i m that s annoying but soft alarms on your smartphone. no. i mean one of those really obnoxious alarms that you might hear a few rows back on the plane. turn that off. but you can t turn this alarm off. and as much as we might all want to wish it away, it s clear with less than three weeks until the midterm elections, the forecast is doom and gloom. and maybe that s why president biden today gave not one, but two, speeches on the economy. families are hurting. you ve heard me say it before, but i get it. it s been a rough four or five years for the country, but a lot of folks here are still struggling. but there s some real bright spots. i get it. folks are still struggling. but one word you did not hear from president biden today, the word, recession. but he did admit a recession was a possibility during our interview last week. i don t think there will be a recession. if it is, it ll be a very slight recession. that is, we ll move down slightly. look, it s possib
the news continues, cnn with jake tapper starts now. welcome to cnn tonight i m jake tapper. tonight the economic alarms are blurring, and i don t mean one of those vaguely known but soft alarms on your smartphone. [noise] no, i mean one of those really have noxious alarms that you might hear if you are he s back on the turn that off. but you cannot turn this alarm off. and as much as you want to wish it away, it is clear that with less than three weeks after the midterm elections, the forecast is doom and gloom. that is why president biden today today gave not one but two speeches on the economy. families are hurting, you have heard me say it before, but i get it. it has been a rough for five years for the country. but a lot of folks here are still struggling, but there are bright spots. i get it, folks are still struggling, but one word that you did not hear from president biden today? the word recession. but he did admit a recession was a possibility during o
the state can t compel the speech of this individual in this case. and so that s sort of the essential part of the holding. it goes back to a long line of cases involving the first amendment of compelled speech cases. can you force a student to say the pledge of allegiance, right? can the state require somebody to speak in a creative or verbal way, and in this court the court is saying the first amendment prohibits the state from forcing them to do that on penalty of being put in an educational program or facing other types of penalties, and that s the issue at least for the majority. now, as you know there s a strong dissent that lays out the other side, but that s what the majority at least are saying in this case. there are questions about how this might impact politics moving forward as we saw last year with the roe v. wade decision to overturn precedent there, democrats pounced on that as an issue for the mid-terms, and there are questions about how both parties might capitalize
my position on johnny depp and amber heard was it wasn t a defamation case. it was domestic violence. you didn t hear speech or about a public figure standards or approvable falsity. you heard all this mudslinging. alex jones took a default judgment on both cases, texas and connecticut, meaning liability was not an issue. we weren t discussing first amendment parameter principles. it wasn t a hard dive on it. so all of these speech cases, we call them speech cases because we know that that s what was in at the time. the issue of why they re going to trial is more fascinating. on the grassroots level, this is what i do. palin was a speech case. we were deep five dive on actual malice, deep dive on basic first amendment principles, appeals, reversals. i think, and this is just gut feeling, and the judges are seeing more and more of what
was counterallegations of domestic violence. you didn t hear talks about speech or public figure standards or provable falsity. you just had all this mud slinging. alex jones took a default judgment on both cases, texas and connecticut, meaning liability was not an issue. we weren t discussing first amendment principles. there wasn t a hard dive on it. so, are those really speech cases? we call them speech cases because we know that s what was claimed. the issue though of why they re going to trial is the more fascinating one. what i m seeing i m grass roots level. this is what i do. yeah. palin was a speech case. right. you were deep dive on actual basic first amendment principles there, motion practice, appeals, reversals. i think and this is just gut feeling, grass roots level, that judges are seeing more and more of what technology is doing in that arena, the privacy, the interrelationship.