0
0.0
Apr 1, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh? justice barrett? justice jackson? justice jackson: so my understanding is that you actually asked the d.c. circuit to delay merits briefing in this case, and i think that's the opposite of what i would have expected if you are actual sfering irreparable harm. you owif you're suffering, i would think you'd want the d.c. circuit to be moving as quickly so can you speak to that? ms. sridharan: yes, uronor. first, because of the posture that this case has gone on with respect toitation, the fact that we can get an answer that stymies the irreparable harm that is currently ongoing right now is something that we came to this court seeking because we -- you come to us?: no, but why did you're already before the d.c. circuit. and my questn , if you're sufferinuse you're spending money related to compliith the rule that you're challenging, why didn' you ask the d.c. uit to move quickly in rendering its ruling agreeing with you that the ru i invalid? ms. sridharan: well, your honor, i am not go
justice kavanaugh? justice barrett? justice jackson? justice jackson: so my understanding is that you actually asked the d.c. circuit to delay merits briefing in this case, and i think that's the opposite of what i would have expected if you are actual sfering irreparable harm. you owif you're suffering, i would think you'd want the d.c. circuit to be moving as quickly so can you speak to that? ms. sridharan: yes, uronor. first, because of the posture that this case has gone on with respect...
0
0.0
Apr 2, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: several questions. first of all, on skidmore, there was reference to skidmore deference, and i guess i don't think that's the right term, that it's respect or pay attention to, but i think, if we throw the term "deference" into skidmore deference, we're going to walk into another problem -- martinez: some -- justice kavanaugh: -- like the one we have with chevron deference. martinez: some might say "deference" is ambiguous. i think that -- [laughter] -- that it's imprecise. i think the better way -- i think oftentimes, when people say "deference," what they mean is that if you think the answer is x, you should defer to someone else's answer, which is different. i don't think -- i think absolutely that that would be inappropriate. so i would not use "skidmore deference" because i think it -- it runs the risk of -- of giving that implication. i think that, really, we're talking about very serious consideration of the points that the agency makes, but, ultimately, you have to be persuaded. and if you're pe
chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: several questions. first of all, on skidmore, there was reference to skidmore deference, and i guess i don't think that's the right term, that it's respect or pay attention to, but i think, if we throw the term "deference" into skidmore deference, we're going to walk into another problem -- martinez: some -- justice kavanaugh: -- like the one we have with chevron deference. martinez: some might say "deference" is...
0
0.0
Apr 3, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
kavanaugh is for sure. i don't know enough amy coney barrett to know whether she lives a bubble of her own views and has just the bubble just happens to be exactly the kind of bubble that federalist society folks were looking for and liked and wanted get onto the court. but i know for sure that kavanaugh knew exactly what he was doing. kavanaugh did this stuff for president bush, and that's how we got to know leonard leo is organizing the outside money influence over those appointments. and if you want to know the power of this, even early on, you remember a woman named harriet miers. harriet miers, white house counsel for, president bush. she was very conservative. she was female at a time when it would done them some good to put another female judge on the court. and she was very conservative and she knew him personally as white house counsel. she's around him every day up goes her name as the nominee. and the president had to effect a humiliating withdrawal of name because of the pressure not from us not
kavanaugh is for sure. i don't know enough amy coney barrett to know whether she lives a bubble of her own views and has just the bubble just happens to be exactly the kind of bubble that federalist society folks were looking for and liked and wanted get onto the court. but i know for sure that kavanaugh knew exactly what he was doing. kavanaugh did this stuff for president bush, and that's how we got to know leonard leo is organizing the outside money influence over those appointments. and if...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
ste kavanaugh: i'm sorry -- keep going. general prelogar: well, i just wanted to say they're nothe ultimate authority on what the idaho law means. that's the idaho supre urt, of course. and it has addressed this issue in the plaedarenthood case. ani ink it's really significant that, in planned parenthood, the idaho supreme court expressly contrasted this statute with other statutes that contain healthrerving measures and recognized this was a -- a total departure from that. the legislurwanted to focus exclusively and more narrowly on a "necessary to prevent death" exception. so i think that -- that that esntlly means that the supreme court of idaho has already touched on this issue, d it's no wonder, then, that doctors who are facing these kinds of pregnancy complications, where in their medical judgment it's not necessarily to prevent death yet, but the woman is going to suffer serious health equences, their hands are tied and they can't provide that care under the idaho law. justice kavanaugh: if the -- what's on page 8 a
ste kavanaugh: i'm sorry -- keep going. general prelogar: well, i just wanted to say they're nothe ultimate authority on what the idaho law means. that's the idaho supre urt, of course. and it has addressed this issue in the plaedarenthood case. ani ink it's really significant that, in planned parenthood, the idaho supreme court expressly contrasted this statute with other statutes that contain healthrerving measures and recognized this was a -- a total departure from that. the legislurwanted...
0
0.0
Apr 19, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh: mr. katyal, it's a bit jarring, i guess, for me that the solicitor general's on the other side from you in this case, given that the solicitor general represents the united states and the last case as a very strong interest in not expanding bantam books. so, how should we think about that? mr. katyal: yeah, i don't want to characterize their motivations or anything. i just think ultimately when they get to -- their test is not different than our test. i think we are all basically in agreement that, for example, the second circuit got it right. the second circuit's test is government officials cannot use regulatory powers to coercing entities from refining from protected speech -- justice kavanaugh: are you ok with that four-part test? mr. katyal: absolutely we do have to insist on objective reasonability when you are dealing with enforcement actions. that second prong that i started with. because otherwise you are opening the door to anyone -- anyone would be highly incentivized if they a
justice kavanaugh: mr. katyal, it's a bit jarring, i guess, for me that the solicitor general's on the other side from you in this case, given that the solicitor general represents the united states and the last case as a very strong interest in not expanding bantam books. so, how should we think about that? mr. katyal: yeah, i don't want to characterize their motivations or anything. i just think ultimately when they get to -- their test is not different than our test. i think we are all...
0
0.0
Apr 23, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: i think one of the premises of your argument is that this igood policy for the homeless, and good policy would help homeless individuals transition, get mental health treatment, get substance abuse treatment, job assistance, and that this doesn't fulfill thos objectives. and maybe you're not saying that, t'm curious whether you think this is good policy in rmof incentivizing, or bad? u must think it's bad, and i'm curious why. ms. corkran: yeah, io't think we've made that argument. it certainly camacss the amici briefs. just on the incentizg, i think, is a n quitur because the only question here is whether it violates the eighth amendment to enforce the ordinances when someone has no access to shelter, when they're turning down the services. so that's a circumstance we're looking at. maybe -- i think what your honor's question gets at is our diuson of no penological purpose. th court has recognized that when a punishment scheme has no penological purpose, it inflict
justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: i think one of the premises of your argument is that this igood policy for the homeless, and good policy would help homeless individuals transition, get mental health treatment, get substance abuse treatment, job assistance, and that this doesn't fulfill thos objectives. and maybe you're not saying that, t'm curious whether you think this is good policy in rmof incentivizing, or bad? u must think it's bad, and i'm curious why. ms. corkran: yeah, io't think...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: i just want to focus on the actual dispute as it exists now, today, between the government's view of emtala and idaho law, because idaho law has changed since the time of the district cr's injunction both with the idaho supreme court and with a clarifying ge by the idaho legislature. you say in your reply brief, and so too the -- the moyle reply f says, that for each of the conditions identifd the solicitor gewhere, under their vi oemtala, an abortion must be available, you say in the reply brief that idaho law, in fact, lo an abortion in each of those circumstances, and you go through them on pages 8 and 9 of the reply brief, each of the conditions. is there a cdition that you're aware of where e solicitor general says emtala requires that an abortion be available in an emergency circstce where idaho law, as currently stated, does not? mr. turner: , rtainly, the administration maintains that there is such conditions. the eshey identify in the affidavits -- justice
chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: i just want to focus on the actual dispute as it exists now, today, between the government's view of emtala and idaho law, because idaho law has changed since the time of the district cr's injunction both with the idaho supreme court and with a clarifying ge by the idaho legislature. you say in your reply brief, and so too the -- the moyle reply f says, that for each of the conditions identifd the solicitor gewhere, under their vi...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> justice kavanaugh. >> this case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country, in my view. you have referred to the department a few times as having supported the position. who in the department, the president, the attorney general? >> the solicitor general of the united states. part of the way in which the special counsel functions is as a component of the department of justice. the regulations envision we reach out and consult. on a question that involves equities beyond this prosecution, as the questions of the court -- >> it's the solicitor general? >> yes. >> second, like justice gorsuch, i'm not focused on the here and now of this case. i'm very concerned about the future. i think one of the court's biggest mistakes was morrison versus olesen. that was a terrible decision for the presidency and for the country. not because there were bad people who were independent counsels, but president reagan, president bush, president clinton's administration were really hampered in their view, all three, by the independent co
. >> justice kavanaugh. >> this case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country, in my view. you have referred to the department a few times as having supported the position. who in the department, the president, the attorney general? >> the solicitor general of the united states. part of the way in which the special counsel functions is as a component of the department of justice. the regulations envision we reach...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> justice kavanaugh? >> as you have indicated this case has huge implications for the future of the presidency in the future of the country in my view. you referred to the department a few times as having supportive positions. who in the department is a part of the attorney general? >> the solicitor general of the united states, part of the way in which the special counsel functions is as a component of the department of justice. the regulations that we reach out and consult and on a question of this magnitude that involves equity that are far beyond this prosecution if the questions of the court. >> okay, second, i am not focus on the here and now of this case, i am very concerned the future. i think one of the court's biggest mistakes is wilson versus olson. that was at terrible decision for the presidency and for the country, not because they were bad people who were independent counselors. but it was because president reagan's administration and president bush's administration, and president clinton's
. >> justice kavanaugh? >> as you have indicated this case has huge implications for the future of the presidency in the future of the country in my view. you referred to the department a few times as having supportive positions. who in the department is a part of the attorney general? >> the solicitor general of the united states, part of the way in which the special counsel functions is as a component of the department of justice. the regulations that we reach out and...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
one of the other ironies is brett kavanaugh. he worked for ken starr, and yet he was saying, if you prosecute, you're just going to hurt -- >> one of the most risible is kavanaugh, gorsuch, and alito very worried about political prosecution. very worried presidents would be prosecuted, and that was infuriating because brett kavanaugh came to providence working for ken starr, who took a bill clinton land deal and dug it into monica lewinsky's closet. all of a sudden he's considered about political prosecutions. it's hypocritical at the maximum. who is going to stop them, though? they act with impunity just like trump does. because just like trump, they know nobody will stop them. >> the thing that also is really infuriating is every time justice jackson or justice kagan or justin sotomayor tried to get into the facts of this case, and every time the lawyer for jack smith's office tried to get into the substance, they would cut them off. they didn't want to hear the actual substance of the case. >> i don't want to talk about the s
one of the other ironies is brett kavanaugh. he worked for ken starr, and yet he was saying, if you prosecute, you're just going to hurt -- >> one of the most risible is kavanaugh, gorsuch, and alito very worried about political prosecution. very worried presidents would be prosecuted, and that was infuriating because brett kavanaugh came to providence working for ken starr, who took a bill clinton land deal and dug it into monica lewinsky's closet. all of a sudden he's considered about...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that got some purchase, particularly with justice kavanaugh. i don't think it will get a majority of the court, justice barrett pointedly said that's ridiculous. there are only two or three statutes in the entire federal code that mention the presidency. we shouldn't require that. the other thing is this compromise that says, look, there are some acts that are private, not official, and as to those, the president doesn't have immunity. i think the members of the court were somewhat surprised with trump's lawyers' answer to that in the first part of the argument when he admitted that some of the allegations in the indictment were private acts, not subject to immunity like launching a list of fake electors and the like. several justices raised their eyebrows right when that happened. the special counsel's lawyer michael brie ban picked up on that and really hammered the point home, and i can tell you it took a while, but at 11:55, almost an hour and a half into his argument, he was chilling. he talked about the allegations in the indictment that
that got some purchase, particularly with justice kavanaugh. i don't think it will get a majority of the court, justice barrett pointedly said that's ridiculous. there are only two or three statutes in the entire federal code that mention the presidency. we shouldn't require that. the other thing is this compromise that says, look, there are some acts that are private, not official, and as to those, the president doesn't have immunity. i think the members of the court were somewhat surprised...
0
0.0
Apr 28, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
particularly justice brett kavanaugh was very concerned about the idea of letting criminal prosecutions go forward over actions taken by the president. he continually floated this idea, this rule that would say that unless a statute specifically mentions the president, that then it can't be applied against hem. that is a slight variation on the whole question of immunity but it would get their via a different rout and would essentially mean the end of jack smith's case. neil gorsuch moated the possibility of this situation, he said would lead to just every president pardoning themselves on the way out of office which is a novel and kind of dangerous situation for the court to be in which has never had to consider to thelegality of whether presis can do that. we also saw that justice samuel alito. another republican appointeee to the court. a conservative one albeit not a trump appointed justice. this would lead presidents to essentially try to stay in office unlawfully. to hole on to power. he said that would put america in a dangerous cycle of undermining democracy. so there were quite
particularly justice brett kavanaugh was very concerned about the idea of letting criminal prosecutions go forward over actions taken by the president. he continually floated this idea, this rule that would say that unless a statute specifically mentions the president, that then it can't be applied against hem. that is a slight variation on the whole question of immunity but it would get their via a different rout and would essentially mean the end of jack smith's case. neil gorsuch moated the...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i have a vivid memory of sitting there, and having each of those justices, justice kavanaugh, chief justice john roberts, and judge gorsuch, going one by one and making clear that they were not going to come out in this case the way that jack smith wants them to come out. at that point, it's a numbers game that i do not think looks good. >> mark, were you as surprised as i was to hear the line of questioning that came out of some of the more conservative justices, like brett kavanaugh and judge gorsuch and samuel alito? >> i was. the sense that i got from those justices was that to them, to their minds, the real threat to democracy was not trump's effort on january 6th, to overturn a free and fair presidential election, the true threat to democracy is the justice department effort to hold him accountable for that act, and i did not expect this kind of minimization of january 6th that we saw from the justices. my sense is that the conservative bloc just did not think that the insurrection at the capital was that big of a deal. instead of hearing concern about what it would mean to let the pr
i have a vivid memory of sitting there, and having each of those justices, justice kavanaugh, chief justice john roberts, and judge gorsuch, going one by one and making clear that they were not going to come out in this case the way that jack smith wants them to come out. at that point, it's a numbers game that i do not think looks good. >> mark, were you as surprised as i was to hear the line of questioning that came out of some of the more conservative justices, like brett kavanaugh and...
0
0.0
Apr 13, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
from 2018, we're trump held the swearing in ceremony for brett kavanaugh. i was covering the white house at that time. i remember this very well. every single supreme court justice attended and their names were read aloud. and when you look at that moment now and how unusual that is, i wonder what's telling to you about it. >> a couple of things. first of all, the justices themselves were a little bit tricked into attending. they had been given a bit of a guarantee from the white house counsel's office wouldn't have been overly political event. and it turned out to be extremely political. but when donald trump read all their names individually, he was almost as if he was holding them up as blue ribbons. you know, when you always acted as if the court was his, remember, in the early days of his administration when he lost in lower courts on some policy issues, he'd say, wait till we get to the supreme court. but i have to say katelyn just last monday when donald trump announced his new abortion position, saying he wanted to leave it for sure to the states >>
from 2018, we're trump held the swearing in ceremony for brett kavanaugh. i was covering the white house at that time. i remember this very well. every single supreme court justice attended and their names were read aloud. and when you look at that moment now and how unusual that is, i wonder what's telling to you about it. >> a couple of things. first of all, the justices themselves were a little bit tricked into attending. they had been given a bit of a guarantee from the white house...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
outside the core areas that tis kavanaugh was talking about, when congress speaks clearly couldn't a statute like that congress provide a statute like that that would allow all manner of evidence to come in to prove the case? >> i think our position is that would have to be an unofficial act, purely private contact for that prosecution to go forward. >> outside the core areas of executive power, if there is a clear statement from congress that something is unlawful and it applies to the president, i'm struggling to see why in that case perhaps the evidence could come in? >> the strongest possible case in our view is what you've described as kind of the core executive powers, the unrestrictable powers within the meaning of see la law. but again, the holding of brewster and johnson that we've relied on doesn't turn on how central it is of a legislative act. it just says if it's an official act, which applies to basically the outer perimeter test of fitzgerald against nixon, that doesn't come in. >> what would happen if presidents were understood fear that their successors would crimina
outside the core areas that tis kavanaugh was talking about, when congress speaks clearly couldn't a statute like that congress provide a statute like that that would allow all manner of evidence to come in to prove the case? >> i think our position is that would have to be an unofficial act, purely private contact for that prosecution to go forward. >> outside the core areas of executive power, if there is a clear statement from congress that something is unlawful and it applies to...
0
0.0
Apr 4, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch and kavanaugh? >>sponse a lot of the questions you made the point that bump stocks were not around in 1934, and that's a good point for you. but what evidence is there, if an tt as of 1934 the ordinary understanding of the phrase functioofhe trigger referred to the mechanics of the gun rather than the shooter's motion? >> well, it had to, and the evidence tt can see is the evidence the solicitor general points out abo t fact that there were push triggers in extee at that time. and that function of the trigger, even thoughouan find legislative history where there seems to be peleho think function of the trigger means the same thing as pull of the trigger, those phrases cannot be equated for that very reason. >> i guess i am asking the opposite. is there any evidence that someone was drawing that distinction? >> between push and pull? >> no, the distinction between the function of the trigger ant something different. >> i'm not aware of that in legislative history. >> are you aware of that anywhere in
justice gorsuch and kavanaugh? >>sponse a lot of the questions you made the point that bump stocks were not around in 1934, and that's a good point for you. but what evidence is there, if an tt as of 1934 the ordinary understanding of the phrase functioofhe trigger referred to the mechanics of the gun rather than the shooter's motion? >> well, it had to, and the evidence tt can see is the evidence the solicitor general points out abo t fact that there were push triggers in extee at...
54
54
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 54
favorite 0
quote 1
back when justice kavanaugh was a judge. he cites to a law review article that says this, a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is inevitably going to do a worse job as president. it gives us an indicator where justice kavanaugh is. you flip to the jack smith briefing. he cites an unlikely source. justice clarence thomas in a dissent that thomas wrote. this court is recognized absolute immunity for the president from damages, liability predicated on official acts rejected absolute immunity from damages, actions for a president's non-official conduct. it is really interesting they are both trying to lean into justices trying to read the tea leaves to include previous statements in each brief. fascinating to watch the questions from those two. >> dana: good communications tool. use your adversary's words to your benefit and seems like what they are trying to do there. we're nine minutes away from being able to hear this live at the supreme court. our coverage continues, oral arguments at the supr
back when justice kavanaugh was a judge. he cites to a law review article that says this, a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is inevitably going to do a worse job as president. it gives us an indicator where justice kavanaugh is. you flip to the jack smith briefing. he cites an unlikely source. justice clarence thomas in a dissent that thomas wrote. this court is recognized absolute immunity for the president from damages, liability predicated on official acts...
0
0.0
Apr 28, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> i now understand better your position in your discussions with justice kavanaugh. it became clear you are saying that for the private acts of a president, there is no immunity but for the official acts of the president there is immunity. is that your position? >> i agree with that. >> one thing that occurs to me is that this sort of difficult line drawing problem we are having with these hypotheticals is it a private actor republic -- act or a public act? it is being necessitated by that assumption. if official acts did not get absolute immunity, it wouldn't matter, we wouldn't have to identify which are private and which are public, correct? >> that is the approach of the d.c. circuit judge there is no determination -- >> to the extent we are worried about how do we figure out whether it's private or public on the we have to understand we are only doing that because of an underlying assumption that the public acts get immunity. let me explore that assumption. why is it as a matter of theory and i am hoping you can zoom way out here, that the president would not be
>> i now understand better your position in your discussions with justice kavanaugh. it became clear you are saying that for the private acts of a president, there is no immunity but for the official acts of the president there is immunity. is that your position? >> i agree with that. >> one thing that occurs to me is that this sort of difficult line drawing problem we are having with these hypotheticals is it a private actor republic -- act or a public act? it is being...
0
0.0
Apr 3, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> justice kavanaugh? >> in your brief, y used the phrase constructive realization. am asking if you could define what you mean by constructive realization. >> we use this as a blanket term to encpa such concepts as assignment of income and refe t the general principle esused in cases likeanks, that income should be taxed to a rson that enjoys its benefits. congress, when it has enacted cases reinon that doctrine, has approached it in that nature. asssing whether the income at issue is something in the ordinary course of affairs that could be attributed to th person, the singular taxpayer at issue, regarding categories of income or use of the corporate form and so forth. >> ok, thank you. >> there are cases inhich state law said that partners could not have control over th property or pull it out unilaterally, wch we said is ok for the income to be attributedo the partner. i understa partnerships are a different kind of form. as an ownershipatr, the partners would own it equally, but i don't think our cases have established control as the linchpin. could you point me
. >> justice kavanaugh? >> in your brief, y used the phrase constructive realization. am asking if you could define what you mean by constructive realization. >> we use this as a blanket term to encpa such concepts as assignment of income and refe t the general principle esused in cases likeanks, that income should be taxed to a rson that enjoys its benefits. congress, when it has enacted cases reinon that doctrine, has approached it in that nature. asssing whether the income...
0
0.0
Apr 17, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh queried, what are those tools? if courts. respect going to be able to enforce those congressional mandates, what are the exact tools that congress has to make sure that the laws are enforced in the united states? again, the solicitor general said congress could use the power of the purse. and justice kavanaugh noted, i think your position is instead of judicial review i, congress has to resort to shutting down the government or impeachment. if some administration comes in and says we're not going to enforce laws or at least not end gores if e toes law -- enforce laws to the degree congress has said the haw should be enforced, i understand your position, but it's forcing congress to take dramatic steps, i think. closed quote. what did the solicitor general say? well, she admitted, well, i think if those dramatic steps would be warranted, it would be in the face of a dramatic abdication of statutory responsibility of the executive, closed quote with. what more overt abdication of statutory respondent have we seen from the biden
justice kavanaugh queried, what are those tools? if courts. respect going to be able to enforce those congressional mandates, what are the exact tools that congress has to make sure that the laws are enforced in the united states? again, the solicitor general said congress could use the power of the purse. and justice kavanaugh noted, i think your position is instead of judicial review i, congress has to resort to shutting down the government or impeachment. if some administration comes in and...
0
0.0
Apr 6, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
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 was't just congress said this, that is good to go, there was a trial about th? >> 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'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 ce this case. the answer is no. if you are not a common carrier, yocaot 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 courtf u are interested, we he lked about reading the professor's article. e ing that struck me as strange was wait, they have terms of service allow can they be a common rrr? th crt addressed that very problem, the case that he cited is new york central v. lockwood from 1873 wherthco
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 was't just congress said this, that is good to go, there was a trial about th? >> 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'want to be, can the state make them into a...
0
0.0
Apr 2, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> my understanding of get more consistent with justice kavanaugh is it is not a difference. turn. call the doctrine of weight or persuasiveness. as i understand and i suppose the defect as well, i think the skidmore test allows you to consider the weight of the agency's views, but then consider if the something they came up with right after the statue was passed? so it actually sheds light on the meaning of the statue or is it something they didn't adopt until 20 years later? or did they get that one policy after the policy was passed and flipped it over 20 years later? all of that is something skidmore then account for the chevron has never been caused to account for. you can modify it and try to add all of that, what i do think the chevron experiment has failed. >> it is usually described as a deference doctrine. people talk about skidmore deference. >> yes they do, and that puzzled me a little bit. i went to the dictionary and looked up deference. the most common definition is yielding to the will of another. i think if that is the definition, you should not apply chevron or sk
>> my understanding of get more consistent with justice kavanaugh is it is not a difference. turn. call the doctrine of weight or persuasiveness. as i understand and i suppose the defect as well, i think the skidmore test allows you to consider the weight of the agency's views, but then consider if the something they came up with right after the statue was passed? so it actually sheds light on the meaning of the statue or is it something they didn't adopt until 20 years later? or did they...
0
0.0
Apr 19, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
jim kavanaugh, retired atf special agent and msnbc contributor, and michael beschloss, nbc news presidential historian and friend of the show. yasmin, i want to start with you. tell us about that moment you were there and witnessed it live. >> it was an unbelievable moment to see. i gotta say. i was on the air live. i was with chris jansing earlier in the day. history in the making. the first jury ever seated for this historic trial which we'll all be watching closely over the next six weeks. then i heard a scream out of my right ear. in which someone said he is setting himself on fire. i turned to my right just off camera and about 50 feet in front of me, joy, really half a block, half a new york city block, i see a large plume of fire. about 20 to 25 feet high. and i gotta say, in my head, i thought for a moment, okay, that is an area that is cordoned off for protesters. i have seen protesters there back in april when the former president was first arraigned. there were protesters there on monday as well. that number has gone down every single day since then. and so i thought, someone set
jim kavanaugh, retired atf special agent and msnbc contributor, and michael beschloss, nbc news presidential historian and friend of the show. yasmin, i want to start with you. tell us about that moment you were there and witnessed it live. >> it was an unbelievable moment to see. i gotta say. i was on the air live. i was with chris jansing earlier in the day. history in the making. the first jury ever seated for this historic trial which we'll all be watching closely over the next six...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
the things that justice kavanaugh was referring to that might be the danger of this system. one thing that we have to worry about that might not carry the day, but that's a concern. it's totally different when you take it out. side of the department of justice and its structures and then you throw it out elsewhere. the idea across, across the states, the idea of an immunity. i think thank has a lot more purchase if you're talking about something that protects the former president from standing trial and the state, state, and local level. >> so i don't know that you would have to design a system in which which the president would have to stand trial at the state and local level. it's certainly within the court's authority as a matter of supremacy clause law to find an immunity but we have been talking here about some length on the distinction between official acts and private adds that will have to be determined by some sort of a process any immunity defense that the court announces can still be met by a state assertion that we're prosecuting private conduct. you're going to
the things that justice kavanaugh was referring to that might be the danger of this system. one thing that we have to worry about that might not carry the day, but that's a concern. it's totally different when you take it out. side of the department of justice and its structures and then you throw it out elsewhere. the idea across, across the states, the idea of an immunity. i think thank has a lot more purchase if you're talking about something that protects the former president from standing...
0
0.0
Apr 18, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> justice kavanaugh. >> quickly, your view on the fourartest that some of the circuits have devepe >> you know, i think it's fine. >> that's about all i need. [ uger ] >> i would just say, as long as the ultimate inquiry is -- has the government engaged in coercion, has invoked its coercive authority in some way, shape or form. >> what if new yo went to insurance companies and said, we don't want you to continue enri gun manufacturers or sellers? for the same reass, how does the constitutional analysis we? >> that would be a first amenenproblem. >> what would it be? >> it ghbe a second amendment problem, i dot know. i am not sure it would. if the government coercion is focuseonconduct rather than speech, that it is not a first amendment issue. >> my la question, on bantam book is is a little bit unusual cause the government is not going to a communications company, a bookstore, social di company, to say to take down thatspch, but it is going to an insunccompany. i guess i take your point that bantam books, as long as the ultimate action is against speech, it doesn'maer that the int
. >> justice kavanaugh. >> quickly, your view on the fourartest that some of the circuits have devepe >> you know, i think it's fine. >> that's about all i need. [ uger ] >> i would just say, as long as the ultimate inquiry is -- has the government engaged in coercion, has invoked its coercive authority in some way, shape or form. >> what if new yo went to insurance companies and said, we don't want you to continue enri gun manufacturers or sellers? for the...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
outside the core areas that the justice kavanaugh was talking about, when congress speaks clearly, couldn't a statute like that, congress provide a statute like that, that would allow all manner of evidence to come in to prove the case? >> i think our position is that would have to be an unofficial act purely private conduct. >> but outside the core areas of executive power. a clear statement from congress that something is unlawful and it applies to the president, i'm struggling to see why in that case perhaps the evidence could come in. >> the strongest possible case in our view is what you described as kind of the core executive powers. the unrestrictable powers. but again the holding of brewster and johnson doesn't turn on a legislative act, just an official act that applies to the outer perimeter test of fitzgerald against nixon, that doesn't come in. >> what would happen if presidents were under fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office, whether it's -- they're engaged in drone strikes, all the hype that calls. i won't go through them. seems t
outside the core areas that the justice kavanaugh was talking about, when congress speaks clearly, couldn't a statute like that, congress provide a statute like that, that would allow all manner of evidence to come in to prove the case? >> i think our position is that would have to be an unofficial act purely private conduct. >> but outside the core areas of executive power. a clear statement from congress that something is unlawful and it applies to the president, i'm struggling to...
0
0.0
Apr 19, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
jim kavanaugh is back with me. what are the questions you think they'll be able to answer? it's now been just a little more than an hour since this happened. >> you're right. i think the witnesses reporting that he threw some pamphlets in the air, prior to powering a flammable liquid on himself and lighting himself with a lighter. some of the answers are in those pamphlets. that's his message. that's what he wants the world to know. it may prove to be nonsensical, and won't make sense to anyone, only to him, but largely some of the answers are there, and he may have posted things online or left notes at home as well. i think nypd will have some answers for us, that, you know, he might have been disturbed, but clearly he's suicidal, and he went to this location because this is a spot where he'll get attention for whatever his issue is. he could burn himself up behind a warehouse in newark, and it's not going to make the news. it's not going to be on the news. when he goes to the trump trial, just like going to the front of the white house or the capitol and the supreme court
jim kavanaugh is back with me. what are the questions you think they'll be able to answer? it's now been just a little more than an hour since this happened. >> you're right. i think the witnesses reporting that he threw some pamphlets in the air, prior to powering a flammable liquid on himself and lighting himself with a lighter. some of the answers are in those pamphlets. that's his message. that's what he wants the world to know. it may prove to be nonsensical, and won't make sense to...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
you know, it is difficult to know but you are right that justices alito, gorsuch, as well as justice kavanaugh relentlessly insisted on not discussing the actual facts of this case because the actual facts of this case involve an attempt to interfere with the peaceful transition of power. instead they hypothesized random future presidents who might attempt to refuse to leave office in order to avoid the risk of criminal prosecution, even though they were faced, right now in this very case, with a former president to attempted to refuse to leave office and is now trying to escape the risk of criminal liability for doing so. i think it was their effort to distract from the facts of this case. the fact that the events leading up to and including january 6 are a very real threat to our democracy and rule of law and instead they attempted to distract this case away from the facts, so they could distract us from the very real issues facing our democracy. >> or maybe the horror of what happened was too much for them to actually entertain and rulon. i do wonder at the end of the day if they remand thi
you know, it is difficult to know but you are right that justices alito, gorsuch, as well as justice kavanaugh relentlessly insisted on not discussing the actual facts of this case because the actual facts of this case involve an attempt to interfere with the peaceful transition of power. instead they hypothesized random future presidents who might attempt to refuse to leave office in order to avoid the risk of criminal prosecution, even though they were faced, right now in this very case, with...
0
0.0
Apr 18, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this goes on until we get to page 53 and page 53 justice kavanaugh jumps back in. and says i think your position instead of traditional review congress has to resort to shutting down the government or impeachment for dramaticow steps for some sort or another. if those dramatic steps would be warranted to be in the face of statutory responsibility by the executive. so she just acknowledged exactly what's happening here. she acknowledges exactly the mobile but which the impeachment power becomes very relevant but let there be any doubt on that. this step was settled. not just in 1789. we adopted the constitution. use the language they did but the framers were not operating in a vacuum. the writing on a blank slate they were incorporated legal terminology that have been used for centuries. stratus of the constitution discusses this very kind of thing. and explained in section 7098 of this written notso so very long after the constitution itself was written. we got the stuff from england the british knew what impeachment meant and they tunderstood what would constitue
this goes on until we get to page 53 and page 53 justice kavanaugh jumps back in. and says i think your position instead of traditional review congress has to resort to shutting down the government or impeachment for dramaticow steps for some sort or another. if those dramatic steps would be warranted to be in the face of statutory responsibility by the executive. so she just acknowledged exactly what's happening here. she acknowledges exactly the mobile but which the impeachment power becomes...
0
0.0
Apr 22, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
recalls her decision to testify before congress during the 2018 nomination hearings for justice brett kavanaugh. her new book is called one way back, a memoir. and also just out harvard professor henry louis gates latest book is about the effort by african-american writers from frederick douglass to james baldwin to write and define the black experience. its titled the black box writing the race. and one more new book that's out, we want to tell you about, lawyer and retired harvard law professor alan dershowitz. his latest is called war on woke. why the new mccarthyism is more dangerous than the old. and this is about books, a programing podcast produced by c-span's book tv. in this episode, we're looking at some of the new books that are coming out this spring. here are some by journalists. in april, chicago tribune investigive reporter gregory royal pratt is releasing his book on the windy city and its former mayor. the title, the city is up for grabs. ho chicago may lori lightfoot led and lost a city in crisis. and in may, clinton whiteouse communications director and current abc host georg
recalls her decision to testify before congress during the 2018 nomination hearings for justice brett kavanaugh. her new book is called one way back, a memoir. and also just out harvard professor henry louis gates latest book is about the effort by african-american writers from frederick douglass to james baldwin to write and define the black experience. its titled the black box writing the race. and one more new book that's out, we want to tell you about, lawyer and retired harvard law...
0
0.0
Apr 17, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and that's what justice kavanaugh was getting at. but certainly an overreach as it relates to the interpretation of what the more liberal justices are calling a catch-all phrase well, you know, brian, interestingly enough, this one person who is before the court is i think six other charges against him. this has been one of them, but jack smith is also basing an indictment against donald trump that includes two charges out of a total, i think of four that would be very significant if the justices say that this is an overreach we application, it would be accepted both justice jackson and justice barrett suggested there questionings are reading of the statute, even a narrow reader reading that says that the otherwise clause includes only evidence tampering could still apply to the january 6 cases because those cases, of course, relate to the electoral count which involves documents and the effort going into the capital and interfering with those documents could fall even within a narrow reading of that clause. >> so you think you're go
and that's what justice kavanaugh was getting at. but certainly an overreach as it relates to the interpretation of what the more liberal justices are calling a catch-all phrase well, you know, brian, interestingly enough, this one person who is before the court is i think six other charges against him. this has been one of them, but jack smith is also basing an indictment against donald trump that includes two charges out of a total, i think of four that would be very significant if the...
0
0.0
Apr 16, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
pardon me, about the justice department going too far in the charging less brett kavanaugh there's six other accounts in the indictment here, which includes civil disorder >> physical contact with the victim, assault entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct, disorderly conduct in the capital building. and why aren't those six counts good enough. >> just >> from the justice department's perspective, given that they don't have any of the hurdles because those counts don't fully reflect the culpability of petitioners conduct on january 6, those counts do not require that petitioner have acted corruptly to obstruct an official proceeding are you have to translate that for me? >> yes. her point was representing the department of justice, elizabeth prelogar, that to not be able to use this law would not be able to hold many of the defendants accountable for what they did. they obstruct an official proceeding in the government's mind? and it didn't matter that some evidence was not destroyed freud, in the process and by limiting the government's use o
pardon me, about the justice department going too far in the charging less brett kavanaugh there's six other accounts in the indictment here, which includes civil disorder >> physical contact with the victim, assault entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct, disorderly conduct in the capital building. and why aren't those six counts good enough. >> just >> from the justice department's perspective, given that they don't have any of the...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
particularly justice brett kavanaugh was very concerned about the idea of letting criminal prosecutions go forward over actions taken by the president. he continually floated this idea, this rule that would s that unless a statute specifically mentions the president, that then it can't be applied against hem. that is a slight variation on the whole question of immunity but it would get their via a different rout and would essentially mean the end of jack smith's case. neil gorsuch moated the possibility of this situation, he said would lead to just every president pardoning themselves on the way out of office which is a novel and kind of dangerous situation for the court to be in which has never had to consider to thelegality of whether presis can do that. we also saw that justice samuel alito. another republican appointeee to the court. a conservative one albeit not a trump appointed justice. this would lead presidents to essentially try to stay in office unlawfully. to hole on to power. he said that would put america in a dangerous cycle of undermining democracy. so there were quite a
particularly justice brett kavanaugh was very concerned about the idea of letting criminal prosecutions go forward over actions taken by the president. he continually floated this idea, this rule that would s that unless a statute specifically mentions the president, that then it can't be applied against hem. that is a slight variation on the whole question of immunity but it would get their via a different rout and would essentially mean the end of jack smith's case. neil gorsuch moated the...
0
0.0
Apr 6, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
recalls her decision to testify before congress during the 2018 nomination hearings for justice brett kavanaugh. her new book is called one way back, a memoir. and also just out harvard professor henry louis gates latest book is about the effort by african-american writers from frederick douglass to james baldwin to write and define the black experience. its titled the black box writing the race. and one more new book that's out, we want to tell you about, lawyer and retired harvard law professor alan dershowitz. his latest is called war on woke. why the new mccarthyism is more dangerous than the old. and this is about books, a programing podcast produced by c-span's book tv. in this episode, we're looking at some of the new books that are coming out this spring. here are some by journalists. in april, chicago tribune investigative reporter gregory royal pratt is relsing his book on the windy city and its former mayor. the title, the cy is up for grabs. how chicago mayor lori lightfoot led and lost a city in crisis. and in may, clinton white house communications director and current abc host ge
recalls her decision to testify before congress during the 2018 nomination hearings for justice brett kavanaugh. her new book is called one way back, a memoir. and also just out harvard professor henry louis gates latest book is about the effort by african-american writers from frederick douglass to james baldwin to write and define the black experience. its titled the black box writing the race. and one more new book that's out, we want to tell you about, lawyer and retired harvard law...
0
0.0
Apr 11, 2024
04/24
by
COM
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> it worked for brett kavanaugh. [cheers and applause] >> michael: hold on. a baby can't do the job of a supreme court justice! >> what? you mean sit and bang their little law hammer while wearing a sleep-sack? i think a baby can handle it. >> michael: okay, i can't believe i'm even asking this, but how would democrats even know the baby will be liberal? >> they'll just bribe them! babies are super easy to bribe. just give them a juice box and they'll rule however you want. >> michael: that's really unethical, troy. you can't bribe a judge. >> oh, all right. i'll ask clarence thomas if he's okay with it. [applause] >> michael: has the gamesmanship of american politics really come to this? putting a baby on the court? >> all right, fine. we'll stick with the current plan, where all our rights depend on which of our decrepit jurists' bodies wear out the fastest. is it sotomayor? is it clarence thomas? spin the wheel of death. and you'll find out! >> michael: no, you're right, baby judge is easier. troy iwata, everyone. [cheers and applause] when we come back, v
>> it worked for brett kavanaugh. [cheers and applause] >> michael: hold on. a baby can't do the job of a supreme court justice! >> what? you mean sit and bang their little law hammer while wearing a sleep-sack? i think a baby can handle it. >> michael: okay, i can't believe i'm even asking this, but how would democrats even know the baby will be liberal? >> they'll just bribe them! babies are super easy to bribe. just give them a juice box and they'll rule however...