Radio America Online News Bureau

SCOTUS

Supremes Demand Unanimous Verdicts for Convictions

by

Listen to “Supremes Demand Unanimous Verdicts for Convictions” on Spreaker.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday ruled that criminal jury verdicts must be unanimous to result in convictions, a decision addressing laws in Oregon and Louisiana that allowed convictions even with two jurors voting to acquit.

“Wherever we might look to determine what the term ‘trial by an impartial jury trial’ meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion. “A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict.”

So how did Louisiana and Oregon wind up with laws not requiring unanimous verdicts for convictions and why did three justices rule in favor of the existing laws?

We ask Andrew C. McCarthy, former chief assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. We also discuss the push to release prisoners in many parts of the country to mitigate the spread of coronavirus and the inexplicable surprise by some local officials when the freed inmates commit more crimes.

Share

Warren Persists No Longer, Schumer’s SCOTUS Meltdown, March Madness Germophobes

by

Listen to “Warren Persists No Longer, Schumer’s SCOTUS Meltdown, March Madness Germophobes” on Spreaker.

The Three Martini Lunch has you covered as the presidential race narrows yet again. Join Jim and Greg as they react to Elizabeth Warren dropping out of the 2020 field and chronicling how this top-tier candidate turned into an electoral dud. They also dissect Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s bizarre threats against Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday and his pathetic response to the rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. And they sigh as the coronavirus panic leads the National College Players Association to suggest the NCAA play its March Madness games with no audiences in the arenas.

Share

The Pro-Life Woman Exploited to Legalize Abortion

by

Listen to “The Pro-Life Woman Exploited to Legalize Abortion” on Spreaker.

On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide through the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. The plaintiff in the second case was known as “Mary Doe.” Her real name was Sandra Cano. Only Sandra Cano had no idea she was the plaintiff.

Cano passed away in 2014, but in this interview from 2013, she explains how she got entangled in the fight to legalize abortion, how she found out she was the unwitting plaintiff in the case, the reaction of the pro-abortion attorneys when they realized she knew what they did, and her pro-life advocacy ever since.

Share

Immigration: DACA in Court, Dems Getting More Radical

by

Listen to “Immigration: DACA in Court, Dems Getting More Radical” on Spreaker.

Immigration remains a highly volatile issue and the odds of finding common ground on any meaningful reform seems less and less likely as the nation heads into a presidential election year.

Immigration was also front and center at the Supreme Court Tuesday, as justices heard arguments concerning President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, better known as DACA.

DACA was created by the Obama administration in 2012 to grant legal status and work permits to people brought to the U.S. illegally when they were small children.  Roughly 700,000 people enrolled in the program.

But Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian says Americans need to understand what the court is actually deciding here.

“This case is not about whether DACA is a good idea or not or whether it will cause people hardship to have their work permits not be renewed,” said Krikorian.  “This is purely about whether a president has the authority to end a program that a previous president made up.”

Krikorian says that question is a constitutional no-brainer in Trump’s favor and he is appalled that the matter even reached the Supreme Court.

Krikorian, who is firmly in favor of lowering the number of legal immigrants, believes keeping DACA could be useful if the accompanying legislation limits practices such as chain migration.

However, he places the odds at any significant immigration reform in the next year at zero.  Krikorian says election year politics and the leftward lurch of many Democrats in this debate make common ground hard to find.

Recently, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said if elected he would move to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol.  He would also decriminalize illegal immigration, making it a civil offense.  In addition, Sanders would suspend deportations and allow 50,000 climate migrants into the U.S. in his first year in office.

Krikorian says those are quickly becoming the standard positions inside the Democratic Party.

“It has become truly radicalized on immigration and I don’t use that word lightly,” said Krikorian.  “That fringe perspective on immigration, that immigration control of any kind is illegitimate, that borders are illegitimate, that’s not fringe anymore in the Democratic Party.  That is the basic mainstream position of Democratic elected officials.”

Listen to the full podcast to hear Krikorian’s full breakdown of the Supreme Court arguments and the dwindling prospects for any constructive immigration reform.

Share

Indiana Abortion Investigation, Kamala’s Kavanaugh Hysteria, NYT Damage Control

by

Listen to “Indiana Abortion Investigation, Kamala’s Kavanaugh Hysteria, NYT Damage Control” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome word that a federal investigation will be opened into how a prominent Indiana abortion provider allied with Pete Buttigieg ended up with more than 2,000 fetal remains in his home.  They also shake their heads as Kamala Harris not only calls for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to be impeached but also contends that Christine Blasey Ford was “treated like a criminal” and that the Kavanaugh confirmation created a “crisis of confidence” in the Supreme Court.  And Jim has plenty to say as the two New York Times reporters behind the latest Kavanaugh allegation insist their original article included the fact the supposed victim has no memory of the incident but their editors took it out of the story.

Share

Hemingway, Severino Dissect Latest Anti-Kavanaugh Smear

by

Listen to “Hemingway, Severino Dissect Latest Anti-Kavanaugh Smear” on Spreaker.

Over the weekend, the New York Times mentioned a previously unreported allegation about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s conduct while a student at Yale University. But there were some big problems with the accusation.

First, the person alleging a different lewd incident involving Kavanaugh did not speak to the New York Times. The reporters in the story, who are also set to release a book on Kavanaugh, only spoke to people who say they are familiar with the accusation.

Even more shocking, the Times initially failed to report that the alleged victim in this story has no recollection of the incident in question. The Times finally added that piece of information after being called out by Mollie Hemingway, a senior editor at The Federalist.

Hemingway and Judicial Crisis Network Chief Counsel Carrie Severino are the authors of the #1 bestseller “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court.”

In this interview with Greg Corombos, Hemingway and Severino discuss this latest attempt to accuse Justice Kavanaugh and why they are not at all surprised at this new effort to sully his reputation.

They also discuss the long-term goals of Democrats with respect to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, and they reveal the immense political pressure applied to one of Christine Blasey Ford’s high school friends last year to verify Ford’s initial accusation against Kavanaugh – even though she knew nothing about it.

Share

Condi Crushes NBC, Supremes Side with Trump, Dems Duke it Out

by

Listen to “Condi Crushes NBC, Supremes Side with Trump, Dems Duke it Out” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for utterly rejecting the suggestion from NBC’s Savannah Guthrie that Russian meddling may have tipped the 2016 election to President Trump – and explaining what really did happen.  They also welcome the U.S. Supreme Court siding with the Trump administration in requiring asylum seekers to apply for asylum in any country they enter on the way to the U.S.  And they pop the popcorn as the Biden campaign takes a swing at Elizabeth Warren and Marianne Williamson complains that the Democrats are meaner to her than conservatives.  Finally, they figure out ways to tolerate a three-hour Democratic presidential debate tonight.

Share

RBG Praises Trump Justices, Wall Street Loves 2020 Dems, POTUS Seal Snafu

by

Listen to “RBG Praises Trump Justices, Wall Street Loves 2020 Dems, POTUS Seal Snafu” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s surprising praise of conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. They debate the news of Wall Street donors backing Biden, Buttigieg, and Kamala in the Democratic primary. And they cover the growing controversy of the doctored presidential seal displayed behind President Trump at a recent event.

Share

RBG Rebukes Court Packing, Dems Scold Steyer, Missing Mueller’s Point

by

Listen to “RBG Rebukes Court Packing, Dems Scold Steyer, Missing Mueller’s Point” on Spreaker.

After sharing some initial thoughts on the Mueller hearings, Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud Ruth Bader Ginsburg for criticizing Democratic calls to pack the Supreme Court with more justices. They share a chuckle over the growing angst among Democrats over progressive donor Tom Steyer’s presidential bid. And they roll their eyes as hardly any members of Congress ignore the main point of the Mueller report – that Russia is intent on meddling with our elections.

Share