Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  September 23, 2015 5:00pm-6:01pm EDT

5:00 pm
7th circuit invalidated or actually prelim narrowly enjoined the admitting privileges requirement. now the fifth circuit applied two-part test. found there was a rational basis for each requirement. it thought that continuity of care was a rational reason to require admitting privileges in those cases which complications necessitate emergency treatment. . .
5:01 pm
>> >> but the plaintiffs had not shown when into space as a burden to invalidate the burdens across the board. so to be focused on to abortion facilities one in the rio grande area? to strict -- strike the requirement in the area for women traveling 235 miles.
5:02 pm
as a second facility in the el paso area the nearest texas facility was over 500 miles away but concluded no undue burden because women in that area could go to a facility in santa teresa in mexico only 12 miles away but the court distinguished its own a holding in this circuit where they said that mississippi could not offload its obligation to provide abortion facilities to another state. but it distinguish that case on the travel distances with that same metropolitan area.
5:03 pm
so to preclude enforcement of the physical plant requirements with those privileges requirements into the rio grande area as reasonably likely is a grand also with that of the seventh circuit but i don't think that is 100 percent sure thing for those that could conceivably see that way but to live there is no opposition and what looks like a clear candidates when you only see the topside brief with considerations brought to bear when the
5:04 pm
opposition and is filed when it said it didn't know what it knew before but all things considered it is a safe bet that the courts is coming to take this case as an option. >> this is another case but in terms of profits sizing and with other abortion cases to tell us that much to uphold a physicians only requirement for performing abortions but that seems like a common-sense requirement and that is very unlikely to propose any type of burden on women seeking abortion. and to uphold that portion of partial birth abortion
5:05 pm
abortion, that involved a gruesome procedure performed in the third trimester and here we have something altogether different but based on general jurisprudence i think he is prepared to give a fair message of discretion with rules and regulations of those seeking abortions but i don't think he will be prepared with that kind of brand rational basis review that any conceivable states of facts could supports that restriction to be upheld. and i particularly think he will not be prepared to do that in situations that there are signs the reasons
5:06 pm
to close down the abortion facilities to promote women's health to show that that to those that propose greater risks and the petitioners pointed out in this case that there are grandfathering provisions i don't think that is the end of the case and what supports these restrictions so i don't think they will agree with that tenth
5:07 pm
circuit but i don't think it can offload the constitutional responsibilities may be for another state that is a pejorative way to put it but to go to the facility to go the abortion -- go get the abortion that i need. i have never been the best reader of justice kennedy or others but i do think it comes down but mentally see everything in this case by not prepared to venture an opinion yet. does anybody else have thoughts. >> we are getting near the end but if you would like to stick around a little longer we will do some other cases
5:08 pm
may be too to see who will stay and who doesn't but these are the two big cases so let's see if we can do that. you have tyson foods which i think looking at the amicus support that is the biggest business case this term. >> with tyson foods looking at the latest of the roberts court's efforts that the majority of this court views as abuses of a class-action device. the case involves the of though wal-mart opinion pejoratively senate is the concept to use a sample set or to take statistics to arrive and then the litigating the case as if every class member was even
5:09 pm
in the context it is indisputable that not every class member shares those characteristics of the plaintiffs. i don't think anybody likes the idea so there is some fair amount of fighting to characterize what is happening but that is the issue that the court is dealing with. and to with the meat processing factory where they put on protective equipment on the slaughtering and processing floor and employees get compensated for two sets of time. one set at the assembly line and then on top of that that
5:10 pm
is to approximate the amount of compensable time spent taking on and off your protective gear that is for -- between four and eight minutes and the assertion is the are spending much more time so therefore they're working on uncompensated overtime in violation of state law. the complication with this with the class-action is there is no question and the employees all the class members bin different amounts of time taking on and off protective gear because they don't all have the same job. even for those that have the same job or their gear that
5:11 pm
is not required as employees choose to wear the gear that is optional so all of these differences that demonstrate there is no number you can attribute to the time that nobody is keeping track of how much time taking on and off because in their view there already compensating them so there is no evidence to demonstrate with that time is set yet a class to mitigate on behalf of all the employees setter's spending different amounts of time and how much is spent because it does matter it is an decays of. compensation there is a little bit but then also the
5:12 pm
dispute of when you get into overtime and matters a great deal exactly how much time each individual is spending. they said with a have a great way to solve the problem and then draw from the averages from that to proceed as if every class members spence that time even if that isn't what they spent and that which is made clearer as to get to trial and the class representatives are providing testimony that they spend less time that archer beaded and there's plenty of evidence to demonstrate with various different reasons with no claim at all that they have uncompensated overtime but
5:13 pm
then they say it is fine because there is a supreme court case to deal with the specific question of time in the context of the records of how much time was spent if you don't have the records that you could use averages and statistics to figure out how much time there is. and to always say the real problem here when illustrated is individual issues dominate and there isn't a common answer to that question and we cannot hypothesize one by taking an average that is not true and
5:14 pm
you subvert the of problems this is a class that the issues predominate over common ones so they should be certified and all in the first place. >> given what we have seen from the roberts court with jurisprudence i would be very surprised if they took the case because they want the world to know that what was done here is the model how class-action are supposed to operate because it didn't -- because it is distinct to the of context of the employment issues so my suspicion is mitt with so little bit more of their broader project and when we
5:15 pm
say common issues that is what we mean not those that are manufactured by coming up to paper over the problem that the class members are situated so were the real interest is how broadly the course speaks to resolve this case and if they tried that with us a discussion of the wal-mart decision what makes the issues common to have a lasting impact with the class-action context and in general or just the of a question of what ever else you can do to have the idea
5:16 pm
for what is going on in wal-mart the hypothetical that is not reflective of any class member to litigate the case. >> to be argued in november is spokeo a broad question is seems to have been before the court several terms to dismiss the case with that were argued very early in the term and buy a surmised
5:17 pm
that the opinion was assigned to uts justice thomas and to settle on the resolution but it raises the following question when can congress create rights for individuals to allow them to go into federal court to complain about those rights? so approximately the dawn of time to create those four individuals that it requires another actor to active a particular way with respect to individuals to for having it information to give up process of the government it is very common and for instance to be familiar to
5:18 pm
say to someone is on your land you can exclude them from going to court to complain without showing injury that the of person violated the rules laid down that prohibited them from ever they have alleged to have done a copyright you can get that without showing damage than any other way with economic harm. there are common law us doctrines' and also statutory rights that involves one of those that for a monetary field to engage in the process to
5:19 pm
sell others or chew pointed out of line. that they have to take certain in the statutory steps before they can disseminate information there is statutory rules that are imposed on entities that share information about other individuals in the primary requirement in this case to follow procedures for maximum possible accuracy concerning a individual to whom the report relates so with an accuracy the government construes this to disseminate the information on the report and it involves a claim against spokeo.com one of the major
5:20 pm
organizations to publish tons of activity and the allegation in this case that they not only violated the statutory rule with age welfare and employment and education and marital status. but it would appear to his benefit allegedly hit wealthier than he actually is. but spokeo says we did u.s. favor that you might be an
5:21 pm
actor you were not the favorite it did not reveal private facts and therefore more important you are not required to demonstrate to cause any additional harm. so we are liable for each instance that we do that. to add up to a lot of money in the complaint is that only that we had violated what the congress conferred och but what the supreme court is injury in fact,. but to experience that
5:22 pm
article at the outset the court said even if you have not suffered an injury to show that how it is not a floor but it keeps you out if you cannot show injury. without ever quite figuring out what that means but it doesn't mean the of violation but this suggestion is something lower elemental of physical harm but it also includes at
5:23 pm
least to be discriminated against but the claim that there is no injury in fact, but false information the chief justice during the oral argument said that the statutory rights said it is injury as law to establish on your behalf and to
5:24 pm
distinguish from of injury and fact i guess that proceeds though lot. so those implications are bunches of statutes to establish rights on your behalf without showing any more injury to show you have to have additional injury to have a dramatic impact including though legislature to the statutory rights. >> just one extra of commons between the interplay that was alluded to to show one that was violating as
5:25 pm
statute but then it is very quickly going to turn into individualize issues so this is why with the interplay that the issues predominates not always the 100 percent 100 percent:correlation because it isn't clear if there is false information but to show that they follow reasonable procedures to
5:26 pm
have a statutory violation but these are a the statutes if all you have to show is a violation of a statutory prohibition and that provides class certification and then to find it is publication of false information so the publication of transformation but trying to be covered by a the statute
5:27 pm
and then one more point before a turn it over but usually most of the time but it will have another injury that they care about. and even in cases that could be to your benefit and that it does not comport with what is on your resume a. maybe they are lying to somebody else with false information and spokeo plus it on line. even if to resume a turns out to be true so congress
5:28 pm
has a prophylactic rule don't publish anything to ensure the accuracy to get those cases that cause another form of harm. >> i totally agree but it is hard to understand why someone might want to say it helps to understand coming from the other direction and there are cases that congress cannot just say anyone in the country can sue over a the goal violation. because predominantly it is a separation of powers said want the courts to opine on the legal disputes but a plaintiff who cares about the violation but the real world concrete sense to affect them personally.
5:29 pm
on one and you have a situation anytime there is the environmental violation anybody can sue. the in the court said no standing. >> if congress said you have a right that no one says anything inaccurate that would it not provide that. you have easy cases bridge's concrete entry so it is personalized i forget his name that so not as to indicate another person's right but if you cannot
5:30 pm
identify concrete harm that is personal then in that sense it is irrelevant that it is personal injury. to sue over the violation so with that class-action ensures that you have the right for those legal violations. >> i do taken issue that if the court decides that it would invalidate to give people a statutory right to but they do so because they have that right. that is why it doesn't come up that much but as to which this is a dispute if it
5:31 pm
doesn't correspond gutted most of them to say it doesn't matter is dash you gave you a statutory right. >> with that critical mass difficulty is having a defined injury with reference to the whole concept is a law that has defined it causes harm. as a justice has long said it has the power that a forest of people to enforce those rights.
5:32 pm
it is one thing if there is no individualized of fact with the environmental injury case but clearly it is the individualized effect and this individual had false information and distributed about him. and not ideological and to the court has never been able to define without reference and i don't understand the chief justice roberts question. >> so with that underline lawsuit with said gps
5:33 pm
devices with false information and also to a false information in case they still want to sue for some reason besides damages. >> any other questions i will take them now but if not we will end this session. so in addition to ruth contraception i there waiting for immigration out
5:34 pm
of the fifth circuit? or voting rights at of a north carolina or texas? >> so choose some extent it is when day are decided so the argument has ben heard waiting a decision by the fifth circuit so if they decide to go for word that could get to the core. >> texas voter i.d. and that is what they have already ruled on so did the state petition? >>.
5:35 pm
>> that is a narrow win i would not be shocked if they did not petition but maybe they would any way. definitely there is time to get to that case. >> any other questions. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]
5:36 pm
5:37 pm
and now
5:38 pm
wearying hear remarks from the republican presidential candidate donald trump speaking with supporters than south carolina for kerry john hall meeting under way at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. but today is the white house briefing we will show you as much as we can until the
5:39 pm
town hall meeting gets underway with donald trump. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i apologize for though they start today. [laughter] i am humbled by that's especially. it is of powerful morning and i hope some of you can get outside to enjoy the beautiful day but other then that i don't have any other items.
5:40 pm
>> what about the meetings or what it talks about? >> unfortunately not tour disappoint you there was not a stenographer in their. it was a one-on-one meeting between the pope and the president. that limits liability to give you the detailed readout because it says a private conversation but it did last 40 minutes and all of you or representatives have an opportunity to observe the beginning of that discussion you saw the two men walking through and the president's stop them on a couple of occasions to describe their surroundings.
5:41 pm
and the president did enjoy the opportunity to introduce the pope to senior members of his staff to half an opportunity to have one-on-one interaction with the pope. this is what he enjoyed but i'm not able to give you much detail of the private discussions. >> what about the direct issue of climate change? >> the pope did have kind words and certainly welcomes that the expression. in general this is something that we said in the of the up to the pope's visit to so
5:42 pm
the goal of the meeting is not to advance anybody's political agenda so it was clear he was speaking with a passion and a conviction about the need to act on climate issues setter deeply rooted in his faith. he was speaking from the car with the moral conviction that will resonate with people all around the world. >> having him talk about climate change does that change the debate going forward? >> i think the pope himself acknowledged that people
5:43 pm
around the world have to seize the opportunity the pope did make a conscious decision to capitalize this with a high-profile moment to deliver the message the first public statements that he offered on america is a real as if he thought nobody would be listening. so they will have an opportunity to deliver additional messages that he seeks to prior ties and the next big one will be the speech before congress tomorrow and he made a brief allusion to his desire to offer encouragement to the members of the body as they advanced the work they have before them as well.
5:44 pm
even talking about climate change. >> it what about hillary clinton's decision and yesterday? >> i am not sure in this room at least any of us were surprised by her comments. we have said for some time be essentially that secretary clinton or others will have an opportunity to do talk about their values and priorities and positions and in this case the state department continues to consider the specific policy consistent with the way other it infrastructure projects are considered.
5:45 pm
with a variety of factors including a number of legal proceedings that have extended the consideration of that project but when we would expect that to be completed we refer you to the state department. >> can you give any details about this conversation with hot-button social issues like gay marriage or abortion? >> i cannot give additional details the reason they wanted just the two of them is to have a private discussion. >> the interpreter was there but only the two of them
5:46 pm
talking. >> so no suggestion on climate change? >> even though the interpreter was present it is to remain private. today hang out with the family? >> that is the time when some catholic members of the senior staff did have the opportunity to meet the pope and for the president to reach a the visiting delegation from the vatican as well. >> moving on to a different topic to talk about the breach to identify china as
5:47 pm
the state sponsor for that and to can you give details on why that is released? >> that is a good question. i don't have additional details or what may have then responsible for this particular cyberbreach is under investigation and what they have learned but i don't have any conclusions to share publicly who may or may not have spent responsible. >> there was a previously scheduled meeting between the senior leaders and members of congress that opm
5:48 pm
has been working with this incident. and additional information about the scope of the intrusion and the material affected was only recently determined so the new information was communicated to relevant members of congress just days after it was learned and then communicated to the public and there is an effort being made by 0:00 p.m. to communicate as promptly and effectively as possible certain they with members of congress with those individuals that may have been affected by the breach and because of those numbers that defamation that it is
5:49 pm
communicated. >> it is the time dictated sandoz that may have communicated with the public does the white house have been the idea at that point? >> obviously with the staff level meetings to plan for the pope's visit i cannot account for all of those conversations i know how much of a preview of those remarks were offered to buy house officials but it was released on the embargo basis review had a heads up
5:50 pm
but if he had a more detailed one. >> what do you make of the fact if this was a campaign event with very similar speeches that were given. you may say that is a little over the top but the messages are awfully similar. what did you make of that? >> with an interesting perspective i didn't think about it that way. i guess the one thing that may detract a genuine spirit of bipartisanship on display.
5:51 pm
nobody would accuse me of being an expert but i do recognize republicans and democrats sitting on the south lawn also to the president and first lady but to offer the enthusiastic welcome and with that spirit of inclusion and bipartisanship is something the president appreciated and i suspect he was pleased by that spirit as well but but it could be a little polarizing and those that spoke.
5:52 pm
>> and to deliver very similar messages is a but everything you could hope for i would think. >> but the credit goes to the pope. it is a concerted efforts to speak exclusively with that style of communication and that perspective with the common interests and values for catholics and non catholics alike one of the reason the pope's message has resonated so far around the world that is one element that is not surprising to listen to him
5:53 pm
speak. >> the president has not cited china to be responsible for the 0:00 p.m. tach just like not going after north korea at said yesterday on a conference call to said there will not be sanctions on any entities what you say to americans that is enough with culpability to put millions of americans data at risk? >> what i would say the administration or law enforcement officials take seriously the responsibility they have to use that investigation with the precise scope of what has been taken to learn exactly
5:54 pm
how that was conducted but to better strengthen the cyberdefense and frankly may have exacerbated the consequences of the breach. but it does raise questions with of the broader concerns regardless of where they originate. but this is a significant challenge the private sector had to confront there is a number of incidents state and federal governments have had to deal with as well. put those longer term considerations are the ones that drive decisions of when and how and there is the
5:55 pm
understandable human tendency to offer a quick and powerful response but to focus on preserving those long-term interest of the country. one thing that i can say is there are a variety of tools that the president's disposal to respond to an incident like this. this is the executive order about six months ago delegating authority to the secretary of treasury to allow him to impose financial sanctions against baghdad actors and cyberspace are those who benefit from the malicious activity. one of the reasons it is powerful that merely putting
5:56 pm
it on the table can serve as a deterrent even if not specifically invoked. it could be a long third term strategic approach to protect our interests but also appropriate seeking to enhance. >> when secretary clinton came out to say how high was the president informed? >> i would not characterize as a briefing. i think as you would expect and i know how detailed these conversations work
5:57 pm
there isn't any expectation is incumbent upon the clinton campaign even if no conversations had occurred nobody word be surprised of that position announced yesterday. >> do we have the sense of land there is a final determination and at some point to come out do you have of a time line or a deadline? >> battle think it would be bin impact on the final decision. >> and urging colleagues to avert the shutdown but at this point realistically
5:58 pm
speaking that the shutdown will be averted? >> i have not heard that. i think that is good news because there should be bipartisan acknowledgement that a government shutdown is not in the best interest of the country our economy. while they are difficult it is the responsibility to ensure the government does not shut down. beyond just keeping the government to open is to make sure it accurately reflects the national security priorities of the country. that is also an important responsibility of the congress. but ultimately we do know how this can get resolved
5:59 pm
and house republicans in congress and democrats is sitting down to the negotiating table. . .
6:00 pm
there is a process we unfortunately are becoming all too similar with which the government prepares for the possibility of a government shutdown. we are in the range of seven or eight days now before the deadline. and it is only prudent for the federal government to begin planning for the possibility that the government can shut down. and so at this point they are only in the planning stage, and it means making sure that agencies are aware of their responsibilities in the event of a government shutdown. and there have been some indications from the office of management and budget to federal agencies about this, but again these kinds of notifications, unfortunately, are becoming routine. so it shouldn't have

9 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on