The high court decided the Texas abortion case, despite being short-handed; Guest host Patt Morrison talks to experts about the "Brexit" effect on campaigns; and listeners share their stories about quitting their job on the spot.
What's behind SCOTUS' ruling on Texas abortion clinics?
In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-abortion law on Monday and finds that it puts “undue burden” on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.
The case, “Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt,” is the first abortion case the High Court has considered in more than 20 years.
The law in question, HB2, requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals and abortion clinics to have similar building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. The medical benefit of this regulation has been widely questioned.
“The facts are that an abortion is a very safe procedure,” said Emily Martin, general counsel with the National Women’s Law Center. “These rules in Texas actually had the impact of making abortion more dangerous, because they meant women were not able to access abortion until later in their pregnancies.”
Not everyone celebrated the justices’ ruling.
“It’s very disappointing,” said Linda Schleuter, president of the nonprofit Trinity Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the respondents in the case. “Texas has tried to do what was best for women, but the court has changed the legal standard. It came to a conclusion that, I think, politically it wanted to come to, but basically it wasn’t based on prior procedural law.”
With only eight justices on the bench, many observers had expected a deadlocked decision. But Justice Kennedy, as in so many important cases in the last couple years, provided the swing vote that tipped the ruling.
Frank Colucci, a political scientist who has written a book about Justice Kennedy, said that
Kennedy has largely voted to uphold state legislation to regulate abortion in the past, making his vote Monday somewhat surprising. His central role in the decision, however, was anything but.
“Kennedy has been a critical role in the abortion cases since he’s been on the court,” said Colucci.
Guests:
David Savage, Supreme Court reporter, Los Angeles Times
Linda Schlueter, President of Trinity Legal Center, a nonprofit litigation and legislation support center focused on women’s reproductive health issues based in San Antonio, Texas. It filed an amicus brief on behalf of the respondents in the case
Emily Martin, General Counsel with the National Women’s Law Center, which has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioners in the case
Frank Colucci, author of the book, “Justice Kennedy’s Jurisprudence: The Full and Necessary Meaning of Liberty” (University Press of Kansas, 2009), and an associate professor political science at Purdue University Northwest in Indiana
How SCOTUS reversal of former VA Governor’s conviction changes how corruption is prosecuted
Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s corruption conviction has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a ruling that will ultimately make it more difficult for prosecutors to go after public officials on corruption charges.
The ruling states that it’s not enough for prosecutors to claim corruption simply because a public official sets up a meeting with a constituent, calls another public official, or holds an event. It says that in order for a prosecutor to win on a corruption charge, he or she must prove that the official was approached about some matter, question, or controversy that could legally be brought to a public officials.
Second, it requires proof that the accused took official action on the matter brought to their attention.
McDonnell and his wife Maureen were convicted in 2014 after the details of a relationship McDonnell had with a Virginia businessman surfaced, showing that Jonnie R. Williams Sr. had given McDonnell more than $175,000 in gifts, including Rolex watches and vacations. In return, prosecutors argued that McDonnell had agreed to help Williams get in touch with the right people in the state who could speed up clinical trials on a dietary supplement that Williams’ company was making.
McDonnell’s attorneys say he never did anything official to help expedite the trials.
Guest:
Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School and a member of the advisory board at Columbia’s Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity
When autonomous cars crash, should they save passengers or pedestrians?
When a driverless car crashes, should it be programmed to save the most amount of people, even if that means passengers don’t make it?
That’s the question participants were asked during a recent study published in the journal Science. And while the majority of people said they would rather see less fatalities, they also wouldn’t buy a car that’s programmed to sacrifice passengers for the greater good.
Manufacturers of autonomous vehicles are still far from developing this type of technology. Nonetheless, the question of who to save in an accident has come up, and will likely be asked many more times as driverless cars become more popular.
Last year, 90 percent of accidents in the U.S. were caused by human error. It’s been argued that driverless cars are safer because they take human error out of driving. Even with less collisions, tough choices are made when they happen. In the future, that may mean regulating cars to preserves the most lives, but will that keep consumers from buying autonomous vehicles altogether?
Do you think driverless cars should save more people, even at the expense of passengers’ lives? Would you buy an autonomous car that was programmed to do so?
One of the authors of the study, Azim Shariff, and a reporter for Automotive News, David Undercoffler, joined Patt Morrison to talk about the implications of autonomous cars and whether they should make these tough calls in a crash.
Interview highlights:
How much of a consideration is this question going to be for carmakers?
David Undercoffler: Certainly carmakers are aware of this “trolley problem.” By and large, a lot of them see it as a red herring. This is not what is keeping them up at night. They would point out that we’re talking about these improbable scenarios — I would ask how many of our listeners have been in a situation where there’s a bus full of kittens on one side of the street and a bus full of nuns on the other and it’s up to you to choose — when the breaks go out — where you steer your car. That’s not a likely scenario, and to talk about that really is a distraction.
What the automakers point out is that [with] autonomous cars — if you’re mitigating car accidents [caused by human error] — you’re saving potentially 40,000 lives a year and that’s a net gain by a huge magnitude.
Let’s compare this to an airplane scenario. We know 40,000 people a year die in car crashes, but when you get on an airplane, you freak out because you’re not in the cockpit.
Undercoffler: That’s true and I think there definitely is some trepidation by people about this whole idea of, ‘I’m giving up control and the car may choose to kill me.’ But again, these are sort of improbable areas.
Another thing auto makers are wrestling with is: If you are directing a car to choose what to do when there is an accident coming your way, it’s almost impossible to have an automobile that in real time has the computational power and the sensors to say, ‘O.K., I know everything that is going around right now and no matter what happens, I am able to put this car in the best scenario.’
Machines and artificial intelligence are not perfect, just like humans are not. And you talk to people leading this research and they express a little frustration in that we do expect machines to make the perfect decision.
How will fear come into play with this question of who to save and the adoption of autonomous cars?
Azim Shariff: I think this plays into the fear that’s going to delay the adoption of the use of autonomous cars that is going to cost us lives. . . I think one problem with these types of fears is that the idea of using your autonomous car and it potentially getting in one of these accidents, people are going to weigh it much more than they would with the human-on-human accidents we’re used to. As a result, that’s going to be powerful enough to dissuade them from adopting the cars as early as they could or probably should.
Guests:
Azim F. Shariff, Ph.D, Assistant Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine and co-author of the study, “The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles"
David Undercoffler, reporter at Automotive News, former automotive reporter for the L.A. Times; he tweets
AirTalk election 2016: How Brexit impacts the campaigns, Sanders support of Clinton, and counting down to the conventions
With less than a month left before the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the grind continues for both presumptive presidential nominees, both of whom are working to stay on top of issues that have dogged them for much of the campaign.
For Donald Trump, the issue continues to be money.
After it was reported last week that Trump’s campaign had just over $1 million in its coffers at the beginning of June to the Clinton campaign’s $42+ million, Trump has been scrambling to make up that money, largely through emails asking for donations of $10. As of Monday, Trump’s son Eric says the message had raised $11 million.
There are also questions about how Britain’s historic vote to leave the European Union last week will have ripple effects on the presidential campaigns here in the U.S.
The so-called Brexit vote has secessionist groups in Texas pondering the viability of Texas exiting the United States, but would that even be legal?
Guests:
Louis Desipio, professor of political science and Chicano/Latino studies and director of the Center for Democracy at the University of California Irvine
Zack Courser, Research Director of the Dreier Roundtable and visiting Assistant Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College; he tweets
How Brexit is emboldening Texas secessionists' 'Texit' dreams
Far from the United Kingdom, last week's "Brexit" vote to leave the European Union was being cheered by the Texas Nationalist Movement.
Secessionist ambitions have long been a part of Texas politics and culture, and last month the Texas Republican Party debated adding the concept to its party platform.
The U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution address the idea of secession. In interpreting those documents, while most scholars and government officials deem secession would be illegal, the debate persists.
Guest:
Evan Smith, CEO of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan digital news organization; Former editor of "Texas Monthly"
AirTalk asks: Is it ever okay to quit your job on the spot?
“I quit!” Chances are, you've thought of announcing this to your employer.
Perhaps quitting on the spot crossed your mind during an especially stressful situation, but maybe you reconsidered because of economic obligations or because you felt guilty leaving your co-workers short-staffed.
But according to the Wall Street Journal, quitting without giving an advanced notice is becoming increasingly common in the workplace.
Why are more people quitting their jobs without giving an advanced notice? Have you ever quit your job abruptly? How did you fare? Are there any pros to this?
Here's what some of you told us on Twitter:
- 18 yrs old, working at a burger joint - had an audition. Mgr said "if you leave you can't come back" - I left. Meh.
— Good Citizen (@GoodCitizenBand)
#IQuit - 18 yrs old, working at a burger joint - had an audition. Mgr said "if you leave you can't come back" - I left. Meh.
— Good Citizen (@GoodCitizenBand) June 27, 2016
saw two old coworkers quit on the spot after not getting the raised they asked for.
— We're the Russos (@WeretheRussos)
I quit on the spot. Nordstrom. After 3 years. They stayed open during a blackout- putting us at risk for profit.
— OCTwinMommy (@OCTwinMommy)
@AirTalk I quit on the spot. Nordstrom. After 3 years. They stayed open during a blackout- putting us at risk for profit. #iquit
— OCTwinMommy (@OCTwinMommy) June 27, 2016
I was behind the counter at a fast Cajun food joint in Texas when my friends invited me to actual New Orleans. Byeee!
— Crisman Richards (@CrismanRichards)
Guest:
Lori Shreve Blake, Senior Director of Alumni and Student Career Services at USC