Critic of the Affordable Care Act and Georgia Rep. Tom Price is Trump’s pick to lead the Dept. of Health and Human Services – we look at what that means for Obamacare; how libel lawsuits can be weaponized against the media in the age of Trump; plus, the CA State Bar has proposed a ban on lawyers having sex with clients – we debate the proposal.
With Rep. Tom Price pick, Trump doubles down on promise to repeal Obamacare
President-Elect Donald Trump has made two cabinet picks today -- former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao as Secretary of Transportation, and Congressman Tom Price as Health and Human Services Secretary.
Picking Price seems to indicate Trump isn't backing down from his campaign vow to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Congressman Price has been one of the most vocal opponents of the ACA. He's even introduced his alternative in the House on multiple occasions.
So what might a replacement for Obamacare look like? Would it satisfy those who gained coverage under the ACA? Implementation of the ACA split the country. Millions of Americans who hadn't had health insurance are now able to afford it, thanks to big federal subsidies. Others lost the policies they liked and, in many cases, had to pay more for their new ones. Can a replacement for the ACA serve both masters?
Guests:
Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, FREOPP.org and former senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute
Kavita Patel, M.D., Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution; she’s also a practicing primary care physician at Johns Hopkins Medicine and was previously a Director of Policy for The White House under President Obama
SCOTUS to decide on new immigration case Jennings v. Rodriguez
Before President-elect Trump can exercise any executive power on immigration next January, SCOTUS will set a new precedent by hearing Jennings v. Rodriguez on Wednesday.
The case comes from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that illegal immigrants held in detention centers for at least six months must be afforded bond hearings with the possibility of release, including those with criminal records.
Under the Obama administration, over 2.4 million illegal immigrants have been deported, a record number above any other U.S. president according to a June report by the New York Times, but nearly two-thirds of these “deportation cases involve people who had committed minor infractions, including traffic violations, or had no criminal record at all.”
U.S. Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli told the Los Angeles Times, “Throughout the history of U.S. immigration law, Congress has never provided bond hearings for aliens detained at the threshold of entry to the country […]”
But the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued in federal court in Los Angeles and won the appeals, argues that many of these detainees are not criminals, with families to take care of and jobs to return to as they await their immigration status, and deserve a hearing after being held for half a year in prison.
How do you feel SCOTUS should rule and why? Should foreigners who are in the country illegally but seeking immigration status be exempt from bond hearings? Larry Mantle speaks with two experts on immigration studies to analyze the implications resulting in overturning or upholding Jennings v. Rodriguez.
Guests:
Michael Kaufman, Staff Attorney specializing in immigrants’ rights at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California
Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at Center for Immigration Studies
Latino voters weigh in on the 2016 election
Depending on which exit polls you look at, Latino voters either overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton, or displayed surprising allegiance to Donald Trump.
However large or small their number is, Latino Trump supporters have become a lightning rod this election, particularly in light of Trump’s stance on immigration and his controversial remarks calling Mexicans “rapists” and “bad hombres”.
AirTalk asks Latino voters in Southern California to call in and talk about why they decided to support their respective presidential candidate, and their families and friends have reacted to their choices.
Guests:
John Rodriguez, retired Los Angeles County Sheriff officer, a 4th generation Mexican American and a Trump supporter
Vicky Cerpa, a Latina and a Hillary Clinton voter
How to prevent accused hate crime shooter Dylann Roof from trial theatrics
After his own lawyers challenged his mental fitness for trial, Dylann Roof - accused of killing 9 black parishioners in South Carolina last year - has won the right to act as his own attorney in his federal death penalty trial.
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel said he would reluctantly accept the 22-year-old's "unwise" decision. Roof, an avowed white supremacist, is charged with counts including hate crimes and obstruction of religion in connection with the June 17, 2015 attack at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. During the massacre, Roof shouted racial insults at the six women and three men he is charged with killing, authorities said - leaving three unharmed so they could tell the world the shootings were because he hated black people.
How will the judge prevent the trial from becoming a spectacle, a platform for racist rhetoric, and another attack on victims who Roof might question? If convicted, could Roof's "pro se representation" increase the risk of an appeal based on his own supposed incompetence representing himself?
Guest:
Eric L. Muller, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Are libel lawsuits becoming the biggest weapon against the media?
Libel suits against the press aren't new. But in the era of "fake news" and Donald Trump's accusations against the "crooked media," libel suits may be hurting the press more now than in previous years.
For a public figure to be found guilty of libel in court, the plaintiff must prove that a statement is knowingly or recklessly untrue and published with "actual malice."
It can be difficult to prove libel was committed, but whether a public figure wins in court isn't always the point.
Out of numerous lawsuits in the past 3 decades, President-Elect Trump has been involved in seven libel suits. And in the past five years, Gawker and Mother Jones have had high profile libel cases filed against them.
While actually proving that a news organization is guilty of libel in court, suing can be seen as a smart investment for wealthy public figures, keeping news outlets occupied for lengthy periods of time and steeped in legal fees, even if the cases are settled or dismissed. These cases can also chip away at the credibility of the media--a growing concern among much of the press.
Larry speaks to New York Times Staff Writer Emily Bazelon and Professor of Media Law Michael Overing to find out more about how libel suits are affecting media outlets today.
Guests:
Emily Bazelon, staff writer for the New York Times Magazine; she authored the article, "Billionaires vs. the Press in the Era of Trump"
Michael Overing, principal of The Law Offices of Michael Overing and an adjunct professor of media law at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
Exploring ethical and constitutional issues at play in State Bar proposed ban on attorney-client sex
The State Bar of California is doing a major overhaul of its ethics rules, and one particular proposal is getting a lot of attention.
It would put a blanket ban on sexual relationships between attorneys and their clients, with an exception for sexual relationships that preceded the attorney-client relationships as well as lawyers’ spouses or registered domestic partners.
If you’re wondering why this hasn’t been addressed by the Bar already, it has, just not in such an all-encompassing way. The current rule forbids attorneys from forcing clients to have sex in exchange for legal services or representation, or if the relationship causes the attorney to “perform legal services incompetently.”
Supporters say an all-out ban will help address the inherent inequality that comes with the attorney-client relationship and help prevent future ethical issues. But opponents say that the ban goes too far in limiting what two consenting adults should be allowed to do and that it raises some constitutional issues regarding privacy.
Guests:
Kevin Mohr, professor of law at Western State College and consultant to the State Bar of California’s Special Commission for the Revision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct; he is also the immediate past chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee
Teresa Schmid, chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee, which prepared LACBA’s position