Podcasts about justices scalia

This Day in Legal History: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today's process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins' patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world's most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic's commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump's crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump's family's crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report's findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee's financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary's ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber's lack of mandatory training, in-vehicle cameras, or stricter vetting.Uber defends itself by claiming drivers are independent contractors and that criminal behavior is unforeseeable, not the company's legal responsibility. It points to safety measures like GPS tracking and background checks as fulfilling its obligations. However, plaintiffs argue that Uber promoted itself as a safe alternative for intoxicated riders and should be held to the higher duty of care expected of a “common carrier,” similar to taxi services.A central legal issue is whether Uber's conduct constitutes misfeasance—actively creating risk—or nonfeasance—failing to prevent harm. Under California law, a company with a “special relationship” with its customers, like a common carrier, must exercise “utmost care.” A federal judge has already ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier in related litigation.Uber's broader legal strategy has included challenging consolidated suits through the Ninth Circuit and supporting a Nevada ballot measure to limit plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—both of which failed. Legal experts note Uber faces an uphill battle, as courts are increasingly viewing ride-hailing platforms as more than passive intermediaries.Uber's Legal Duty to Riders at Forefront of Mass Assault CasesEric Tung, President Trump's nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defended controversial past remarks on gender roles during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. Democratic senators, particularly Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin, pressed Tung over statements he made as a Yale undergraduate in 2004, where he criticized radical feminists and asserted that gender roles support institutions like marriage. Padilla called the comments “reprehensible,” while Durbin challenged Tung's recent views as expressed at a Federalist Society event, where Tung appeared to reject constitutional protections for abortion, same-sex marriage, and private sexual conduct.Tung explained that his undergraduate comments were based on his belief at the time that men and women had complementary roles and that the family should be strengthened. He noted that his wife has had a distinguished professional and political career, arguing she excels in many areas. Though he affirmed that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, is binding precedent, he declined to discuss his personal views on gender roles, citing potential future cases.Tung, a former clerk for Justices Scalia and Gorsuch and a partner at Jones Day, emphasized his originalist and textualist judicial philosophy. Despite strong backing from Republicans on the panel, Democrats criticized his ideological leanings and questioned his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the influential appellate court.Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this edition of Channeling History, we bring you Part 2 of our channeling with the three Supreme Court Justices, Scalia, Ginsburg and O'Connor. In this edition, the discuss abortion and the interpretation of Roe v. Wade and free speech on social media. Please subscribe to our channel, give us a like, leave a comment and tell your friends about this very informative show.

In this edition of Channeling History, we bring back the spirits of Justices Scalia and Ginsberg to answer more questions.  This is a very interesting show.  They speak of the future of the Supreme Court and issues such as Roe v. Wade.  Please tell your friends about our show.# Scalia, #Ginsberg, #Jesus, #Jesus Christ, #Christianity, #God, #Lord, #Heaven, #Hell, #Jesus healing, #Jesus calling, #Jesus now, #Jesus parables, #Bible, #Gospels, #Barry Strohm,# Connie Strohm, #Prayer, #Channeling, #Resurrection, #Son of God, #light worker, #Jesus energy, #Spark of God, #Energy of God, #Story of Jesus, #Jesus listens, #God king, #Messiah, #Gods blessings, #Gods words, #Seeking God, #Knowing God, #God's Will, #Realms of Heaven, #Message of God, #Lord help me, #God's mercy, #Lord's prayer, 

In this session of Channeling History, we channel a discussion between the spirits of Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsberg. They talk about topics of current interest to all of us. If you like what you see, please subscribe to our channel and tell your friends 

Only in recent years have Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings become contentious. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Stevens all received 100% votes in favor of confirmation. Ruth Bader Ginsburg? 97% More recently, however, nominations have become much more contentious and partisan. Neil Gosuch (2017) received 55% and Brett Kavanaugh (2018) received just 51%. In 2020, Amy Coney Barrett received zero votes from Senate Democrats. In this episode, I discuss how corruption of the court, the move from Originalism to Living Constitutionalism, has made confirmations and our politics in general much more volatile and contentious. A text version of this podcast is available here.

Judge Andrea Wolfson discusses the importance of civility, congeniality and community in the legal profession.REFERENCES:Friendship between Justices Scalia and Ginsberg:What we can learn from Ginsburg’s friendship with my father, Antonin Scalia - The Washington PostGinsburg And Scalia: 'Best Buddies' - NPRArticle about a Prison’s Book Club similar to the one referenced by Judge Wolfson: Success Inside and Out: A Program for Women in Prison - NAWJThis podcast has been approved for 1 hour of General CLE Credit, 0.5 hours of Bias Elimination Credit, and 0.5 hours of Professionalism Credit. Course #4223.

Peter Kapsner looks at the friendship between legal rivals Justices Scalia and Ginsburg, and how to build relationships across partisan lines.  Dorothy Littell Greco, author of "Marriage in the Middle," talks about investing in your spouse in spite of midlife struggles and crises.

Peter Kapsner looks at the friendship between legal rivals Justices Scalia and Ginsburg, and how to build relationships across partisan lines.  Dorothy Littell Greco, author of "Marriage in the Middle," talks about investing in your spouse in spite of midlife struggles and crises.

In their first podcast, Fr. Dave and Bob talk about the beautiful friendship between Justices Scalia and Ginsburg, the meaning of Christian hope, and what we can learn from the calling of St. Matthew. We also learn that Fr. Dave doesn’t know what a vase is.

Does the Constitution guarantee an individual right to own guns?  We discuss the interpretive methods used by Justices Scalia and Stevens in District of Columbia v. Heller.  (Intro: AcidJazz by Kevin MacLeod, from the Free Music Archive, CC BY 3.0 license.  Outro: White Flag by Karissa Hobbs, from the Free Music Archive, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.) Download the episode by right-clicking […]

On Tuesdays Mark Levin Show, there have been 113 Supreme Court justices in the entire history of the US and as much as we respect the President, we can't sit on our hands and refrain from asking tough questions about Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The gold standard of a justice is never a risky pick because you know well in advance what you're getting, Kavanaugh wasn’t that standard. Risky appointments have historically taken several years to prove badly. When we make concessions on Supreme Court nominations the nation suffers. We hope that Kavanaugh will be as impeccable as Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Gorsuch. There's no question he's of good moral character, but he's not up for the priesthood - he's up for the Supreme Court. Then, Chief Justice Roberts' decision fined citizens $1500 in additional taxes for failing to buy Obamacare health insurance. The government saying you shall have health insurance is an example of the coercive power of the government. Congress never called Obamacare a tax, the Court did, and Kavanaugh agreed. Kavanaugh rewrote the statute and argued that the anti-injunction act was his justification because the tax penalty had not been applied to anyone yet. Also, Kavanaugh's view of impeachment is absurd; "dastardly" behavior doesn't meet the standard for impeachment. Kavanaugh is good on issues of the administrative state. This is good because most cases that come before the Supreme Court don’t have broad-based impact on each of us, they're isolated to the parties of those particular cases. Kavanaugh is not Ginsberg or Sotomayor but we don't know him so it’s risky. If he turns into the next Scalia, that’s great, but we're not here to sabotage him, this is an important process and we just want to ask questions of him. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Tuesdays Mark Levin Show, there have been 113 Supreme Court justices in the entire history of the US and as much as we respect the President, we can't sit on our hands and refrain from asking tough questions about Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The gold standard of a justice is never a risky pick because you know well in advance what you're getting, Kavanaugh wasn’t that standard. Risky appointments have historically taken several years to prove badly. When we make concessions on Supreme Court nominations the nation suffers. We hope that Kavanaugh will be as impeccable as Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Gorsuch. There's no question he's of good moral character, but he's not up for the priesthood - he's up for the Supreme Court. Then, Chief Justice Roberts' decision fined citizens $1500 in additional taxes for failing to buy Obamacare health insurance. The government saying you shall have health insurance is an example of the coercive power of the government. Congress never called Obamacare a tax, the Court did, and Kavanaugh agreed. Kavanaugh rewrote the statute and argued that the anti-injunction act was his justification because the tax penalty had not been applied to anyone yet. Also, Kavanaugh's view of impeachment is absurd; "dastardly" behavior doesn't meet the standard for impeachment. Kavanaugh is good on issues of the administrative state. This is good because most cases that come before the Supreme Court don’t have broad-based impact on each of us, they're isolated to the parties of those particular cases. Kavanaugh is not Ginsberg or Sotomayor but we don't know him so it’s risky. If he turns into the next Scalia, that’s great, but we're not here to sabotage him, this is an important process and we just want to ask questions of him. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan. Petitioner Montanile was injured by a drunk driver and his benefits plan paid more than $120,000 in medical expenses. He later sued the drunk driver, obtaining a $500,000 settlement. The benefits plan, governed by the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), contained a subrogation clause requiring a participant to reimburse the plan for medical expenses if the participant later recovers money from a third party for his or her injuries. When respondent plan administrator/fiduciary sought reimbursement from Montanile’s litigation settlement, he refused, and the administrator sued in federal court, seeking an equitable lien on any settlement funds or property in Montanile’s possession. Montanile argued that because he had by then spent almost all of the settlement, no identifiable fund existed against which to enforce the lien. The District Court rejected Montanile’s argument and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment. -- By a vote of 8-1 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, holding that when a participant dissipates the whole settlement on nontraceable items, the fiduciary cannot bring a suit to attach the participant’s general assets under ERISA §502(a)(3) because the suit is not one for “appropriate equitable relief.” The Court deemed it unclear whether Montanile had in fact dissipated all of his settlement in this manner, however, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings. -- Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito joined the majority opinion except for Part III-C. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Daniel R. Thies, who is an associate at Sidley Austin LLP.

On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez. This case concerns a complaint by Jose Gomez that Campbell-Ewald Company, a marketing consultant for the U.S. Navy, allowed a third-party vendor to send him unsolicited text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case presents two questions for the Supreme Court: (1) whether a case becomes moot when a plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim, including in a class action, and (2) whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity for government contractors is limited to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had held that Gomez’s individual and class claims were not mooted, and that Campbell-Ewald was not entitled to derivative sovereign immunity. -- By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, holding that (1) an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case, so the district court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff’s complaint, and (2) a federal contractor is not entitled to immunity from suit for its violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it violates both federal law and the government's explicit instructions. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgement. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined. Justice Alito also filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Mark Chenoweth, who is General Counsel at Washington Legal Foundation.

On January 12, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida. The question before the Court was whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme--which Hurst contends does not require unanimity in the jury death recommendation or in the finding of underlying aggravating factors--violates the Sixth and/or Eighth Amendments in light of the Court’s 2002 decision Ring v. Arizona, which requires that the aggravating factors necessary for imposition of a death sentence be found by a jury. The Florida Supreme Court upheld Hurst’s death sentence. -- By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court and remanded the case, holding that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme did violate the Sixth Amendment in light of Ring. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion for the Court was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Jack Park, who is Of Counsel with Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court decided DIRECTV v. Imburgia. This case involves a class action lawsuit against DIRECTV by various California customers. Among other things, the agreement between DIRECTV and its customers contained a waiver of any right by either party to undertake class arbitration, unless “the law of your state” made such waivers unenforceable. At that time class arbitration waivers were unenforceable under California law, but in a subsequent case the United States Supreme Court held that this California rule was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Concluding that the parties had intended to apply the rule as it existed prior to the Supreme Court decision, California trial and appellate courts refused to enforce the arbitration provision. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the FAA permitted this outcome; namely, the application of state law that had since been preempted by the FAA. -- By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the California Court of Appeals and remanded the case. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that the arbitration provision must be enforced because the California appellate court’s interpretation was preempted by the FAA. -- Justice Breyer’s opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Cory Andrews, who is Senior Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation.

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from June 26, 2015. For more go to http://www.tytmembership.comHour 1: Cenk, Ana, and John hosting. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of marriage equality nationwide. Video of President Obama's words after the ruling came down. Although Obama was insincere about his stance on gay rights in the past, Cenk welcomes his part in changing the opinion of the country on the issue. Justices Scalia and Roberts both wrote very scathing dissenting opinions on the gay marriage ruling.Hour 2: Hannah Cranston replaces John for SCS. AJ Plus video about a Chinese man that fought gay conversion therapy and won. Bristol Palin has announced that she is pregnant with her 2nd child as she and her fiance broke up. She pointed out that this is a huge disappointment to her family, and asked for privacy. Cenk takes the “low road” and talks about how America treats the Palin's with kids' gloves but treats everyone else like a piece of garbage. Facebook has released their diversity numbers in employing more than just White males, and it doesn't look very diverse.

The May 8, 2012 edition of Tell Somebody has Bob Edgar, President and CEO of Common Cause talking about a complaint filed with the IRS against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) regarding their status as a non-profit organization, and why the conflicts of interest of Justices Scalia and Thomas should cause the SCOTUS to vacate the Citizens United v FEC decision. And, speaking of Citizens United, that decision solidified the idea that corporations are 'persons'  under the law and therefore have Constitutional rights, yes?  Then as 'persons,' they should have responsibilities and liabilities like us individual persons, yes? Not so fast.  Corporations are persons, but individuals aren't corporate persons, only individual persons are individuals, because "individual" means a real person, not a corporate one, yes? We heard oral arguments before the Supreme Court about whether organizations and corporations can be held accountable for their bad acts under laws governing what 'individuals' can do. Click on the pod icon above or the .mp3 filename below to listen to the show, or right-click and choose "save target as" to save a copy of the audio file to your computer.  You can also subscribe to the podcast, for free, at the iTunes store or your podcast directory. If you have any comments or questions about the show or any problems accessing the files, send an email to: mail@tellsomebody.us