Month: March 2020

Posted on

CoinDesk Podcast Network - BREAKDOWN: Can $700B in Quantitative Easing Calm the Markets? CoinDesk’s Michael Casey and Noelle Acheson Discuss

Over the weekend, the Fed decided it couldn’t wait for Wednesday’s planned meeting to act, cutting interest rates to nearly 0%. It also announced $700 billion of direct capital injection through the purchase of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed debt. 

The question is whether this action can actually calm markets? So far, it’s not looking great. Within minutes, emergency circuit breakers were triggered again. Markets are down more than 9% on the day. 

In this episode, @NLW chats with CoinDesk’s Chief Content Officer Michael Casey and director of research Noelle Acheson about:

  • Why the market isn’t impressed with Fed action
  • Why no Fed response will be enough on its own to solve the health crisis and the resulting economic dislocation
  • Why we’re going to see more conversations in the coming weeks about UBI, MMT and other direct citizen stimulus



See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Posted on

SCOTUScast - McKinney v. Arizona – Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On Tuesday, in a 5-4 decision in McKinney v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark death penalty and criminal procedure opinion about the division between direct and collateral review and the jury requirements that the Court had previously explicated in the Apprendi line of cases, including Ring v. Arizona and Hurst v. Florida. At issue was an Arizona Supreme Court opinion that conducted an appellate reweighing of aggravation and mitigation after a remand from the En Banc Ninth Circuit for a supposed error in treatment of certain mitigation on direct appeal.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh clarified or confirmed several important criminal and death penalty procedure issues. First, the majority affirmed the ongoing validity of Clemons v. Mississippi and the availability of appellate reweighing of aggravation and mitigation. Second, the Court confirmed that a jury need only find the existence of an aggravating factor, and need not conduct the weighing of aggravation and mitigation or impose the particular sentence in a death penalty case. Third, the Court affirmed that a state court conclusion as to the collateral nature of a state appellate proceeding was not subject to dispute by the Court.
To discuss the case, we are joined by Oramel H. (O.H.) Skinner, Solicitor General for Arizona.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.