. The second sean legislative session starts which is dedicated to redrawing the lines end. What we see in texas is a hard right. Turn something okay. It is gone too far to the right. it will snap back but what we're looking at with. The upcoming redistricting. Under a republican led legislature is a lot of the things that we've seen over the last year over the past couple of years are going to be institutionalized because republicans are squarely in the driver's seat. Outdrawing those maps and brian. This is the first time in recent history that we're going to be having matt strong without the protection of sexy five from the voting rights act that was repealed that was struck down by by the supreme court in two thousand
Justice Stephen Breyer Says 'Criteria [Was Not] Met' to Rule on 2020 Election
"I am so disappointed in them. No judge, including the Supreme Court of my United States has had the courage to allow it to be heard. Why was that? Why was it Because they didn't bring a case. I guess that met the normal criteria for being heard. And this is why This justice needed to be seriously challenged if you're going to bring up the subject. Rather than an attack on Trump. Because they didn't bring a case. I guess that met the normal criteria for being heard. And what would that be? And what would that be? Go ahead. He decided to take a case. There have to be four votes to take it so I can't go beyond that. What we do know is that they were not four votes to take it because it wasn't taken. And there are criteria and, uh, if we don't take a case, it's you know, I mean, the reason was all likelihood is that the criteria weren't mad and he doesn't tell us what the criteria are. But I will tell you the criteria were met. I just told you why they were met. The criteria were met. That Article two Section one close to was clearly violated more than once by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The Supreme Court Had Precedent to Rule on the 2020 Election
"Now, these men who gathered in Philadelphia, They understood what they were doing. They created the Constitution. They created the federal government. They created the presidency and the vice presidency. They created the Electoral College. They created separation of powers. And they created Article two, Section one Clause two. In such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct comma. In the state of Pennsylvania that come about the Pennsylvania What a growth a grave violation of the federal Constitution by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as much as you would a violation of the Constitution by the Florida Supreme Court in 2000. Actually, this was worse. The difference is the U. S. Supreme Court in 2000 stepped in and upheld the United States Constitution. And one of the arguments people were making, including me was exactly this section of the Constitution. Article two Section one Clause two as the Florida Supreme Court kept changing the deadlines and the manner in which we count chads. They kept extending the deadlines. They kept interposing themselves into how chance are to be counted. They were violating the federal constitution. And the U. S Constitution. Put an end to it. The U. S. Supreme Court under the US Constitution, put an end to it because the Legislature makes these decisions. Not the Florida Supreme Court. Well, what happened in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was even worse. Because what happened there is also an elected in this case, Supreme Court of seven members, five of them were Democrats. They extended the time for voting. The eliminated the signature requirement. And they did other things. That the Legislature in Pennsylvania, which was Republican, did not do.
Biden Announces Vaccine Plan for Employers
"Vaccine requirements just announced by president biden are not out of the blue. They're not even the first ones we had for. Covert nineteen as new york times notes today. We've already got experience with large employers starting to require vaccination at among other things. But we've learned from that experience so far. Is that the requirements work. They succeed at their goal of getting more people to get the shot last month. For example the pentagon announced that active duty military personnel would have to get vaccinated that has just been announced so far. They haven't hit a deadline for it yet. But already the proportion of active duty personnel. Who had the shot has gone from. Seventy six percent to eighty three percent. Same deal with the. Va seven weeks ago. The va told its frontline. Health workers they had to get the shot since then the number of va frontline workers who've been vaccinated has gone from seventy seven percent up to eighty two percent and still rising same deal at private sector employers like united airlines for example employees. There were told last month that they'd have until october. Twenty fifth to get vaccinated. Well s- only september tenth. Now there's still plenty of time before that deadline hits but already just since laying out that eventual requirement the majority of united airlines workers who weren't vaccinated before that announcement have since become vaccinated. We know it works and we've had plenty of other vaccine requirements throughout our history. That have also worked. But as the president indicated today we also know that republican governors and republican elected officials will sue and try to stop these new policies as if they're totally novel as if this is some brand new idea. The united states supreme court has ruled multiple times going back more than a century that it is not unconstitutional to require americans to get a vaccine. Even if a person doesn't want to in the context of a serious public health threat you can be required to be vaccinated. They ruled that way back in one thousand nine five in the context of mandatory smallpox vaccine requirement in massachusetts. They ruled that way in nineteen twenty two in the context of vaccines being required of students if they wanted to attend
Miami International Airport Boasting US' First COVID-Detecting Dogs
"A dog looking for covert is it even possible. Evidently it is and now you can find them at miami international airport for dogs trained to detect kobe. Nineteen as part of a pilot program. This is cobra one of the dogs trained to detect the virus. Watch how she sits. After she smells the inside of a mask that has deactivated virus in it. Then watch how. She just keeps walking when she smells the mask of someone who's not infected. The dogs are ninety. Seven percent accurate. I mean it's the same as the pc test. It means it's a great. It's a great thing miami. International airport is the first in the nation to have the dogs. I think in this particular airport. Now we're doing it with the employees but people will see the dogs and know that that's another weapon that we're using to fight this
"supreme court" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"I i mean there's a part of this texas law that says someone an abortion provider. Who's sued under it has an affirmative defense. They can point to roe v. Wade they can point to planned. Parenthood v casey Up until the supreme court overrules a if and when those those decisions and so you could imagine a state like california passing a law The second amendment the big second amendment decision it of course is is heller. You'd imagine state like california saying private citizens are assault. Weapons are banned in the state of california and no state official may enforce that private citizens may sue other private citizens I if they haven't assault weapon in their homes and defendants can point to heller up until the point at which heller is is overruled I mean i think that second amendment advocates would have a big problem with the law like that. Well absolutely i mean and by the way so called. Assault weapons are already. I don't think they're allowed in california. But it would be more just simply had a handgun or rifle or something that there seems to be little question that the supreme court protects your second amendment right to own or for instance climate change suits holding companies responsible or holding individuals responsible. If they don't have clean energy enough homes or whatever it is we really don't want to get into the business of deputising private citizens to sue other individuals For things that they believe to be Transgressions of law or moral code It's a it's a very scary thing to get into. And i think something like it. Almost strikes me. This law was a little too clever by half clearly was designed to escape the kind of scrutiny that the court says imposed in the past on abortion laws by coming up with this work around of deputising average citizens to be the ones doing the suits rather than public officials. But it's a terrible precedent. And i don't think the republicans who put it into place really thought through all of the ramifications And that goes to a lot of levels by the way to which we can talk about just whether or not in in general Going this far with the law that they have and giving democrats all the ammunition that they now are. Whether or not all of this was. We'll be worth it or my actually set back the cause of those who have been trying to rein in to some degree. Some of the more expansive abortion laws across the country bill. What's your your rita. That i mean the way that i am seeing this essentially a texas recognizes even in the law that abortion providers right..
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"Of going ahead and interpreting the constitution based on what they said. Originally when the framers developed the constitutional originalism has taken a bunch of different turns since it was first conceived and began to be articulated but bork was the first person who stepped forward and said yes. I want overturn. The civil rights legislation has been put in place by The war and the burger court's and it's worth noting that when people complained about the robert bork hearings and when people today complain about the robert bork hearings did in fact. It wasn't just democrats at the time who complained about bork's approach to the constitution and to the supreme court that fifty eight of the one hundred senators who were sitting at the time opposed nomination and when reagan gave up an appointed anthony kennedy for that spot instead his hearing only took three days and he won confirmation unanimously suggesting that the problem was not with the democrats who are posing board but rather with the nomination in the first place but what this is giving us since then is a real turn among the court to originalism and increasingly the modern day. Republican court under. John roberts who was appointed by george w. bush has taken this originalists. Turn and it's a very unusual supreme court so the court now there are six people appointed by republicans. Three people appointed by democrats by far when you look at republican presidents and democratic presidencies. It's during republican presidencies. That you end up with far more appointments being made than democratic president so indeed. The republican party does and has for quite some time had the majority in the court. Now the question is what should the courts aim be. Should the court be. And we've been talking about this a little bit over time not to say the partisanship vanishes. Should the court be thinking about. The greater whole. Should it be acting in an arbiter or umpire. Kind of state. Should it be deciding issues of law or should it be a political tool. should it be promoting. A party's views. Really obviously really assertively. That's a different thing. A very different vision of what the supreme court should be. And certainly there number of cases. Coming out of the roberts court that suggests that if indeed it's got a vision of the way the country should be. It's a vision that privileges the republican party right now. So for example. In two thousand ten the roberts court decided citizens united which permitted the the rise of dark money and the real flood of corporate money into political advertising. Which is a way of course to increase the power of people with money in determining how elections come out it also in two thousand thirteen. That's something that really addressed. The warn course protection of voting and that's set in nineteen sixty five. Congress passed the voting rights act which required states..
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"Is this in and of itself a controversial opinion. But it comes at this moment when it's like a huge hammer sort of landing on the nation and making this bold statement about what the nation should be the responses to it show really clearly. People understood the impact of this decision. There was a pamphlet edition of tani's decision that became very popular and began selling out. One of the people selling that pamphlet wrote in trying to sell it of course as a whole this pamphlet gives the historical legal and physical aspects of the slavery question in a concise compass and should be circulated by thousands before the next presidential election all desire to answer. The arguments of the abolitionists should read it and one of the things said has kept me up at night for over a year now. Is the idea that democracy is really about people voting locally that what people say on the ground in the states in this case is really what democracy is all about without of course recognizing that that vote itself is enormously limited a certainly in the eighteen fifties so quite literally enslavers say well. Hey this is. Democracy were voting to have slavery which is to me just mind blowing but at the time that was the logic behind a decision like the dread scott decision which said that in fact the federal government a majority rule of the federal government did not matter so long as local people wanted to preserve certain as they would have said custom after the civil war the united states congress goes ahead and tries to deal with the trouble that the supreme court has created with the dread scott decision. It's dealing with a lot of things. But one of the things that has to deal with is the fact that the dread scott decision remains as part of the body of laws that govern the land and in eighteen sixty eight we get the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. Which is i passed by the congress and then ratified by the states and the fourteenth amendment to the constitution takes on the issue of the dread scott decision and in the first section of it it says all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the law wherein they reside take that dread scott decision. Then it says no state shall make or enforce any law which xiao abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws and. That's crucially important. Because we've got here is first of all martial expanding what the federal government is trying to look like people like tawny really cutting back on that vision with vision of states rights instead and the response from the congress in the united states to that is to amend the constitution with the fourteenth amendment and then of course crucially the fourth section of the fourteenth amendment gives congress the power to enforce this legislation. What's interesting is southerners responded to dread scott by saying in this case it's a it's a quote from an article in the richmond enquirer that finally be quote proper umpire weighing in on this question of slavery and that.
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"The first cabinet member to be rejected by the senate in american history. So he can't be a secretary of treasury because the senate itself says come on dude. We're not going to deal with this guy. But jackson is never one to be told now right and he's very upset at this rejection right off the cuff so he again tries to get funny in this case to be an associate justice of the supreme court again. He's opposed in the senate and he does not get that seat finally third time. There's a slim margin of democratic control in the senate once again. Tani is sent forward this time to be chief justice of the united states and this time he gets confirmed. Say you're saying he gets confirmed by a slight majority in the senate. Is that what you're saying is a saying. Let's see how that's going to work out year. So the reason that we're making a big deal about tawny is because tani's emphasis in the supreme court is going to be to try and push back against the nationalism and the stronger government that the marshall court has sat up. He does this. Most obviously and famously in the dread scott v sanford decision of eighteen fifty seven and. This is the reason that i have such strong feelings about tawny and the trick to the dread scott decision is that. It's the story of an enslaved man named dread scott who was enslaved and missouri and he was owned by a man who was an army officer and the army officer took him from the slave state of missouri into i the free state of illinois and then the free territory of wisconsin scott goes ahead and he sues for his freedom on the basis of the fact that he has lived in a free state and a free territory and the supreme court had the ability at the time to do what everybody thought they would do. Which was the obvious to say that. Under missouri law there was a missouri. Law called the sojourner law which said that if you took an enslaved person into a free state and retained ownership of that person that when you return back to missouri that that because she were simply traveling if you will it would not make a difference in the legal status of the enslaved person whom you claimed as your property but the supreme court went beyond that it decided not simply to rest on the precedent of missouri law but instead to go ahead and weigh in on the issue that was at hand at the time in america and that was the question of what would happen to the territories that the united states had acquired in eighteen. Forty eight under the treaty of guadalupe. Doll go that. Is the southern enslavers especially the big enslavers. The people who had the major were determined to move their system of human enslavement into the territories and at the same time northerners many of whom were not at all concerned about the fate of their black neighbors in the american south were determined not to let the system of human enslavement. Move into the west because they believed that that system of capital and labor would shot out the little guys from the north who wanted to move into that region and shift the balance of power in the union between north and south because if in fact you permitted enslavement in those new territories should get more slave states and those slave states would eventually overawe the free states in the senate and house of representatives and of course on the electoral college. So tiny decides. He's going to go ahead and solve the question that neither the congress nor the president had been able to solve in the supreme court..
"supreme court" Discussed on Now & Then
"Live on cafes twitter and facebook pages and heather's facebook page okay now that we've gotten that little promotional announcement out of the way and you really should come because it's gonna be fun now. Let's get to the topic at hand. The supreme court now. We chose the supreme court for obvious reasons. It's been in the news. This session of the court has just ended and it ended with a couple of decisions that obviously for good reason have attracted a lot of notice and what we really wanted to do. Today is put this court in context to look at other courts in the past to look at what they did at talk in a broader way. About what the supreme court does for the nation and i suppose in one way the many ways in which the supreme court in its rulings basically shows vision and promotes a vision of what america should be. An was interesting when we decided to talk about this. That unlike everything else we've talked about in our history together. We both found the supreme court a funny topic in that. We both know it really well. And we know a lot of decisions and we teach a lot of decisions. Talking about the role of the supreme court in american history proved to be the hardest concept that we've tried to grapple with together. We spent more hours trying to put this episode together than any of the others. I don't think and almost in any of the others combined with the we were going no totally true over the course of like two and a half days three conversations. No and it's you know one of the things that i said as you and i were talking back and forth to each other. Heather was in the various things that i do in the public. What people always want to know more about is the supreme court and that's not necessarily just because they're interested in the court but i think it's it's something that people uniformly don't know a lot about don't know how to think about. It aren't necessarily absolutely sure what it's supposed to be doing versus what it is doing now. So in a way. I found our sort of casting about like. How do we wanna approach this. I'm not sure as kind of a reflection of how hard it is to generalize and think about the court particularly given what we're going to be talking about today which is the ways that it changes over time so i got to do what everybody in the country wants to do..
"supreme court" Discussed on FiveThirtyEight Politics
"You're not always the best position to assess your fitness for a job like supreme court justice. I have seen no signs of any kind of decline in justice. Breyer so i don't think that there's anyone out there saying you can no longer do the job. But that's something that sometimes happens without a whole lot of warning so so you mentioned that those kinds of considerations are at work as well. I mean it is true. I think we expected if we're going to hear announcement. There was a good chance that we would hear it on the last day of the term yesterday. But that's not an ironclad rule. We could hear in what remains this week. We could hear next week occasionally. Justices have announced their intent to depart the court within a couple of days after the end of the term. So i wouldn't say that the door has closed this term but obviously he hasn't told us that he's going yet and so right now i think no one is actively expecting to hear from him in the next couple of days but i think it remains alive possibility shoe that point during the twenty twenty election we heard plenty from the left and to some extent from joe biden himself about possible reforms changes to the supreme court. So i have some polling here on lifetime appointments and whether there should be a limited term age limits. That's pretty popular with american. So sixty percent of adults favor turmoil. Age limits with only twenty two percent opposed. Meanwhile packing the supreme court expanding. The size of the supreme court seems pretty unpopular. Right thirty eight percent in favor. Of forty two percent opposed. Does it seem like any of those changes or reforms or likely to come during the joe biden presidency. I think that many questions about what's possible renewed a lot turns on the filibuster whether it will remain a requirement to overcome filibuster in order to get legislation enacted and you could expand the size of the supreme court by ordinary legislation. Right sort of an interesting thing. It feels like that should require a constitutional amendment but no there's nothing in the constitution about the size of the supreme court. All you need and if you know simple majority was enough then you could tomorrow add some seats to the supreme court although as you say it's not popular in the same way. Term limits are popular term. Limits are complicated. Because you probably wouldn't need to amend the constitution to impose term limits not. Everybody agrees with that but they would certainly be vulnerable constitutional challenge. All there are creative ways you could structure you would say you've got a limited term but you remain a supreme court justice nominally and you get salary and you just have a different kind of status. Made you sit by designation on the lower courts. But you're not like forced out at the game entirely maybe do that by statute iffy but amending the constitution. You can certainly do to impose an eighteen year old sometimes people now we're talking about even like fourteen or twelve year term for supreme court justices if they went into effect. Perspectively couldn't probably kick out the ones who are already on the court and we've sort of lost the habit of amending the constitution..
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"That's it for this week show. I'm running. I'm ron in arab louis. And you've been listening.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Lawyer of the century s for conservatives who hated the decisions of the warren court. They were still totally fine with the principle of judicial supremacy. They were just biding their time. Till the court flip conservative again. So for the first time in american history there was consensus across the board that the supreme court should have the final say over the constitution. So that settles that who has final authority debate and the debate shifts from who has final interpretive authority now. Everybody says it's the court to how the constitution should be interpreted.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Listening to through line from. Npr will go back in time to to understand the present this week. We're revisiting our episode on the history of the supreme court..
"supreme court" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover
"Discriminatory action taken by the federal government from one thousand nine hundred forty five to nine hundred sixty or so with the federal government back to one hundred billion dollars of loans to has houses but only for whites and that was called red light. That was called redlining and that this is something. I want to be clear. I don't talk about things outside my expertise. Meaning the supreme court and constitutional law but i have studied decision which is more politics and a your listeners. Really need to understand that are segregation today is not accidental. It's because of deliberate intentional government policies where i grew up in washington new york suburb of new york. My suburb like most of on island would not have happened. Were not for dispatching of mortgages by the federal government and they deliberately limited to white neighborhoods all over the country. Now my neighborhood's houses because my neighborhood had good schools because it houses had good property values. The property appreciate my parents hand out money down to me as a you know and and that that almost never happened for african americans on a national basis. So so what. The supreme court did then is during the during nineteen sixty three to nineteen. Seventy-one to court was very proactive in busing. And other things to help this problem. And then we came to detroit and seventy one and maven seventy-three but i think it was seventy one and In detroit we have today an insurmountable problem in that the suburbs at one time and still now again today with fairly rich because the car industry right you know especially but but especially in the seventies and eighties. Those were really rich neighborhoods with great success and the inner city was all black and all poor. How do you change that. There's only one way to change that. Which is to mix those neighbor to find some way to mix those neighborhoods. And that's what they want. Lower court judges wanted to do and the supreme court and milliken versus bradley said nope that segregation was not. Detroit didn't have a law that said separate schools. All formal discrimination was gone. So it's not the government's fault so the government does not have to do anything about it and that decision changed american history. It's not a decision that people talk about. It was incredibly important and then just one more thing skipping ahead to two thousand six and this is the real tragedy and this is one of the reasons. I just detest..
"supreme court" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover
"I think the right to own guns is a candidate for that given american history. But you have to believe that. That's a supreme court job is to find writes that aren't in the constitution. I don't believe that i've never believe that. I am pro-choice way down. I met my wife giving a talk to planned parenthood. I volunteer for planned parenthood. Three daughters i fight for their right to reproductive freedom and justice and roe versus wade could not be worse could not be roe versus wade caused more horror for our country than almost any case. Wow because you believe. The the supreme court's job should not be to find a numerator writes in the in the constitutional appeared may use a four letter. Word on this podcast or no. Of course you may. It is not the supreme court's job to make shit up. So i i do. I do a it turns out. That's exactly their jobs. So i- blog at a place called dorfman Once a week or so. And then for five years. I think a blog post. I wrote the gut the most clicks or whatever you call it Was one that said. How do you teach constitutional law in a world where the justices just make should up and let me tell you how but let me tell you how that was triggered because it responds directly to your question if you don't mind play. There's a law professor at nyu named christopher scriven who is really well known in antitrust and some ip stuff and he's really smart and he was not traditionally a constitutional law got then. He decided he wanted to teach constitutional law and he studied at everything and he taught it for a year maybe two and then he tweeted and then he tweeted publicly and told me privately. He told us dean. I don't wanna teach us anymore. Because i can't teach my students this stuff. 'cause it's not law is just making this just the judges making shit up. And that's what and that's an. I cannot impress upon enough. Liberal conservative libertarian. Reactionary communist doesn't matter. They are dealing with vague taxed with imprecise history or no history like drone strikes. How do we have history and drone strikes and they're not bound by anything see lower court. Judges are bound by the supreme court. And i know a lot of federal judges both on the trial level and the court of appeals level. Now i can't speak to this last three years. Wave of trump judges but before that the republican judges and the democrat judges that i knew by enlarge in good faith. Try to figure out what the supreme court said and follow it now. Sometimes there's no supreme court decision they make shit up to but the different but the difference between having to follow the orders of.
"supreme court" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover
"You know. The supreme court is really weird. We have this myth that it's a group of nine priests who interpret our holy constitution using their perfect knowledge of the law. But you get rid of the robes and they're just a bunch of adults with flabby mortal human bodies you know like they got genitalia flopping around like anybody under there not only that they have friends enemies credit cards dinner plans family problems all the things that we do. Their people is what i'm saying. They live in the same country we do and they are the products of our times. Just like we are which means that they are not in fact. Angels sent from the land of law down to earth to interpret dispassionately. No they're human beings that have all the ideology and biopsies that being a human entails in fact despite the impartial priestly branding. The supreme court has been susceptible to changes and developments in politics in american history. Just as profound as an american institution for instance. If you read the press you'll see that there's a lot of talk right now about how bad it is that the supreme court is suddenly politicize that it's become a place of partisan competition but the truth is there's a brief court has been a contested political space for instance. Here's a quote about the court that could be said by a democrat today. Decrying republican machinations. Here it goes by a fraudulent use of the constitution which has made judges removable. They have multiplied useless judges merely to strengthen their phalanx that was a quote from thomas jefferson himself and he wrote it because he was unhappy with the efforts of the federalist party to establish the court's power over states. That's right in those days. It was not taken for granted but the court had power over state laws at all in fact even though the judicial review of laws is basically what we think of the supreme court as being four today as being at central purpose. That was not a given at the time that it had that power but it was actually jefferson's effort to push the court away from federalism that led to the famous eighteen. O three decision marbury versus madison. Where chief justice. John marshall declared for the first time that the court had the right to say what the law means. That's right judicial review is not in the constitution. The court literally came up with it itself now. Jefferson didn't like this at all. He said that this decision would make the courts quote a despotic branch of government but nevertheless judicial review was established and the supreme court has ever since been the final arbiter on what the constitution says even though that power is not actually laid out in the constitution and in fact was enacted over the protests of one of the founding fathers so point being we have always fought over this thing in fact. The supreme court continued to be the site of battles throughout american history in eighteen thirty seven. Andrew jackson added to justice in the courts to give him two more positions for his literal cronies. But then after abraham lincoln was assassinated. The republican congress reduced the size of the court by two in order to stop. Lincoln's democratic replacement. Andrew johnson from making pro slavery appointments literally. These are politicians and large and small innings. That's not a word but smaller inning..
"supreme court" Discussed on Matt D’Elia Is Confused
"The law as written is the law as written. Should be a fucking nine fucking moderates on the Supreme Court. The? FARC You want to change the law, become a politician. You want to enforce the law, become a cop you want to interpret the law, you become a judge. Don't fuck and mix them up. Why the fuck is any judge. Far Up one side or the other of any spectrum politically. Fuck that. The laws are already fucking written. I don't want somebody reading through fuck and political lens through their own ideology fuck you. You're one fucking person you're nine people. All you should just fucking. Be The best ever at interpreting the existing laws as objectively as you can. I don't want some hard right motherfucker deciding the fate of the fucking country or some hard left motherfucker. I want somebody who does what the system was designed to fucking do, which is objectively Interpret. The existing laws that's the system. Fuck you. Fuck you bitch. Connell.
"supreme court" Discussed on Deep Background with Noah Feldman
"From Pushkin Industries. This is deep background. The show where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news I'm Noah, Feldman. Until Monday, of this week it was lawful in more than half of the US states to fire an employee for being gay, bisexual or transgender. That is no longer true. The Supreme Court has now ruled the title seven of the Nineteen Sixty. Four Civil Rights Act which prohibits employment discrimination because of sex protects such workers. To discuss this landmark case, we're joined by Professor Bill Ask Rich. Bill is quite literally the perfect guest to discuss these topics. He's a professor at Yale. Law School, he's a pioneer in the study and the teaching of gay rights law and he spent much of his career, focusing on the interpretation of statutes. He's also the author of the forthcoming book marriage equality from outlaws to in-laws. A. Bill thank you so much for being here this morning. It's very rare for there to be an exactly ideal guest in response to an important news story, but in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on antidiscrimination law for Ganz transgender people. You I knew you were the exact guest. Because not only are you a pioneer in the law of gay rights? You're also one of our leading experts and statutory interpretation, so literally the two topics of the moment are both squarely within the domain of your expertise, so I guess I want to start by saying congratulations. You must be feeling happy about the decision in Bostock against Clayton County. That probably understates it. Very surprised it was six to three. Not at all surprised that if we won as we did. It would be textualist opinion. I've been saying this for two years. The cases coming for two years. My mantra to all the LGBT groups that would listen to me. Is that we need to understand thoroughly the text and structure as well as the precedence surrounding title seven. And I think justice. Gorsuch got it so great for the Supreme Court and maybe great for the country to and for gay and transgender people. Let's start with a little bit of background history here on why the decision was a surprise to many. How long has it been? Since people in the gay rights movement have been arguing that title seven, which prohibits discrimination because of sex properly interpreted, ought to also include within that discrimination against Gay Lesbian people are against transgender people well for most of my lifetime. LGBTQ people didn't even dare. Come out as gay or lesbian or whatnot at work, so there were not a lot of arguments for most of my lifetime. I would say in the Nineteen Ninety S. The argument becomes prominent because by the nineteen nineties. The A. Lot of lgbt tea and increasingly Q. People who were out of the workplace and then the Bayern Lewin case in Hawaii. said that. If you exclude from marriage a woman because she's marrying a woman rather than marrying a man well, that's sex discrimination in the same way that it's race discrimination if you exclude a white woman from marriage because she's marrying a black man. And so the confluence of both the social. Factors and this legal development in Bayern, Lewin, generated a lot of talk within the LGBTQ and academic communities. So this has been an argument that's been going on a conservative measure for thirty years as many as thirty years from the perspective of someone who's not a lawyer. It might seem kind of weird that. A right to have sex as a gay person was decided by the Supreme Court in the early two thousands that are right to gay marriage, was decided by the Supreme Court in the middle of the two thousand ten's, and yet it took until two thousand and twenty to achieve something that one might have imagined at least as a non lawyer was more obvious, namely a statutory right not to be discriminated against in the workplace. Lawyers know that the difference has something to do with a constitutional decision, which to all the Supreme Court's gay rights decisions until now of great consequence had been at a decision interpreting federal law. which is what this case was. Why do you think it took longer for the Supreme Court to reach this conclusion with respect to a federal statute than it did with respect to the constitution. Well unfortunately, that's an easy one to answer. And that is that the whole gay marriage issue arose again in the nineteen ninety s there had been some gay marriage cases in the seventies, and they'd all lost in the nineteen nineties There was a revival of interest. I actually was the attorney in the first case one in DC. And then the Hawaii case which was also unsuccessful, but God love publicity. was also in the mid nineteen ninety S and. Once marriage got on the horizon, both as an aspiration for the. Movement. And something to react to the marriage issue sort of sucked up most of the oxygen, so the sex discrimination argument was there was made in the Vermont tastes in one thousand nine was made in Massachusetts case in two thousand and three, and in some of the subsequent cases, but judges were afraid to pick up on it because of the negative reaction to bear in lieu the Hawaii case in nineteen ninety-three. And so the argument. Sort of existed in the ether. But judges and even attorneys were afraid to raise it. Because it did sound or Thog inal to the basic equality arguments that we're making in cases like Rome versus Evans in Nineteen ninety-six Lawrence versus Texas Sodomy case in two thousand and three and even Windsor. And the United States the defense of Marriage Act case was decided in two thousand, thirteen followed by Obama felt the marriage case. It seems on the surface again to a non lawyer. If I can pretend to.