comparemela.com

Latest Breaking News On - Setting precedent - Page 4 : comparemela.com

Transcripts for MSNBC The 11th Hour With Stephanie Ruhle 20240604 06:11:00

the drug the judge said he was going to rule it soon as possible but he also said i don t have a lot of equal legal precedent to work with here. there s not a lot to work with. we re probably going to be setting precedent here. he made a point of telling mark meadows that, if you haven t heard from me by september 6th, so up to fulton county court to get arraigned, because you may still need to end up in that court in a long run. so he s going to rule quickly but it s really a wide open area. but shannon, regardless of what meadows job title was at that time, do we know of any witness testimony that backs up this argument that he is trying to make that he was working to get trump to accept the election results? by our research, i don t recall anything that we have ever seen or heard in a concrete way, him trying to do that.

Transcripts for CNN CNN Newsroom With Jim Acosta 20240604 22:16:00

that s why this legal process is so vital. you know, sometimes people say america has been through tough times before. democracy has faced tough times before, and it certainly has. but to your point, this really gets at the foundational principles upon which our country is built. do you think this is more than simply a stress test for this democracy? oh, absolutely. this is about setting precedent. one precedent was set in december and january of 2020 and 2021. and now there is a precedent that undid guard rails, it undid traditions that have been around since president washington in terms oh of the loser accepting the loss. now we look, what s the next precedent? impeachment didn t resolve this. partisanship overwhelmed the ability to bring resolution. now we are looking to see what does this nation say?

Transcripts for CNN CNN News Central 20240604 17:05:00

permanently a few years ago. there was a national emergency in covid-19, different from obviously what happened in 9/11, but the question before the court was do you have the authority to then cancel because congress with a clear were they clear on the issues, they gave you everything you needed to say this agency truly has this power. and that s why medicaid and other instances come up because the question is has congress spoken clearly enough such that we don t have to try to infer or intimate is it clear enough to know. that s what you had the authority to do. there s another case decided today that critics say could have enormous implications by setting precedent. what about this ruling on free speech and lgbtq protections? right. totally different case here. the supreme court ruling in favor of a graphic website designer. she wanted to expand her business into marriages. but she did not want to create web sites for same-sex couples. she said that that goes against her reli

Transcripts for FOXNEWS Americas Newsroom 20240604 14:30:00

intent by the campaign to collude with the russians. russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. the russians gave help and the president made full use of that help. there is amp will evidence of collusion. dana: adam schiff dodged a bullet. the house voted down a resolution to cran sure and condemn him for deceiving the public. lawmakers voting to set the resolution aside including 20 republicans who oppose the measure. let s bring in bret baier. bret, why would republicans join that? i think some of them worried about setting precedent. a recommendation of a $60 million fine. there is not a doubt that schiff went down the road over his skis on russia collusion and said he had evidence where he didn t.

Transcripts for MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show 20240604 08:46:00

they weren t meant to be setting precedent or binding anybody other than the parties to the immediate case. that is no longer true. that s right. the best evidence of the old school approach is until 1980 the norm was these emergency applications were dealt with by individual justices by themselves in chambers where they could provide more process, that used to be common to have oral arguments in a single justice s chambers, they could write an opinion and no one would confuse that as the word of the full court. in the 1980s what happened in response to the reinstitution of the death penalty is the court moved toward the full court procedure with less process and principle where at least 1980 to 2000s it is cabined in the unique space of the death penalty. the shift since 2017 is bringing it into the main stream seeing the court use the same procedures to put back into place trump immigration policies or other policies lower courts blocked, to block state covid mitigation efforts, an

© 2024 Vimarsana

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.