Supreme Court allows NRA free speech lawsuit to move forward
Summary
TLDRこのスクリプトでは、いくつか重要な話題が取り上げられています。まず、ハリー・ウェインシュタインの裁判が議論され、カリフォルニアでの性的攻撃事件についても話されています。次に、最高裁判所がナショナル・ライフル・アソシエイションに関する意見を発表し、その決定はNRAを支持するものであると報道されています。さらに、元大統領ドナルド・トランプに関する裁判の審理が始まっていることも触れられています。また、陪審員による裁判の要求や、最高裁判所の決定の重要性、そして今後の裁判スケジュールについても言及されています。
Takeaways
- 📚 最高裁判所は、国民銃器協会(NRA)を支援する決定を発表しました。これは重要な法的判断であり、NRAがニューヨーク州の金融監視機関からの圧力を主張した結果です。
- 🎯 NRAは、州の金融監視機関が銀行と保険会社に圧力をかけ、NRAとの関係を断つよう要求したと主張し、これがNRAの第一修正権を侵害していると訴えました。
- 🏛 最高裁判所は、NRAが訴訟を起こすことができる権利があると揺るがなかった判決を下しました。これは第一修正権に関する古典的な表現の自由に関するケースです。
- 👥 この決定は、裁判所の最も資深の自由派判事によって書かれ、他の8人の保守派判事が賛同し、NRAと共に立場を共有しました。
- 🔍 最高裁判所は、多くの場合、重要な憲法の原則に関する合意に達する裁判所であることを示しており、このケースでは全員一致で判断しました。
- 🚨 裁判所は、政府が特定の見解に基づいてビジネス決定を行うことを禁止する第一修正権を侵害する可能性があると警告しました。
- 📉 この決定は、NRAが銀行と保険会社との関係を失うことで受けた潜在的な評判上の損害に関する反対意見にもかかわらず、訴訟を認めました。
- 🗓️ 今後の裁判スケジュールには、ドナルド・トランプ元大統領に関する2つの重要なケースが含まれており、彼が訴追から免疫であるかどうかが争われています。
- 🤰 裁判所は、最も一般的な中絶方法である中絶薬の利用に関する2つの大きな中絶ケースにも取り組んでいます。
- 🔫 また、銃規制に関する2つの重要なケースも審理予定で、家事裁判所による暴力禁止命令下において銃を持つことができるかどうかが争われています。
- 🏥 オピオイド流行に関するケースも残されていますが、裁判所は6月末または7月初めにまで重要な決定を下す予定です。
Q & A
ハーヴェイ・ウェインシュタインの裁判に関してどのようなことが述べられていますか?
-ハーヴェイ・ウェインシュタインは労働節後もカリフォルニア州で別の性的暴行事件に対して刑務所に入る可能性があると述べられています。
最高裁がナショナル・ライフル・アソシエイションに関する意見を発表したのはいつですか?
-スクリプトには具体的な日付は記載されていませんが、報道では最高裁がその意見を発表したとされています。
ナショナル・ライフル・アソシエイションの裁判に関して最高裁はどのような結論を導きましたか?
-最高裁はナショナル・ライフル・アソシエイションの主張を支持し、州が保険会社に圧力をかけたことは彼らの第一修正権を侵害したと結論付けました。
裁判で陪審团はどのような要求をしましたか?
-陪審团は裁判の指示の一部を再読みを求めました。これは彼らが真剣にその仕事に取り組んでいることを示している可能性があります。
ドナルド・トランプ前大統領に関する検察の開始はいつですか?
-スクリプトには検察の開始が昨日とされており、具体的な日付は記載されていません。
最高裁はなぜこのナショナル・ライフル・アソシエイションのケースを受理しましたか?
-最高裁はこのケースを受理したのは、政府が特定の見解に基づいて決断を下すことが第一修正権に反すると判断したからです。
最高裁の決定はなぜ重要なのでしょうか?
-最高裁の決定は法の見解と同時に、裁判所が重要な憲法の原則について一致したことを示しており、社会全体に影響を与える可能性があるからです。
最高裁はこの決定をどのように一致して導きましたか?
-最高裁はこの決定について全員一致で導きました。これは裁判所が紛争案件において一致することが珍しいことを示しています。
今後最高裁はどのような大きな案件を審理する予定ですか?
-最高裁は今後、銃規制、中絶の可用性、オピオイド流行、ジャネイ・スミス事件など、多くの重要な案件を審理する予定です。
スクリプトで述べられている「行政国家」とは何を指していますか?
-「行政国家」とは連邦庁の役割や政府の構造に関する重要な問題を指しており、最高裁が決定する必要がある重要なテーマです。
Outlines
👨⚖️ 最高裁判所の決定とNRAの勝利
最高裁判所はニューヨーク州の金融規制当局がNRAとの関係を断つよう銀行と保険会社に圧力をかけた行為を非難し、NRAが訴訟を起こす権利を認めました。これは、政府が特定の見解に基づいて企業との関係を強制的に切断することは違法であると表明する重要な決定です。NRAはその見解を表現する権利を持っており、それが完全に反対であっても表現する自由があります。この判決は、最高裁判所が議論の多い判決だけでなく、憲法の重要な原則に関する判決でも一致団結を成す能力を示す例です。
📚 最高裁判所の審理残りと重要な問題
最高裁判所は今年のタームで多くの重要な問題を審理しており、彼らは6月末または7月初めに決定を下す予定です。重要な議題には、ドナルド・トランプ前大統領に関する訴訟、中止された妊娠砲の可用性に関する2つの大きな墮胎訴訟、銃規制に関する2つの訴訟、オピオイド流行に関する訴訟、さらには政府の構造と連邦庁の役割に関する重要な問題も含まれます。これらの訴訟は憲法の重要な部分に関わるため、その結果は国民の生活に大きな影響を与える可能性があります。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡ハリー・ウェインシュタイン
💡最高裁判所
💡ナショナル・ライフル・アソシエーション(NRA)
💡裁判
💡証人信頼性
💡銃規制
💡第一修正権
💡行政国家
💡オピオイド危機
💡選定
Highlights
Harvey Weinstein still faces prison time in California for a different sexual assault case.
Supreme Court releases its opinion on a case with the National Rifle Association, backing the NRA.
Jury in a criminal trial requesting to be reread portions of jury instructions.
Discussion on what the jury's request to reread instructions implies about their deliberations.
Jury instructions include information on burden of proof and witness credibility.
Jury possibly taking their job seriously by requesting specific portions of instructions.
Supreme Court unanimously reversed a decision regarding the NRA's First Amendment rights.
New York financial regulator's crackdown on the NRA and the resulting lawsuit.
Supreme Court's unanimous decision as a classic First Amendment free-speech case.
Highlighting the Supreme Court's ability to come together unanimously on certain cases.
Counterargument that the government could use its role to warn of reputational risks of doing business with the NRA.
Discussion on the government's inability to pick winners and losers in free speech.
Significant cases left on the Supreme Court's docket, including those related to Donald Trump.
Important abortion cases and gun cases still pending before the Supreme Court.
Cases involving the opioid epidemic and the structure of government on the Court's agenda.
The high stakes and numerous significant cases the Supreme Court will decide by the end of June or early July.
Transcripts
WEINSTEIN AFTER LABOR DAY.
HE STILL FACES PRISON TIME IN
CALIFORNIA FOR A DIFFERENT AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE.
>>> ALL RIGHT, WE ARE TRACKING
SEVERAL IMPORTANT STORIES,
MOMENTS AGO THE SUPREME COURT
RELEASED ITS OPINION ON THE CASE
WITH THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION, THEY ARE BACKING
THE NRA.
>>> AND PRESIDENT FORMAL --
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP,
DELIBERATIONS BEGAN YESTERDAY.
SO FOR MORE ON THIS DECISION
LET'S BRING IN CBS NEWS LEGAL
CONTRIBUTOR, LET'S TALK ABOUT
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION,
ALSO STANDING BY, JESSICA, I
WANT TO STAND WITH YOU LET'S
START WITH CRIMINAL TRIAL, WHAT
DO THE INSTRUCTION PORTIONS OF
THE JURY REQUESTING TO BE
REREAD OR DID REQUEST?
WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT
THEIR DELIBERATIONS?
>> I KNOW EVERYBODY WANTS ME TO
SAY OH, THEY'RE HAVING THIS
PORTION REREAD IT MEANS THAT
THE PROSECUTION IS ABOUT TO
END, I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE
CAN SAY SO FAR.
THERE HEARING A CHUNK OF THE
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT SOME
IMPORTANT THE BASIC THINGS.
IF YOU HEAR EVIDENCE, WILL KIND
OF INFERENCES CAN YOU MAKE, WHO
HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, AND
THEN THEY HEARD THAT ALL-
IMPORTANT INSTRUCTION ABOUT
WITNESS CREDIBILITY AND THE
QUESTION OF COURSE IS GOING TO
MICHAEL COHEN'S TESTIMONY I
THINK THERE'S A POSSIBILITY
THAT THE JURY IS SO AWARE OF
THE FACT THAT WE ARE HAVING
THIS CONVERSATION BUT THEY
FRANKLY ASK FOR MORE OF THE
INSTRUCTIONS, THEY ARE TAKING
THEIR JOB SERIOUSLY THEY ASK
FOR SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE
INSTRUCTIONS, THEY ASKED FOR
SPECIFIC THINGS BECAUSE THEY
WANT TO HEAR SOME RECORDINGS OF
CONVERSATIONS.
ALL WE KNOW RIGHT NOW IS THAT
THEY ARE GOING TO THE HEART OF
THE PROSECUTION'S CASE.
>> LET'S TURN TO THE SUPREME
COURT, BREAK DOWN THIS DECISION
FOR US.
TELL US THAT HISTORY AND WHAT
IT MEANS.
>> THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION
. WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT THE LAW
AND THE RULING ITSELF.
BUT ALSO WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT THE
SUPREME COURT. BASICALLY NEW
YORK FINANCIAL REGULATOR
DECIDED TO CRACK DOWN ON THE
NRA, SHE WORKED WITH THE BANKS
AND INSURANCE COMPANIES AND
REALLY KIND OF ALLEGEDLY
PRESSURED THEM TO END THEIR
RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE NRA
BECAUSE OF THE ADVOCACY
ESPECIALLY AFTER THE PARKLAND
SHOOTING, THEY STOPPED DOING
BUSINESS WITH THE NRA, THE
INSURANCE POLICIES TO SOME OF
ITS MEMBERS, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT
TO SOME OF ITS CASE.
I DID KNOW THAT.
THOSE POLICIES WITH THE NRA,
THE NRA SAID WAIT A MINUTE,
THAT IS A STATE OFFICIAL
PRESSURING INSURANCE COMPANIES
TO STOP DOING BUSINESS WITH US.
THAT VIOLATES OUR FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THEY ARE
SINGLING US OUT BECAUSE OF OUR
VIEWPOINT AND THE NRA WANTED TO
SUE, APPEALS COURT. THEY
DISAGREED WITH THE NRA AND SAID
NO, YOU CAN'T SUE, YOU DON'T
HAVE A CLAIM IN THE SUPREME
COURT TODAY UNANIMOUSLY
REVERSED SAYING IN A CASE THAT
SAW THE NRA SUPPORTED BY THE
ACLU, THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
SAYING THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM
MAKING THESE KIND OF DECISIONS
BASED ON VIEWPOINTS. THAT IS A
CLASSIC FIRST AMENDMENT FREE-
SPEECH CASE. THEY GET TO PURSUE
THIS LAWSUIT, IT ESSENTIALLY
PUNISHED BECAUSE OF HIS VIEWS
EVEN IF YOU MAY COMPLETELY
DISAGREE WITH HIS VIEWS, THEY
HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEM,
WHY IS THIS CASE IMPORTANT FOR
A BIGGER POINT ABOUT THE
SUPREME COURT? WE FOCUS SO MUCH
ON THESE CONTROVERSIAL
CONTENTIOUS CASES WHERE WE SEE
THE JUSTICE DEEPLY DIVIDED, A
LOT OF THE CASES ARE GOING TO BE
6 TO 3, THIS WAS A CASE THAT
WAS UNANIMOUS IT WAS WRITTEN BY
THE COURT MOST SENIOR LIBERAL
JUSTICE, IT GOT ALL OTHER EIGHT
JUSTICES CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES
ON BOARD SIDING WITH THE NRA
AND IT SHOWS THIS IS A COURT
THAT IS STILL VERY OFTEN, AND
PLACES WE DON'T TALK ABOUT,
UNANIMOUS.
LAST TERM THEY WERE UNANIMOUS
IN NEARLY HALF OF THEIR CASES.
I THINK IT IS ALWAYS AN
IMPORTANT REMINDER BECAUSE WE
DO TEND TO FOCUS ON THE
DIVISIONS OF THE COURT, BUT
WHEN WE SEE THESE KIND OF CASES
WHICH WERE ACTUALLY MORE OF THE
RUN-OF-THE-MILL CASES, THIS IS
STILL A COURT THAT IS STILL
FUNCTIONING AND COMING TOGETHER
ON VERY IMPORTANT INTERVALS IN
THE CONSTITUTION.
>> WHEN I READ ABOUT THIS CASE,
I WAS SURPRISED THAT THE
SUPREME COURT EVEN TOOK IT UP.
IT SEEMS LIKE REALLY CLEARCUT
THAT YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS
WORKING FOR AND THEREFORE
REPRESENTING A GOVERNMENT
AGENCY TAKING STEPS TO LIMIT
THE EXPRESSION OF ANOTHER
ORGANIZATION SO, JUST I WANT TO
ASK YOU, WHAT WAS THE
COUNTERARGUMENT BECAUSE I
ACTUALLY DON'T SEE IT.
>> THE COUNTERARGUMENT HERE IS
THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD USE
ITS ROLE AND SAY IF YOU DO
BUSINESS WITH THE NRA, YOU
COULD RISK A REPUTATIONAL
INJURY.
AND SO THE COUNTERARGUMENT HERE
IS THAT SHE WAS JUST LETTING
THESE REGULATED ENTITIES NO
WITH THEIR POTENTIAL RISKS
WOULD BE AS A RESULT OF DOING
BUSINESS WITH THE NRA.
I THINK JAN'S EXPLANATION HERE
OF THE COURT'S OPINION IS
EXACTLY RIGHT LET'S EMPHASIZE,
JUST BECAUSE YOU SEE NRA IS ONE
OF THE PARTIES DOESN'T MEAN YOU
KNOW HOW THIS CASE IS GOING TO
COME OUT AND TWO, THIS IS
CLASSIC FIRST AMENDMENT.
ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I TELL
MY STUDENTS, THE GOVERNMENT CAN
LIMIT SPEECH BUT IT CAN'T PICK
WINNERS AND LOSERS, IT CAN'T
SAY I LIKE YOU, I DON'T LIKE
YOU, OR I LIKE YOUR SPEECH, I
DON'T LIKE YOUR SPEECH AND
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WAS
HAPPENING HERE.
>> WHAT IS LEFT ON THE DOCKET
THIS YEAR, OF COURSE WE ARE ALL
EYES ON THAT BIG SPECIFICALLY
RELATED TO JACK SMITH AND THE
FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
>> OH, WHAT IS NOT LEFT, I MEAN
EVERYTHING.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE THOSE TWO
TRUMP CASE IS WHETHER OR NOT
TRUMP IS IMMUNE FROM
PROSECUTION AS A RESULT OF HIS
ALLEGED EFFORTS AND IF HE IS
NOT IMMUNE, WHAT CAN HE BE
CHARGED WITH, HE AND SEVERAL
OTHER JANUARY 6 DEFENDANTS WERE
CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION, THOSE
CHARGES APPROPRIATE, THOSE ARE
TWO MAJOR CASES.
WE HAVE TWO HUGE ABORTION CASES
INCLUDING ONE ON THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE MOST
COMMONLY USED METHOD OF
ABORTION, THE ABORTION PILL.
THOSE CASES ARE OUTSTANDING WE
HAVE TWO MORE GUN CASES.
ONE THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT
ABOUT A FEDERAL LAW AND WHETHER
OR NOT PEOPLE WERE UNDER
DOMESTICATE -- DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS CAN
HAVE A GUN AND THEY SAID YEAH,
THAT CASE I THINK THE COURT IS
GOING TO PUT SOME IMPORTANT
RESTRICTIONS ON EFFORTS TO
BLOCK GUN LAWS.
WE HAVE THAT ONE STILL OUT
THERE.
WE HAVE A CASE INVOLVING THE
OPIOID EPIDEMIC.
WE COULD TALK FOR THE NEXT 20
MINUTES.
THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT
TERM, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL TERM
AND THEY ALWAYS HAVE THEIR
BIGGEST CASES IN JUNE AS YOU
GUYS KNOW, THEY SAVE THE
BIGGEST ONES FOR THE END.
THIS YEAR WE HAVE SO MANY OF
THEM AND THE STAKES ARE SO
HIGH.
AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED
ABOUT THE CASES THAT GO TO THE
HEART OF THE STRUCTURE OF OUR
GOVERNMENT, THE ROLE OF FEDERAL
AGENCIES, THE SO-CALLED
ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, HUGELY
IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT THIS
COURT STILL HAS TO DECIDE
BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF JUNE
OR EARLY JULY.
>> AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME RUNNING
UP THOSE BEAUTIFUL STEPS
Weitere verwandte Videos ansehen
Can't Read Too Much Into Note: Zeldin on Trump Jury
Jessica Roth on Trump Trial Closing Statements
Judge dismisses jury for the day after over 4 hours, with no verdict yet in Trump hush money trial
Trump called his guilty verdict 'rigged.' Hear Biden's reaction
立花孝志裁判終了後、鬼詰め追っかけっこ。ヘイヘイヘイ❕ #立花孝志
Georgia appeals court indefinitely pauses Trump election subversion case
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)