WEBVTT - Miranda, Johnny Depp and Marjorie Taylor Greene 0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloombird Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.680 --> 0:00:13.920 What's one of you? Use Jack Curry, Jack, you're under 0:00:14.000 --> 0:00:16.000 arrest for the murder of Bobby Holland. Put your head 0:00:16.040 --> 0:00:20.040 on top of your head. You got the right from silence, 0:00:20.320 --> 0:00:21.919 thank you saying maybe use the guests you in the 0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:24.119 court of law. Hands done. You have the right to 0:00:24.120 --> 0:00:26.440 an attorney if you're not afford an attorney, when we'll 0:00:26.440 --> 0:00:29.560 be provided for you at no cost. The Miranda warnings 0:00:29.560 --> 0:00:32.800 have become embedded in our society thanks to shows like 0:00:32.960 --> 0:00:36.680 Law and Order. It's clear that the landmark Miranda decision 0:00:36.800 --> 0:00:40.360 bars coerced confessions from being used in court, But what's 0:00:40.400 --> 0:00:43.400 not clear is whether a police officer who fails to 0:00:43.400 --> 0:00:47.480 give Miranda warnings can be sued for damages for violating 0:00:47.479 --> 0:00:51.520 a suspect's constitutional rights. This week, at the Supreme Court, 0:00:51.560 --> 0:00:55.880 the joice is debated whether Miranda provides a constitutional right. 0:00:56.400 --> 0:01:00.680 Chief Justice John Roberts Injustice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out 0:01:00.720 --> 0:01:04.200 that in a case affirming Miranda, the late Chief Johnice 0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:08.520 William Renquist stopped short of calling it a constitutional right. 0:01:08.920 --> 0:01:12.960 Justice ran Quist he would have been very aware of 0:01:13.000 --> 0:01:16.440 the debate we're having today. And when it came to Dickerson, 0:01:16.600 --> 0:01:19.800 he was also somebody careful with his words. He didn't 0:01:19.800 --> 0:01:25.160 say Miranda is in the constitution. He talked about constitutional underpinnings, 0:01:25.200 --> 0:01:32.640 constitutional basis. So Dickerson didn't ever use the word constitutional right. 0:01:32.920 --> 0:01:36.480 It seemed very carefully worded to say a constitutional rule 0:01:36.640 --> 0:01:40.760 or constitutionally required joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Jordan 0:01:40.880 --> 0:01:45.880 Reuben Jordan explained the central question here. So the question 0:01:45.959 --> 0:01:49.600 here is whether the failure to give Miranda warnings can 0:01:49.640 --> 0:01:53.640 give rise to a federal civil rights lawsuit. Now, for 0:01:53.680 --> 0:01:56.360 such a lawsuit to go forward, their needs to have 0:01:56.360 --> 0:01:59.520 been a violation of a constitutional right. And so that's 0:01:59.560 --> 0:02:02.960 what raised the question is whether this Miranda right is 0:02:03.000 --> 0:02:06.680 a constitutional right or something else. And that's been a 0:02:06.720 --> 0:02:10.720 long simmering question, and that was the focus of this argument. 0:02:11.000 --> 0:02:12.840 As you said, Miranda was subject to a lot of 0:02:12.880 --> 0:02:16.240 criticism in the eighties and nineties, and a decision by 0:02:16.520 --> 0:02:20.600 Chief Justice ran Quist put that to rest. So tell 0:02:20.680 --> 0:02:23.399 us about that decision, right, So that was really interesting 0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:26.640 that Dickerson case in two thousand. As you mentioned, ran 0:02:26.760 --> 0:02:30.600 Quists and other conservatives had long been critical of not 0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:32.440 just Miranda, but it was really a part of a 0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:36.679 series of these Warren Court era criminal procedure decisions, part 0:02:36.680 --> 0:02:40.040 of this so called criminal procedure revolution, and so these 0:02:40.080 --> 0:02:44.399 really became the opinions that were not liked on the 0:02:44.440 --> 0:02:48.280 conservative side and really enemies to be taken down over time. 0:02:48.320 --> 0:02:52.480 And so that didn't wind up happening exactly with Miranda. 0:02:52.600 --> 0:02:55.960 And in a two thousand case, Dickerson rank Was actually 0:02:55.960 --> 0:03:00.760 wrote an opinion, a seven to opinion effectively upholding Miranda 0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:03.280 when he obviously could have disagreed with it. And so 0:03:03.919 --> 0:03:08.160 really the question in this case now is what exactly 0:03:08.480 --> 0:03:12.040 did Dickerson mean? And some subsequent cases as well, And 0:03:12.040 --> 0:03:15.360 so it's not just the fact that Frankist didn't overturn 0:03:15.440 --> 0:03:19.240 Miranda in that Dickerson case, but what exactly was he 0:03:19.280 --> 0:03:21.120 doing there? And so that's really where a lot of 0:03:21.160 --> 0:03:25.119 this case is going to be decided. The central question 0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:28.880 you mentioned whether miranda warnings are a constitutional right, what 0:03:29.040 --> 0:03:33.640 were the justice's concerns and the Renquist opinion, what did 0:03:33.639 --> 0:03:37.280 they say it meant, and so really delving into the 0:03:37.360 --> 0:03:41.840 specifics of that Dickerson opinion by Ranquist, it was pointed 0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:45.640 out by some of the more conservative justices. That Ranklist 0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:49.000 was careful with his words and didn't exactly refer to 0:03:49.040 --> 0:03:52.400 Miranda as a constitutional right. He referred to it having 0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:57.800 constitutional underpinning, sort of a constitutional essence to it, if 0:03:57.840 --> 0:04:00.720 you will, but specifically not saying constitution all right, And 0:04:00.800 --> 0:04:04.360 that distinction could wind up being very important in this case, 0:04:04.360 --> 0:04:08.000 because remember, the question is is Miranda a constitutional right 0:04:08.080 --> 0:04:10.960 that can give rise to such a federal civil rights 0:04:11.000 --> 0:04:15.400 suit like the one that Mr Tico is trying to bring. 0:04:15.440 --> 0:04:19.240 Here the chief Justice clerk for ren Quist, what did 0:04:19.279 --> 0:04:23.680 he say about the opinion and rend quist intention. So 0:04:23.720 --> 0:04:26.480 I found Roberts to be interesting at this argument because 0:04:26.520 --> 0:04:28.480 he said a couple of things that I really think 0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:31.880 went both ways. So on the one hand, he Roberts 0:04:31.880 --> 0:04:34.720 pointed out that if it wasn't for the Constitution, you 0:04:34.720 --> 0:04:37.480 wouldn't have this Miranda ruling, and you wouldn't be able 0:04:37.520 --> 0:04:41.640 to keep unwarned confessions out of evidence. So he asked 0:04:42.120 --> 0:04:44.840 Vegas lawyer, why isn't this a right that's secured by 0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:48.159 the Constitution? And so that type of question could lead 0:04:48.160 --> 0:04:51.160 one to think that, well, maybe Roberts is thinking along 0:04:51.200 --> 0:04:53.680 the lines of the plaintiff wanting to be able to 0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:57.360 sue here. But on the other hand, Roberts told the 0:04:57.480 --> 0:05:01.080 lawyer for the plaintiff how Ranked Whist was someone who 0:05:01.120 --> 0:05:03.800 was careful with his words, and so in the Dickerson case, 0:05:03.839 --> 0:05:08.600 how Ranklist pointed out or at least didn't explicitly say 0:05:08.760 --> 0:05:13.120 miranda is a constitutional right. He talked about constitutional underpinnings, 0:05:13.120 --> 0:05:17.080 constitutional basis, and so Roberts, who cleared for Ranklist, said 0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:19.919 things that could have gone both ways that the argument. 0:05:20.080 --> 0:05:24.039 But if his words to Tico's lawyer are to be 0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:26.400 representative of how he views the case, then he's someone 0:05:26.440 --> 0:05:30.320 who maybe doesn't see miranda as this constitutional right which 0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:33.840 can give rise to a federal civil rights suit. Did 0:05:33.839 --> 0:05:35.880 you get a feel for how many of the justices 0:05:36.000 --> 0:05:40.200 might decide that miranda does not provide a constitutional right. 0:05:40.440 --> 0:05:42.039 So I think that it was fair to say that 0:05:42.120 --> 0:05:45.880 some comments from Avanaugh and Barrett were also along the 0:05:45.920 --> 0:05:50.279 lines of the Chief Justice. An interesting part of the 0:05:50.440 --> 0:05:54.200 argument to me was an exchange between the deputy's lawyer 0:05:54.279 --> 0:05:58.159 and Justice Thomas, because the deputy is pointing to a 0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:01.800 case that came after Dicker's it called Chaves, where a 0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:06.640 plurality of the court meaning less than a majority effectively 0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:11.839 endorsed the view that Miranda isn't a constitutional right exactly, 0:06:12.240 --> 0:06:15.160 and is more of what's called this prophylactic rule, a 0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:19.480 preventative rule, not a constitutional right per se. And so 0:06:19.800 --> 0:06:23.200 at the argument, the deputy's lawyer brings that up. And 0:06:23.240 --> 0:06:25.520 so you might think Justice Thomas, who is actually the 0:06:25.520 --> 0:06:29.120 one who wrote that plurality opinion in Javis, might be 0:06:29.279 --> 0:06:31.520 wanting to go along with that. But it was interesting 0:06:31.560 --> 0:06:34.360 to me that Thomas himself pointed out he couldn't get 0:06:34.360 --> 0:06:36.599 a majority in that case. Let's listen to part of 0:06:36.600 --> 0:06:40.240 that exchange, and the Chaves plurality I think addresses this 0:06:40.279 --> 0:06:44.240 issue head on, and it says that because Miranda's judicially 0:06:44.240 --> 0:06:48.040 created prophylactic rule, the violation of that rule doesn't violate 0:06:48.080 --> 0:06:51.120 anyone's constitutional rights. And that's consistent, as I was saying earlier, 0:06:51.320 --> 0:06:53.680 with what the Court had previously said in cases like 0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:56.880 Pain and Elstad. Yeah, but I couldn't get a majority 0:06:56.880 --> 0:07:01.039 in Shav, so the that I don't know how much 0:07:01.080 --> 0:07:03.960 that does for you. Um. So that's not to say 0:07:04.000 --> 0:07:06.679 that if Thomas can get more people on board this time, 0:07:06.680 --> 0:07:09.559 that maybe now he can accomplish what he wasn't able 0:07:09.600 --> 0:07:13.320 to accomplish in the Chavez case, and so he just 0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:17.320 might given changes in the court between two thousand three 0:07:17.480 --> 0:07:20.080 and now. And so whether that's exactly going to happen, 0:07:20.120 --> 0:07:22.120 I think or means to be seen, but it's certainly 0:07:22.120 --> 0:07:25.200 a possibility. That's what happens when you're on the court 0:07:25.280 --> 0:07:29.120 this long you see changes. Has the court in the 0:07:29.160 --> 0:07:33.920 past been cutting back on these kinds of suits against 0:07:34.000 --> 0:07:37.640 police officers under this oh, I think that's certainly fair 0:07:37.680 --> 0:07:41.240 to say, as a general matter, as Kavanaugh put it 0:07:41.360 --> 0:07:43.800 at the argument, in some ways they're looking to not 0:07:43.920 --> 0:07:47.680 extend precedents. And so whether someone sees that as even 0:07:47.680 --> 0:07:50.520 cutting back on them, or at least not extending them, 0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:53.200 is certainly fair to say that no precedents are going 0:07:53.240 --> 0:07:55.520 to be extended at the court. But certainly in these 0:07:55.520 --> 0:07:57.760 types of suits, I think it's fair to say that 0:07:57.800 --> 0:08:01.080 the court certainly hasn't been in the business of expanding 0:08:01.120 --> 0:08:03.840 them generally. I don't know if this case is necessarily 0:08:03.840 --> 0:08:06.760 going to fall into that category. It's really going to 0:08:06.760 --> 0:08:10.080 be interesting to see how it turns out. But you 0:08:10.160 --> 0:08:12.520 have to think that anybody who's trying to bring a 0:08:12.640 --> 0:08:16.600 claim like Tico in this case, or defending the type 0:08:16.600 --> 0:08:18.920 of claim that Tico's bringing, because it was actually the 0:08:19.000 --> 0:08:21.920 deputy who petitioned for certain here that they have a 0:08:21.920 --> 0:08:24.440 tough road at this court. Not impossible, but certainly a 0:08:24.440 --> 0:08:27.480 tough road. It'll be so interesting to see what happens here. 0:08:27.880 --> 0:08:31.600 Thanks so much, Jordan's that's Bloomberg Law reporter Jordan Ruben, 0:08:33.000 --> 0:08:35.880 that's great. Did you advocated the President Trump to impose 0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:38.640 martial law as a way to remain in power? I 0:08:38.679 --> 0:08:41.440 don't recall, yes, so you're not denying did it? You 0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:45.679 just don't remember. I don't remember. That was Congresswoman Marjorie 0:08:45.679 --> 0:08:50.480 Taylor Green's answer to question after question. She didn't remember 0:08:50.480 --> 0:08:53.959 her own statements or social media posts, whether it was 0:08:54.000 --> 0:08:58.440 advising former President Donald Trump to invoke martial law or 0:08:58.520 --> 0:09:02.320 calling on supporters to flood the Capitol Building and the 0:09:02.400 --> 0:09:07.160 Georgia congresswoman denied calling Speaker Nancy Pelosi a traitor to 0:09:07.240 --> 0:09:10.840 her country until the plaintiff's lawyer showed a quotation from 0:09:10.880 --> 0:09:14.240 her saying that do you think that Speaker Pelosi is 0:09:14.240 --> 0:09:21.199 a trader to the country? Right, You're I'm not answering 0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:24.640 that question. Of speculation. You've said that, having you in 0:09:24.679 --> 0:09:26.719 this Green, that she's a trader to the country. No, 0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:31.080 I haven't said that. Put up pens Exhibit five please, 0:09:31.840 --> 0:09:36.520 oh no, wait hold on now, I believe by not 0:09:36.800 --> 0:09:42.760 upholding the securing the border that that violates her oath 0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:46.760 of office. Green is set to appear on the Republican 0:09:46.800 --> 0:09:50.600 ballot for the States May primary and has been endorsed 0:09:50.600 --> 0:09:54.079 by former President Donald Trump, but voters in her district 0:09:54.120 --> 0:09:58.240 have said that Green helped facilitate the January six insurrection, 0:09:58.840 --> 0:10:02.760 making her inelig wable for reelection under a rarely sided 0:10:02.840 --> 0:10:07.040 section of the fourteenth Amendment dealing with insurrection or rebellion. 0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:11.640 Green has repeatedly denied aiding or engaging in an insurrection, 0:10:11.960 --> 0:10:14.480 and has filed a lawsuit alleging that the law of 0:10:14.559 --> 0:10:19.680 voters are using to challenge her eligibility is itself unconstitutional. 0:10:20.080 --> 0:10:23.440 Here's Ron Fayne, legal director of Free Speech for People, 0:10:23.520 --> 0:10:27.840 which is representing Georgia voters, and James Bob Green's lawyer. 0:10:28.559 --> 0:10:33.200 She urged and encourage and health facilitate violent resistance to 0:10:33.360 --> 0:10:38.640 our own government, our democracy, and our constitution, and in 0:10:38.760 --> 0:10:42.760 doing so she engaged in exactly the type of conduct 0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:48.560 that triggers disqualification under Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment, 0:10:49.080 --> 0:10:54.640 which is to say she engaged in insurrection. The challenges 0:10:54.760 --> 0:10:59.120 will try to use the First Amendment protected political speech 0:10:59.400 --> 0:11:05.040 of reference and brain as evidence of clothes. Engaging in 0:11:04.720 --> 0:11:10.200 an insurrection are rebellion. That's unconstitutional and should not be allowed. 0:11:10.480 --> 0:11:13.840 Joining me is Richard bald, a professor at Columbia Law School. 0:11:14.520 --> 0:11:18.360 Rich tell us about this unusual use of the Fourteenth Amendment. 0:11:19.200 --> 0:11:22.560 So there's a provision in the Constitution, in the fourteenth Amendment, 0:11:22.920 --> 0:11:25.959 which was adopted by Congress and ratified by the people 0:11:26.360 --> 0:11:29.720 right after the Civil War, that was designed to deny 0:11:30.000 --> 0:11:31.840 people who had taken the oath of office of the 0:11:31.880 --> 0:11:34.920 United States the senators or congressman, and then who had 0:11:35.000 --> 0:11:36.720 joined up with the South and the Civil War and 0:11:36.720 --> 0:11:39.720 basically went into rebellion. In the language the Constitution uses, 0:11:40.000 --> 0:11:42.680 anybody who actually swore north of allegiance the United States 0:11:42.880 --> 0:11:46.040 as a member of Congress and then engaged in insurrection 0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:49.320 or rebellion against the United States would be denied the 0:11:49.360 --> 0:11:52.800 ability to serve in Congress again unless Congress by two 0:11:52.800 --> 0:11:54.800 thirds votes that they could. I mean, there's a little 0:11:54.800 --> 0:11:56.520 bit more to it than that, but that's the essence 0:11:56.520 --> 0:11:58.559 of it. If you took an oath of office the 0:11:58.640 --> 0:12:02.439 member of Congress, then you engage in insurrection or rebellion, 0:12:02.920 --> 0:12:07.560 you are not eligible to serve again in Congress. And 0:12:07.640 --> 0:12:09.800 the argument that's been raised perspect to a number of 0:12:09.800 --> 0:12:12.560 members of Congress who, like Marjorie Taylor Green, been brought 0:12:12.600 --> 0:12:15.360 by by voters in their districts is that she and 0:12:15.440 --> 0:12:18.839 Madison Carthon from North Carolina and a couple of congressmen 0:12:18.920 --> 0:12:23.280 from Arizona were connected to the attack on Congress January 0:12:23.280 --> 0:12:25.800 six in connection with the electoral College, that they were 0:12:25.840 --> 0:12:28.720 either involved in the planning of or they knew about it, 0:12:28.840 --> 0:12:32.040 or in some way or form gave aid and comfort 0:12:32.080 --> 0:12:35.719 to the insurrection. So that's the argument, is that because 0:12:35.840 --> 0:12:38.440 she gave an aid and comfort to the insurrection um 0:12:38.600 --> 0:12:41.640 January six, she is not eligible to be placed on 0:12:41.679 --> 0:12:45.320 the ballot. This argument has failed with respect to Madison 0:12:45.320 --> 0:12:48.120 Cawthorne in North Carolina and was just last week's thrown 0:12:48.120 --> 0:12:51.800 out with respected two congressmen, including goes Are in Arizona. 0:12:52.040 --> 0:12:55.040 But the federal judge in Georgia said there was enough 0:12:55.160 --> 0:12:59.000 there in the allegations that Marjorie Taylor Green would have 0:12:59.040 --> 0:13:01.040 to go before in the minustrate of law judge, a 0:13:01.120 --> 0:13:06.080 state judge in Georgia and basically be examined by the 0:13:06.120 --> 0:13:08.400 groups that are arguing that she's just should be disqualified 0:13:08.480 --> 0:13:11.560 about her role in the events of January six. She 0:13:11.640 --> 0:13:14.080 said a lot of, you know, other inflammatory things about 0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:17.640 the election, but I've denied being involved in planning or 0:13:18.080 --> 0:13:21.040 supported that there would be violence. When was the last 0:13:21.040 --> 0:13:25.400 time the fourteenth Amendment was used in this way. I'm 0:13:25.440 --> 0:13:27.240 not sure that it's been used at all, but certainly 0:13:27.240 --> 0:13:30.199 it's it's very little about it that has known. I mean, 0:13:30.360 --> 0:13:32.400 you know, it may have been used in incidents in 0:13:32.440 --> 0:13:35.719 the mediate post Civil War period. I'm not familiar with 0:13:35.840 --> 0:13:38.800 there being any modern cases using it. So it's it's 0:13:38.800 --> 0:13:41.280 it's elicited a lot of debate. There was a boot 0:13:41.360 --> 0:13:43.600 these in the Times the other day saying that it's 0:13:43.640 --> 0:13:46.640 not self enforcing, that Congress doesn't have to pass a law. 0:13:47.040 --> 0:13:50.680 There's an argument that's been made by Marjorie Taylor Green's lawyer, 0:13:50.720 --> 0:13:52.160 and I think was also for the same lawyer from 0:13:52.160 --> 0:13:55.599 Madison Clothorne that Congress several years after this amendment was 0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:59.400 passed passing the owners the Amnesty Act, freeing most people 0:13:59.679 --> 0:14:02.760 of the um the restrictions of the fourteen Amendment except 0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:05.960 for members of Congress who had served in Congress during 0:14:06.000 --> 0:14:09.040 the opening years of the Civil War and people like that. 0:14:09.360 --> 0:14:11.720 On the other hand, some people have arguable that doesn't 0:14:11.720 --> 0:14:13.760 make any sense, that that that it's not clear that 0:14:13.800 --> 0:14:16.040 they intended to not have this ever applying in in 0:14:16.080 --> 0:14:19.840 the future. So there is an argument that that law, 0:14:19.880 --> 0:14:23.360 the Amnesty Act of eighteen seventy two, which seems to 0:14:23.400 --> 0:14:25.560 limited to people who had actually been in Congress in 0:14:25.600 --> 0:14:29.760 the eighteen sixty three period, that would basically mean that 0:14:29.760 --> 0:14:32.720 that this amendment could never be enforced. So there's a debate, 0:14:32.920 --> 0:14:35.440 you know, as to whether or not this is self executing, 0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:37.760 that is to say, whether the provision itself does the work, 0:14:37.840 --> 0:14:40.280 or you need a law in Congress. Whether the law 0:14:40.320 --> 0:14:43.520 Congress passed in the eighteen seventies basically allowing most people 0:14:43.520 --> 0:14:46.400 who had lower level positions took the oath, like the 0:14:46.440 --> 0:14:48.280 people in the army who took the oath and then 0:14:48.480 --> 0:14:51.280 switched to the Confederate side, were free other than people 0:14:51.400 --> 0:14:54.080 sat in Congress in that period. And then of course 0:14:54.080 --> 0:14:56.240 there's a question as to whether or not what she 0:14:56.840 --> 0:14:59.560 and these other members of Congress did counts as giving 0:14:59.560 --> 0:15:02.320 eight and to the insurrection, whether it was an insurrection, 0:15:02.320 --> 0:15:05.200 and whether she was involved in it, especially in the 0:15:05.200 --> 0:15:09.000 absence of any formal indictments by the Justice Department of 0:15:09.120 --> 0:15:12.720 anybody accusing them of having participated in an insurrection. So 0:15:13.120 --> 0:15:14.760 it seems to me it's kind of a stretch, but 0:15:14.840 --> 0:15:19.080 it's an interesting argument. The defense attorney objected to a 0:15:19.120 --> 0:15:22.880 lot of the questions of Marjorie Tillagreen by saying it 0:15:23.080 --> 0:15:26.760 violated her right of free speech. So where does free 0:15:26.760 --> 0:15:32.840 speech end and insurrectionist talk begin. That's, of course one 0:15:32.840 --> 0:15:35.160 of the big underlying question here, and involving not just 0:15:35.200 --> 0:15:37.440 her but many of the people who are involved in 0:15:37.480 --> 0:15:39.720 the events of January six, who argue that what they 0:15:39.720 --> 0:15:42.000 were doing with speech Obviously a lot of them went 0:15:42.040 --> 0:15:44.360 well beyond speech. In her case, you know, we don't know, 0:15:44.440 --> 0:15:45.960 I mean, you know, we don't know enough about what 0:15:46.040 --> 0:15:48.240 she was doing behind the scenes as to whether or 0:15:48.280 --> 0:15:53.520 not she was actively supporting an attack on Congress or was, 0:15:53.600 --> 0:15:56.520 as she says, only supporting a protest of what she 0:15:56.600 --> 0:15:59.640 claimed she believes was a fraudulent vote, and it's just 0:15:59.800 --> 0:16:01.680 very hard to know. I know that the January six 0:16:01.720 --> 0:16:04.720 Committee in Congress is exploring some of this, but you 0:16:04.760 --> 0:16:07.640 know that is one question is to how far in 0:16:07.760 --> 0:16:10.200 terms of the kinds of statements and actions she took, 0:16:10.760 --> 0:16:13.880 how far did she get beyond sort of permissible political 0:16:13.880 --> 0:16:16.600 opposition and enter into insurrection. I mean, you can ask 0:16:16.640 --> 0:16:19.160 that questions come up again with kind of members of 0:16:19.160 --> 0:16:22.800 the Trump administration and maybe President Trump themselves. The judge 0:16:23.240 --> 0:16:26.520 doesn't make the final call here explain what happens. So 0:16:26.560 --> 0:16:29.720 this is whre an administrative law judge in Georgia. He 0:16:29.800 --> 0:16:32.480 will then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State 0:16:32.480 --> 0:16:35.520 of Georgia, Brad Rathnsburger, who is the ultimate decisions to 0:16:35.520 --> 0:16:37.680 whether or not to take her off the ballot. And 0:16:37.720 --> 0:16:40.120 I think that's got to be reasonably soon because they 0:16:40.120 --> 0:16:43.160 have a primary coming up. So again, this is I 0:16:43.160 --> 0:16:45.800 think the only one of the cases that have been 0:16:45.800 --> 0:16:49.480 brought which has gotten this far. In other cases the 0:16:49.480 --> 0:16:53.120 federal judges sort of dismissed them outright, but the federal 0:16:53.120 --> 0:16:55.760 district court judge and Georgia said there's enough here at 0:16:55.800 --> 0:16:59.000 least to support a hearing some people argue that this 0:16:59.080 --> 0:17:01.560 is the wrong way to go about this, that if 0:17:01.600 --> 0:17:04.080 they want to get rid of Marjorie Tella Green, they 0:17:04.119 --> 0:17:08.760 should work to get her voted out of office. Yeah, 0:17:08.880 --> 0:17:11.160 I mean, you could argue, I mean, I understand that point, 0:17:11.160 --> 0:17:12.840 And certainly there's a concern that if you do it 0:17:12.880 --> 0:17:15.480 this way, she just becomes a martyr. On the other hand, 0:17:15.640 --> 0:17:17.920 if she lives in you know, she's in a solidly 0:17:17.920 --> 0:17:20.439 one party district, it's hard to not to primary. And 0:17:20.440 --> 0:17:23.880 if she is in fact engaged in you know, insurrectionary 0:17:23.880 --> 0:17:27.720 treasonous activities, there's a there is grounds for removal, although 0:17:27.760 --> 0:17:29.119 it could be that the better way to do it 0:17:29.119 --> 0:17:30.760 would be for Congress to do it, and of course, 0:17:30.880 --> 0:17:34.560 given the partisanship of Congress, that's unlikely to happen. So, 0:17:34.680 --> 0:17:37.080 you know, it's it's attention here. It's both at the 0:17:37.160 --> 0:17:40.280 level of speech versus rebellion, but also kind of the 0:17:40.359 --> 0:17:44.000 level of politics and law, as this ultimately so political 0:17:44.119 --> 0:17:46.680 that you know, it's for the voters or for Congress 0:17:46.680 --> 0:17:48.680 as a whole. And do we are we comfortable with 0:17:49.560 --> 0:17:54.080 judges making these kinds of decisions, But there is a 0:17:54.119 --> 0:17:57.320 constitutional provision there that does say that people who have 0:17:57.520 --> 0:17:59.800 you know, engaged in insurrection or aid and gave aid 0:17:59.840 --> 0:18:03.680 and protein insurrection should not as having previously taken an 0:18:03.680 --> 0:18:08.440 oath um of office to support the constitution and specifically 0:18:08.480 --> 0:18:12.000 including members of Congress, that breaking that oath in this 0:18:12.080 --> 0:18:15.280 way disqualifies them. So there is that provision there which 0:18:15.320 --> 0:18:17.159 can you talk a little bit about what's happening in 0:18:17.160 --> 0:18:21.600 New York with the maps? Yeah, yeah, it's a little complicated. 0:18:21.720 --> 0:18:25.520 So in New York State amended its constitution. The voters 0:18:25.520 --> 0:18:28.560 approved it to move New York towards an independent redistriant 0:18:28.560 --> 0:18:34.120 commission type process. And commission was created with a point 0:18:34.240 --> 0:18:37.520 Republican and Democratic appointees and they were charged with developing 0:18:37.560 --> 0:18:40.760 maps for the two state chambers of the state legislature 0:18:40.760 --> 0:18:44.160 and the congressional districts um and they were told there 0:18:44.200 --> 0:18:46.560 was a process that laid out in the constitution for 0:18:46.600 --> 0:18:48.960 them to do that, and they of course needed to 0:18:49.000 --> 0:18:51.480 have a super majority of their commission that so there 0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:53.560 will be at least some people from both parties supporting 0:18:53.560 --> 0:18:58.119 their recommendation. Well, they couldn't do that. The commission was divided, 0:18:58.480 --> 0:19:00.600 and so there was not a recommended and in fact 0:19:00.600 --> 0:19:03.600 they submitted two maps, two sets of maps, I should 0:19:03.600 --> 0:19:05.359 say that kind of let's holding the Democratic maps and 0:19:05.359 --> 0:19:08.120 the Republican maps, each each of which got a vote 0:19:08.160 --> 0:19:11.280 of half the commission, but not a majority. Uh something 0:19:11.359 --> 0:19:14.560 not the supermajority of the constitution required. The state Constitution 0:19:14.600 --> 0:19:17.840 then said that the legislature is supposed to either accept 0:19:17.920 --> 0:19:20.880 those maps of the map or rejected, but they can't 0:19:20.880 --> 0:19:23.560 amend it. And if they rejected, the commission was to 0:19:23.600 --> 0:19:26.439 send a second set of maps. Well, what happened this 0:19:26.480 --> 0:19:29.000 time is the legislatures said, well, here we got these 0:19:29.040 --> 0:19:31.880 commission is divided, forget it. We're just going to write 0:19:31.920 --> 0:19:35.240 our own uh, and so the commission. So they rejected 0:19:35.240 --> 0:19:38.359 the commission's maps, didn't wait around for a second set 0:19:38.359 --> 0:19:40.640 of maps to come from the Commission, but just did 0:19:40.640 --> 0:19:43.480 their own. And those maps the legislature right now, with 0:19:43.640 --> 0:19:47.520 Democratic majorities in both chambers, Democratic governor, they passed maps 0:19:47.560 --> 0:19:52.679 which UM, many people believe favorite Democrats. Uh. Those maps 0:19:52.680 --> 0:19:57.280 have been challenged um and the trial court basically, Uh, 0:19:57.440 --> 0:20:00.680 it's interesting the Republicans brought the challenges. They challenged only 0:20:00.720 --> 0:20:03.560 the congressional maps and the maps for the state Senate, 0:20:03.640 --> 0:20:06.119 not the map for the state lower house. The trial 0:20:06.200 --> 0:20:10.760 court uh concluded that the maps were an effect doubly unconstitutional. 0:20:11.280 --> 0:20:15.120 One was that they were um um that they violated 0:20:15.160 --> 0:20:18.080 the constitutional procedure of because there was never a second 0:20:18.119 --> 0:20:22.320 recommendation from the independent re District Commission. And also and 0:20:22.359 --> 0:20:24.479 so that leeds to throwing out even the map for 0:20:24.560 --> 0:20:27.960 the lower House, which Reroblicans had and challenged. And then 0:20:28.000 --> 0:20:31.120 he also said that the maps, I think at least 0:20:31.119 --> 0:20:34.320 a map, the congressional map was was a partisan gerry 0:20:34.320 --> 0:20:37.679 manager in violation of another new provision of the state constitution, 0:20:37.720 --> 0:20:42.199 which that basically no partisan jerry manders. Um the that 0:20:42.520 --> 0:20:45.600 the Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a decision on that 0:20:46.200 --> 0:20:50.439 I think last week, basically disagreeing with the point about 0:20:50.440 --> 0:20:53.840 the process and basically said that in effect that given 0:20:53.840 --> 0:20:56.679 the deadlock and the commission, it was okay for the 0:20:56.760 --> 0:21:00.560 legislature to begin the process of passing its own maps, 0:21:00.680 --> 0:21:04.840 which restored the assembly map, but basically agreed that there 0:21:04.880 --> 0:21:09.040 was a partisan gerrymanager for the congressional map, and there 0:21:09.080 --> 0:21:11.640 I think they divided on that three to two. So 0:21:11.680 --> 0:21:13.080 that's going to go to the Court of a Pilsne 0:21:13.200 --> 0:21:15.600 or state's highest Court, So I think conceivably they could 0:21:15.600 --> 0:21:17.280 take up the question again about whether or not the 0:21:17.359 --> 0:21:21.000 process was unconstitutional, in which case all the maps are invalid, 0:21:21.440 --> 0:21:23.520 or they could just agree with the lower court that 0:21:23.960 --> 0:21:27.600 the process was okay given the deadlock in the commission, 0:21:27.880 --> 0:21:30.000 and then just focus on whether or not there was 0:21:30.119 --> 0:21:33.160 a Jerrymander. Thanks for being on the show, rich that's 0:21:33.160 --> 0:21:40.360 Professor Richard Rafault of Columbia Law School. Two formally married 0:21:40.440 --> 0:21:44.639 Hollywood stars suing each other for defamation. Johnny Depp is 0:21:44.680 --> 0:21:48.320 suing his ex wife Amber Heard for fifty million dollars 0:21:48.359 --> 0:21:52.359 over op ed piece she wrote in The Washington Post 0:21:52.760 --> 0:21:57.720 referring to herself as a quote public figure representing domestic abuse. 0:21:58.320 --> 0:22:01.399 Heard has counterclaim with a information suit of her own 0:22:01.600 --> 0:22:05.879 for one million dollars. While the lawsuit centers on whether 0:22:05.960 --> 0:22:09.240 Depp was defamed in the op ed. In four days 0:22:09.280 --> 0:22:13.480 on the Stand, Depth testified about everything from childhood abuse 0:22:13.640 --> 0:22:20.639 to a near mental breakdown. Never did I myself reached 0:22:20.720 --> 0:22:27.959 the point of h striking Misheard in any way, nor 0:22:28.080 --> 0:22:35.000 have I ever struck any woman in my life. My 0:22:35.080 --> 0:22:38.800 guest is defamation lawyer Jeff Lewis of Jeff Lewis law. 0:22:39.400 --> 0:22:44.439 Johnny Depp lost a British case in the actors sued 0:22:44.440 --> 0:22:47.400 the Sun newspaper for printing a headline that called him 0:22:47.400 --> 0:22:50.720 a quote wife beater. A judge found that there was 0:22:50.880 --> 0:22:56.120 overwhelming evidence that Depp had assaulted her repeatedly during their 0:22:56.200 --> 0:22:58.560 marriage and that he had put her in fear of 0:22:58.560 --> 0:23:04.560 her life. Did Depp testify in that case? He did testify, 0:23:04.800 --> 0:23:08.960 although in this present case he is testifying extensively. His 0:23:09.040 --> 0:23:12.960