0
0.0
Feb 17, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
two courts during world war.it's the best of court and the worst of course and and the best of courts as you're it, bill, there's a whole series of decisions in the war where in self conscious contrast to the totally that we were fighting to the fashion to the authoritarians to the nazis in very self-conscious the supreme court recognized and protect it and expanded constitute national rights and civil liberties. and so to give a few examples of those in skinner versus oklahoma in 1942 at the supreme court strikes down an oklahoma law that called for the compulsory sterilizing zation of people who had been convicted of three or more crimes of moral turpitude and the crimes of moral turpitude was interpreted very broadly to include, you know, everyday crimes, burglary and robbery. it strikes down this compulsory sterilization law. and as the court was considering the case as it made its way to the court very much part of context was the awareness that hitler and the nazis had engaged and a massive program, compuls
two courts during world war.it's the best of court and the worst of course and and the best of courts as you're it, bill, there's a whole series of decisions in the war where in self conscious contrast to the totally that we were fighting to the fashion to the authoritarians to the nazis in very self-conscious the supreme court recognized and protect it and expanded constitute national rights and civil liberties. and so to give a few examples of those in skinner versus oklahoma in 1942 at the...
0
0.0
Feb 6, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court after court has ruled against them. now you're at the d.c. court of appeals. they, again, ruled against them. have they already started dealing with this? >> the arguments did not go well for them. when trump's attorneys were there in front of the three judges, it was a brutal day for his team. but they are rejecting every argument that trump is making on the ideal -- on the idea he has this immunity, on the idea it has a chilling effect. they say that's ridiculous, there's already impeachment and the threat of removal from office that is creating that kind of, you know, thinking on a president. they say essentially this idea that it would, you know, allow future presidents to then just be charged frivolously, which is what he's warning there, they say that's not the case here. there's not that threat here that the trump team claims there is. and this is really scathing. when you're reading through this, and this is what trump's team is paying close attention to, because if it goes to the supreme court, they'll be looking at this decision, but they say he lack
court after court has ruled against them. now you're at the d.c. court of appeals. they, again, ruled against them. have they already started dealing with this? >> the arguments did not go well for them. when trump's attorneys were there in front of the three judges, it was a brutal day for his team. but they are rejecting every argument that trump is making on the ideal -- on the idea he has this immunity, on the idea it has a chilling effect. they say that's ridiculous, there's already...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and the court.riting it is an unprecedented case that gives the supreme court justices the central role in charting the course of a presidential election for the first time in a quarter-century. more on the case throughout today's program. as we talk about it we want to hear from you. on phone lines, if you support disqualification, (202) 748-8000 . if you oppose, (202) 748-8001 bap trump v anderson is the name of the case centered on two -- the meaning of section three of the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. you'll be hearing a lot about section three today. "no person shall be a senator or representative in congress or elector of a president or vice president or hold any office, civil or military, in the united states or any state, who having previously an oath as a member of congress or an officer of the united statesr as a member of any state legislature or executive or judicial officer to support the constitution of the united states, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebel
and the court.riting it is an unprecedented case that gives the supreme court justices the central role in charting the course of a presidential election for the first time in a quarter-century. more on the case throughout today's program. as we talk about it we want to hear from you. on phone lines, if you support disqualification, (202) 748-8000 . if you oppose, (202) 748-8001 bap trump v anderson is the name of the case centered on two -- the meaning of section three of the 14th amendment of...
29
29
Feb 7, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 29
favorite 0
quote 2
this is the court speaking.en a jury comes back, and the judge will say to the jury, you have spoken as one. this is the representation of what the jury as a whole thanks. and so when you have a decision that -- is it is saying that. the second thought i had, that again is educated speculation, is it does not put a target on any judges had, who is the principal writer. and remember, everyone in that courthouse is very aware that judge chutkan has been the subject of death threats, that is not the only judge, there is a real concern about violence, and i could go on and on about that. but this is a way of slightly distancing the court from that. >> so a latin security shield to the three judges. and the senior judge on the -- panel is the one who had the right to offer the opinion, if she so chose? >> absolutely, she as the senior judge could've said or assigned to one of the other two judges. >> so here is another thought that i had when i saw that they gave this a very limited time for an appeal to the full app
this is the court speaking.en a jury comes back, and the judge will say to the jury, you have spoken as one. this is the representation of what the jury as a whole thanks. and so when you have a decision that -- is it is saying that. the second thought i had, that again is educated speculation, is it does not put a target on any judges had, who is the principal writer. and remember, everyone in that courthouse is very aware that judge chutkan has been the subject of death threats, that is not...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court fellow program lecture. i have the honor and privilege of serving as the librarian of congress. it is my pleasure to send greetings from the beautiful auditorium of the library of congress of jefferson building to our in person audience and everyone watching online. >> i have the honor and privilege of serving as the law library and of congress. it is my pleasure to send greetings from the beautiful auditorium of the library of congress jefferson building to both our in person audience and all of you watching us online. let me just say a couple of words about the lot library of congress. the law library serves as a custodian of the legislative collection of nearly 3 million items from all countries and legal systems around the world. our skilled staff of attorneys and bought librarians provide research assistance and reference services on united states federal and state legal issues. our foreign law specialist are a diverse group of foreign-trained attorneys who provide full and comparative low research and
court fellow program lecture. i have the honor and privilege of serving as the librarian of congress. it is my pleasure to send greetings from the beautiful auditorium of the library of congress of jefferson building to our in person audience and everyone watching online. >> i have the honor and privilege of serving as the law library and of congress. it is my pleasure to send greetings from the beautiful auditorium of the library of congress jefferson building to both our in person...
0
0.0
Feb 28, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court.re is also his legislative legacy, the bills passed under the three presidents including the vast majority of trump's agenda, but towering over all of it and likely to last long beyond his tenure and his life is the work of the three justices whose nominations they put there. one of this, gorsuch happened because mcconnell denied president barack obama an opportunity to appoint his justice. the three justices apply the majority that overturned roe v. wade, that wildly unpopular decision. over turned affirmative action in college admissions and have a plan to bring billions in student debt relief to millions and we could go on and on. we cover all of this on the broadcast all of the type. and right now dealing with the slew of incredibly consequential cases involving atashes to a man who disagrees with many of mcconnell's long held foreign policy views. mcconnell even hinted at that distance between themselves and the maga movement at his announcement today. >> the trial works so hard t
supreme court.re is also his legislative legacy, the bills passed under the three presidents including the vast majority of trump's agenda, but towering over all of it and likely to last long beyond his tenure and his life is the work of the three justices whose nominations they put there. one of this, gorsuch happened because mcconnell denied president barack obama an opportunity to appoint his justice. the three justices apply the majority that overturned roe v. wade, that wildly unpopular...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court, if you remember, jack smith had asked the court to take the case directly, to jump over the courtappeals. and they said, no. it should go in the normal order. the other thing they did is they could have said -- they could have ruled on this quicker. i mean, it took them two weeks to decide just this. and then joy, to your note, is that they have scheduled this in a certain way, in an expedited fashion but not all that expedited compared to bush v. gore. this is two months. i want everyone to understand, this case has been fully briefed. there are -- it was briefed at the district court level. it was briefed at the court of appeals level. and it's not like this is a case where the supreme court is thinking, oh, you know i hadn't really been following the news. i hadn't really read all these cases. this is one where there is nothing that would have prevented the court from saying, you know what, we're going to hear this next week or two weeks from now. so, there's just a lot of reasons to be very pessimistic. not maybe so much about the ultimate decision, but the ultimate decision i
court, if you remember, jack smith had asked the court to take the case directly, to jump over the courtappeals. and they said, no. it should go in the normal order. the other thing they did is they could have said -- they could have ruled on this quicker. i mean, it took them two weeks to decide just this. and then joy, to your note, is that they have scheduled this in a certain way, in an expedited fashion but not all that expedited compared to bush v. gore. this is two months. i want...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
, been around the, court studied the, courts know the court, there is no way they can take two and a half weeks only then to say, we are taking the case seven weeks from now. what was your reaction? >> i mean, i don't think you should be mad at yourself. i don't think you should be embarrassed. i think everybody sort of thought that was the only kind of decent explanation for how long they were taking. that they were going to not take up the case, that may be samuel little, one of the other real maga judges was going to be really not about. it kind of angry. dissent was fighting for as much as he could because it was his last chance to insert delay, which of, course is what trump wants. i think, if you think about the court as the supreme court of the united states, and a rational actor, and a decent, one that was a reasonable deposition. and it just turns out they're not bad. , and chris, i feel you. in terms of the emotion that you're bringing to this right now. and that the sort of sense of urgency, in what year underscoring what this means it's true. it just isn't any way around.
, been around the, court studied the, courts know the court, there is no way they can take two and a half weeks only then to say, we are taking the case seven weeks from now. what was your reaction? >> i mean, i don't think you should be mad at yourself. i don't think you should be embarrassed. i think everybody sort of thought that was the only kind of decent explanation for how long they were taking. that they were going to not take up the case, that may be samuel little, one of the...
0
0.0
Feb 28, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court wasn't enough, the supreme court is now going to do it. and, you know, it's going to it's going to delay, which is a victory for donald trump because of course, the theory is if he were to win the election then this whole thing would become a moot point and it is unfair to the voters who would like to know the answer to some of these questions. i agree with alyssa. they're not they're not much concerned about the stormy daniels case. but they are concerned about this case. and the more they know about it, the better off they'll be. but the supreme court moves at its own pace, which is often glacial and wolf, i think there's a big question mark that hangs on this time and gloria reference that justice department tradition of not prosecuting, not invited misty gating during an election season. the judge in this case, judge chutkan, has said that his status as a presidential candidate will bear absolutely nothing on the trial in her courtroom. i don't know. to me, it's just a big question that we don't know. it's almost unfathomable in a ryan
court wasn't enough, the supreme court is now going to do it. and, you know, it's going to it's going to delay, which is a victory for donald trump because of course, the theory is if he were to win the election then this whole thing would become a moot point and it is unfair to the voters who would like to know the answer to some of these questions. i agree with alyssa. they're not they're not much concerned about the stormy daniels case. but they are concerned about this case. and the more...
1
1.0
Feb 19, 2024
02/24
by
PRESSTV
tv
eye 1
favorite 0
quote 0
the questions put before the court by the assembly does seek the court's legal guidance on matters of fundamental and longstanding importance and concern to the. united nations. third, all of the ground for declining to issue an opinion suggested in the submissions of few states fall far short of constituting compelling reasons that must exist for the court to refrain from answering the general assembly questions. some of these submissions oppose the advisory opinion because of the proported existence of negotiation framework or of bilateral negotiations. however, none of these considerations constitutes a reasonable basis for the court to refuse the general assembly's request. to the contrary, an opinion from the court will assist in these negotiations by confirming the applicable international legal framework as affirmed in united nations resolutions, in order to reach a just and peaceful solution. as matter of fact, there exist, there exist at least three reasons why the court should not be deterred from answering the ga questions on that basis: first, israel has repeatedly refused
the questions put before the court by the assembly does seek the court's legal guidance on matters of fundamental and longstanding importance and concern to the. united nations. third, all of the ground for declining to issue an opinion suggested in the submissions of few states fall far short of constituting compelling reasons that must exist for the court to refrain from answering the general assembly questions. some of these submissions oppose the advisory opinion because of the proported...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
caller: i think the supreme court should affirm colorado supreme court decision. believe trump off of the ballot, because we have a constitution for a reason. and the constitution states insurrection, and he participated in the insurrection, for sure, and the only other time that the insurrection act has been used, the people who were presented from being in office after the civil war because of the insurrection act, or not convicted of anything either. so, trump doesn't need to be convicted to be prevented. i think you should be kept off the ballot. if people want to vote for him, they can write it in. host: so to listen closely today? sounds like you did? caller: i listened a little bit. host: ok, because of your civil war reference, that was brought up in today's case? caller: yeah, that has been talked about a lot in the last few weeks. host: thank you. joseph in pennsylvania. hi, joseph. >> you are on. go! host: [laughs] joseph, someone is prompting you. it's your turn. caller: my question is, say that he loses the ballot can he go back to colorado saying tha
caller: i think the supreme court should affirm colorado supreme court decision. believe trump off of the ballot, because we have a constitution for a reason. and the constitution states insurrection, and he participated in the insurrection, for sure, and the only other time that the insurrection act has been used, the people who were presented from being in office after the civil war because of the insurrection act, or not convicted of anything either. so, trump doesn't need to be convicted to...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that has been thoroughly litigated in district court and federal appellate court. by nearly deciding to do this, by side setting side whatever the courts final ruling, is the court has upended the attempt to hold on trump accountable for his actions to subvert democracy. in fact, the court may have ended that attempt entirely. this decision is almost certain to reshape the 2024 presidential race, and it will likely pay a determinative role in its outcome. but as much as the significance of this ruling is already apparent, the full consequences here hinge on the timing. now in its ruling tonight, the court said it would hear oral arguments in the case the week of april 22nd. now april 22nd is not close to today. and we will get into why exactly the court didn't choose a day that is a lot sooner than that. but april 22nd, on its face, seems pretty far from the november election. it's not. because when you start crunching the numbers and looking at how a trial could actually timeout avid the supreme court makes its decision here, the window in which trump could face t
that has been thoroughly litigated in district court and federal appellate court. by nearly deciding to do this, by side setting side whatever the courts final ruling, is the court has upended the attempt to hold on trump accountable for his actions to subvert democracy. in fact, the court may have ended that attempt entirely. this decision is almost certain to reshape the 2024 presidential race, and it will likely pay a determinative role in its outcome. but as much as the significance of this...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
in jack smith's brief to the supreme court, jack smith argued there was no need for the supreme court to hear the case at all. but if the supreme court was inclined to hear the case, jack smith asked the supreme court not to send the case back for another round at the appeals court, but to set an expedited hearing at the supreme court, schedule that expedited hearing. and that is what the supreme court now has done. leading off our discussion tonight is neal katyal, former acting u.s. solicitor general and host of the podcast courtside with neal katyal. he is an msnbc legal analyst. and neal, i want to begin the way all lawyers begin when they get these notices from the supreme court that they're going to hear your case. they have the supreme court identified for the lawyers on both sides the question, and the only question, they want to hear addressed. and i want to give that question to the audience now. the question is whether, and if so to what extent, does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during
in jack smith's brief to the supreme court, jack smith argued there was no need for the supreme court to hear the case at all. but if the supreme court was inclined to hear the case, jack smith asked the supreme court not to send the case back for another round at the appeals court, but to set an expedited hearing at the supreme court, schedule that expedited hearing. and that is what the supreme court now has done. leading off our discussion tonight is neal katyal, former acting u.s. solicitor...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court? >> harris: leo terrell said something might be in the ruling that would communicate that for that not to happen for the 11 or more states. sandra has made it to her studio. "america reports" now. >> question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. so whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal national means. >> no, your honor, because ultimately it's this court that's going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation. >> sandra: all right, so any moment now we are expecting to hear directly from the white house. its first reaction to the landmark oral arguments at the supreme court that we all just heard moments ago that could alter the course of the country. hello, welcome everyone, a lot at stake. i'm sandra smith in new york and yes, i did make it up to studio k. >> john: did you take the elevator
supreme court? >> harris: leo terrell said something might be in the ruling that would communicate that for that not to happen for the 11 or more states. sandra has made it to her studio. "america reports" now. >> question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. so whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal national means. >> no, your...
0
0.0
Feb 1, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court. because of this congressional action remains appropriate and necessary. the committee's investigation of the courts ethical crisis in these subpoenas are a key piece of legislative effort to establish an effective code of conduct. my republican colleagues claim efforts are motivated by my disagreement with courts recent decisions. but i first ask chief justice roberts in writing to address the courts lack of enforceable code of conduct 11 years ago. unenforceable code of conduct would apply to all nine justices appointed by presidents in both parties. one republican claimed i am opening pandora's box but i'm only seeking subpoenas for two people who have refused to comply with this committees oversight request for months. contrast this with the republicans unprecedented subpoena authorization of 2020 for a crossfire hurricane investigation. they provided the chair with blanket authorization to subpoena more than 50 named persons and an unlimited number of unnamed persons. unlimited. c
court. because of this congressional action remains appropriate and necessary. the committee's investigation of the courts ethical crisis in these subpoenas are a key piece of legislative effort to establish an effective code of conduct. my republican colleagues claim efforts are motivated by my disagreement with courts recent decisions. but i first ask chief justice roberts in writing to address the courts lack of enforceable code of conduct 11 years ago. unenforceable code of conduct would...
1
1.0
Feb 25, 2024
02/24
by
IRINN
tv
eye 1
favorite 0
quote 0
it goes to the constitutional court it is now the highest court in our land. constitutional court usually issues a verdict. he either approves the opinion of the complainant candidate or the complainant party or rejects their opinion, in which case their request will be rejected and in this case the issue will be closed. if you remember, in connection with your previous question, i also mentioned the election court . sometimes the electoral court, before all these mechanisms go ahead, where the communication committee. a few parties can't solve this problem, usually they submit the issue to the electoral court, the electoral court also says whether will hear the matter or the matter should be submitted to higher courts. what is the average participation rate in parliamentary elections in your country? we believe that this decrease is closely related to the decrease in support for the ruling party of the african national congress, but on the other hand, this is the people's dissatisfaction with electoral policies and promises, because political parties have mad
it goes to the constitutional court it is now the highest court in our land. constitutional court usually issues a verdict. he either approves the opinion of the complainant candidate or the complainant party or rejects their opinion, in which case their request will be rejected and in this case the issue will be closed. if you remember, in connection with your previous question, i also mentioned the election court . sometimes the electoral court, before all these mechanisms go ahead, where the...
0
0.0
Feb 20, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court, much less this one. she made those cases count, winning five of them and establishing the principle of gender equality as constitutional law. it offers room for ingenious strategy of bringing sex discrimination cases on behalf of men. one of her big cases litigated in the 10th circuit alongside her husband, as morris versus commissioner. it involved a tax code provision that allowed single women, but not single men to deduct the cost of caring for an elderly dependent. the cases memorably depicted in the movie, on the basis of sex, but i will always remember hearing this story at a dinner ginsberg hosted for us clerk. as they told it, marty learned -- learned about the case through his tax practice and ran into her room to tell her she needed to read the lower court's decision. she said, you know i don't read tax cases. he said, well, you need to read this one. as the oral argument, they divided the argument time and marti went first. he said as he delivered his argument, she started tugging on his sleev
court, much less this one. she made those cases count, winning five of them and establishing the principle of gender equality as constitutional law. it offers room for ingenious strategy of bringing sex discrimination cases on behalf of men. one of her big cases litigated in the 10th circuit alongside her husband, as morris versus commissioner. it involved a tax code provision that allowed single women, but not single men to deduct the cost of caring for an elderly dependent. the cases...
0
0.0
Feb 10, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
you may remember the jack smith went tried to leapfrog court of appeals, to get the court to rule on this. the whole ball game is timing. now it seems like with a majority of justices, liberal and conservative, seeming to side with trump in the disqualification case, you can see that there could be a lot of pressure on the other side to say let's let this case go to trial. the case on election subversion in washington d.c.. so trump winds when it gets to stay on the ballot. but he loses a big one and goes on trial in the spring or summer for election subversion in washington, d.c. there for letting the voters decide if trump is disqualified from serving for office. >> can i follow and that? when we hear the term grand bargain we usually think of congressional negotiations or legislative negotiations. is it now sort of accepted that the supreme court is so clearly letting politics, or at least political perceptions, intervene or at least inform the decisions they're making in big pieces of litigation? >> i don't think they're going to be bargaining and saying all vote this way if you
you may remember the jack smith went tried to leapfrog court of appeals, to get the court to rule on this. the whole ball game is timing. now it seems like with a majority of justices, liberal and conservative, seeming to side with trump in the disqualification case, you can see that there could be a lot of pressure on the other side to say let's let this case go to trial. the case on election subversion in washington d.c.. so trump winds when it gets to stay on the ballot. but he loses a big...
0
0.0
Feb 7, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
to appeal this decision to the highest court in the land, the supreme court.is the last step. and he says he will do that. and then, it will be up to the supreme court justices to decide if they want to take up his case. they don't have to, at all. in fact, they reject most cases that are presented to them. if they say no, which is a possibility, then this ruling just stands, and judge chutkan can get the trial back on schedule and at her discretion, and basically go ahead. if the supreme court does decide to hear trump's case, then he will have secured another delay. now again, the merits of the case remain the same. his argument is incredibly flimsy, almost insultingly so. and he most likely will not win, i don't think there is five votes on that court for this -- nonsense. but the clock will be running, and that of course is the entire point. i am joined now by rachel maddow, host of the rachel maddow show, and lawrence o'donnell, host of the last word. >> all right, let me get first top line reactions from you rachel to the court's decision. >> well first
to appeal this decision to the highest court in the land, the supreme court.is the last step. and he says he will do that. and then, it will be up to the supreme court justices to decide if they want to take up his case. they don't have to, at all. in fact, they reject most cases that are presented to them. if they say no, which is a possibility, then this ruling just stands, and judge chutkan can get the trial back on schedule and at her discretion, and basically go ahead. if the supreme court...
0
0.0
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the supreme court is not a fact-finding court.acts have already been found by a trial court, a dually legitimate trial court. donald trump and his lawyers had the opportunity to defend him. witnesses were called, evidence was heard. experts testified. historians testified, and there is a very thorough, detailed decision that lays out the case. so the supreme court really can't ask those questions in its role as a reviewer. what they can ask about is the law, and they can ask a series of questions i think they will ask. is this provision self-executing, right? does there need to be some statute that authorizes removal? they can ask those kinds of questions, and those are the questions i'm going to be focused on listening to the argument. what i think this court will want, a majority of this court will want is some indication that they cannot act without something else happening beforehand and that something else being in the hands of congress. i agree that they will be looking for an offramp, but i would stress again by the court's
the supreme court is not a fact-finding court.acts have already been found by a trial court, a dually legitimate trial court. donald trump and his lawyers had the opportunity to defend him. witnesses were called, evidence was heard. experts testified. historians testified, and there is a very thorough, detailed decision that lays out the case. so the supreme court really can't ask those questions in its role as a reviewer. what they can ask about is the law, and they can ask a series of...
0
0.0
Feb 3, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
werg to the judge supreme court. the acquittal was in question. >> as a general matter, you agre tt it is a matter of steaw when jeopardy terminates? that is a basic question whether theefdant is being put in jeopardy more tn once. you have to have it terminated before you can get to the question. as a general matter, is that a question of state l? it is subject to this court making the ultimate determination as to what constitutes an acquittal. it is held that jeffrey terminates when there is an acquittal. with broad ranges the state has discretion,ue process, speedy trial and et cetera to set procedures. >> one of the procedures i the rdt form has to be signed by the jury foreman. the jury reaches a verdict 12- zero that the defendant is not guilty. the jy foreman, you know, as he is presenting the verdict o whatever he decides, you know, i have second thoht i am not going to sign it. it is a matter of state law. does that terminate the first jeopardy or not? >> theigning of the verdict is a procedural requirement
werg to the judge supreme court. the acquittal was in question. >> as a general matter, you agre tt it is a matter of steaw when jeopardy terminates? that is a basic question whether theefdant is being put in jeopardy more tn once. you have to have it terminated before you can get to the question. as a general matter, is that a question of state l? it is subject to this court making the ultimate determination as to what constitutes an acquittal. it is held that jeffrey terminates when...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> members of this court have disagreed about that. >> i'm asking you. >> the majority of this court has said that those powers come from article 2. but we think that the result is the same, whether the court locates it in article 2 or in reserve power under the 10th amendment. >> but you accept that this court is held -- you're not contesting this or asking us to revisit that decision in thornton or term limits, it has to come from some constitutional authority. >> no, we're not, your honer. >> and we're not talking about the qualifications clause, nobody is talking about whether he's 35 years old or a natural born -- whatever. not at issue. okay. we're talking about something under the 14th amendment and section 3, so that's where you have to find your authority, right? >> we find our authority in article 2, in states plenary power to run their election. >> federal election -- but this is for a federal office has to come from the constitution, and you're seeking to enforce section 3. >> we're suggesting that in their broad power to determine the -- to select presidential electors i
>> members of this court have disagreed about that. >> i'm asking you. >> the majority of this court has said that those powers come from article 2. but we think that the result is the same, whether the court locates it in article 2 or in reserve power under the 10th amendment. >> but you accept that this court is held -- you're not contesting this or asking us to revisit that decision in thornton or term limits, it has to come from some constitutional authority....
0
0.0
Feb 23, 2024
02/24
by
ALJAZ
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
then the court should refrain from giving an opinion in the woods of the court in western sahara to give an opinion in such a case, i quote, would have the effect of circumventing the principle that a quote is not obliged to allow its disputes to be submitted to judicial set 2 months without it's consent was quite if the quote was the last of the request as currently formulated would entail a breach of the non such convention. principle. united kingdom makes full points. the 1st relates to the nature and content of the by that true dispute, it is more than a me a difference of use. it is a dispute of acute sensitivity. it is long standing. it concerns the status of israel's occupation. issues of securities and the conditions under which israel 10 and should withdrawal from the occupied palestinian territories. second, the court engages sorry the the request engages that cool dispute to the general assembly box the court to consider the express terms and rule long. but the legal status of the occupied territories and the legal consequences of that status . the quote is also invited to mak
then the court should refrain from giving an opinion in the woods of the court in western sahara to give an opinion in such a case, i quote, would have the effect of circumventing the principle that a quote is not obliged to allow its disputes to be submitted to judicial set 2 months without it's consent was quite if the quote was the last of the request as currently formulated would entail a breach of the non such convention. principle. united kingdom makes full points. the 1st relates to the...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court did particularly if the court relies on the facts. the indisputable facts what president trump said on video and on twitter. >> let's take an expert testify that the meaning of what president trump said. do you think it's possible that a different state court would apply it differently and say that this person should not be allowed to express an expert opinion on that question? do you think that's beyond the realm of imagination. >> the second point is that professor seemy really didn't opine on the meaning of president trump's words but on the effect those words had on violent extremist tea, it was videotaped statements of president trump himself encouraging praising political violence. >> i am not taking a position one way or another whether the expert's testimony should have been admitted or anything like that or the meaning of president trump's words . i'm trying to get you to grapple with what some people have seen as the consequences of the argument that you are advancing, which is that there will be conflicts in decisions among
supreme court did particularly if the court relies on the facts. the indisputable facts what president trump said on video and on twitter. >> let's take an expert testify that the meaning of what president trump said. do you think it's possible that a different state court would apply it differently and say that this person should not be allowed to express an expert opinion on that question? do you think that's beyond the realm of imagination. >> the second point is that professor...
0
0.0
Feb 7, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court seeking a continuation of the stay of the trial court, that's judge chutkan's trial court calender, pending a petition for cert, if they do that, then the stay would remain in place, of course, until the supreme court actually takes action by either accepting the case for certiorari meaning just accepting it for its review or denying certiorari, so it's denied, it all goes back to judge chutkan. that's why so much rides on this idea of a stay. i will note back in one of the cases that you mentioned in your lead off, trump v. thompson, this was the case where mr. trump sue today prevent the archivest from providing presidential records, white house records to select committee to investigate january 6th. it was rejected in the district court, rejected in the senate. and the court denied that stay, denied cert, and the documents requested by the house subcommittee started going to them immediately. so that is a case that was also involved in issues of sort of executive privilege which is comparable to executive immunity, and it was something the court had never squarely decid
supreme court seeking a continuation of the stay of the trial court, that's judge chutkan's trial court calender, pending a petition for cert, if they do that, then the stay would remain in place, of course, until the supreme court actually takes action by either accepting the case for certiorari meaning just accepting it for its review or denying certiorari, so it's denied, it all goes back to judge chutkan. that's why so much rides on this idea of a stay. i will note back in one of the cases...
0
0.0
Feb 20, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
circuit court?hat would your advice to be to judges, attorneys or younger people interested in law when approaching the different ways of understanding text of the constitution? >> i am an originalist and that is part of the judicial role is to interpret the law for what it says not for what i wish it said or what i hope that it might say. and yet there are tendencies from all different corners of american society they're asking that are asking courts to impose singular solutions from one direction or another. or seeking the same thing from the ministry of state. but with respect to the courts, it seems like this is such an obvious thing a few years ago to say the job of the courts is to say what the law is. i am a little surprised how under attack that simple premise has become. i guess i will reiterate it here that's certainly my view of what the court should be doing. >> more questions, please let's circle back to robert's question for just a moment. not just that legislating is hard, it's also m
circuit court?hat would your advice to be to judges, attorneys or younger people interested in law when approaching the different ways of understanding text of the constitution? >> i am an originalist and that is part of the judicial role is to interpret the law for what it says not for what i wish it said or what i hope that it might say. and yet there are tendencies from all different corners of american society they're asking that are asking courts to impose singular solutions from one...
0
0.0
Feb 7, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
0
0.0
Feb 7, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
some court experts see that new ruling as the kind that the supreme court could simply let stand especially because trump's appeal rests on pretty extreme arguments that it casts on the road to a total collapse of our system and the separated powers in the constitution, and the judges mostly dealt with those sometimes abstract principles in yesterday's ruling. one of the checks on power. what do past cases hold? right now i want to turn us as we start the hour to one section where they dive into the disturbing evidence of the plots to steal the race by trump and his aides, minions and allies, and that section is right here of the ruling and i'm actually not going to read all of this word for word. that's why we put it up this way. this is not so you read every paragraph, but we highlighted a few things here and i'll break it down for you because they discuss plots about false claims, elector fraud and mike pence and the discussion of trump's own role directing his supporters to swarm the capitol and that's some of what we highlighted. that's thou this new ruling refers to these many plots.
some court experts see that new ruling as the kind that the supreme court could simply let stand especially because trump's appeal rests on pretty extreme arguments that it casts on the road to a total collapse of our system and the separated powers in the constitution, and the judges mostly dealt with those sometimes abstract principles in yesterday's ruling. one of the checks on power. what do past cases hold? right now i want to turn us as we start the hour to one section where they dive...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court needed to take to get to.hey would have had to accept so many different arguments. i think what was revealed through some of their questions today, is that they really did not -- they were not able to identify the specific thing that they could turn to to uphold the colorado decision. they were really were identifying the specific things that raised more questions than answers. >> carl, we're seeing the d.c. attorney general is with us. carl, you are listening to all of this today. i want you to listen to something that justice alito said. >> the consequences of what the colorado supreme court did, some people claim, would be quite severe. would it not lead to the possibility that other states would say, using their choice of law rules and their rules on collateral estoppel, that there's non-mutual collateral estoppel against former president trump, so the decision of the colorado supreme court could effectively decide this question for many other states, perhaps all over states? >> carl, what did you make of
court needed to take to get to.hey would have had to accept so many different arguments. i think what was revealed through some of their questions today, is that they really did not -- they were not able to identify the specific thing that they could turn to to uphold the colorado decision. they were really were identifying the specific things that raised more questions than answers. >> carl, we're seeing the d.c. attorney general is with us. carl, you are listening to all of this today....
0
0.0
Feb 12, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
because you cannot be a one-person show on a three-person court or 16-member court.what would the advice be? j. kagan: well, i guess i don't think of them as in tension with each other. i think you can be a good and strong judge and also a good colleague and that's in fact part of being a good and strong judge. i think people make different decisions and have different perspectives on, in my court anyway, about how frequently you write separately. i'm an institutionalist so i do not write separately all that often. i write dissents when i need to and i hope i write strong and powerful dissents and iv that as an important part of what i do -- and i view that as an important part of what i do, but i don't -- i try not to be, you know, if you look at how many separate writings people have, usually i am pretty low down, because i guess i think that to the extent the court can, the court should not be fractured. i think that confuses matters for lower courts trying to figure out what we are saying to them. i think it's basically not about individual judges. i think it's a
because you cannot be a one-person show on a three-person court or 16-member court.what would the advice be? j. kagan: well, i guess i don't think of them as in tension with each other. i think you can be a good and strong judge and also a good colleague and that's in fact part of being a good and strong judge. i think people make different decisions and have different perspectives on, in my court anyway, about how frequently you write separately. i'm an institutionalist so i do not write...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the supreme court is a supreme court. john roberts has the opinion and of the supreme court and the american public's my in his hands. and he values so supreme court, he is the chief justice. that is his job. >> if very interesting to hear you say that congressman steve cohen, thank you very much for joining us. >> you're welcome, abby. nice to be with you >> and next, the republican who is responsible for changing the architecture of that supreme court announces that he is taking a back venture role on the very same day that the court but he built steps into the spotlight, again, much more ahead on these side sunday >> van jones, it's home find out what is driving the divide in tennessee politics. >> there has been a very active 20 to 30 year effort to separate us. >> the whole story with anderson cooper sunday up on cnn liberty mutual customize my car insurance and i saved hundreds >> that's great. >> i know i've been telling everyone how many people did you tell only pay for what you need >> i know what, it's like to p
the supreme court is a supreme court. john roberts has the opinion and of the supreme court and the american public's my in his hands. and he values so supreme court, he is the chief justice. that is his job. >> if very interesting to hear you say that congressman steve cohen, thank you very much for joining us. >> you're welcome, abby. nice to be with you >> and next, the republican who is responsible for changing the architecture of that supreme court announces that he is...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
it is a reviewing court. it is an appellate court.mr. trump engaged in insurrection has already been done. and so, the question is whether or not the supreme court will hold fast to the role that they appropriately should be in, which is as an appellate court. they certainly held the palette to say what the law is, but they don't hold the power to overdo the fact finding of the colorado trial court that was upheld by the colorado supreme court. >> yeah. that is a really important point for people to sort of sit with about, there was a trial, there was a friday trial, there was evidence, those process, this is the factual determination of that court, and furthermore, it's a quite that is a state court whose fact finding is basically fully outside the portfolio of the supreme court. at least it should be. i think that probably won't stop their arguments, but we'll see where they end up. sherrilyn ifill, always such a pleasure, thank you. >> thank, you chris. >> that was fun. i got to pretend like i wasn't a ballot judge for an hour and
it is a reviewing court. it is an appellate court.mr. trump engaged in insurrection has already been done. and so, the question is whether or not the supreme court will hold fast to the role that they appropriately should be in, which is as an appellate court. they certainly held the palette to say what the law is, but they don't hold the power to overdo the fact finding of the colorado trial court that was upheld by the colorado supreme court. >> yeah. that is a really important point...
0
0.0
Feb 7, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court. i think he did that in an effort to streamline the resolution. he said this case is destined for the supreme court anyway, let's skip this intermediate stage that is going to set us back two months and go straight to the supreme court because this is a really important issue that should be decided by the supreme court. one thing he could do is to withdraw that petition and say i'm really satisfied with the d.c. court of appeals of did and we don't need to take this to the supreme court. if the court declines to hear this, this would be the reezlution, this is good, and let's move on. so he could do that. we'll see whether the court accepts that as the course of action it chooses to follow, but it's one thing jack smith could do to nudge things along. >> this will certainly be one of the most important moments of 2024 as to when this trial occurs. we're so grateful to msnbc contributor barbara mcquade starting us off this morning. her book attack from within how disinformation is sabot
supreme court. i think he did that in an effort to streamline the resolution. he said this case is destined for the supreme court anyway, let's skip this intermediate stage that is going to set us back two months and go straight to the supreme court because this is a really important issue that should be decided by the supreme court. one thing he could do is to withdraw that petition and say i'm really satisfied with the d.c. court of appeals of did and we don't need to take this to the supreme...
0
0.0
Feb 20, 2024
02/24
by
ALJAZ
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
so you and stop court is waiting in the course at any time after the court will meet to hear the oral statements and comments on the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the united nations general assembly to the court on the question of legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of israel and the occupied palestinian territories including east jerusalem. then out of those, during his presentation, you are listed in foreign minister, re add mounting said the only solution is to end israel's occupation of palestine unconditionally and immediately is all ending, as well as impunity is immortal. politicos and legal competitive successive is ready. governments have given the stand up people, only 3 options, displacement, subjugation, or death. these are the choices, cleansing apart tides or gym site. but all the people out here to state of the proceedings will see 52 countries and 3 international organizations deliver submissions over the course of a week. the case is separate from the one brought by south africa, which accuses israel of committing genocide in gaza
so you and stop court is waiting in the course at any time after the court will meet to hear the oral statements and comments on the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the united nations general assembly to the court on the question of legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of israel and the occupied palestinian territories including east jerusalem. then out of those, during his presentation, you are listed in foreign minister, re add mounting said the only...
0
0.0
Feb 2, 2024
02/24
by
BBCNEWS
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
in court at the moment.n drop in the courtroom. everyone is sitting there silently waiting for thejudge to appear to sitting there silently waiting for the judge to appear to deliver his sentencing remarks. we are expecting her to take about half an hour or so but there are a total of 50 people in the court and the public gallery and its completely silent. this morning at about 9:30am we saw brianna ghey�*s family turn up at court. herfather, sorry her stepfather, father, mother, sister but also people at the head teacher of a school. there are also family members for the two murderers, eddie ratcliffe and scarlettjenkinson. ratcliffe and scarlett jenkinson. they ratcliffe and scarlettjenkinson. they are both in court today as well. ratcliffe and jenkinson are sitting in court, there are about five people sitting between them. scarlettjenkinson has been scarlett jenkinson has been described scarlettjenkinson has been described as fidgeting and repeatedly folding a piece of paper and opening it up again. eddi
in court at the moment.n drop in the courtroom. everyone is sitting there silently waiting for thejudge to appear to sitting there silently waiting for the judge to appear to deliver his sentencing remarks. we are expecting her to take about half an hour or so but there are a total of 50 people in the court and the public gallery and its completely silent. this morning at about 9:30am we saw brianna ghey�*s family turn up at court. herfather, sorry her stepfather, father, mother, sister but...
3
3.0
Feb 16, 2024
02/24
by
ESPRESO
tv
eye 3
favorite 0
quote 0
of ukraine, the higher administrative court and the higher specialized court of ukraine for considerationvil and criminal cases, their powers were transferred to the newly created supreme court, and although the liquidation procedure was launched more than five years ago, the process is still not completed. judges are still listed in staff, they do absolutely nothing, however , they receive a salary, only for the first incomplete year and a half of the war for 45 employees. femids of insufficiently attended courts ukraine has spent more than 55 million hryvnias, a lot of money , millions of hryvnias of taxpayers are paid now as a judge's fee to persons who are in detention, or at all are suspects, and do not carry out justice due to some circumstances, these are usually large funds, and the state must react, and the bodies that can react... must do it quickly and efficiently, i.e to provide a mechanism of prosecution in the case of a violation of responsibility and dismissal. we should not forget about the infamous judges of the liquidated district administrative court of kyiv. more than
of ukraine, the higher administrative court and the higher specialized court of ukraine for considerationvil and criminal cases, their powers were transferred to the newly created supreme court, and although the liquidation procedure was launched more than five years ago, the process is still not completed. judges are still listed in staff, they do absolutely nothing, however , they receive a salary, only for the first incomplete year and a half of the war for 45 employees. femids of...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
federal appellate court. i nearly deciding to do this, setting aside whatever the court's final ruling is, the court has essentially upended the attempt to hold donald trump accountable for his actions to subvert democracy. the court may have ended that attempt entirely. the decision is also certain to reshape the 2024 presidential race and it will likely play a determinative role in its outcome. but, as much as a significant of this ruling is already apparent, the full consequences here hinge on the timing. in its ruling tonight, court said it would hear oral arguments in the case the week of april 22nd. april 22nd is not close to today. we will get into why exactly the court did not choose a date that is a lot sooner than that but april 22nd also on its face sort of seems pretty far from the november election. it is not. because when you start crunching the numbers and looking at how a trial could actually time out after the supreme court makes its decision here, the window in which trump could face trial,
federal appellate court. i nearly deciding to do this, setting aside whatever the court's final ruling is, the court has essentially upended the attempt to hold donald trump accountable for his actions to subvert democracy. the court may have ended that attempt entirely. the decision is also certain to reshape the 2024 presidential race and it will likely play a determinative role in its outcome. but, as much as a significant of this ruling is already apparent, the full consequences here hinge...
0
0.0
Feb 6, 2024
02/24
by
BBCNEWS
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
potential for a split ruling among the lower courts, the courts of appeal in the united states.s is not the kind of case where there's a split in decisions. this is a case that has come on really a first of its kind case. i think there's a chance the supreme court won't take the case simply because it's a political hot potato. and they're almost certainly going to come out the same way that the court of appeals did. but if they did decide to do so, and you would just need fourjustices on the supreme court to decide that it would introduce very significant delay that could mean that this trial would not take place until after the 2024 election. so if they do or if they don't, where does that leave donald trump in times of timing for this case? so right now, donald trump is trying to burn as much of the clock as possible, so to speak. and i think his hope is that the supreme court will take the case. if they do not do so, i think he's at least hoping that they're going to stay the case, pause it, while they consider, the supreme court considers whether to take the case. that might
potential for a split ruling among the lower courts, the courts of appeal in the united states.s is not the kind of case where there's a split in decisions. this is a case that has come on really a first of its kind case. i think there's a chance the supreme court won't take the case simply because it's a political hot potato. and they're almost certainly going to come out the same way that the court of appeals did. but if they did decide to do so, and you would just need fourjustices on the...
0
0.0
Feb 6, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
he lost at the trial court. three months ago, the three judges were skeptical about his lawyers' arguments about the breadth and depth of this protection he was claiming. what surprised me here, is, in addition to the constitutional analysis, the judges eviscerated trump for his alleged actions after the 2020 election, calling him unpresidential and suggesting this is an assault on american institutions, say egg, "it would be a striking paradox if the president, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity." in addition to these unprecedented constitutional questions, this is also about timing. a large part of the trump strategy is to just try to delay, delay, delay, push these federal cases back until after the november election, because if he is re-elected, trump's attorney general could likely make jack smith and both of these criminal cases go away. now, it took a month for the court of ap
he lost at the trial court. three months ago, the three judges were skeptical about his lawyers' arguments about the breadth and depth of this protection he was claiming. what surprised me here, is, in addition to the constitutional analysis, the judges eviscerated trump for his alleged actions after the 2020 election, calling him unpresidential and suggesting this is an assault on american institutions, say egg, "it would be a striking paradox if the president, who alone is vested with...
0
0.0
Feb 19, 2024
02/24
by
ALJAZ
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
we ask the court a simple question. how can it be that the regime that gives rise to these norms, their addiction from which is not permitted itself be lawful? no, we argue that the regime that is, israel's continued presence in the occupied past main territory is in and of itself . and internationally, wrongful act, i mean, we doubt that can only be ended immediately, unconditionally and forthwith nor or they, if israel and its allies, uh, ignore the court's opinion when it is delivered, as they have done before. what does that say about the quotes credibility about international law? well, it would mean that the, this whole system that the world relies on to a function really would no longer really be relevant or, or a very much impact. and palestine has long challenged the system because of this is really exceptionalism because israel has always enjoyed the protection of the complicity of very powerful allies. it has a really undermined every thing that the international system, the international law and what it stan
we ask the court a simple question. how can it be that the regime that gives rise to these norms, their addiction from which is not permitted itself be lawful? no, we argue that the regime that is, israel's continued presence in the occupied past main territory is in and of itself . and internationally, wrongful act, i mean, we doubt that can only be ended immediately, unconditionally and forthwith nor or they, if israel and its allies, uh, ignore the court's opinion when it is delivered, as...
1
1.0
Feb 4, 2024
02/24
by
ESPRESO
tv
eye 1
favorite 0
quote 0
we are now talking about what happened at the united nations international court of justice nations,re, as is known, there was a serious story with ukraine's claims against russia, we already have this judge and this is such a real serious conversation in the international court of the united nations. mr. expert, now i hope that we will have an interlocutor, but for now i will try to explain to you what happened at the un international court of justice this week. the international court of justice decided that it can investigate whether the russian federation really distorted the concept of genocide, but it will not establish whether the russian federation committed genocide against ukraine itself. that was the case ukraine violated. russia literally a few days after the start of a full -scale invasion, and in fact it must be clearly understood that this is a decision that can hardly be called one that satisfies ukraine, but may not leave a stone unturned from the very idea that the russian federation adhered to when it justified his attack on our country. literally a few days after
we are now talking about what happened at the united nations international court of justice nations,re, as is known, there was a serious story with ukraine's claims against russia, we already have this judge and this is such a real serious conversation in the international court of the united nations. mr. expert, now i hope that we will have an interlocutor, but for now i will try to explain to you what happened at the un international court of justice this week. the international court of...
0
0.0
Feb 15, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
right to the supreme court. essentially, to settle this matter as quickly as possible. and the supreme court said, no, sorry, mr. smith, we don't want to hear this case right now. well, in his filing today, the special counsel reminded the justices of that decision. writing, to the extent that that denial reflects that this court is not inclined to review trump's claim, no reason for a stay exists, and the court is better situated to assess that question now that the court of appeals has thoroughly analyzed and rejected appliqui's immunity claim. -- he didn't want to hear this case before, and if that's because you thought trump's arguments were bogus, just say so. and let's get on with the trial. especially now that you have an appeals court that has said in no uncertain terms that trump's arguments were bogus. but also in tonight's filing, the special counsel offers the supreme court a second opinion -- please do it as quickly as possible. smith writes, if this court believes that trump's claim merits review a
right to the supreme court. essentially, to settle this matter as quickly as possible. and the supreme court said, no, sorry, mr. smith, we don't want to hear this case right now. well, in his filing today, the special counsel reminded the justices of that decision. writing, to the extent that that denial reflects that this court is not inclined to review trump's claim, no reason for a stay exists, and the court is better situated to assess that question now that the court of appeals has...