To see whether he would defer. Were no rule 48, the government could stop pursuing the case and send a letter to the court and that would be done and that would be effective in ending, even though there was a plea that was accepted. Mr wall i think so because there would no longer be any article three between parties and authority beyond rule 48 for the District Court to keep it alive. That seems to me at least as important or more important on the criminal side where you are not just talking about an adversarial contest between private parties, youre talking about a contest between a private that is in and a branch of government private citizen and a branch of government. The district is not explaining how it can keep alive a controversy that is not over the executives objection. If the rule 48 has been granted, then what is the purpose of allowing unnecessary proceedings to play inside that . If the court thinks there are no harms to the executives. I think this has been clarifying,
Portable t. V. You know there is something odd coming out of ukraine today that mandates us to ask questions about our involvement there to find out if we are our country our state department is assisting in ukraine or orchestrating is a big difference between those 2 let me 1st say this the Foreign Policy of our country has directed us from time to time to step in legitimately where wrongdoing is taking place in some other part of the world be it an internal civil war where atrocities are being committed lets plug in ukraine into that equation where our state department asserts that we are simply there to assist the Ukrainian Government with advisors and resources and military hardware but not to orchestrate or to interfere with the will of the people of ukraine. Well today we are learning that a Ukrainian Military medical died and that u. S. Secretary of state mike pompei oh thought so much of the incident he actually commented on it saying how he regrets in this situation that this
Ask questions about our involvement there to find out if where our country our state department is assisting in ukraine or orchestrating is a big difference between those 2 let me 1st say this the Foreign Policy of our country has directed us from time to time to step in legitimately where wrongdoing is taking place in some other part of the world be it an internal civil war where atrocities are being committed or where a large country is picking on a small country we get that right now lets plug in ukraine into that equation where our state department. Asserts that we are simply there to assist the Ukrainian Government with advisors and resources and military hardware but not to orchestrate or to interfere with the will of the people of ukraine well today we are learning that a Ukrainian Military medical died and that u. S. Secretary of state mike pompei oh thought so much of the incident he actually commented on it saying how he regrets in this situation that this Ukrainian Military
Engages in a rebellion or one who would perpetrate a bait and switch on the people of their state by voting contrary to a binding pledge. By contrast, if a state wishes to treat electors as free agents rather than as proxy voters, it is free to do so. In short, states determine how to select electors and ensure that they meet the relative requirements and perform their duties as assigned. This means under green that states can oversee bribery as an incident as a power to appoint. This must include the power to remove and elector without requiring a full criminal trial. Under my friend mr. Lessigs position, as a practicality bribed electors would cast ballots and illegal notes. The state prevented mr. Baca from casting an illegal ballot. Just like its an illegal ballot if you dont sign it. As this course explained, the purpose of the 12th amendment reflected the reality that the states actors acted as pledge agents. As for Justice Ginsburg point about the enforcing of a pledge requireme
7488003. Or you can join us on twitter, cspanwj, or facebook. Com cspan. We will get your thoughts here in just a minute, but first joining us on the phone here is lawrence hurley, a Supreme Court correspondent. What was the question put to the courts and what did they decide . Guest thanks. The question is whether sex discrimination within the title vii, which is the federal law that bars employment discrimination, whether sex discrimination applied to Sexual Orientation and gender identity. The court in the ruling ,esterday said that it does which was surprising to some because you had chief Justice Roberts and justice and neil gorsuch joining the four liberals, as you mentioned, in that ruling. The court basically said that any kind of discrimination on the basis of sex is kind of a broad concept and that can include elements of discrimination that concern Sexual Orientation or gender identity. It reads prohibits employment through discrimination based on color, sex, andigion, natio