Stay updated with breaking news from Standing argument. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Some always grateful into spencer time with us on the katie phang show. joyce, good morning. let s start with standing. why would a lack of standing give this supreme court an off ramp to decide these cases? even amy coney barrett question if there were standing here. standing is a legal doctrine that says not just anyone can go into court. you have, to as lawyers,, be someone who is been bored by the ox. you have to be somebody with skin in the game. and through that it means you have to be somebody who s legal rights are touched upon by this legislation, by this executive action. it also has to be something that the courts can remedy for you. the standing argument, what you can tell katie from this convoluted explanation, this is a hyper technical doctrine. when it comes down to here is that the states that are suing, perhaps not individual defendants but states, do not have standing. because this executive action ....
And she may have overstepped her purview by this appointment. what was your take? i m surprised for three reasons. i thought she would deny the request, first, because trump s team got off to a bad start with their filings shall and their requests, and in addition, i thought the standing argument by the d.o.j. was strong, basically that hey, trump is not the president anymore, these aren t his documents, so this isn t even any of his business anyway and the judge dispensed with that argument and the trump team cited prior cases involving searches of attorney s offices and that is a very unique place. our offices are sort of a clearinghouse, a collect of different clients privileged documents so for those reasons i thought the judge would deny. it but i m frustrated with the judge s order for this reason. her discussion of the concerns about the government s taking which is starved by other members of the government, other u.s. attorneys is all well and good, but that is not the way i ....
20 page limit from a judge lightly because you re likely to get that judge angry they have to read additional stuff. but in this case, i now see why. the government this is their position statement. they re putting out in excruciating detail all the efforts they made and other government agencies made, that were rebuffed and in some cases according to the allegations certified that all the documents were returned and apparently they weren t returned. it s a very damning, factual recitation. for that reason, it now makes sense why the government needed those additional pages to really hit the trump team with a factual folding chair so to speak about what they did and what they didn t do in returning these documents. and based on that, they make their arguments, one that is quietly very powerful, their standing argument. it s not a sexy argument, but by the way, it is one of the strongest ways to win your case with a judge. standing asks the constitutional question, what business is th ....
Standing, to say the affordable care act could not be attacked on the individual mandate. i think lawyers, at least, appreciate the fact there has to be a legal remedy available before someone can succeed in challenging a law like this and because the individual mandate now has no penalty, there is no harm done when somebody fails to pay for their insurance. the standing argument really strikes me as a pretty obvious one. the harder case, the one that the decision does perhaps surprise me in the outcome although in the outcome perhaps it should not be surprising to us. i think this issue whether we are recognizing free exercise of religion as a basis to discriminate against people on lgbt issues is one we will see again and again. so this standing status, ....
State of maryland already sued, charging that the president broke the law, essentially, when he put whitaker in place. now, part of the difference here, of course, is the question of standing. maryland is going to have to prove that they, as a state, were somehow or somehow had a right violated due to whitaker s appointment. that s going to be a challenge for them. the standing argument would be comparatively easy, although, still pretty tricky for members of the senate to make, since they actually do have the constitutional right, as specifically laid out in the constitution, the right and responsibility to provide advice and consent to the president on these cabinet-level positions. so among democrats in the senate, there s a high level of distress. among republicans, of course, there s just, generally speaking, more confidence in president trump and the trump administration and the folks that he s installed. so, yamiche, clearly robert mueller is eating at the president. and the ....