0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? stice kagan: mr. martinez, i want you to think of this from congress's perspective. so w thinking what is the next big piece of legislation the horizon and who knows, don't ve a crystal ball, but i'm going to say -- i'm going to ess that it's artificial intelligence. so let's imagine congress enacts an artificial inllence bill and it has all kinds of delegations, maybe it creates an agency for the purpose or maybe it uses existing agencies and it has all kinds of delegations to that agency or agencies about how to regulate artificial inlligence so that this nation can capture the -- the -th opportunities but also meet the challenges of that. and then, just by the nature of things and especially the nature of the subject, there are going to be all kinds of places where, although there's not an explit delegation, congress has in effect left a gap. it has created an ambiguity. and what congress is thinking is, do we wantous to fill that gap, or do we want an agency tfi that gap? when the normal technique
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? stice kagan: mr. martinez, i want you to think of this from congress's perspective. so w thinking what is the next big piece of legislation the horizon and who knows, don't ve a crystal ball, but i'm going to say -- i'm going to ess that it's artificial intelligence. so let's imagine congress enacts an artificial inllence bill and it has all kinds of delegations, maybe it creates an agency for the purpose or maybe it uses existing agencies and it has all...
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief juste berts: justice kagan? justice kagan: mr. martinez, i want y tthink of this from congress's perspective. so i was thinking what is the next big piece of legislation on the horizon and who kns,on't have a crystal ball, but i'm gointoay -- i'm going to guess that it's artificial intelligce so let's agine congress enacts an artificial intelligence bill and it h a kinds of delegaon maybe it creates an agcyor the purpose or maybe it uses existing agencies and haall kinds of delegations to that agency or agencies about how to regulate artifici intelligence so that this nation can capture the -- the -- the opportunities bual meet the chalng of that. and then, just by the nature of things and especially the nature of the subject, there are going to be all kinds of places where, although there's not an explicit delegation, congress h i effect left a p. it has creedn ambiguity. and what congress is thinking is, do we want courts to fill that gap, or do we want an agency to fill that gap? when the normal techniques o legal interpretatio
chief juste berts: justice kagan? justice kagan: mr. martinez, i want y tthink of this from congress's perspective. so i was thinking what is the next big piece of legislation on the horizon and who kns,on't have a crystal ball, but i'm gointoay -- i'm going to guess that it's artificial intelligce so let's agine congress enacts an artificial intelligence bill and it h a kinds of delegaon maybe it creates an agcyor the purpose or maybe it uses existing agencies and haall kinds of delegations to...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice kagan: mr.sive powers under the electors clause. you talked abouttates having a rolnacting, you know, tyballot access sovisions. limits on that. and i will just give you rson versus celebrezze as an example of that, where we anoff a ballot, and that was a case about minor party candidatt the reason was that one state's decision to take a candidate off the ballot affects everybody else's rights. and we talked about the pervasive national interest in the selection of candidates for national office. we talked about how an own borders. so, if that goes for minor cal party candidates, why situation in this case?ihe mr. murray: well, certainly, constitutional principles like section iii apply to everybody, but in celebrezz issue there was a first amendment question. and, certathere's no doubt that states' exercise ofhetrby t principles. and -- and in -- in that case, the -- the state law des for when a minor party candidate got on the ballot just came too soon to be reactive to what major parties had
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice kagan: mr.sive powers under the electors clause. you talked abouttates having a rolnacting, you know, tyballot access sovisions. limits on that. and i will just give you rson versus celebrezze as an example of that, where we anoff a ballot, and that was a case about minor party candidatt the reason was that one state's decision to take a candidate off the ballot affects everybody else's rights. and we talked about the pervasive national interest in...
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and i think -- justice kagan: well, let me give you -- martinez: -- the same approach -- justice kagan: -- a few more examples along the same lines, mr. martinez. is n product designed to promote healthy cholesterol levels a dietary supplement or a ug martinez: sorry. can you give that one more tim justice kagan: a new product degned to promote healthy cholesterol levels, is it a dietary supplement -- that's a statutory term -- martinez: ok. justice kagan: -- or aru martinez: i -- i think it would depend on -- on the -- the original understanding of the text of that statuten read in context. justice kagan: you -- you want the -- martinez: and i think that's -- a legal questionor court. justice kagan: -- you think that the court should detmi whether this new product is a dietary sulent or a drug without giving deference to the agency, where its t clear from t tt of the statute or from using any traditional methods of statutory interpretation whether, in fact, the new product is a dietary supplement or a drug? martinez: i -- justice ga you want the courts to decide that? martinez: justic
and i think -- justice kagan: well, let me give you -- martinez: -- the same approach -- justice kagan: -- a few more examples along the same lines, mr. martinez. is n product designed to promote healthy cholesterol levels a dietary supplement or a ug martinez: sorry. can you give that one more tim justice kagan: a new product degned to promote healthy cholesterol levels, is it a dietary supplement -- that's a statutory term -- martinez: ok. justice kagan: -- or aru martinez: i -- i think it...
0
0.0
Mar 20, 2024
03/24
by
1TV
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
, a russophian-minded thinker, the son of the influential philosopher donald kagan.is wife was provoking a hot phase in eastern ukraine, he was promoting behind the scenes the white house in washington post articles increased military spending to maintain us hegemony in the world. the only force capable of maintaining the liberal world order is the united states. in an attempt to maintain this order, the united states has resorted and will continue to resort to force, sometimes unwisely and ineffectively, with unpredictable costs and ambiguous moral consequences. not family related to the desire to clean up the tails of corruption, which have accumulated quite a lot over 35 years of service in the state department, the russian question, nolon always kept the spotlight. in the nineties i worked at the us embassy in moscow when the opportunity came. with attempts at a coup d'etat, after which she was promoted to the state department apparatus, and served in the former yugoslavia, haiti, iran, afghanistan, iraq, and syria. during her time at nato , the alliance experien
, a russophian-minded thinker, the son of the influential philosopher donald kagan.is wife was provoking a hot phase in eastern ukraine, he was promoting behind the scenes the white house in washington post articles increased military spending to maintain us hegemony in the world. the only force capable of maintaining the liberal world order is the united states. in an attempt to maintain this order, the united states has resorted and will continue to resort to force, sometimes unwisely and...
0
0.0
Mar 24, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief juste berts: justice kagan? cores in question is there anythinge have to review on clear error? mr. fletcher: historical fact, this statement was made. it was not made if there were specific factual findings made. things like -- this was pressure oroercion, we think those were characterizations. and the ultima fst amendment standardf was this viewed obctely in context, we think that is the overview justice kagan: and on the past harm-future harm question, i take it that if no future harm, that is independently suffie, is that right? mr. fletcher:a; correct. justice kagan: would there be any difficulties with confining the holding to that if we were to find for you? mr. fletcher: i think in some wayshais the easiest way to resolve the case. this is an action foinnctive relief. we don't have to adjudicate the parties over past harm, we just haveo ecute the burden. juice gorsuch: in your view, one is the time we should be considinthat? probably not today at findings, right? mr. fletcher: it might be even earlier th
chief juste berts: justice kagan? cores in question is there anythinge have to review on clear error? mr. fletcher: historical fact, this statement was made. it was not made if there were specific factual findings made. things like -- this was pressure oroercion, we think those were characterizations. and the ultima fst amendment standardf was this viewed obctely in context, we think that is the overview justice kagan: and on the past harm-future harm question, i take it that if no future harm,...
0
0.0
Mar 28, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kagan: and why are you so -- juicgorsuch: do you -- i'm sorry. justice kagan: no, go ahead. stice gorsuch: just to finish up, do you -- do you view this as -- as justice barrett asked, as a clearcut case under exti law? mr. mcdowell: yes, your honor, especially with the -- with the lloyd's meeting, ablutely. justice kagan: why are you so concned about only looking at the guidance letters in combinatiowi everything else? what would be wrong with looking at the guidance letters alone, given that there is this fifth paragraph? mr. mcdowell: yeah. the fifth paragraph, i think, takes you pretty far and we're not saying that it woulbempossible to conclude that that would be a threat alone, buthiwas one unit of government communication because it was in the same 24-hour period and they were all discussing the same thing. and i think the press release measurably more explicit. it says it "urges businesses t join the companies that have already discontinued tir arrangements with the nra and to take prompt actions to manage their risks." so it's pointing back tthrisk management obliga
justice kagan: and why are you so -- juicgorsuch: do you -- i'm sorry. justice kagan: no, go ahead. stice gorsuch: just to finish up, do you -- do you view this as -- as justice barrett asked, as a clearcut case under exti law? mr. mcdowell: yes, your honor, especially with the -- with the lloyd's meeting, ablutely. justice kagan: why are you so concned about only looking at the guidance letters in combinatiowi everything else? what would be wrong with looking at the guidance letters alone,...
0
0.0
Mar 30, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: we've gone back and forth all morning about the standard. but you have a first amendment retaliation claim in this case, and we often look at retaliation in the title vii context. just the matter you described, the effect it would have on a reasonable person in the circumstances do you see any daylight between those two standards? mr. cole: in terms of defining what constitutes adverse action? justice gorsuch: right. mr. cole: i'm not sure that there is. i don't know that for this case one has to look very hard to see adverse action, when you see a concerted campaign, milling dollars f -- 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 is clearly an adverse action under title vii, under any english-language understanding. justice gorsuch: retaliation is a familiar concept in a lot of our case law. mr. cole: and i think, look -- justice gorsuch: they h
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: we've gone back and forth all morning about the standard. but you have a first amendment retaliation claim in this case, and we often look at retaliation in the title vii context. just the matter you described, the effect it would have on a reasonable person in the circumstances do you see any daylight between those two standards? mr. cole: in terms of defining what constitutes adverse action? justice gorsuch: right. mr....
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kagan: n carefully.al emergency treatment has she participated and that she objects to and she has stated in the objection to? ms hawley: the prior page talks about a required due to a life-threatening emergency. justice kagan: she performed that it did she have an opportunity to object? >>tuation where the choices to scrub out and find someone else or treat the woman. justice kagan: the way people with conscience objections to this is make those objections known. it may be harder or easier in a particular context but most hospitals have mechanisms in place to ensure who are allowed to do this in advance and are allowed to do it at the moment. they say so. when i looked at dr. francis'and dr. scott there's nothing that suggests that there are other requirements you need but to be able to save this happen to them in the past. i don't think you have it for either one of those doctors. ms hawley: given the emergency nature it's impracticable to have an objection lodged prior to understanding what is going o
justice kagan: n carefully.al emergency treatment has she participated and that she objects to and she has stated in the objection to? ms hawley: the prior page talks about a required due to a life-threatening emergency. justice kagan: she performed that it did she have an opportunity to object? >>tuation where the choices to scrub out and find someone else or treat the woman. justice kagan: the way people with conscience objections to this is make those objections known. it may be harder...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kagan? >> can we go back to the standing question?k you for the single piece of evidence, and maybe this is the piece that you were describing earlier. i want to make clear what your answer is. the single piece of evidence that most clearly shows that theor one of your clients having material taken down. what is that evidence?ay about how the government was responsible? mr. aguinaga: sure, your honor. i think jill hines is the best example on standing. >> even on that one, i didn't understand what you were saying, how you drew the link to t government. we know there's a lot of government encouragement around here. we also know that the platformsnt moderating, and they are doing that irrespective of what the government wants. so, how do you decide it is government action as opposed to platform action? mr. aguinaga: your honor, let me the link i was drawing was a temporal one. calls for targeting health groups like jill hines' group she experiences the first example of that. >> in two months, a lot of things can happen in two months. th
justice kagan? >> can we go back to the standing question?k you for the single piece of evidence, and maybe this is the piece that you were describing earlier. i want to make clear what your answer is. the single piece of evidence that most clearly shows that theor one of your clients having material taken down. what is that evidence?ay about how the government was responsible? mr. aguinaga: sure, your honor. i think jill hines is the best example on standing. >> even on that one, i...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
quote
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
justice sotomayor and justice kagan and justice jackson highlighted the wild inconsistency of the roberts court by quoting chief justice roberts himself who wrote this when he joined the majority opinion in overturning roe v. wade. quote, if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is not necessary to decide more. the three justices then said, that fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our republic, yet the court continues on to resolve questions not before us. in a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course. today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how section 3 can bar an oath breaking insurrectionist from becoming president. although we agree that colorado cannot enforce section three, we protest the majority's efforts to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision because we would decide only the issue before us. we concur only in the judgment.
justice sotomayor and justice kagan and justice jackson highlighted the wild inconsistency of the roberts court by quoting chief justice roberts himself who wrote this when he joined the majority opinion in overturning roe v. wade. quote, if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is not necessary to decide more. the three justices then said, that fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our republic, yet the court continues on to resolve...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that language that jenna griswold is parroted by justices sotomayor, kagan, and jackson. they wrote, they go beyond the necessities of this case, to bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist, the same language jenna griswold uses, from becoming president. while the decision goes out of its way not to say anything at all about whether donald trump, in fact, violated his oath or participated or committed insurrection, you've got the three liberal justices here characterizing this case in a way that suggests they believe that he is. i also want to say something if i can, about why the decision went further than just finding as all nine justices did, that states don't have the power to enforce section 3. it's because if you find that the states can't and that they don't have that power which is not present in the text of the constitution, you've got to find a reason why, and they seem to have hung their hat, at least in part on section 5 of the 14th amendment which says that congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. it now
that language that jenna griswold is parroted by justices sotomayor, kagan, and jackson. they wrote, they go beyond the necessities of this case, to bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist, the same language jenna griswold uses, from becoming president. while the decision goes out of its way not to say anything at all about whether donald trump, in fact, violated his oath or participated or committed insurrection, you've got the three liberal justices here characterizing this case in a way that...
0
0.0
Mar 8, 2024
03/24
by
RUSSIA24
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
was deprived of allowances, which means, well, kagan’s husband, that means accordingly, we know thatd there, which means that this couple of nuland kohans, on whom significant funds were actually spent, but this would be the simplest explanation, there were unreasonable khazars, boring khagans, nuland and khagans appeared. this is real, that’s what i’m saying, we analyzed it yesterday, the wonderful surname is noodleman, that is, macaronkin will change to a completely inarticulate, incomprehensible person , macaroni could have you with macron, she was all with macron, they sang songs there, well, they would feel like giving birth to macaroni , what am i talking about? but in fact, it’s really a significant resignation , and he was of course mistaken about goncheruk like this... razgancheruk came in her absence when trump was still president, and in other respects, the way she influenced the internal politics of ukraine is indicative, she she held a lot of players there by the strings, and as soon as zelensky burrowed somewhere, she immediately appeared, we saw these shots, especially
was deprived of allowances, which means, well, kagan’s husband, that means accordingly, we know thatd there, which means that this couple of nuland kohans, on whom significant funds were actually spent, but this would be the simplest explanation, there were unreasonable khazars, boring khagans, nuland and khagans appeared. this is real, that’s what i’m saying, we analyzed it yesterday, the wonderful surname is noodleman, that is, macaronkin will change to a completely inarticulate,...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
sotomayor, kagan, jackson saying here's the rest of it. what was going on? you think? >> i think this is another example of a poison pill created by john roberts snuck into the sweetness of a supposed compromise that turns out to be nothing more than restricting constitutional rights. and you have three liberal justices who called him out on that and said you went much further than you had two. and then amy coney barrett is wagging her finger and chastising a woman of color, justice sotomayor for speaking her mind and essentially telling her now the time where you should sit down and be quiet and turn down the national temperature as if justice barrett's entire existence on the supreme court isn't a reason for the national temperature being elevated in the first instance >> let me pause for a second. let me take all that him marcus >> it's hard to follow it up. what i will say and i want to give justice jackson sat on my er and kagan credit for at least the concurring opinion. i thought that was notable in light of the dc circuit opinion a few weeks ago, right where we
sotomayor, kagan, jackson saying here's the rest of it. what was going on? you think? >> i think this is another example of a poison pill created by john roberts snuck into the sweetness of a supposed compromise that turns out to be nothing more than restricting constitutional rights. and you have three liberal justices who called him out on that and said you went much further than you had two. and then amy coney barrett is wagging her finger and chastising a woman of color, justice...
0
0.0
Mar 22, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that was justice kagan's point. when we put them together, the work of the function of the trigger, i think, could be to start the chemical reaction that then results in the automatic, more than one shot coming out of the gun. why can't i interpret it that way? >> if that were actually happening, then i think you would have a plausible argument for why this is a machine gun. that's not the way it works. >> that's because you're interpreting the statute to say it has to be about the mechanics. >> no. >> what i'm trying to understand is how that's consistent with congress putting modifications in here. >> i'm just saying -- >> can i just change a little bit? if you're right that congress cared about exactly the mechanistic operation, then i'm confused as to why this statute also talks about modifications. because that suggests that congress was not hung up on exactly how this gun operates. we're sweeping in all kinds of things, things that originally weren't designed to work this way at all, right? we're allowing for
that was justice kagan's point. when we put them together, the work of the function of the trigger, i think, could be to start the chemical reaction that then results in the automatic, more than one shot coming out of the gun. why can't i interpret it that way? >> if that were actually happening, then i think you would have a plausible argument for why this is a machine gun. that's not the way it works. >> that's because you're interpreting the statute to say it has to be about the...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
just kagan who is good at horse trading behind the scenes was trying to find the sweet spot where she could put together the votes bs sign on to a narrow decision here, and asylum -- let the trial go forward, let the jury have its say well in advance of november. that has not happened. even though justice amy coney barrett and sonia sotomayor, love to talk about how they share candy and movie nights, there's bad blood behinds scenes. and the liberal judges have not been able to shake a compromise out of the majority. >> he says in a news letter last week, i argued the supreme court's recent decision on diversity in high school admissions offered a reason for americans to be less cynical about the court. on that subject, the justices seem to be following a consistent principle across several cases. sometimes that principle disappointed the political left. sometimes it disappointed the right. last week's decision feels different. when urgent action could help a republican presidential candidate in 2000, the court which was dominated by republican appointee the at the time, acted urgentl
just kagan who is good at horse trading behind the scenes was trying to find the sweet spot where she could put together the votes bs sign on to a narrow decision here, and asylum -- let the trial go forward, let the jury have its say well in advance of november. that has not happened. even though justice amy coney barrett and sonia sotomayor, love to talk about how they share candy and movie nights, there's bad blood behinds scenes. and the liberal judges have not been able to shake a...
0
0.0
Mar 22, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
a fully automatic weapon- justice kagan: how much lower? mr. fletcher: i think more on the order of 60, meing like that. there is a lot of variation the point is, that's the theoretical maximum and it is significantly swer. a traditional machine gun like issued to the american military shoots in the range of 700 to 950 bullets a minute. there are obviously things from helicopters that shoot much faster, but i think 700 to 900 is the right bchrk. theriginal bump stock shot 650 rounds a minute and the devices here are representedo oot between 400 rounds a minute, right in the range with the m-16, the m 14. we acknowledge this is not a rate of fire statute, it is a nction statute, but the functionasare you able to fire multiple shots without multiple manual movements? the rate of fire is evidence there are not multiple movements going on here. justice kavanaugh: you he referred a lot to the language of 1934 a that time, but bump stks did not exist. what are we to make of that? mr. fletcher: you still apply the language that cgrs wrote to what d't
a fully automatic weapon- justice kagan: how much lower? mr. fletcher: i think more on the order of 60, meing like that. there is a lot of variation the point is, that's the theoretical maximum and it is significantly swer. a traditional machine gun like issued to the american military shoots in the range of 700 to 950 bullets a minute. there are obviously things from helicopters that shoot much faster, but i think 700 to 900 is the right bchrk. theriginal bump stock shot 650 rounds a minute...
0
0.0
Mar 13, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kagan? >> i just want to understand your position and i want to narrow this to the paradigmatic social media companies, newsfeed postings, facebook, youtube, twitter/x. suppose that i say, take this as a given, you can argue with the fact is, but don't. [laughter] suppose that i say for the most part, all these places say we are open for business, post whatever you like and we will host it. but there are exceptions to that and clearly content based exceptions which the companies take seriously. let's say we think that misinformation of particular kinds is extremely damaging to society. misinformation about voting, about certain public health issues. so we also think hate speech or bullying is extremely problematic, so we are going to enforce rules against this. if they will only apply to a small percentage of the things people want to post, for the most part they are open for business. but we are serious about those content-based restrictions. so in that world, why isn't a classic first amen
justice kagan? >> i just want to understand your position and i want to narrow this to the paradigmatic social media companies, newsfeed postings, facebook, youtube, twitter/x. suppose that i say, take this as a given, you can argue with the fact is, but don't. [laughter] suppose that i say for the most part, all these places say we are open for business, post whatever you like and we will host it. but there are exceptions to that and clearly content based exceptions which the companies...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
again, it was a three liberal specifically writing i less justices sotomayor, sonia sotomayor, elena kagan, and our newest justice, ketanji brown jackson. now, justice barrett, one donald trump's appointees. the third one, in fact, split off a bit also, but not joining the liberals. >> interesting and aly, i'm just wondering read, it looks like page 13 of those it says for the reasons given responsibility for enforcing section three against federal office holders and candidates rests with congress and not the states, right? the judgment the colorado supreme court therefore cannot stand. so they're saying essentially that congress has to make this decision >> whether there >> are insurrectionist who need to be kept off of ballots. is that essentially what they're saying? essentially what they're saying is it's up to congress to tell us how this works. so if congress had, let's say 50 years ago, congress had passed a law saying, we're going to let the states do it, so long as they they abide by due process, then what colorado did would have been fine, but congress has done essentially nothin
again, it was a three liberal specifically writing i less justices sotomayor, sonia sotomayor, elena kagan, and our newest justice, ketanji brown jackson. now, justice barrett, one donald trump's appointees. the third one, in fact, split off a bit also, but not joining the liberals. >> interesting and aly, i'm just wondering read, it looks like page 13 of those it says for the reasons given responsibility for enforcing section three against federal office holders and candidates rests with...
0
0.0
Mar 13, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
surely, that can't be ok. >> justice kagan? justice kavanaugh? >> upon the deference to the legislative findings point, my memory is that there is a trial. >> yes, that's turner 2. maybe there will be a paxton 2. >> right, but there wasn't just congress said this, that is good to go, there was a trial about that? >> sure, we are happy to go to trial. >> that is all i wanted to ask. >> on common carrier, if a company says we are not a common carrier and we don't want to be, can the state make them into a common carrier? >> that's a great question. that was the first question i had when i came to this case. the answer is no. if you are not a common carrier, you cannot become one. that is why it is important to think of it as a compass to tell you where the line is. i would urge the court if you are interested, we have talked about reading the professor's article. one thing that struck me as strange was wait, they have terms of service allow can they be a common carrier? this court addressed that very problem, the case that he cited is new york cent
surely, that can't be ok. >> justice kagan? justice kavanaugh? >> upon the deference to the legislative findings point, my memory is that there is a trial. >> yes, that's turner 2. maybe there will be a paxton 2. >> right, but there wasn't just congress said this, that is good to go, there was a trial about that? >> sure, we are happy to go to trial. >> that is all i wanted to ask. >> on common carrier, if a company says we are not a common carrier and...
0
0.0
Mar 12, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> not really, justice kagan. i think we are in danger of losing sight of the actual statute., togeto petition appendix 97a, and the definition of sensory use which include any action taken by social media platforms to lead, restricted, inhibit the publication or republication of spding a right to post rough post or add in any content or material posted by a user. the term also includes actions to inhibit the ability of the user or interact with another user cial media platforms. sensor is all abouth expressive activity, post position is all about and specifically talks monday newsfeed, search results, and they give, essentially, lyrical candidates and journalistic enterpris right to nondiscrimination. they're going to pop upeven though i have no interest in politics. i just want to look at feeds about italian bicycles. i was to gethe florida politicians popping in there? that's what this statute does. then, you gothrough shadow banning which is not about y of the things you're talking abt. shadow banning is all a
>> not really, justice kagan. i think we are in danger of losing sight of the actual statute., togeto petition appendix 97a, and the definition of sensory use which include any action taken by social media platforms to lead, restricted, inhibit the publication or republication of spding a right to post rough post or add in any content or material posted by a user. the term also includes actions to inhibit the ability of the user or interact with another user cial media platforms. sensor...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
but there was a really important point here because the so-called liberal justices, kagan sotomayor and pitons, you brown jackson. suggested that they went too far, but there was no need to go further and the patchwork argued because they said, listen, there's no federal entity asking us about this is a state action in colorado. and so therefore, asking or telling you how congress is supposed to act to clarify what they have not called vague is an oddity here, exactly. >> the realistic fact is that congress is unlikely to offer any legislation, particularly before this election, to clarify this. so they thought they went too far though it is notable that they were able to get a unanimous decision even though it was narrow. this is what we expected. this was the challenge for the chief justice john roberts. can you come up with a unanimous decision is likely going to be narrow. can you get everyone on board? and it appears he was able to do that. what else want to talk about another concurring opinion and that's from justice barrett and here it's interesting. she is she doesn't want to s
but there was a really important point here because the so-called liberal justices, kagan sotomayor and pitons, you brown jackson. suggested that they went too far, but there was no need to go further and the patchwork argued because they said, listen, there's no federal entity asking us about this is a state action in colorado. and so therefore, asking or telling you how congress is supposed to act to clarify what they have not called vague is an oddity here, exactly. >> the realistic...
0
0.0
Mar 27, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
ste kagan a quick question you open your brief with the date mntbut with the statement and it startst's knlee and since then i am sure that you have had lots of time to think about this case and get all of the background information on it. i will read you the sentence and ask you whether it is still true. to the government's knowledge. "this casear the first time" and i'm going to say is at the0= first time or only time "any court has restricted access to the a's drug by second-guessing the safe use." is it stl e only time? ms. prelog trend of courts overwriting fda's judgment to grant greater access to drugs. it from we believe that the courts have no authority to make those kind of judgments. justice kavanaugh: just confirm on the standing issue, under federal law no doctors can be forced against their conscious is to perform or assist in an abortion, correct?■■ú msprelogar: we think that federal conscious protection provide broad coverage and there are some triggering requirements on receiving federal funding.ans on page five. the church amendments vehe most comprehensive instruct
ste kagan a quick question you open your brief with the date mntbut with the statement and it startst's knlee and since then i am sure that you have had lots of time to think about this case and get all of the background information on it. i will read you the sentence and ask you whether it is still true. to the government's knowledge. "this casear the first time" and i'm going to say is at the0= first time or only time "any court has restricted access to the a's drug by...
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
there is a big difference of what i think kavanaugh and kagan were saying.e house press office or the white house communications team or you are the cia director and you weigh in on the press. i fully and will always defend the government protecting a source or a method for a government program that is, for example, protecting a source who is inside a terror style and trying to district that protect somebody. if you think about enhanced interrogation techniques for example. that's the kind of thing where you make very tough call to major media organizations saying "i'm asking you. please hold off until i can make sure that this person is safe for me have the information that need." and that can work. i think it probably works better for democratic administrations than republican ones. be that as it may, i would never have said "i know. let's call and make sure that uncle bob in iowa shouldn't be allowed to post something on facebook." that is insane to me. that's exactly what the white house did. i was really surprised at reading some of the text messages fr
there is a big difference of what i think kavanaugh and kagan were saying.e house press office or the white house communications team or you are the cia director and you weigh in on the press. i fully and will always defend the government protecting a source or a method for a government program that is, for example, protecting a source who is inside a terror style and trying to district that protect somebody. if you think about enhanced interrogation techniques for example. that's the kind of...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
ketanji brown jackson and elena kagan said, quote, section three provides that what an oath breaking insurrectionist is disqualified, congress may by a vote of two thirds of each house remove such a disability. it is hard to understand by the constitution would require a congressional super majority to remove a disqualification if a single majority could nullify section 3's operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation. it is worse than they know. it would not take a simple majority to decline to pass implementing legislation, to vote against implementing legislation. it would only take 41 out of 100 senators to block implementing legislation which, according to the procedural rules of the united states senate, requires a 60 vote majority threshold to pass. so, if a group of 59 senators agreed on implementing legislation tomorrow for section three of the 14th amendment, it could not become law. it could be blocked by 41 senators who support an oath breaking insurrection and want to see insurrectionists and want to see an oath breaking insurrectionist become pre
ketanji brown jackson and elena kagan said, quote, section three provides that what an oath breaking insurrectionist is disqualified, congress may by a vote of two thirds of each house remove such a disability. it is hard to understand by the constitution would require a congressional super majority to remove a disqualification if a single majority could nullify section 3's operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation. it is worse than they know. it would not take a...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
in one of the concurrences from justice sotomayor, elena kagan, and ketanji brown jackson, they referred to trump as an oath breaking insurrectionist not once, not twice, but four times in six pages. and they question the propriety of the court's conservatives seeming to dictate how the 14th amendment should be enforced. quoting no less than the dobbs decision that overturned roe v. wade in their opening line. quote, if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, than it is necessary not to decide more. and then closing with nothing less than bush v. gore. the case that three of their colleagues worked on as bush side attorneys. writing, quote, what it does today, the court should have left undone. ouch. ouch. and in her own brief concurring opinion, conservative justice amy coney barrett may have giving us a glimpse affwhat to expect from the conservative majority in the coming supreme court hearings on presidential immunity. as she agreed that her fellow conservatives did too much but for a different reason. writing, the court has settled a politically charged issue in the
in one of the concurrences from justice sotomayor, elena kagan, and ketanji brown jackson, they referred to trump as an oath breaking insurrectionist not once, not twice, but four times in six pages. and they question the propriety of the court's conservatives seeming to dictate how the 14th amendment should be enforced. quoting no less than the dobbs decision that overturned roe v. wade in their opening line. quote, if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, than it is...
0
0.0
Mar 10, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
kagan, sotomayor and jackson agreeing with brett kavanaugh, sam alito, clarence thomas at least on theon. and so some tv bloviaters are saying, well, that's not good enough for me. they're not pure enough for me was they're not opposing trump's name appearing on these ballots like in colorado? >> yeah. and isn't that typically the case with these the liberal activists? it's never enough. we see that all the time as a conservatives. i see it even when i just go to a kid's birthday party and start talking politics. howard: don't talk politics at a kid's birthday party. that's your first mistake. >> that's true. you talk about democracy being won the ballot, ask and i think leslie's point is a good one that there is this divide between where voters are and where the people with the soap box in their party. and and i would even give that's on both sides. if joe biden is such a wonderful president and candidate and if all of the data backs that up, then who cares who he's running againsting right? that shouldn't be a problem. and yet they are trying literally every trick in the book to keep
kagan, sotomayor and jackson agreeing with brett kavanaugh, sam alito, clarence thomas at least on theon. and so some tv bloviaters are saying, well, that's not good enough for me. they're not pure enough for me was they're not opposing trump's name appearing on these ballots like in colorado? >> yeah. and isn't that typically the case with these the liberal activists? it's never enough. we see that all the time as a conservatives. i see it even when i just go to a kid's birthday party...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
what keith olbermann said about them. >> the supreme court has betrayed democracy, members jackson, kagannd sotomayor have proven themselves at inept at reading comprehension and collectively the court has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. it must be dissolved. you brought up a good point if just the conservative justices had said trump needs to stay on the ballot, he would still be on the ballot. because it's 9-0. that shatters the left's narrative. >> yeah, ainsley. keith olbermann i guess we can't count him as marvin the media because he has been fired some times and unemployed for so long can we still put him in this group? olbermann also said he wants the supreme court to be completely dissolved. this is how far gone some of these folks are. and if they keep talking this way, this is only jet fuel for donald trump. here would have been my headline and leave it here, okay? an expected ruling the supreme court rules 9-0 to allow donald trump on ballot ahead of expected super tuesday romp. that should have been the headline, that should have been the take away. >> ainsley: ye
what keith olbermann said about them. >> the supreme court has betrayed democracy, members jackson, kagannd sotomayor have proven themselves at inept at reading comprehension and collectively the court has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. it must be dissolved. you brought up a good point if just the conservative justices had said trump needs to stay on the ballot, he would still be on the ballot. because it's 9-0. that shatters the left's narrative. >> yeah, ainsley....
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
like justice kagan said at some point, there was such a time gap between communication by the governmented to their post. was it the government's action or the platform's own action? my sense of the argument afterwards was that they are leaning towards, a majority is definitely leaning in favor of the biden administration. there was a lot of talk too about how the government does communicate, how almost every single day you will see a president using the bully pulpit or you'll see federal officials communicating one thing or another. there is just a lot of back-and-forth. and facebook and social media platforms have their own power. they can say no, and they do often to the government. and also they can turn to officials when they have complaints. these were all issues that the justices rocked up which lead me to believe they are leaning towards the biden administration . geoff: interesting. we have seen this court take up a number of social media-related cases this term. what does that suggest? marcia: i think it is just to expansion of social media, the amount of information that is go
like justice kagan said at some point, there was such a time gap between communication by the governmented to their post. was it the government's action or the platform's own action? my sense of the argument afterwards was that they are leaning towards, a majority is definitely leaning in favor of the biden administration. there was a lot of talk too about how the government does communicate, how almost every single day you will see a president using the bully pulpit or you'll see federal...
0
0.0
Mar 29, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
don't know, a bit more self-awareness and the sort of self-awareness the court exhibited when justice kaganter to be her clerk before her father was ahead of the justice department and the spring court then announced garland's daughter wouldn't serve in that position as elena kagan's clerk while her father remained attorney general and this i contrast justice thomas has insisted on hiring his near daughter, the one on his christmas cards and, man, that sounds like a very nice thing for him to do for her and the new york times gives us some idea of what her future holds and at least eight teen of her former clerks have served as state, federal or military judges, nearly 3/4 of them pointed by mr. trump to federal courts where they have ruled on issues like voting rights and access to the abortion pill. many of thomases clerks have gone on to do the bidding of justice thomas and that seems like not that much of a coincidence. >> law clerks are law clerks. they are wonderful to have around in my view is it's one of the best parts of the job and they have energetic people who are like family an
don't know, a bit more self-awareness and the sort of self-awareness the court exhibited when justice kaganter to be her clerk before her father was ahead of the justice department and the spring court then announced garland's daughter wouldn't serve in that position as elena kagan's clerk while her father remained attorney general and this i contrast justice thomas has insisted on hiring his near daughter, the one on his christmas cards and, man, that sounds like a very nice thing for him to...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justices sonia sotomayor ketanji brown, jackson, and elena kagan. and i'll just read briefly from their descent because the majority itself did not explain itself. it just had an order that said that texas can enforce this two justices on the right. did concur in that. i'll get to that in a second. but i just wanted to explain what the dissenters road they said today, the court invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement. texas passed a law that directly regulates the entry and removal of noncitizens in explicitly instructs it its state courts to disregard ongoing federal immigration proceedings that law appends federal state balance of power that has existed for over a century. that's what justices sotomayor and jackson road and then justice kagan wrote separately, the subject of immigration generally and the entry and removal of noncitizens particularly are matters long thought. the special province of the federal government that's that's kinda the crux of the argument, even though this is playing out in such human terms at the bor
justices sonia sotomayor ketanji brown, jackson, and elena kagan. and i'll just read briefly from their descent because the majority itself did not explain itself. it just had an order that said that texas can enforce this two justices on the right. did concur in that. i'll get to that in a second. but i just wanted to explain what the dissenters road they said today, the court invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement. texas passed a law that directly regulates the entry and...
0
0.0
Mar 20, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this is what justice kagan was essentially saying. administrative stay, who cares? that's, that's the exact opposite of what a supreme court is supposed to do. >> yeah, we should say the federal district court judge who evaluated this law, first of all, this law was done in the same way that, you know, mississippi passing its abortion law. they knew they were flatly challenging stated precedent. texas knew that. there's black letter clear precedent here from the 2012 decision on the arizona law. you can't do what texas is doing. sb-4 says state officials can remove, arrest and remove people, right? so the federal district judge says no, you can't do this. not only can you not do this, we have to stay it because there's irreparable harm because there's people being removed from the country, possibly wrongly. >> that's right. >> the removal of non-citizens can't be undone even if the stay on injunction is ultimately lifted. thousands of individuals should not be arrested, incarcerated, or removed prior. so the very right wing 5th circuit above him basically got extrem
this is what justice kagan was essentially saying. administrative stay, who cares? that's, that's the exact opposite of what a supreme court is supposed to do. >> yeah, we should say the federal district court judge who evaluated this law, first of all, this law was done in the same way that, you know, mississippi passing its abortion law. they knew they were flatly challenging stated precedent. texas knew that. there's black letter clear precedent here from the 2012 decision on the...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
thank you >> justice kagan >> general, if i could take you back to the discussion that you were having with justice barrett about the conscience objection. and just ask you, i'm sure that you've read the declarations carefully and i'm sure ms holly will have things to say about this too but as you read those declarations what is the conscience objection. what what are the doctors objecting to exactly? >> i think the declarations are specific on this point. there are only seven doctors who regularly practice and submitted evidence and the declarations are relatively short. this hasn't j hey, 150 to 200 i encourage reading them because there are only two doctors out of the seven who even provide any information about their specific conscience objections. >> those two are who? >> those are dr. scott and dr. francis. the relevant language for the other five don't refer to conscience objection. they don't refer to their own conscience objections or provide any specific detail about exactly what care would violate their conscience. dr. francis is at ja 155. dr. scopus at ja 167, both describ
thank you >> justice kagan >> general, if i could take you back to the discussion that you were having with justice barrett about the conscience objection. and just ask you, i'm sure that you've read the declarations carefully and i'm sure ms holly will have things to say about this too but as you read those declarations what is the conscience objection. what what are the doctors objecting to exactly? >> i think the declarations are specific on this point. there are only seven...
0
0.0
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
kagan, is important , a man who positions himself as just a journalist is in fact a close associate ofal shadow state, that’s victoria’s entire career, this her ability to communicate directly with both hillary clinton and bill clinton , yeah, that is, this person who, in principle , could become secretary of state, is the person who could promote himself enough. high, but something went wrong, and what went wrong? first of all, the 2014 event. nowadays, it’s probably only the lazy who doesn’t say that the united states of america knows how to destroy democracies and never knows how to build them, that is, they come to a living, healthy country, destroy it, move on, that is, a network of chaos is great, wonderful, to be able to create restoring the good is probably another story, victoria, he understands perfectly well that all the disagreements that primarily arise over the budget now, they lead to the fact that... budget disagreements will continue for several more months, not in april, at the beginning they will not be resolved, which means that there is a certain delay in decision-
kagan, is important , a man who positions himself as just a journalist is in fact a close associate ofal shadow state, that’s victoria’s entire career, this her ability to communicate directly with both hillary clinton and bill clinton , yeah, that is, this person who, in principle , could become secretary of state, is the person who could promote himself enough. high, but something went wrong, and what went wrong? first of all, the 2014 event. nowadays, it’s probably only the lazy who...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
a fully automatic weapon -- justice kagan: how much lower? mr.r of 60, something like that. variation. the point is, that's the eoretical mim and it is significtl slower. traditional machine gun like issued to the american military shoots in thrae of 700 to 950 bullets minute. obviously tm helipts that shoot much ter, but i think 700 to 900 ishe right benchmark. original bump stock shot 650 rounds a minut and the devices here are represented to shoot between 400 rounds a minute, right in the range with e m-16, the m 14. we acknowledge this is not a rate ofirstatute, it is a function statute, but the function was, are you able to fire multiple shoit movements? the rate of fire is evidence there tivements going on here. justice kavanaugh: you have referred a lot to the language of 1934 and thatime, but bump stocks did not exist. what are we to make of that? mr. fletch: you still apply the language that congress wrote to what didn't exist at the time. none ofiinreel, auto glove, ford resetyou can draw that congresse a statute, chose the word functio
a fully automatic weapon -- justice kagan: how much lower? mr.r of 60, something like that. variation. the point is, that's the eoretical mim and it is significtl slower. traditional machine gun like issued to the american military shoots in thrae of 700 to 950 bullets minute. obviously tm helipts that shoot much ter, but i think 700 to 900 ishe right benchmark. original bump stock shot 650 rounds a minut and the devices here are represented to shoot between 400 rounds a minute, right in the...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
but she also chastise sotomayor kagan and jackson for their language morning about turning down the national temperature, not cranking it up. she wrote at one point, quote, this is not the time to amplify disagreement but we are hearing from our sources tonight that trump's bigger concern is not what happened today. it's of what's to come from the supreme court. his claim of absolute immunity, of course, looms on the horizon. right now. it's really giving him what he wants from this court more time to delay his potential trials. that's what was so surprising to hear him today hours after we found out what the supreme court had decided, praising them for moving so quickly >> they worked hard and frankly, they worked very quickly oh and something that will be spoken about 100 years from now and 200 years from now, extremely important. i have great respect for the supreme court. and i want to just thank them for working so quickly and diligently and so brilliantly we'll see if. that's still how he feels when he hears from them again, on his immunity ruling. but for now, we're digging into what
but she also chastise sotomayor kagan and jackson for their language morning about turning down the national temperature, not cranking it up. she wrote at one point, quote, this is not the time to amplify disagreement but we are hearing from our sources tonight that trump's bigger concern is not what happened today. it's of what's to come from the supreme court. his claim of absolute immunity, of course, looms on the horizon. right now. it's really giving him what he wants from this court more...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
to come up with hypothetical situations -- at one point justice kagan said, it's like we are trying toy that all of the intersections of these things would happen so a doctor would have to prescribe a prescription or be a part of an elective abortion procedure in a way that violated their objection, when, in fact, there were protections already from the government. the sg made that very clear. i think it was an interesting opportunity to sit and listen to them grapple with the fact that there was no standing in this case, that mifepristone is safe and effective. i think the government made very clear that the role of the fda to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the medication had been done over the last 20 years. multiple studies, 5 million patients. i think that the opposition to mifepristone from the hm did not hold. it was very interesting to be in a courtroom with that level of skepticism, given this is the court that gave us the overturns of roe. >> do you have concerned, andrew, from a legal standpoint, you may not have heard him as you were getting ready to go on the air, w
to come up with hypothetical situations -- at one point justice kagan said, it's like we are trying toy that all of the intersections of these things would happen so a doctor would have to prescribe a prescription or be a part of an elective abortion procedure in a way that violated their objection, when, in fact, there were protections already from the government. the sg made that very clear. i think it was an interesting opportunity to sit and listen to them grapple with the fact that there...