0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch: ok. and you agree that, elsewhere in the law, when posed with questions of law, courts review those de novo, generally spking? general prelogar: i think that, in many contexts, it's de novo. certainly not in all contexts. justice gorsuch: the examples you gave, i think, were aedpa and mandamus, gh general prelogar: yes. i think those are two good examples of situations where there are specifications of a standard riew that's more deferential. justice gorsuch: i wonder whether those have more to do with remedies, right? in a mandamus case, a court should sayoran say, what the law is. it just can't provide relief unless its conviction about the statute meaning is sufficiently clear. same thing in aedpa, that we reque heightened standard before relief is granted. sa thing in sovereign immunity contexts. we mayhi the statute says the government's lilebut we impose a higher standard before we grant access to the fisc. general prelog: i acknowledge that i think that many of those doctrines do t
justice gorsuch: ok. and you agree that, elsewhere in the law, when posed with questions of law, courts review those de novo, generally spking? general prelogar: i think that, in many contexts, it's de novo. certainly not in all contexts. justice gorsuch: the examples you gave, i think, were aedpa and mandamus, gh general prelogar: yes. i think those are two good examples of situations where there are specifications of a standard riew that's more deferential. justice gorsuch: i wonder whether...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch: -- called them. are you asking us to -- to do anything different wn comes to chevron? martinez: no, and if i could just explain what -- how i think the world would look with respect to the old cases. i think stare decisis would apply to the holdings of those old cases. i don't think that -- that anything wldhange. you know, stationary source would ilmean what it meant wh -when the court issued that bottom-line interpretation. d so i don't think that this would -- a ruling in favorf our side would -- would require or entail overturning any of those old cases. i think whate ally care about is prospectively, both with respect to the fishing regulation here but also with respect to other cases that come forward to the courts, making surehacourts are the ones doing the interpreting and not agencies. justice gorsuch: thank you. chief justice robert jtice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: several questions. first of all, on skidmore, there was reference to skidmore deference, and i guess i don' think that's the
justice gorsuch: -- called them. are you asking us to -- to do anything different wn comes to chevron? martinez: no, and if i could just explain what -- how i think the world would look with respect to the old cases. i think stare decisis would apply to the holdings of those old cases. i don't think that -- that anything wldhange. you know, stationary source would ilmean what it meant wh -when the court issued that bottom-line interpretation. d so i don't think that this would -- a ruling in...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch: yeah. mr.tratextualist analysis. justice gorsuch: yeah. mr. mitchet we ar' relying necessarily on the thought proces the people who drafted these provisions because they are unknowable. but, even y were knowable, we are not sure they would be relevant in any event because this language, especially in section iii, was enacted as a mpromise. republicans who wanted to go much further if yo at some of t-he proposed. some peopled to ban all insurrectionists from holding office regardless of whether they previously swore an oat some people wanted to go further and ban them even from voting. chief justice roberts: thank you. i just have one very technical question. the statute in 1870, if it were still in effect, would require you to modif arguments slightly. it was rep as you say, in 1948. i tr find it, but i couldn't. do youw led? mr. mitchell: no, we don't know it looks like it was done as part of a reorganization of ther there was any policy motivation behind that decision. i think a lot of things
justice gorsuch: yeah. mr.tratextualist analysis. justice gorsuch: yeah. mr. mitchet we ar' relying necessarily on the thought proces the people who drafted these provisions because they are unknowable. but, even y were knowable, we are not sure they would be relevant in any event because this language, especially in section iii, was enacted as a mpromise. republicans who wanted to go much further if yo at some of t-he proposed. some peopled to ban all insurrectionists from holding office...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch: ok.g back, the substantial motivati factor obviously means it does not have to be a proximate cause. mr. fletcher: agreed. >> when i read all of the emails exchanged between the white house and other federal officials on facebook in particular but also some of the others, and i see that the white house and federal officials are repeatedly saying that facebook and the federal government should be partners, we are on the same team, officials are demanding answers -- i want an answer, i want it right away. when they are unhappy, they curse them out. there are regular meetings. this constant pestering of facebook and other platforms and they want regular meetings and they suggest rules that should be applied so we can help you. and i look at that and thought, wow, i cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media. if you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be? and so i thought, you know, the only reason this is taking place is because the federal go
justice gorsuch: ok.g back, the substantial motivati factor obviously means it does not have to be a proximate cause. mr. fletcher: agreed. >> when i read all of the emails exchanged between the white house and other federal officials on facebook in particular but also some of the others, and i see that the white house and federal officials are repeatedly saying that facebook and the federal government should be partners, we are on the same team, officials are demanding answers -- i want...
0
0.0
Mar 29, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
stice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: we've gone back and forth all moabout the standard. but you have a first amendment retaliation claim in this case, and we often look at retalia in the title vii context. just tter you described, the it would have on a reasonable person in the circumstances u see any daylight between those two standards? what constitutes adverse action? justice gorsuch: right. mr. cole: i'm not hat there is. i don't know that for th case one has to look very h see adverse action, when you see a concerted campa milling dollars- million-dollar fines, and explicit threat to a major insurance provider, we are going to go hard on you if you don't cut your ties with the nra . in that context this clearly an adverse action under vii, under any english-language understanding. justice gorsuch: retaliation is our case law.ncept in a lot of mr. cole: and i think, look justice gorsuch: they have gray-area cases, all of the mr. cole: bantam boo retaliation are slightly different in the way they conceptualize rst amendment violation. bantam books encouraging a third
stice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: we've gone back and forth all moabout the standard. but you have a first amendment retaliation claim in this case, and we often look at retalia in the title vii context. just tter you described, the it would have on a reasonable person in the circumstances u see any daylight between those two standards? what constitutes adverse action? justice gorsuch: right. mr. cole: i'm not hat there is. i don't know that for th case one has to look very h see adverse action,...
0
0.0
Mar 28, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch. suggests that you might have a retaliation claim, which is a kind of first amendment, it's a species of first amendment. you allege it in this case. and that makes perfect sense, right, that they are punishing me because of my speech. that is retaliation. censorship is something different. and what i'm suggesting is that bantam books is a --basically a censorship case, that what they're doing is forcing these companies to take down the work -- down or remove speech that the government objects to. and that i don't quite see happening here, as opposed to the other theory that you do allege, which is they don't like what it is that we do and they're using the levers of government to prevent us from operating. mr. cole: if there were a distinction in the first amendment between censorship and burdening speech because of its content, then maybe that will be correct. but there is no such distinction. the first amendment requires strict scrutiny when the government censors speech because it
justice gorsuch. suggests that you might have a retaliation claim, which is a kind of first amendment, it's a species of first amendment. you allege it in this case. and that makes perfect sense, right, that they are punishing me because of my speech. that is retaliation. censorship is something different. and what i'm suggesting is that bantam books is a --basically a censorship case, that what they're doing is forcing these companies to take down the work -- down or remove speech that the...
0
0.0
Mar 28, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch: i'm sorry, mr. katyal, just to foowp on justice kavanaugh's original question, it seems like that we're all in agreement that the law here is clearly established under bantam books and it's just a matter of application. that right? mr. katyal: i certainly think the law is clearly established in terms of what i rd you at the second circuit is fine. justice gorsuch: the standard, yeah? you think that's clearly establhe mr. katyal: yes. so the concern is, without an obcte reasonability test, you open the door to people ling strike suits against enforcement actions alth time. now i guess they then say: well, okay, it'not the 2/27 meeting thloyd's or the consent orders themselves. you'veot to read that in light of the guidance letters, the guidanceetrs. we think absolutely you should look at them all together, a the solicitor general says. justice kavanaugh: and i thin they do say the meeting itself is enough. mr. katyal: yeah. and if that meeting is enough, justice kavanaugh, every meeting, every ple ne
justice gorsuch: i'm sorry, mr. katyal, just to foowp on justice kavanaugh's original question, it seems like that we're all in agreement that the law here is clearly established under bantam books and it's just a matter of application. that right? mr. katyal: i certainly think the law is clearly established in terms of what i rd you at the second circuit is fine. justice gorsuch: the standard, yeah? you think that's clearly establhe mr. katyal: yes. so the concern is, without an obcte...
0
0.0
Mar 24, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch: i understand that.advocating for a change in section 230 -- how about saying you are killing people, could thate ercion in some circumstances? that if you don't change your moderation policies, you are responsible for killing people. mrfletcher: i think that one is much harder. that is a statement that president demade off-the-cuff. justice gorsh:'m not talking about the context, specific issues cod at, in some circumstances, an accusationy a govemee urolicy, you are responsible for killing people, could that be eron? mr. fletcher: i don't want t say it is impossible. sang it did not happen here. the president said this t public in the middle of a pandemic, and three days later, he clarified. he said, i'm not saying facebook is killing people. he said i'saying that people that say this are. i'm t oking to hold anyone accountable. i wa eryone to look in the mirror and imagine what would happen if this misinformation s ing to their loved ones. i think it's clear thatis an excerpt asia and, not a . -- exul
justice gorsuch: i understand that.advocating for a change in section 230 -- how about saying you are killing people, could thate ercion in some circumstances? that if you don't change your moderation policies, you are responsible for killing people. mrfletcher: i think that one is much harder. that is a statement that president demade off-the-cuff. justice gorsh:'m not talking about the context, specific issues cod at, in some circumstances, an accusationy a govemee urolicy, you are...
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch: context specific inquiries we have discussed. have pointed out one way in which concentrate -- concentration might make it less susceptible. mr. fletcher: you would have to account for it if it were true. i think the concerns about cotrustry go more to the potential effects of course and if it happens versus whether or not portion happens. i was trying to draw was at the first amendment is not the answers to the problem of concentration. chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: your key legal argument is that coercn st -- encouragement and that it would be a mistake to so conclude because traditional everyday communications might be deemed problematic. mr. fletcher: exactly right. what the lower courts have done is go beyond the coercion test and openly say we are going to open up this state action enag risks turning the platforms into state actors restrict -- restricting their editorial choices. adverse government action. on the killing people hypothetical or not hypothetical but statement, that raises nation
justice gorsuch: context specific inquiries we have discussed. have pointed out one way in which concentrate -- concentration might make it less susceptible. mr. fletcher: you would have to account for it if it were true. i think the concerns about cotrustry go more to the potential effects of course and if it happens versus whether or not portion happens. i was trying to draw was at the first amendment is not the answers to the problem of concentration. chief justice roberts: justice...
0
0.0
Mar 22, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch: but you sd not touch that because that is not before us. in them to interpretive rule, you do not get cllenge. you get a criminal prosecution against you. >> i disagree with that on a number of levels. i think it would be better for osconcerned about administrative power that we acknowledge this is is an intereve rule. they cannot make something a crime that was not a cri before. it is not a crime to violate the rules. it haseeand will always be a crime to violate a state the atf is saying we got that wrong before and are fixing it now. and you are right, it would be hoib unfair to prosecute people based on reliance on the agency's past insurance, but that is taken care of by doctrines that ensure one has been and will be pseted for possessing these devices during a time the atf said it was legal. that is not a reasono shackle the atf for this court to adopt something other than the best reading of the words congrs wrote. true, it was 90 years ago, but we think it used capacious language, likfution of the trigger, rather th pl the trger, an
justice gorsuch: but you sd not touch that because that is not before us. in them to interpretive rule, you do not get cllenge. you get a criminal prosecution against you. >> i disagree with that on a number of levels. i think it would be better for osconcerned about administrative power that we acknowledge this is is an intereve rule. they cannot make something a crime that was not a cri before. it is not a crime to violate the rules. it haseeand will always be a crime to violate a state...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
gorsuch was saying and the solicitor general was saying that's a speculative chain of causation, and as a result of the chain of causation, you want to be able to come into a federal court and stop the entire nation from getting abscess to the drugs, and that can't be right, and that's where the solicitor general ended her argument, and i think that was a powerful way to end. when you have something that speculative, you can't have a nationwide injunction to stop access to the drug when the fda has dually authorized access in these ways to that drug. >> what were your main takeaways? >> in the recent colorado case on the 14th amendment, you saw a concurrence on the judgment from the three liberal justices that took issue with those in the majority saying they decided more than they had to, and today i was prepared for an argument that could have gone down similar paths, deciding more than they had to, and i said they will talk about the comstock act, and that has been a project of the right to make this case about the comstock act. it's not about whether or not the fda had authority
gorsuch was saying and the solicitor general was saying that's a speculative chain of causation, and as a result of the chain of causation, you want to be able to come into a federal court and stop the entire nation from getting abscess to the drugs, and that can't be right, and that's where the solicitor general ended her argument, and i think that was a powerful way to end. when you have something that speculative, you can't have a nationwide injunction to stop access to the drug when the fda...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
theirsit justice gorsuch: do you agree with that standard -- to some tma justice gorsuch: ok. flipping back, the substantialt lllarhein, iemerr o lpr tiisusbl twot ci specifically you mention ', m.themselves as being on the same team as the federal ntney,at thancin pes from the print media on the broadcast media and the cable media and i cannot imagine tto isayd iel t emails, and i on ben have a free- comes from someplace else? do you think the federalto t bs gmendment right on behalf of their citizens' t oer ce mr. fletcher: i don't want to use "berate." s n w' t rt this case shows the danger of allowing parties espanck-and-forths. dr'e blven.we want to be a source of good information. p barrett: mr. ect ecie eq e i'm interested in the governments conceding that if there was coercion that we automatically have a first amendment violation. mr. fletcher: i'm not conceding ea flipside. we acknowledge there can be both ce ns mr. fletcher: sure. 230 qualify? ha. have a power to influence that. abgo and i also think the platforms should be doing better. i understand that. s that if
theirsit justice gorsuch: do you agree with that standard -- to some tma justice gorsuch: ok. flipping back, the substantialt lllarhein, iemerr o lpr tiisusbl twot ci specifically you mention ', m.themselves as being on the same team as the federal ntney,at thancin pes from the print media on the broadcast media and the cable media and i cannot imagine tto isayd iel t emails, and i on ben have a free- comes from someplace else? do you think the federalto t bs gmendment right on behalf of their...
0
0.0
Mar 25, 2024
03/24
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that includes justices thomas and gorsuch, kavanaugh, barrett, even justice jackson.ou think those justices are missing in that approach? >> i think that they're friends of mine. we get on well personally. i've never heard a word in anger, really, or insult to any other judge made by one of the judges in the conference, but we don't agree there about the usefulness of that textualism. what they're thinking is it's so simple. it's clear. we'll get a clear answer. well, good luck, and i have a few hundred pages here to explain why that doesn't work, or will stop the judges from substituting what they think is good for society, substituting that for the law. and what i try to explain here is no, that doesn't work either. amna: you devote significant time in the book to the 2022 dobbs decision, which did eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion. and on that, you write this -- if the only basis for overruling an earlier case is that an originalist judge applying originalism to the earlier case concludes that it was wrongly decided, then many, many earlier cases wi
that includes justices thomas and gorsuch, kavanaugh, barrett, even justice jackson.ou think those justices are missing in that approach? >> i think that they're friends of mine. we get on well personally. i've never heard a word in anger, really, or insult to any other judge made by one of the judges in the conference, but we don't agree there about the usefulness of that textualism. what they're thinking is it's so simple. it's clear. we'll get a clear answer. well, good luck, and i...
0
0.0
Mar 30, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and i think justice gorsuch put his finger on one of the problems here as well.out the difficult of what could be a small lawsuit turning into, essentially, a national assembly. and i think justices like gore such are concerned that as a heart felt and sincere as these objections are that were brought to the court, that people are running to the supreme court with every problem, every disagreement they have. it's just like, well, put it in the court system is, push it through and take it up to the supreme court, and they're supposed to sit there and decide these political issues for the whole country. i think the conservative justices are saying that is not our primary role, to simply solve all of your problems. you have to have a strong legal are standing position as a allysia was suggesting, before you take it to the supreme court. paul: and the other issue is that gore -- gorsuch raised this tendency to run to the court, get a judicial and national injust -- injunction which which basically sets the law or the regulation for the entire country, and he is skept
and i think justice gorsuch put his finger on one of the problems here as well.out the difficult of what could be a small lawsuit turning into, essentially, a national assembly. and i think justices like gore such are concerned that as a heart felt and sincere as these objections are that were brought to the court, that people are running to the supreme court with every problem, every disagreement they have. it's just like, well, put it in the court system is, push it through and take it up to...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
particularly from gorsuch. that was a big surprise for me to hear him say a nationwide injunction against the use of mifepristone might not be appropriate even if doctors felt they had been harmed by access. >> we have that audio. >> they're looking at studies and you're saying the court can look at studies, maybe different studies, maybe the same, and critique their conclusions about them. so what deference do we owe them at all with respect to their assessment that these studies establish what it is they say they do about safety and efficacy? >> i don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the issue here. we're asking this court to look at what fda said. the fdca says you have to have -- >> didn't the lower courts go beyond that? representations were made that the lower courts relied on studies that have been found discredited and removed. so they were obviously look at not just what the fda was looking a t. >> that wasn't quite the right sound bite. that was jackson arguing why should the courts get into th
particularly from gorsuch. that was a big surprise for me to hear him say a nationwide injunction against the use of mifepristone might not be appropriate even if doctors felt they had been harmed by access. >> we have that audio. >> they're looking at studies and you're saying the court can look at studies, maybe different studies, maybe the same, and critique their conclusions about them. so what deference do we owe them at all with respect to their assessment that these studies...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
KTVU
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> well, my takeaway was that the justices from justice gorsuch to justice, amy coney barrett, the liberal justices all had questions with regard to whether these particular litigants qualified for standing to qualify. for standing, you have to be harmed by the regulation, the law, and you have to have essentially some skin in the game. in this case, these were individuals who all claim to be doctors. but upon review by the court, it was determined that of the seven, only two actually could potentially and it was deeply attenuated, be affected by the regulations amongst the people who were claimed to be doctors. as someone who has a master's degree in theology, another person who's a dentist, these are people who would not be in the emergency room providing care to a person who would be in a health crisis. the other concern with regard to for these individuals and the process behind this, is that the mythic stone was approved in 2000. the statute of limitations told in 2006. and yet here we are in 2024. and the claim is that the fda rushed this drug to the marketplace and that it's
. >> well, my takeaway was that the justices from justice gorsuch to justice, amy coney barrett, the liberal justices all had questions with regard to whether these particular litigants qualified for standing to qualify. for standing, you have to be harmed by the regulation, the law, and you have to have essentially some skin in the game. in this case, these were individuals who all claim to be doctors. but upon review by the court, it was determined that of the seven, only two actually...
0
0.0
Mar 27, 2024
03/24
by
KRON
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this is the voice of justice neil gorsuch. and this case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit. >> into a nationwide legislative assembly on an fda % rule or any other federal government action. >> a decision on the case is expected this summer in washington. i'm maddie beer-temple. >> governor newsom released this statement saying, quote, republicans won a national abortion ban full stop and they'll do whatever it takes, including trying to strip away fda approval for a drug that has been proven to be safe and effective for decades. these hostile actions are not just on popular. they fly in the face of science and put women at risk, end quote. >> take a look at this. oakland police say they found these items from a smoke shop on international boulevard near seminary avenue. as you can see there includes a large amount of illegal cannabis, crystal meth and flavored tobacco products. nobody arrested this bust was part of the department's special investigation into smoke shops. for the first time we
this is the voice of justice neil gorsuch. and this case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit. >> into a nationwide legislative assembly on an fda % rule or any other federal government action. >> a decision on the case is expected this summer in washington. i'm maddie beer-temple. >> governor newsom released this statement saying, quote, republicans won a national abortion ban full stop and they'll do whatever it takes, including trying to strip...
0
0.0
Mar 27, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and i think this is one of the things that justice gorsuch was pointing out in the piece that paula highlighted, which was that in this case, you've got a few doctors who bring this litigation. and yet the district court issued a nationwide injunction preventing potentially preventing ting access to the medication for women all across the country and justice gorsuch is question and i think point that he was trying to make in the oral argument was that this should just be a small litigation case not something that potentially affects women all over the country. >> oh, ruling against mifepristone impact the availability of medication abortion, there's medication, abortion, and there's surgical abortion. >> of >> course. >> and what's really interesting right now, of course, is you're just talking about the impacts of overturning roe v. wade, which presumably returned to the decision about abortion access to the states. but what this would do is actually impose a restriction on access to medication, abortion across all states. so right now we know there are 14 states that have banned abortion almo
and i think this is one of the things that justice gorsuch was pointing out in the piece that paula highlighted, which was that in this case, you've got a few doctors who bring this litigation. and yet the district court issued a nationwide injunction preventing potentially preventing ting access to the medication for women all across the country and justice gorsuch is question and i think point that he was trying to make in the oral argument was that this should just be a small litigation case...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch: why not doedhe. but an interpretive rule, you can more or less just issue.have to put it the federal registry. you do in some circumstances, but not all. you are creating a class of between a quarter of a million and a half a million people who have, in reliance on past administrations, republican and democrat, whoaid this does not qualify under the statute. an interpretive rule, you cannot even challenge it. mr. fletcher: we are in a post but you said do not touch th bause that is not before us. in them to interpretive rule, u do not get a challenge. you get a criminal prosecution against you. >> i disagree with that on a numb of leve. i think it would for those concerned about administrative power that acknowledge this is is an crime that was not a crime before. is not a crime to violate the les. it has been and will always be a crime to violate a statute. e f is saying we got that wrong fo and are fixing it now. and you are rit,t would be horribly unfair to prosecute people based on reliance on the agency's pa insurance, but that is tneth ensure no one h
justice gorsuch: why not doedhe. but an interpretive rule, you can more or less just issue.have to put it the federal registry. you do in some circumstances, but not all. you are creating a class of between a quarter of a million and a half a million people who have, in reliance on past administrations, republican and democrat, whoaid this does not qualify under the statute. an interpretive rule, you cannot even challenge it. mr. fletcher: we are in a post but you said do not touch th bause...
0
0.0
Mar 27, 2024
03/24
by
KRON
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this is the voice of justice neil gorsuch. and this case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit. >> into a nationwide legislative assembly on an fda rule or any other federal government action. >> a decision on the case is expected this summer in washington. i'm maddie beer-temple. governor gavin newsom pushing back on the latest attempt to ban abortion in the united states. he released a statement. >> just in the past hour stating quote, republicans want a national abortion ban full stop. they'll do whatever it takes, including trying to strip away fda approval for a drug that's been proven to be safe and effective for decades. these hostile actions are not just on popular. they fly in the face of science and put women at risk. >> there's a push to make financial education. a graduation requirement is state public schools will get into that california superintendent of schools, tony ghurmond, is backing a proposal to make. >> financial education, a graduation requirement. if you want to go to publ
this is the voice of justice neil gorsuch. and this case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit. >> into a nationwide legislative assembly on an fda rule or any other federal government action. >> a decision on the case is expected this summer in washington. i'm maddie beer-temple. governor gavin newsom pushing back on the latest attempt to ban abortion in the united states. he released a statement. >> just in the past hour stating quote,...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and justice gorsuch is a question and i think point that he was trying to make in the oral argument. was that this should just be a small litigation case, not something that potentially affects women all over the country. >> oh, ruling against mifepristone impact the availability of medication abortion, there's medication, abortion, and there's surgical abortion. of course. >> and what's really interesting right now, of course, is you were just talking about the impacts of overturning roe v. wade, which presumably returned the decision about abortion access to the states. but what this would do is actually impose a restriction on access to medication, abortion across all states. so right now we know there are 14 states that have banned abortion almost completely where people are not supposed to be able to access medication abortion. we know they potentially can through certain means other also 15 states that have restriction shins, but if the supreme court were to agree with the appeals court, this would re-implement restrictions on how people can access medication, abortion in all s
and justice gorsuch is a question and i think point that he was trying to make in the oral argument. was that this should just be a small litigation case, not something that potentially affects women all over the country. >> oh, ruling against mifepristone impact the availability of medication abortion, there's medication, abortion, and there's surgical abortion. of course. >> and what's really interesting right now, of course, is you were just talking about the impacts of...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and particularly justice gorsuch is one that deepen his bones, believes that agencies have too much power, even the fda ought not to have the juice that it has two regular, so whatever they write here, i would think is going to touch on some of those issues, however, because the justices are free to write concurrency's or dissents or whatever else. and what power agencies have to make decisions is a critical issue and it's going to come up >> and laura, this really has the potential to chip away further abortion rights in this country. that's the big implication of this because if you think that the prior cases are about whether it's an incision in your dr. in yourself as a woman deciding whether or not to seek out of wash-related services. now, this is a question whether the supreme court has a right to dictate what the fda is able to do in terms so regulations in doling things out, remember the consequences are very big. it's not, it would not just be mifepristone if they challenge and say that the fda ought to cite, have to have a new way of examining and evaluating drugs and how they
and particularly justice gorsuch is one that deepen his bones, believes that agencies have too much power, even the fda ought not to have the juice that it has two regular, so whatever they write here, i would think is going to touch on some of those issues, however, because the justices are free to write concurrency's or dissents or whatever else. and what power agencies have to make decisions is a critical issue and it's going to come up >> and laura, this really has the potential to...
0
0.0
Mar 27, 2024
03/24
by
KGO
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> reporter: even conservative justices like neil gorsuch, nominated by donald trump, also sounding uneasy with limiting access to the pill. >> in this case, seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an fda rule or any other federal government action. >> reporter: the only two justices who seemed inclined to side with the anti-abortion doctors and further restrict access to mifepristone, clarence thomas and samuel alito. what's on the line here, access to the abortion pill by mail, without multiple trips to the doctor. and up until ten weeks of pregnancy. the fda calls this safe and effective. the supreme court expected to make a decision in june. david? >> david: rachel scott at the supreme court tonight. rachel, thank you. >>> tonight here, we have new reporting after the federal raids at the homes of sean "diddy" combs in los angeles and miami. sources tonight now telling abc news this is a sex trafficking investigation involving combs, and this evening, what federal authorities have now seized in those homes. he
. >> reporter: even conservative justices like neil gorsuch, nominated by donald trump, also sounding uneasy with limiting access to the pill. >> in this case, seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an fda rule or any other federal government action. >> reporter: the only two justices who seemed inclined to side with the anti-abortion doctors and further restrict access to mifepristone, clarence thomas and...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this is not only to hear about your plans for the coming fiscal year but gorsuch and barriers tu havencountered on a day-to-day basis. as i have said before in this room. you can almost cy and■nqu paste the speech. we are going to killsame peoplee conferences and then it does not get any better. whyxx it seems to this committee that the implementation of policy -- the directives on ai from your-- we deftly made a little progress. the department of defense's achieve information officer. and the director of the defense systems agency and the commanders joins for the primitive defense network. he is set to depart his position on april 15. before we hear from the member for any comments you may have. >> think you for your bipartisan focus on how we can make the department are innovative, agile and capable of adopting the latest technology software and working with the -- i hope we can explore not just what the apartment is doing but their perfectibility is needed. the reality is we have a challenge to bring this ecosystem up to the beat of modern information while operating in the area se
this is not only to hear about your plans for the coming fiscal year but gorsuch and barriers tu havencountered on a day-to-day basis. as i have said before in this room. you can almost cy and■nqu paste the speech. we are going to killsame peoplee conferences and then it does not get any better. whyxx it seems to this committee that the implementation of policy -- the directives on ai from your-- we deftly made a little progress. the department of defense's achieve information officer. and...
0
0.0
Mar 30, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the most notable display, this, which i thought was very silly during oral arguments, is justice gorsuch i probably shouldn't say in a room of people who work for the supreme court are here before the supreme court, but he was talking about, you know, there's a lot of judicial modesty in changing being able to change your mind saying says this powerful life appointed supreme court clerk who supreme court justice but anyway, we'll see how. it plays out. okay. let me just modify my there will be high issues where will make the difference. yes the front page issues the chevron decision will make a difference in 98% of all the nation's fees. do i think it will make almost no difference. okay. so moving on, because i want to leave time for other people to ask questions. one thing that you hear businesses say and again and increasingly governments say again, again is we want all of our decisions to be informed by data, want data driven decisions. they've been talking about this for a long time, but they finally have become better at deploying data to inform public policy in big ways and in sma
the most notable display, this, which i thought was very silly during oral arguments, is justice gorsuch i probably shouldn't say in a room of people who work for the supreme court are here before the supreme court, but he was talking about, you know, there's a lot of judicial modesty in changing being able to change your mind saying says this powerful life appointed supreme court clerk who supreme court justice but anyway, we'll see how. it plays out. okay. let me just modify my there will be...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
BLOOMBERG
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
annabelle: we know that neil gorsuch and amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh were trump appointees.'m curious what that split on the decision was. >> while it was unanimous in terms of the overall decision, it sounded like somewhat of a dissent almost from the three liberal judges but then amy coney barrett joined them for that basically saying they thought this decision went a little too far in its reasoning, in its rationale. in the long run, that does not mean a whole lot. some are asking whether this -- are we determining anything for this in terms of implications for another big election case the supreme court is deciding now that have said it will hear arguments in april and will decide after that which is a very big deal whether donald trump is immune from prosecution because he was president. actions undertaken while he was president. i'm not sure the legal scholars think there is a whole lot to be read into that particular decision. how they might decide that from today's ruling. haidi: our bloomberg political news director in washington. we will keep you updated on the u.s
annabelle: we know that neil gorsuch and amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh were trump appointees.'m curious what that split on the decision was. >> while it was unanimous in terms of the overall decision, it sounded like somewhat of a dissent almost from the three liberal judges but then amy coney barrett joined them for that basically saying they thought this decision went a little too far in its reasoning, in its rationale. in the long run, that does not mean a whole lot. some are...
0
0.0
Mar 27, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> but justices today even neil gorsuch and clarence thomas, even them seemed more than a little skeptical of the group of doctors hawley represents which includes physicians and dentists. they seem less than convinced these seven doctors have anything more than a really long shot risk of treating a patient with a very rare complication from mifepristone. and that's in part because 6 million patients have taken mifepristone since the year 2000, and the risk of fatal adverse effects is 0.0027%. so it's a really, really small chance anyone has severe complications from taking this drug. and even more to the point doctors who have conscience objections to treating patients with mifepristone complications are allowed under federal law to refuse to treat those patients. all of that notwithstanding, justice elena kagen asked ms. hawley for one example of a doctor with a conscience obligation who was forced to treat these patients. justice kagen essentially begged hawley for anything that would give her plaintiffs any reason to file this lawsuit in the first place, something known as standing. >>
. >> but justices today even neil gorsuch and clarence thomas, even them seemed more than a little skeptical of the group of doctors hawley represents which includes physicians and dentists. they seem less than convinced these seven doctors have anything more than a really long shot risk of treating a patient with a very rare complication from mifepristone. and that's in part because 6 million patients have taken mifepristone since the year 2000, and the risk of fatal adverse effects is...
0
0.0
Mar 28, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
former deputy independent counsel and fox news contributor and mike davis former law clerk for justice gorsuchnd president of article iii project. so, mike, we heard the arguments today in front of judge. and the defense made the arguments this is protected first amendment political speech. now, the prosecution is making the argument, no, no, it's part of a criminal conspiracy. it seems to me that that all comes down to some ability to prove knowing or intent whatever was said the speaker in this case fellow defendants knew what they were saying was false. >> well, yeah, this fulton county d.a. fani willis charged trump and 18 others with a ricco conspiracy, but the problem is it is not illegal to object to a presidential election. it's allowed electoral counteract of. democrats rejected to republican wwins in 1968, 2004, and 2016. we don't see al gore and john kerry and hillary clinton in prison. it's also protected by the first amendment to object to a presidential election. the only place in the world where it's illegal to object to a presidential election is a place like china and north ko
former deputy independent counsel and fox news contributor and mike davis former law clerk for justice gorsuchnd president of article iii project. so, mike, we heard the arguments today in front of judge. and the defense made the arguments this is protected first amendment political speech. now, the prosecution is making the argument, no, no, it's part of a criminal conspiracy. it seems to me that that all comes down to some ability to prove knowing or intent whatever was said the speaker in...
269
269
Mar 2, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 269
favorite 0
quote 3
, and mike davis, founder and president of the article iii project and former law clerk for justice gorsuchsol, let's start with this get the load off fanny saga. is fani falling? the puns are so bad tonight. i'm sorry. it's friday. this is what you get. >> are you going to apologize to robbie robertson and the other members of the band? that's pretty good. that's a pretty good one. >> laura: yeah. >> i think it's been a very bad week for the trump bashers to get trump crowd. and it was a very bad day for them, the parts that i saw in the courtroom there in georgia. and i thought the argument by harry macdougall there that you had at the end was just very, very good, very strong so i don't see how she -- even assuming that she isn't kicked off the case, which i think she should be kicked off the case. >> mike, why do you think the judge is taking so long to decide whether ms. willis should be disqualified? isn't a delay just more good news for trump in any event? >> that's a very good question. he said he would rule in two weeks. there is a deadline over the next two weeks on filing to run
, and mike davis, founder and president of the article iii project and former law clerk for justice gorsuchsol, let's start with this get the load off fanny saga. is fani falling? the puns are so bad tonight. i'm sorry. it's friday. this is what you get. >> are you going to apologize to robbie robertson and the other members of the band? that's pretty good. that's a pretty good one. >> laura: yeah. >> i think it's been a very bad week for the trump bashers to get trump crowd....
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the supreme court, something that justice breyer notes in a warning seemingly directed at justices gorsuch. quote, they may well be concerned by decline in trust of the court as shown by public opinion polls. joining us, senior editor for slate and host of the amicus podcast, dahlia lithwick. eddie, alexi and mike are also back. so dahlia, this sort of criticism coming from a former justice seems far beyond what we've heard from justices in the past. are you surprised by that? and what does it mean that justice breyer is moved to actually go public this way? >> it's actually far further than breyer himself has gone historically. he's usually been incredibly temperate when he was on the court in his criticisms of his peers. and this is a whole different flavor. i think if you hold this up against his former language or what you hear from the other justices when they dissent, where they sort of sound like they've been locked in a supply closet and they're sort of hurling their little bodies against it saying, what about the integrity and reputation of the court? this is a whole new clarion v
the supreme court, something that justice breyer notes in a warning seemingly directed at justices gorsuch. quote, they may well be concerned by decline in trust of the court as shown by public opinion polls. joining us, senior editor for slate and host of the amicus podcast, dahlia lithwick. eddie, alexi and mike are also back. so dahlia, this sort of criticism coming from a former justice seems far beyond what we've heard from justices in the past. are you surprised by that? and what does it...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
joining us now is mike davis, founder and president of the article iii project and former gorsuch clerkavid schoen, former trump impeachment lawyer. david, let's start with you. i think all of us predicted this would be a 9-0 decision. we actually had these unhinged people who were once fairly respected legal minds, trying to get people to believe that this was their electoral anywhere vanna, trump was going to be off the ballot in all of these super tuesday states and a couple of others it's reckless. they are constitutionally tone deaf. i never thought i would say that about professor tribe, judge luttig. it's crazy. when the oral arguments were going on and saw the way the tide was running. well, the guy doing the argument is no good. neither side did particularly great job on the arguments. the court decided this case. the court came together. president trump gave a speech today in which he said he hopes this will bring the country together. i would hope so, too. it's a decision that fundamentally says let's decide a presidential race at the ballot box. and that's the way it should
joining us now is mike davis, founder and president of the article iii project and former gorsuch clerkavid schoen, former trump impeachment lawyer. david, let's start with you. i think all of us predicted this would be a 9-0 decision. we actually had these unhinged people who were once fairly respected legal minds, trying to get people to believe that this was their electoral anywhere vanna, trump was going to be off the ballot in all of these super tuesday states and a couple of others it's...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 3
and that is a causal chain that has so many like them, that they even lost, as you said, just gorsuchhink they lost clarence thomas. >> and i mean, that sounds like a setup of a joke, how bad was it. it was so bad, they even lost clarence thomas. what should we infer from it. because i don't want to overread what your describing in terms of today's arguments. >> i think what we infer is that this is one of a deeply embarrassing cases that seem to originate in texas and come up through the fifth circuit and the courts think they are the deciders and we've seen a long pattern of these cases including sb-4, that texas immigration bill, that caused so much of a ruckus last week at the court. that there is a lot of judicial bodies out there that want to force the supreme court to move further and faster and the supreme court doesn't seem to be having it. i think the other thing we could infer and this is the scary bit, is that we had at least two justices who were kind of chomping at the bit to talk about the comstock act that is 120 some years old and if they have their drudgers, we could
and that is a causal chain that has so many like them, that they even lost, as you said, just gorsuchhink they lost clarence thomas. >> and i mean, that sounds like a setup of a joke, how bad was it. it was so bad, they even lost clarence thomas. what should we infer from it. because i don't want to overread what your describing in terms of today's arguments. >> i think what we infer is that this is one of a deeply embarrassing cases that seem to originate in texas and come up...
0
0.0
Mar 29, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and gorsuch or someone else or alito say well no.y it would take months for us to figure this out. it would be fascinating to hear that particular point engaged. >> absolutely. it would have the effect of those people who may not be looking at this in good faith having to actually articulate the reason for delay here. that isn't just what they are trying to do is just avoid a trial. they may decide in very flowery language that presidents are not immune from prosecution but at the same time, what they will really be doing is saying this former president is immune. >> what other issues should be easily clarified in oral arguments? >> one of them is that there should be some small area where a president may be immune from criminal prosecution for conducting foreign relations with adversaries and allies. that that might be an area where it is hard to have normal rules and it seems to me that you could have everyone saying you know what? that may be the case and that may be a debate worth having but this is not the case to do it. because
and gorsuch or someone else or alito say well no.y it would take months for us to figure this out. it would be fascinating to hear that particular point engaged. >> absolutely. it would have the effect of those people who may not be looking at this in good faith having to actually articulate the reason for delay here. that isn't just what they are trying to do is just avoid a trial. they may decide in very flowery language that presidents are not immune from prosecution but at the same...
0
0.0
Mar 13, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> justice gorsuch. >> i just wanted to give you a chance to finish up on the section 230 point. i think it is section -- that the law is not enforceable to the extent it conflicts with section 230. why wouldn't we analytically want to address that early on in these proceedings whether in this court or the lower court? >> sure, your honor the reason is the law is not preemptive under 230 c2 which regulates takedowns. one reason is we understand 230 c2, not to sanction under the rubric of otherwise objectionable. there's a nice article on this in the journal of free speech law. we have not briefed this. the second point i would make about section 230 c2 is it only applies to good-faith content moderation. to the extent our law prohibits them from engaging in bad faith content moderation, that is not preempted by 230 c2. one way to understand the constitutional terms in this case is they are in essence asserting the constitutional right to engage in bad faith content moderation because they already have the right to engage in a lot of moderation of illicit content as long as they d
. >> justice gorsuch. >> i just wanted to give you a chance to finish up on the section 230 point. i think it is section -- that the law is not enforceable to the extent it conflicts with section 230. why wouldn't we analytically want to address that early on in these proceedings whether in this court or the lower court? >> sure, your honor the reason is the law is not preemptive under 230 c2 which regulates takedowns. one reason is we understand 230 c2, not to sanction under...
0
0.0
Mar 25, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
mike davis and former gorsuch clerk and founder of the article iii project.there was a scheduling news in the other trump case in new york. david, before we get into that. this is how tish james responded to the bond being lowered today in her statement she said donald trump is still facing accountability for staggering fraud 464 million judgment plus interest against donald trump in the other defendants that still stand. is the judge signaling something here? what's your got? >> i think the court did -- took a big step in the right direction. i don't think there should have been any bond for the appeal in this case. and the court certainly had that discretion. he has the assets. you know where he is i think the underlying conviction is going to be reversed. certainly by the time it reaches the new york court of appeals if it has to go that far. as you have said, no loss, no victim, the banks were more than happy to do -- to make the loans, they wanted more business. he is an international brand, and so on. this is a very different definition of frauds than w
mike davis and former gorsuch clerk and founder of the article iii project.there was a scheduling news in the other trump case in new york. david, before we get into that. this is how tish james responded to the bond being lowered today in her statement she said donald trump is still facing accountability for staggering fraud 464 million judgment plus interest against donald trump in the other defendants that still stand. is the judge signaling something here? what's your got? >> i think...
0
0.0
Mar 20, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
joining us now is mike davis, former clerk for justice gorsuch and president and founder of the article project and sol wisenberg former deputy independent counsel and a fox news contributor. you know, mike, there was one moment during today's hearing that stood out. take a look. >> recall a meeting with hubbard devon archer hunter took a call from his father and told him things were going well and that he might need a little help getting across the finish line? >> judge jeanine: mike, what do you glean from that? >> well, i think what this testimony today shows is there is clear evidence that joe biden lied to the american people and hunter biden lied under oath when they both said that joe biden was not involved in any of hunter's business dealings. that is -- there is clear evidence to the contrary with tony bobulinski and this jason galanis, it's very clear that joe biden was very aware of these foreign business dealings. >> judge jeanine: let's take a listen to what happened a few years ago when joe biden was asked about this. >> i have never spoken to my son about his overseas bus
joining us now is mike davis, former clerk for justice gorsuch and president and founder of the article project and sol wisenberg former deputy independent counsel and a fox news contributor. you know, mike, there was one moment during today's hearing that stood out. take a look. >> recall a meeting with hubbard devon archer hunter took a call from his father and told him things were going well and that he might need a little help getting across the finish line? >> judge jeanine:...