wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens and others without a warrant. Congress officially legalized this once-secret program with the passage of the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but civil libertarians claim that warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a case on this very issue. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for our partner The New York Times, explains what's at stake.

In the biggest Supreme Court cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy, more often that not, is the key swing vote. As the Supreme Court deliberates over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, once again all eyes are on Justice Kennedy. Adam Liptak is the Supreme Court Correspondent for The New York Times.

A new report by the Pew Center on the States reveals that one of every eight active registrations is either invalid or inaccurate. Along with voters with registrations in multiple states, their findings revealed that approximately 1.8 million dead people are still listed as active voters. Equally troubling is the discovery that one in four people who are eligible to vote — some 51 million people — are not registered. 

Whether or not you buy into the idea of American exceptionalism, the U.S. constitution is an exceptional document: the way in which it was crafted, how it secured the rights of citizens, and how 94 percent of nations have modeled their own charters after it. But if you ask Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the constitution is exactly that: historically exceptional, but now a tad out of date. In a recent interview in Egypt, she stated: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012."

In line with her comments, a new study has found that fewer and fewer nations are modeling their constitutions after ours.

How do you define the right to free speech? Some would argue it means being allowed to say what you believe, even when it's not popular. Others would say it means getting a good look at what kind of prescriptions that your doctor has given you. At least, that's the argument being made in a Supreme Court case today, in which company IMS Health will make a case for allowing pharmaceutical companies to get a gander at just what kind of prescriptions you're picking up at the pharmacy for marketing purposes. 

Adam Liptak, who covers the U.S. Supreme Court for the New York Times, discusses the Wal-Mart and AT&T cases before the court and what impact those rulings with have on the future of class action law suits.

Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, describes the first day of hearings in the controversial Supreme Court case between the Westboro Baptist Church and a man who is suing them for protesting outside his son's military funeral in 2006.

Sometimes a word is just a word. But other times, it’s an indicator of something more troubling on the part of the speaker. Take, for example, the word “boy.” When being used to refer to a small child, most of us don’t think twice. But when the word “boy” refers to an adult black man, and the speaker is his white supervisor who’s just passed him up for a promotion, it takes on a much different meaning.

It’s for this reason that John Hithon, an employee of the Tyson chicken processing plant in Gadsden, Alabama, sued his employers for workplace discrimination.

• SUPREME COURT TAKEOUT: If Elena Kagan needs help preparing for a potentially long and messy confirmation hearing, The New York Times' Adam Liptak says she should read a 1995 article on the topic that she wrote.
• SPORTS TAKEOUT: We're in the midst of NHL and NBA playoffs. And in the boxing world, Manny Pacquiao won his Congressional election in the Philippines. Sports Contributor Ibrahim Abdul-Matin updates us on these stories.

 

The biggest issue facing Elena Kagan may be the fact that she's never been a judge. New York Times reporter, Adam Liptak explains.

Justice John Paul Stevens announced on Friday that he will retire this June, after spending 35 years on the bench. Democrats say they want to move quickly into the nomination process in order to have the next justice confirmed by the end of the summer.

• EARTHQUAKE TAKEOUT: A 7.2 earthquake shook Baja, California yesterday afternoon and was felt across Southern California. Susan Hough, seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey gives us the latest from Pasadena.
• COURT TAKEOUT: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says he may soon announce his retirement after more than 34 years on the bench. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for our partner The New York Times helps predict when the announcement may come and its political implications.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear three very different cases; from corporate trials, to gun control laws, to international torture laws. New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak previews each case.

• CONGRESS TAKEOUT:   Some lawmakers may be facing a conflict of interest as they go toe to toe with Toyota executives.  Communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, Dave Levinthal, says many of these lawmakers are stockholders in Toyota.
• OLYMPICS PREVIEW: Jason Stallman, reporting on the Winter Olympics for The New York Times, has the latest from Vancouver and looks ahead to Lindsey Vonn's upcoming race.
• SUPREME COURT: Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, Adam Liptak, explains the Court's latest decision that police may now ad lib the Miranda Rights.

Should kids go to jail for life with no chance of parole, even if they are not murderers? That is the question facing the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, who heard arguments yesterday from two offenders currently serving life sentences for crimes they committed as teens. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for our partner The New York Times, joins us to discuss the case, which advocates are calling "the Brown v. Board of Education of juvenile law."

A relatively innocuous (albeit negative) documentary on Hillary Clinton released during the 2008 election season may lead to something bigger than itself.  Today, the United States Supreme Court will return from its summer vacation to hear a case instigated by the film. It is, in fact, the second time the case has been brought before the nation's highest court, but this time it comes with greater weight: the potential to overturn campaign finance laws that have existed for the last 100 years. To take us from the film to the court case we are joined by Nate Persily, law professor at Columbia University; and Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for our partner the New York Times. 

For more, read Adam Liptak's article, Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary, in the New York Times.

Check out some of the documentary, Hillary: The Movie or watch part one below:

For many inmates in American prisons, the U.S. Supreme Court is their favorite pen pal. Prisoners have been known to write weekly (or daily) letters begging the justices to intercede in their cases. These direct pleas (writs of habeas corpus in legalese) have been consistently ignored by the U.S. Supreme Court for fifty years. Yesterday, however, the court surprised many legal observers by breaking its long habit and intervening in the case of death row inmate Troy Davis. He has been on death row in Georgia since being convicted of the 1988 murder of an off-duty police officer. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for our partner The New York Times, joins us with more of the story.

For more, read With 2 Hours to Spare, Justices Stay Execution, in the New York Times.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges must recuse themselves from ruling on cases that involve individuals who have spent money to help put the judge on the bench. It sounds like a fairly straightforward ruling. But the decision raises larger questions of just how we elect and appoint judges in this country. For a look at the tricky process of electing judges, The Takeaway talks to Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent for our partners The New York Times, and to Tom Phillips, a lawyer with Baker Botts in Austin, Texas, who served as the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court from 1988 to 2004.

Several administration officials say President Obama has settled on his pick for the Supreme Court. The name that's being floated is Sonia Sotomayor, who's been a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since 1998. Joining us to discuss her background and her record as a judge is Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times.

Justice David Souter's retirement gives President Obama the chance to start reshaping the Supreme Court. Who's on Obama's short list? And what are the quialities that make someone a high-impact justice? Joining the Takeaway are Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times and Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal correspondent for Slate . They discuss what role the new justice could play.

For more, read Dahlia Lithwick's and Hanna Rosin's article, An Unnatural Woman: The secret life of a Supreme Court short-lister and Adam Liptak's article, Souter’s Exit Opens Door for a More Influential Justice in the New York Times.