LISTEN: Supreme Court hears oral arguments on NRA case
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 03. 2024
- For the first time in Georgetown Law’s history, two of its law professors will go head-to-head before the Supreme Court, when it hears the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) fight against a former New York regulator on Monday.
The case has created some unusual battle lines. For one, it implicates free speech, not the Second Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken on the case - but for the first time, it’s representing the NRA.
And, the faceoff is set to put the ACLU’s David Cole against his Georgetown colleague, Neal Katyal, an Obama-era acting U.S. solicitor general who is also a partner at Hogan Lovells.
Cole represents the NRA in its First Amendment lawsuit against Maria Vullo, whom then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) appointed to lead New York’s Department of Financial Services. Katyal represents Vullo.
The NRA sued Vullo, who is no longer in office, after she investigated the gun rights group starting in fall 2017. At first, her investigation led companies that administered NRA-endorsed insurance programs to acknowledge their programs were unlawful.
At issue before the justices is what happened next. Vullo sent guidance letters urging banks and insurers regulated by her department to sever ties with the NRA, warning of “reputational risks” in the wake of the Parkland school shooting that had recently taken place, killing 17 students and staff.
The NRA claims Vullo’s actions amounted to coercion in violation of the First Amendment.
Coverage was constantly interrupted by continuous Ad bombardment. We went to another channel so we could listen to the argument in relative peace.
What channel?
Get youtube premium. Join the future
It was at least three channels, I didn't keep track. Went to another site where I could enjoy the argument without being constantly interrupted
One attorney says the ABA (but not the NRA ) has an insurance license and the other atty says neither group has an insurance license. I guess there's some very complicated legal reason why neither is lying.
Wow, how evil this woman is.
Kagan is being deliberately obtuse... but I'm sure that it had nothing to do with her own beliefs about the NRA. 😂
The supreme court should not be taking anything that is against our second amendment.
Yes they should. They should be REQUIRED to take it.
Very close to extortion on the part of New York State.
This is a case the NRA meeds to win. Yes, Im a gun owner. But Im a member of Socialist Rifle Association. I'm also pro choice. Im also pro green energy. Im also pro workers rights. Im a gun owner, but I have NO reason to support the NRA.
If this case rules against the NRA, it opens the door for ANY state to target ANY organization that has beliefs the governor doesnt hold.
If the court picks the short term outcome... it will weaken the NRA (which, everybody who knows anything about guns knows... GOA is the new NRA... even gun owners know this), but it will give states the ability to demand the removal of support from unpopular opinions.
This case MUST rule in favor of the NRA. The NRA has MAYBE a decade of relevance. The outcome of this case has an eternity of precident.
The NRA needs to win.
He is sitting here using the word Misinformation and that so-called Misinformation has turned out to be correct information.
What are you saying is very ambiguous when you grow up you'll learn to State who said what lies and what the lies were
What did the president of Mexico think of what Donald said about the auto industry that is a question someone needs to ask that president in Mexico that
Why?
How is this relevant to the video?
@@megamonster1234. It's called distraction.
The Supreme circus is what that bunch are
Why do you think that?
Only because you can't feed your blender with the fetuses anymore
*Russia is indeed a Great Country with Great Leadership from Putin. He's not perfect, as no one is, but he is a REAL Leader...*
Relevance?
Go live there, no one will stop you leave Now !!!!
He's a dictator like most. 🖕