Welcome to bdcs last event before election day. I direct the elections podcast of the bipartisan policy center. We knew 20 20 would be exciting but for election nerds like me and those in idthis panel president ial election years are always eventful that we did not expect all this. According to the us elections project , as of this morning co more than 79 million ballots have been classed including 27 million early ballots and 82 million absentee ballots and 39 million absentee ballots outstanding and in some counties and states we are nearing the point when more ballots were cast before election day 2020 and during the entire 2016 Voting Period land it means this will be the First National election when more than half of the balance were cast prior to election day t. This shift occurred during a once in a century pandemic forcing officials to adapt. Election administrators atthe state and local levels deserve all our admiration. Since voting is happening right now and processing is ha
Series due tomorrow, has got traders moving an moving, not looking back. It is an amazing turnaround. The nasdaq as charlie brady, our stocks editor reminding my staff is more than 2 away from highs that seem so far away. Remember that thing really carooned, careened all the way from the highs during the pandemic. The dow already in dow in positive territory, with s p gains up close to 10 . Whatever the jitters about the election, what will happen, whether it will win, a long election count, nothing seems to matter. It is buoyed by earnings optimism. The consumer optimism. The fact well all be shopping like crazy and this is telegraphing strong economic numbers to come. Who knows. Sometimes these things can get a little manic. But this is like a good manic if youre long stocks. Im neil cavuto. Youre watching coast to coast. A lot of things well pick apart the next two hours a lot of things going concurrently. The amy barrett hearings. It is following script. Democrats saying this theyr
That is true for the speakers as well and the audience. So i will not use any time to repeat what the speakers would need for introduction, but they come from three important perspectives on the debate. This is obviously a law and policy conference. I think that we will discuss a little bit more law than we have discussed in other panels, and hopefully a little policy as well. So the broad theme for the panel which is true for a lot of the immigration stuff since trump took over is some important issues having been sort of shuttled between and among three branchs of the government. In one way of the wall leaning from one branch of the government, and each branch of the government is putting the can in the other persons lap, and hoping that the can will stop there somewhere. Many of the cans have not stopped. So this is the chance to see where the cans are and where they will finally land. So i will begin talking to the panelists in more of a conversation topic, and so we can get into t
By an amica. I do want to speak to you more about jurisdiction, because we still have to say we have the jurisdicon so even though you believe there is jurisdiction with respect to the collateral orr doctrine, how do you pla that in li with the asphalt case which specificallyays in a criminal case, your jurisdiction nds to stem from the constitution or the explit as well in statutory law . We have three responses if you look at theanage that Justice Scalia discussed, a situation wherehe right is one, the legal and practical value would be destroyed and these claims of absut immunity falls within that discrimination explicitly stanghat and dont have communication wh anything in the statute. I disagree. E doctrine arisees from article 2 and section 1. It is reenforced by the impeachment judgment clause which rerto trial. Wallace facility is talking about a situation where the righ not to be ted is distinguishishing and is dismisl of an indictment. We have the tria of any of the clauses i
Attack. This is an hour. United states of america veonald j. Trump. [indiscernible] good morning. Before you get started can i just get a couple of things on theecd. Our jurisdiction w challenged by an amica. I do want to speako you more about jurisdiction, because we still have to say we have the jurisdiction. So even though you believe there is jurisdiction thespect to the collateral order docin how do you place that in line with thesplt case which specificly says in a criminal case, your jurisdiction needs to stem from the constitution or the explicit as well in atory law . We have three responses. If you look at the languageha Justice Scalia discussed, a situation er the right is one, the legal and practical value would be destroyed and these claims of absolute immuty falls within that discrimination explicitly stating that and dont have communication with anything inhe statute. I disagree. The doctrine arisees from article 2 and section 1. It is reenforced by the peachment judgmen