0
0.0
Mar 16, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this is an just justice sotomayor and me.or one another across the court, even when you don't need the vote. so oncne asks, " woody think about taking this out, or taking that out?" you are limited by what other people will agre to too, but we all worked very hard, down to little hard choices -- word choices, the smallest word choices, to accommodate one another. i think that really helps. i don't think any of us has a my way or the highway attitude. and i think we have been able -- you and i have been able to work together. >> i think many of us do. justice barrett is right, the structure of our institution where unity majority, gives you a sort of built-in norm because you have to accommodate at least five people to accommodate that majority. and often the people are targeting at different directions and you have to but there is also an attempt to reach beyond the five, and to talk in ways that each person with, because in the end when you are joining an opinion, you're putting your name and support behind it. now, eric, yo
this is an just justice sotomayor and me.or one another across the court, even when you don't need the vote. so oncne asks, " woody think about taking this out, or taking that out?" you are limited by what other people will agre to too, but we all worked very hard, down to little hard choices -- word choices, the smallest word choices, to accommodate one another. i think that really helps. i don't think any of us has a my way or the highway attitude. and i think we have been able --...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor: cship.ate amendment, the twenty-second ent, that doesn't permit anyone to run for a term. we have a history of states ualifying -- not all, but candidates who won't beg we have a hist at least one state disqualifying someone who wasn't a u.s. citizen. mr. mitchell: right. justice sotomayor: is -- are arguments limited to section iii? mrhell: not quite. the question, justice sotomayor, is whether the sta violating term limits by adding to or altering the extant qualifications for the presidency in the constitution. now the hypo -- justice sotomayor: so you want rm limits qualification is important to you. . mitchell: because it -- justice sotomayor: are y president runs for a third term, that a state can't disqualify him from the ballot? mr. mitchell: of course, a state can disqualify him from the ballotse that is a qualification that is gorical. it is not defeasible by congress. so a state is enforce constitution when itay can't appear on our ballot if you've alrerved two terms as president.
justice sotomayor: cship.ate amendment, the twenty-second ent, that doesn't permit anyone to run for a term. we have a history of states ualifying -- not all, but candidates who won't beg we have a hist at least one state disqualifying someone who wasn't a u.s. citizen. mr. mitchell: right. justice sotomayor: is -- are arguments limited to section iii? mrhell: not quite. the question, justice sotomayor, is whether the sta violating term limits by adding to or altering the extant qualifications...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor: -- my imicion. my implication was that using all the statutory tools, you can still come up, using them in good faith, using them, you can still come up with no answer -- martinez: well, i think -- justice sotomayor: -- with no clr answer. martinez: -- i -- i think you can can come up witho ear answer because some -- justice sotomayor: or bt answer. martinez: -- because some statutes are hard. but i think you can come up with a best answer, and -- and the reason i think that is because -- justice sotomayor: best only because a majority agrees? justice jackso b -- martinez: no, no, because -- because, if you had the same statute with the same inrpretive question posed to you without the agency having acted, i don't think u uld say there's no answer here. i think you would choose t best answer. justice gorsuch: i mean, mr. martinez -- justice jackson: but, mr. martinez -- justice gorsuch: -- i guess i'm struggling to understand what -- what -- what's at stake given the questions because, as i understa
justice sotomayor: -- my imicion. my implication was that using all the statutory tools, you can still come up, using them in good faith, using them, you can still come up with no answer -- martinez: well, i think -- justice sotomayor: -- with no clr answer. martinez: -- i -- i think you can can come up witho ear answer because some -- justice sotomayor: or bt answer. martinez: -- because some statutes are hard. but i think you can come up with a best answer, and -- and the reason i think that...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor: besides chevron? general prelogar justice sotomayor: all right. so now we have -- we're now at 706. and my - adversary, your opposing counsel, said that he didn't see that much disruption fr orruling chevron, that nobody would really bring up those old do you have a view on that? general prog: i think that my friend, it -- it might be easy for him to sath because he is not going to be involved in the endless litigation that i think would resultf is court were to overrule chevron. i understand his point to that all of the holdings in ose cases will be secure because stare decisis will apply in tseontexts. but the important thing to realize is thainhose cases, as justice barrett's questions emphasized, e urt has decided that what the agency did was reasonable. the statute has essentially been interpreted to vest the agcyith discretion such that the agency's regulation is being he lawful or valid on the basis of reasonableness, and i think athat means that litigants will come out of the woodwork seekingo en those decisions and contending that they di
justice sotomayor: besides chevron? general prelogar justice sotomayor: all right. so now we have -- we're now at 706. and my - adversary, your opposing counsel, said that he didn't see that much disruption fr orruling chevron, that nobody would really bring up those old do you have a view on that? general prog: i think that my friend, it -- it might be easy for him to sath because he is not going to be involved in the endless litigation that i think would resultf is court were to overrule...
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justberts: justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: there hasn't been much discussion on why this is entitled to statutory -- stare decisis consideration. there's been an argument by petitioners th 's not really a holding of a case; it' a method only, and we have said in the past that a method th lor courts have to use is subject to change we can make without considering stare decisi so could you address that argument? geraprelogar: yes. and i think that petitioners have pointed to two relevant types of cases tt ey suggest just mean stare decisis doesn't apply herer applies in particularly weakened form. first, they say the court has sometimes changed the interpretive tools it consults. things like legislative sty might have been in greater favor, at least with some justices, before and maybe have fallen out of favor later. but i don't think that those provide a parallel at al because the court has never distilled those kinds of interpretive tools into a governing framework. it's never, for example, dictated to lower
chief justberts: justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: there hasn't been much discussion on why this is entitled to statutory -- stare decisis consideration. there's been an argument by petitioners th 's not really a holding of a case; it' a method only, and we have said in the past that a method th lor courts have to use is subject to change we can make without considering stare decisi so could you address that argument? geraprelogar: yes. and i think that petitioners have pointed to two...
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor: but why not? ing i -- i think all of the play in disagreement is around the word "ambiguity." i know that there have been some earlier cases that suggested if therwe two plausible meanings, you went with the agency meaning. i think we'veonfar beyond that. it has to be two reasonable meanings. assuming -- you -- you make an asmpon that there is a best answer. i don't owow you can say there's a best answer when justices of thisou routinely disagree and we routinely disagree at 5/4. is the best answer simply a majority answer? i don't think so. martinez: but, your honor, if -- justice sotomayor: i happen, when i dissent, think the others goitrong. [laughter] justice sotomayor: and they often do. [laughter] justice sotomayor: but putting that aside -- but putting that aside, in those situations, there are two plsie -- not nearly plausible. there are two best answers. and the question is who makes the oi or helps you make the choice. and if the court can -- can disagree reasonably ancos to that tie-bre
justice sotomayor: but why not? ing i -- i think all of the play in disagreement is around the word "ambiguity." i know that there have been some earlier cases that suggested if therwe two plausible meanings, you went with the agency meaning. i think we'veonfar beyond that. it has to be two reasonable meanings. assuming -- you -- you make an asmpon that there is a best answer. i don't owow you can say there's a best answer when justices of thisou routinely disagree and we routinely...
0
0.0
Mar 30, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
here, respondent -- justice sotomayor: and what -- mr. cole: the threat implicit and explicit, my friend agree they can be implicit and exquisite, of course of -- implicit and exquisite, of course, of government action, that is coercion. and here she exquisitely threatened that to lloyd's, she says "i will go easy on you if you cut ties on the nra," same as i will go hard on you if you don't cut ties to the nra. she invoked her authority to punish organizations, financial institutions, with respect to failure to manage reputational risk, and made it clear that what she meant by "manage reputational risk" was cut your ties with the nra. and then she very shortly thereafter announced these consent orders with three of the nra's principal insurance providers in which she not only punishes them for insurance infractions, but imposes an extraordinary ban, a lifetime ban in perpetuity. these organizations can never provide affinity insurance to the nra even if every t's crossed and every i is dotted under new york law. with respect to chubb, on
here, respondent -- justice sotomayor: and what -- mr. cole: the threat implicit and explicit, my friend agree they can be implicit and exquisite, of course of -- implicit and exquisite, of course, of government action, that is coercion. and here she exquisitely threatened that to lloyd's, she says "i will go easy on you if you cut ties on the nra," same as i will go hard on you if you don't cut ties to the nra. she invoked her authority to punish organizations, financial...
0
0.0
Mar 28, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: so i already previewed what my question would be. how do you see them writing -- wanting the opinion and how do you want it? and tell me what the differences are and why they're important. mr. mcdowell: so our first order preference is, as i said, to use the guidance letters as a way to reinforce the plausibility of the allegations about the lloyd's meeting and to hinge the first amendment analysis on the lloyd's meeting because that's an explicit threat. it's just a straightforward way of resolving this case. and as i said, the guidance letters reinforce the plausibility of those allegations because the guidance letters were sent not only to insurance companies but also to banks. and there's no suggestion that the nra was doing unlawful business with banks. and, of course, the guidance letters also expressly urge insurance companies and banks to cut all ties with the nra, not just the lawful business. those aspects of the guidance letters reinforce the allegation that in the lloyd's meeting, she was trying to coerce lloyd's to stop
justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: so i already previewed what my question would be. how do you see them writing -- wanting the opinion and how do you want it? and tell me what the differences are and why they're important. mr. mcdowell: so our first order preference is, as i said, to use the guidance letters as a way to reinforce the plausibility of the allegations about the lloyd's meeting and to hinge the first amendment analysis on the lloyd's meeting because that's an explicit threat....
0
0.0
Mar 28, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor: l ght. those are those three. and what does that have to do with the nra and cutting ties witht? mr. katyal: because they -- they were offering -- what they said was illegal w e insurance products with the nra, that the nra refused to get a license. and so all of the insunc-- justice sotomayor: but what made it illegal for -- nra didn't have to or it could offer its products to someone else? that's where i'm confused. it could use a licensed broker to -- mr. katyal: well, once -- once the nra was acting in thi way as a bad actor, ms. vullo entered a -- entered into a consent order with them for a broader prophylactic setf nctions. this goes back to your first question. that happensllhe time. and the reason for that -- justice sotomayor: yeah. all right. then stop. and why are the other program -- sunce carriers that are -- have these similar policies, the new york state bar associaon all the other people who have similar policies, why are they differt? mr. katyal: because they didn't do what the nra did here and t
justice sotomayor: l ght. those are those three. and what does that have to do with the nra and cutting ties witht? mr. katyal: because they -- they were offering -- what they said was illegal w e insurance products with the nra, that the nra refused to get a license. and so all of the insunc-- justice sotomayor: but what made it illegal for -- nra didn't have to or it could offer its products to someone else? that's where i'm confused. it could use a licensed broker to -- mr. katyal: well,...
0
0.0
Mar 30, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
we went over this at the beginning of the program so to come, should justice sonia sotomayor consider stepping down while biden is president and the democrats hold control of the senate by a thin margin. it's a radical idea, but given what happened been two rpgs, supreme court seat, does it make some sense? that's what i'm driving at with today is poll question. it's were kaddish.com go there and vote on this should a supreme court justice ever time their retirement so as to influence the selection of their successor, hey, by the way, i'm going to present what i call the mingle project monday june 17 on the island on long island, the john hangman theater in my social media are all the details i'd love to see you there if you work in spaceflight, this is the worst possible thing i can ever help >> my dad died doing what he >> spatial columbia have final flight from your sunday, april 7 at nine >> shake up your shower with the flavor for every feeling this dog progressions you up, this stub winds you down. this stub, the deep glowing and this keeps you going. so whatever care do you car
we went over this at the beginning of the program so to come, should justice sonia sotomayor consider stepping down while biden is president and the democrats hold control of the senate by a thin margin. it's a radical idea, but given what happened been two rpgs, supreme court seat, does it make some sense? that's what i'm driving at with today is poll question. it's were kaddish.com go there and vote on this should a supreme court justice ever time their retirement so as to influence the...
0
0.0
Mar 29, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor: already previewed y question would be. how do you see writing the opinion and how do you wantt and tell me what the differences are and why are they important? mr. mcdowell our first order of preference is to u guidance letters as a way to reinforce the plausibility of the alletis about the lloyd's meeting and to hinge the first amendment analysis on th lloyd's meeting, becaus is an explicit threat, this case.rward way of resolving as i said, the guidae letters reinforce the plausibility those allegations b the guidance letters were sent not also to banks, and there is not suggestion that the nra was doing unlawfuless with banks. and of coursehe guidance letters also expressly urge insurance companies and banks to cut al with the nra, not just lawful business. those aspects of the guidance letters reinforcellegation that in the lloyd's meeting she was trying to coerce lloyd's to stop all of its business gun groups, not just your target unlawful conduct -- to target unlawful conduct. chief justice roberts: justice gan? just
justice sotomayor: already previewed y question would be. how do you see writing the opinion and how do you wantt and tell me what the differences are and why are they important? mr. mcdowell our first order of preference is to u guidance letters as a way to reinforce the plausibility of the alletis about the lloyd's meeting and to hinge the first amendment analysis on th lloyd's meeting, becaus is an explicit threat, this case.rward way of resolving as i said, the guidae letters reinforce the...
0
0.0
Mar 24, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
jutice sotomayor: thank you. 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
jutice sotomayor: thank you. 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...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor: encouraged to suppress their own speech. have some experience encouraging. [laughter] you just wrote a bad editorial. here are the five reasons you should not write another one. you just wrote a story that filled with factual errors. reasons you should not do it again. this happens thousands of times a day. mr. aguiÑaga: in the modeling case you're describing to make a vein of the government going after the speaker themselves and trying to get them to change their spirit was soaked and is just here is you do not see the facts in this record unless we get discovery. when the deputy assistant to the president sends an emails of facebook or twitter and complained that they are not doing enough to censor with a view as vaccine hesitancy speech, the third party, people like jill hines and■ jim hoff, whose of speech the white house is starting, they never know that is happening behind the scenes, and i think it makes a difference, justice kagan, that you have an intermediate who has no incentive to defend jim half's speech or jail
justice sotomayor: encouraged to suppress their own speech. have some experience encouraging. [laughter] you just wrote a bad editorial. here are the five reasons you should not write another one. you just wrote a story that filled with factual errors. reasons you should not do it again. this happens thousands of times a day. mr. aguiÑaga: in the modeling case you're describing to make a vein of the government going after the speaker themselves and trying to get them to change their spirit was...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
a couple of weeks ago, justices sotomayor, and barrett made a joint opinion, they refer to themselves wearing the same black robe. and how justice sotomayor welcomed her kids to the supreme court, and they have movie nights, and everything is happy happy joy joy and if you read justice barrett's concurrence, she wants you to have that impression of the court. but then again, you read the concurrence by the three liberal justices which starts with a quote from chief justice roberts concurrence in the dobbs case, they say if it's not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it's not necessary to decide more. these are the cleavages we have in the court. >> why did chief justice roberts get involved here. here's such an interesting character on the court because sometimes he sides with the liberals, sometimes the conservatives. you can't quite tell. what's the predictable nature in the way the court operates? is there one? >> the overarching principle is that he's conservative and that pervades almost all of the decisions. there have been outliars when it comes to voting and o
a couple of weeks ago, justices sotomayor, and barrett made a joint opinion, they refer to themselves wearing the same black robe. and how justice sotomayor welcomed her kids to the supreme court, and they have movie nights, and everything is happy happy joy joy and if you read justice barrett's concurrence, she wants you to have that impression of the court. but then again, you read the concurrence by the three liberal justices which starts with a quote from chief justice roberts concurrence...
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 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 18, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
jutice sotomayor: i could not find it. mr. fletcher: i would go through the brief, pages 19 through 21. there are not a lot of specifics. when the dates are provided, they don't line up. the first example on page 19 of the red brief, i think it is ms. hines, where she gets her retweet from robert f. kennedy, jr. is suppressed. she does not say that governments statements happened between january and july of 2021 and the moderation of her retweet happened in april of 2023. years later, after twitter had been sold and after it had abandoned its covid-19 policy. i think there is a traceability problem. jutice sotomayor: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice kagan: on the cores in question is there anything we 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 or coercion, we think those were characterizations. and the ultimate first amendment standard -- justice kagan: and on the pa
jutice sotomayor: i could not find it. mr. fletcher: i would go through the brief, pages 19 through 21. there are not a lot of specifics. when the dates are provided, they don't line up. the first example on page 19 of the red brief, i think it is ms. hines, where she gets her retweet from robert f. kennedy, jr. is suppressed. she does not say that governments statements happened between january and july of 2021 and the moderation of her retweet happened in april of 2023. years later, after...
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 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett who is just for herself, and sotomayor. kagan and jackson saying this is not a right the that belongs to the state, but all four of them casting doubt on the mechanism of enforcement that this is an enacted legislation. that's important because one other way that you could find that someone is disqualified is for example, through a federal court ruling or you could find that someone is an insurrectionist through their criminal -- through criminal liability. so there are a number of different ways that i think these justices are raising section 3 could have been enforced, and yet the procure yam decision says, but he will be on the ballot. >> andrea is with us. what is your reaction to this? >> two reactions. one is the fact that it is unanimous in result. i think that makes it complicated for people who want to view the decision as political, and that this is the, you know, the conservative wing which is now -- it's a very large wing of six taking this on. i mean, the problem with that analysis, of course, is that you have
justice barrett who is just for herself, and sotomayor. kagan and jackson saying this is not a right the that belongs to the state, but all four of them casting doubt on the mechanism of enforcement that this is an enacted legislation. that's important because one other way that you could find that someone is disqualified is for example, through a federal court ruling or you could find that someone is an insurrectionist through their criminal -- through criminal liability. so there are a number...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
one is about sotomayor, one that might disagree. also, does this mean for any other state that's thinking about this like illinois, for example, that if they're thinking of trying to keep trump off the ballot, that they would be barred from doing so based on this decision? >> yeah, what i've seen so far of this and i'm trying to read through here, it sounds like what they're saying is the states don't have this power. so that would mean any state essentially saying this is something that should have been left to congress. if you're going to, you know, there's questions not to get too wonky but about the 14th amendment if it was self-executing, if states could pick it up and say we find someone we think was guilty of insurrection and so we're saying they can't be on our ballot. there was question, though, whether congress has to give some framework for actually kicking someone off the ballot or making a decision about kicking someone off the ballot. it sounds like here, they say the disruption to allow states would be acute and could
one is about sotomayor, one that might disagree. also, does this mean for any other state that's thinking about this like illinois, for example, that if they're thinking of trying to keep trump off the ballot, that they would be barred from doing so based on this decision? >> yeah, what i've seen so far of this and i'm trying to read through here, it sounds like what they're saying is the states don't have this power. so that would mean any state essentially saying this is something that...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor: i am conjuring a hypothetical. ms. prelogar: the fda regulations do not require doctors to not grant an in person visit. they think that is the best way to provide a standard of care. dispense mifepristone through a critical arrangement. >> can i ask you a question about the roadblocks that you identified in a chain because you said a doctor could invoke conscious protection to refuse to complete an abortionembryo o. so i want to be clear, the federal government's position is that the doctor what hconsciouss your position that such doctors would have recourse for the protections of federal law? ms. prelogar: let me be clear because i think that the circuit misunderstood the arguments and respondents have repeated that misunderstanding. we never thought that this obje. he said the opposite. if you look at the texas litigation we disclaimed that understanding and made clear that we understand that conscious detection should continue to apply and shield a doctor who does not want to provide care. >> with that beogar: we d
justice sotomayor: i am conjuring a hypothetical. ms. prelogar: the fda regulations do not require doctors to not grant an in person visit. they think that is the best way to provide a standard of care. dispense mifepristone through a critical arrangement. >> can i ask you a question about the roadblocks that you identified in a chain because you said a doctor could invoke conscious protection to refuse to complete an abortionembryo o. so i want to be clear, the federal government's...
0
0.0
Mar 20, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the author even goes to point out that justice sotomayor is a diabetic and relatively poor health.this surprise you because it shocks me. >> yeah. at this point i don't think we should be surprised but i agree. this is lower blow than i thought. especially for someone who is such a reliable liberal. they are doing things to suggest she ised in n. bad health. there is really no evidence. they are going out of their way. what it does show is the left is very concerned about the upcoming election. they don't trust president biden to be able to hold on for another four years. but i think it's in horrible taste that they are doing this kind of well you are no more useful to us, let's just push her off. just as they try to do with justice breyer. i think it's a horrible way to treat a justice. it shows you all along whether the liberals or the conservatives. they just want to use the court not for justice, not even for, you know, appreciating their dignity as people. they just want them as a tool to advance liberal ends. so, whatever will do that. in this case, if it's shuffling justice
the author even goes to point out that justice sotomayor is a diabetic and relatively poor health.this surprise you because it shocks me. >> yeah. at this point i don't think we should be surprised but i agree. this is lower blow than i thought. especially for someone who is such a reliable liberal. they are doing things to suggest she ised in n. bad health. there is really no evidence. they are going out of their way. what it does show is the left is very concerned about the upcoming...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
, 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 nothing in the 150 years since the 14th amendment was
, 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...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
KGO
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
but in a scathing dissent, joined by justice ketanji brown jackson, justice sonia sotomayor warned that the decision "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement." sotomayor added, "this law will disrupt sensitive foreign relations, frustrate the protection of individuals fleeing persecution, and deter noncitizens from reporting abuse or trafficking." the ruling comes as federal migrant apprehensions across the southwest border reach an average of 4,200 daily, a sharp decline from the peak of nearly 11,000 in a single day back in december. so, now this case goes back to the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit, with a nudge from some of the justices to move quickly, and that could mean this texas law could be back before the supreme court soon, perhaps within days. still, the white house tonight is saying that the court's order today will, quote, sow chaos and confusion at the border. david? >> david: but not over yet, as you point out. terry, thank you. >>> we turn now to that chilling case that made national headlines. a horrific racial attack in mississippi. to
but in a scathing dissent, joined by justice ketanji brown jackson, justice sonia sotomayor warned that the decision "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement." sotomayor added, "this law will disrupt sensitive foreign relations, frustrate the protection of individuals fleeing persecution, and deter noncitizens from reporting abuse or trafficking." the ruling comes as federal migrant apprehensions across the southwest border reach an average of 4,200...
0
0.0
Mar 13, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i thought we had more coming from sonia sotomayor, saying certainly in their deliberations and certainly crossing the line and can make for personal difficulties. >> amy coney barrett said this is a really transparent court, you understand their deliberations because you're able to read their decisions. but at the same time, she does acknowledge there is a lot out there that is not public that makes that the relationships that the justices have with each, so much to say how we live our lives in this country, it makes it all the more curious. what can you tell us, in your reporting, about what it's really like at the supreme court? >> i think it's very formal, very stylized, very ritualistic. as justice barrett said, it's like being in an arranged marriage with no possibility of divorce. you don't want to get cross-ways with people needlessly. you may have lost your vote in this one, but may need their vote in the next one. and there are conferences describing it sort of formal, and they ever and the conference, they do almost all of their communications in writing. partly because the cas
i thought we had more coming from sonia sotomayor, saying certainly in their deliberations and certainly crossing the line and can make for personal difficulties. >> amy coney barrett said this is a really transparent court, you understand their deliberations because you're able to read their decisions. but at the same time, she does acknowledge there is a lot out there that is not public that makes that the relationships that the justices have with each, so much to say how we live our...
0
0.0
Mar 21, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> i agree with justice sotomayor. she pointed out that this would create chaos.lly 50 different versions of how you enforce the immigration law. and would make the federal government's job in processing people and keeping track of folks and determining who should be here and who shouldn't, that much harder. it would create more confusion than order. so i think she's right. and the legislation -- look. i disagreed with part of the legislation that was compromised legislation. but it did have some good things in there. especially more resources for these southern counties, whether they're in california or arizona or texas. and also, more judges to process asylum claims. beefing up the system, so that it can handle the number of people that are claiming asylum. and at the same time, we need to make sure that we don't forget about our values. we have to treat people with humanity and with compassion. if we can accomplish those things, then i think that we can deal with what has been a heavier influx of people that goes in cycles. >> secretary castro, i've talked to a
>> i agree with justice sotomayor. she pointed out that this would create chaos.lly 50 different versions of how you enforce the immigration law. and would make the federal government's job in processing people and keeping track of folks and determining who should be here and who shouldn't, that much harder. it would create more confusion than order. so i think she's right. and the legislation -- look. i disagreed with part of the legislation that was compromised legislation. but it did...
0
0.0
Mar 31, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor: the pro is that there are complications in virtually all of them. at what level the cost benefit analysis tells you to stop prescribing something is a very diffulquestion, isn't it? ms. prelogar: that is a question entrusted to the fda. ste sotomayor: whatever the increase was, lee fda determin der the standard that it was not sufficient to create a risk that counterbalanced t nd for access, correct? ms. prelogar: because the fda is instructed to ta io account burdens on the health care system as well and looked at a variety of src to conclude that the burden suggested that it was not necessary to keep this rtrtion in place to ensure safe use. justice kagan: if i could ta you back to the discussion with juicbarrett about the conscious objection and i'su that you have read the dearations carefully and i am sure that ms. holly will he things to say about this. as you read those dearions, what is the conscious objection? what are the doctors objecting to exactly? ms. prelogar: i think the declarations are specific. there are only senoctors who regularl
justice sotomayor: the pro is that there are complications in virtually all of them. at what level the cost benefit analysis tells you to stop prescribing something is a very diffulquestion, isn't it? ms. prelogar: that is a question entrusted to the fda. ste sotomayor: whatever the increase was, lee fda determin der the standard that it was not sufficient to create a risk that counterbalanced t nd for access, correct? ms. prelogar: because the fda is instructed to ta io account burdens on the...
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 5, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> imagine iffure your name is sonia sotomayor or brown jackson. should have voted the way you were expected to vote, not 9-0. you would you know divisions, they are professional at it. democrats are determined to keep trump off now a federal ballot. here is congressman jamie raskin. >> the supreme court punted and said it is up to congress to act. i am working with a number of colleagues, including maxine waters and swalwell to revive determining someone who commit the insurreksz is disqualified by section three of the 14th amendment. >> harris: lisa, eric swalwell will work on keeping trump off the ballot? >> lisa: i don't think democrats believe this narrative, they want to the means to justify the means. trump is so bad anything is justifiable to stop him from being president, removing him from the ballot and taking extreme measures and democrats want to decide the outcome of this election, not voters. it is up to voters to save the country. you had david axelrod say something similar, that is how elections work, should be in the hands of voter
. >> imagine iffure your name is sonia sotomayor or brown jackson. should have voted the way you were expected to vote, not 9-0. you would you know divisions, they are professional at it. democrats are determined to keep trump off now a federal ballot. here is congressman jamie raskin. >> the supreme court punted and said it is up to congress to act. i am working with a number of colleagues, including maxine waters and swalwell to revive determining someone who commit the insurreksz...
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 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 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
shogan and secretary education, and i will be interesting but the main program is a conversation with sotomayor barrett. this is an incredibly important time to show people who are maybe not thought of as having similar points of view but who agree on the strength of our country, the reasons why we need to defend it, and the reasons why we n a pathway to work together. >> host: i can to folks you can find those resources at civic learning week.org. that's civic learning week.org. also a to point out that these that also offers a civics education resource called c-span in the classroom. you can find more information about that on c-span.org/classroom. free resources for teachers, students anddi the public as wel featuring c-span program in public affairs coverage that's religious history, current events and the constitution as well as lesson plans and of the resources for educators. so that's c-span.org/classroom. now let's go to ralph in washington, d.c. good morning, ralph. , good morning. i want to congratulate this laid on her efforts. we definitely need it. i am 70 and a place on civics and
shogan and secretary education, and i will be interesting but the main program is a conversation with sotomayor barrett. this is an incredibly important time to show people who are maybe not thought of as having similar points of view but who agree on the strength of our country, the reasons why we need to defend it, and the reasons why we n a pathway to work together. >> host: i can to folks you can find those resources at civic learning week.org. that's civic learning week.org. also a...
0
0.0
Mar 13, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice sotomayor brought up at sea. etsy has a feed recommended for you but also has handmade goods. it looks more like a brick-and-mortar marketplace or fleamarket than a place for hosting speech. if this is a facial challenge and florida's law is broad enough to cover a lot of this conduct which is farther away from expression than the standard social media platform, why didn't you than in your brief defend it by pointing out that there is all this other stuff perfectly fine that florida covers, we don't want a person wants to sell her goods on etsy to be suppressed, because it is handmade goods that express a political view for example? >> i think we did defend the application of the law to etsy -- >> i can sit there and think of all kinds of applications of the law that would not hit expression, but i don't understand you to have been defending the law in that way as opposed to countering the argument that the platforms are not engaged in expression. >> we are making both arguments to be clear. we view etsy as not h
justice sotomayor brought up at sea. etsy has a feed recommended for you but also has handmade goods. it looks more like a brick-and-mortar marketplace or fleamarket than a place for hosting speech. if this is a facial challenge and florida's law is broad enough to cover a lot of this conduct which is farther away from expression than the standard social media platform, why didn't you than in your brief defend it by pointing out that there is all this other stuff perfectly fine that florida...
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 24, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
mariana sotomayor, thank you so much for joining us at the table. next, michael cohen will join us at the table to discuss his former bosses money troubles ahead of a critical deadline. you are watching the weekend on msnbc. you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it. ( ♪ ♪ ) start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. (man) excuse me, would you mind taking a picture of us? the (tony) oh, no problem.ded (man) thanks. (tony) yes, problem. you need verizon. get the new iphone 15 pro with tons of storage. so you can take all the pics! (vo) trade-in any iphone in any condition and get a new ip
mariana sotomayor, thank you so much for joining us at the table. next, michael cohen will join us at the table to discuss his former bosses money troubles ahead of a critical deadline. you are watching the weekend on msnbc. you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable,...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that's one of the things that sotomayor is so upset about. she's basically saying you have let the fifth circuit turn itself into a miniature supreme court. that's what justice barrett and kavanaugh are concerned about, but they say we don't think the fifth circuit has crossed the line yet. we see it's a problem but we're not going to step in in this case. we'll give them another shot then maybe next time around, we'll take real action. >> thank you very much. >>> and coming up, what jewish democrats are saying today after donald trump claimed they quote hate their religion. plus, a new report raises red flags about prenatal care in louisiana. what it is explicitly warning. don't go anywhere. explicitly wg don't go anywhere. so you can t! so many selfies. a preposterous amount of pano! that means panoramic. and as many portraits of me as your heart desires. (woman) how about none? (boy) none. (man) yea none feels right. (vo) trade-in any iphone in any condition and get a new iphone 15 pro and an ipad and apple watch se all on us. only on veri
that's one of the things that sotomayor is so upset about. she's basically saying you have let the fifth circuit turn itself into a miniature supreme court. that's what justice barrett and kavanaugh are concerned about, but they say we don't think the fifth circuit has crossed the line yet. we see it's a problem but we're not going to step in in this case. we'll give them another shot then maybe next time around, we'll take real action. >> thank you very much. >>> and coming up,...
0
0.0
Mar 20, 2024
03/24
by
KNTV
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court should not stop the law from taking effect the three liberal justices dissented justice sonia sotomayor writing, "the court gives a green light to a law that will upend the state bounds of political power and sow chaos. the ruling is a major blow to the biden administration which has argued immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility but texas officials, including governor greg abbott say they're taking actions because the government has not stopped migrants from crossing into the u.s when did you put up this wire? texas had already placed razor wire and buoys across the border to deter immigrants crossing illegally. a move challenged in court by the biden administration the governor telling us earlier this month that sb-4 did follow the constitution >> what the constitution does, it gives authority to states to be able to act when the federal government refuses to act. >> reporter: civil rights groups worry the law will lead to racial profiling today, the white house said, "we fundamentally disagree with the supreme court's order. sb-4 will not only make communities in texas le
court should not stop the law from taking effect the three liberal justices dissented justice sonia sotomayor writing, "the court gives a green light to a law that will upend the state bounds of political power and sow chaos. the ruling is a major blow to the biden administration which has argued immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility but texas officials, including governor greg abbott say they're taking actions because the government has not stopped migrants from crossing...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
olbermann said about them. >> the supreme court has betrayed democracy, members jackson, kagan and sotomayorave 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: yep, the america
olbermann said about them. >> the supreme court has betrayed democracy, members jackson, kagan and sotomayorave 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...
0
0.0
Mar 9, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
we talked about the metadata from justice sonia sotomayor's concurrence seems to begin as a dissent.about the process by which this opinion was reached. it seems that one big google talk and everything adds to it. that is part of why you ended up with metadata being available for us to see that perhaps this should have remained as dissent. >> it is like writing a document with a bunch of people . exactly as you said, google docs. they are trying to get- obviously, i do not know who is running the show. i appreciate -- assume it was chief justice roberts. they want is money to join the majority opinion as possible. you take suggestions from people. the justices will say, i do not like this language, could you change that? at the same time, the opinions can move around. different people may change their views over the course of time. at the what happened here as there was an majority opinion that explicitly said that congress, only by legislation can enforce the 14th amendment section 3. not just the states cannot do it, but that congress cannot even do it when it counts electoral vote
we talked about the metadata from justice sonia sotomayor's concurrence seems to begin as a dissent.about the process by which this opinion was reached. it seems that one big google talk and everything adds to it. that is part of why you ended up with metadata being available for us to see that perhaps this should have remained as dissent. >> it is like writing a document with a bunch of people . exactly as you said, google docs. they are trying to get- obviously, i do not know who is...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
KTVU
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and so there's justice sotomayor here saying, uh, i think that's going on.her is, as i said, the opinion calls people well, maybe not by name, but we know who they're speaking of. uh, oath breaking insurrectionists and obviously justice coney barrett did not care for that language as well. >> let me ask you, before we this, this ruling from the high- spcourt was turned around in an incredibly short period of time. they heard the arguments just last month. we get this decisionn obviously, we know we're moving. you know, primaries are underway they wann to happen quickly. but by by the same token, a lot of people are looking at the immunity question. the immunity case that's before the supreme court. whether you know, a, you know, president trump, former president trump has immunity. why is that decision going to take several months all the way into the summer to decide? >> right. we don't know. is the short of it, alex. we do know that they moved quickly on the n today, obviously ahead of super tuesday because colorado is a super tuesday staten they could hav
and so there's justice sotomayor here saying, uh, i think that's going on.her is, as i said, the opinion calls people well, maybe not by name, but we know who they're speaking of. uh, oath breaking insurrectionists and obviously justice coney barrett did not care for that language as well. >> let me ask you, before we this, this ruling from the high- spcourt was turned around in an incredibly short period of time. they heard the arguments just last month. we get this decisionn obviously,...
0
0.0
Mar 20, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
they're going to become the next sonia sotomayors. this is a horrible moment but it won't last. >> you're talking about the potential political impacts and how this could force action on issues related to immigration policy, but morgan there's still this issue of logistics around what's happening at the border and this particular law, this idea from texas officials that this would allow them to take action to defend their state, but we know already when that sb-4 was allowed to go into effect by the supreme court for about nine hours yesterday, there was the confusion that you've already talked about. to we know if there were any arrests during that time and sort of what the process looks like? because i wonder, do we know where migrants who are arrested by local police or state officials would be held and would they just bypass the immigration courts altogether? what does that look like? >> reporter: yeah, ana, all great questions. we do know right now there's been no official reporting of any local law enforcement taking sb-4 into f
they're going to become the next sonia sotomayors. this is a horrible moment but it won't last. >> you're talking about the potential political impacts and how this could force action on issues related to immigration policy, but morgan there's still this issue of logistics around what's happening at the border and this particular law, this idea from texas officials that this would allow them to take action to defend their state, but we know already when that sb-4 was allowed to go into...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> justice sotomayor >> on that last question, because that the trouble me. but the reality is, even if there is some increase in emergency room visits the question of when that rises to a sufficient safety risk is up to the fda, correct? >> that's right. and fda acknowledged it. so it's not like it overlooked at this aspect of the studies. i also want to emphasize justice sotomayor, that the studies were far from the only evidence fda consultant at the time and acted in 2021. it had real-world experience during the covid-19 pandemic, a period of time when the in-person dispensing requirement was not enforced and fda started by looking at as a comparative analysis, the two periods of time when you had in-person dispensing and when you didn't and saw that there was no relevant increase in serious address? verse events or difference between those two timeframe. so that further supported the safety control been with all drugs. is there are complications and virtually all of them >> yes. >> what level the cost-benefit analysis tells you to stop prescribing someth
. >> justice sotomayor >> on that last question, because that the trouble me. but the reality is, even if there is some increase in emergency room visits the question of when that rises to a sufficient safety risk is up to the fda, correct? >> that's right. and fda acknowledged it. so it's not like it overlooked at this aspect of the studies. i also want to emphasize justice sotomayor, that the studies were far from the only evidence fda consultant at the time and acted in...