Latest news with #LawrenceVilardo
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Yahoo
Judge denies motion to dismiss hate crime count against Tops mass shooter
BUFFALO, N.Y. (WIVB) — A federal judge on Monday denied a motion to dismiss one of the hate crime counts the Tops mass shooter is facing. Payton Gendron's attorneys previously filed a motion to dismiss the charge tied to the people who were at the Tops on Jefferson Avenue during the racist attack on May 14, 2022, but not killed or injured. They argued that it was not directed at a specific, identifiable victim, and therefore should be dismissed. Judge Lawrence Vilardo ruled that the count does refer to a particular group of people. 'The government responds that count 27 'clearly delineate[s] a discrete class of victims: the Black people who were present in and around Tops during [Gendron]'s mass shooting,' so there is no ambiguity about the intended victims' identities,' the lawsuit said. This case is expected to be back in a federal court room next week for a status conference. Marlee Tuskes is an award-winning anchor and reporter who has been part of the News 4 team since 2019. See more of her work here and follow her on Twitter. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts' 'fireside chat' was a rare opportunity
BUFFALO — It's rare for a U.S. Supreme Court justice to speak outside of the marbled and wood-paneled courtroom in Washington, D.C. And even rarer when it's the chief justice who is speaking publicly. That's part of what made Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s appearance in Buffalo Wednesday night so remarkable. Not only did he attend the 125th anniversary of the creation of the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of New York, Roberts also agreed to sit down with his long-time friend and Harvard Law School classmate, U.S. Western District of New York Court Judge Lawrence Vilardo, for what was described as 'a fireside chat.' As rare as Robert's public appearance was, his relaxed and free-flowing conversation, with someone he obviously shared a bond with, was equal parts reminiscence, advice for the other judges and lawyers in attendance, and a largely unguarded and unvarnished expression of his views on the role of the courts in America. Sitting in a pair of overstuffed armchairs on the ballroom stage at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Roberts, who lived in the Town of Hamburg until he was 10 years old, smiled and chuckled as he and Vilardo, a Buffalo native, recalled their days working together on the Harvard Law Review. Roberts nodded as Vilardo recounted how the chief justice would fill his free time in the law review office by perfecting his skill at 'pencil ball' (a game where one person holds a pencil and tries to hit a small, rolled-up piece of paper, thrown by another person, with the eraser end of the pencil). Roberts also admitted to Vilardo that his decision to become a lawyer was prompted by a cab ride to the Harvard campus. 'I was taking a cab back to campus from Logan Airport and the cab driver asked me what I did and I told him, 'I was a history major at Harvard',' Roberts recalled. 'And he said, 'I was a history major at Harvard.' So I thought, where's that law school application file?' He later told Vilardo, 'I didn't dream of being a judge.' Recognized as a skilled writer by many legal experts, Roberts spoke about the importance of making the law 'accessible' to American citizens by crafting judicial decisions that are easy to read and understand.' and when Vilardo suggested he wanted to steer the conversation to 'something a little more important, a little more substantive', Roberts' relaxed demeanor remained the same. Asked about the importance of judicial independence in American government, the chief justice's eyes narrowed a bit, but he didn't dodge, deflect or look uncomfortable. He just continued to chat with 'a friend.' 'It's central,' he said in an even tone of voice. 'The only real political science innovation in our constitution ... is the establishment of an independent judiciary. In our Constitution, judges and the judiciary are a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and obviously strike down acts of Congress and acts of the president. And that innovation doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' And Roberts didn't stop there. He said the role of the U.S. courts is to 'obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive and that does require a degree of independence.' The gathering of lawyers and judges in the ballroom responded to Roberts with applause. The chief justice flashed a satisfied smile and shook his head in approval. The only moment in the hour-long conversation when Roberts frowned and looked unhappy was when Vilardo raised the issue of judicial impeachments. Without mentioning the name of President Donald Trump or any of his supporters who have called for the impeachment of judges who rule against their policies, Roberts sharply said, 'Well, I've already spoken to that.' 'Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions,' the chief justice continued. 'That's what we're (the Supreme Court) there for.' Roberts also provided unusual insight into the high court's deliberations, saying that in ruling on the meaning of laws or the Constitution, the justices do not typically weigh the 'practical consequences' of their decisions. 'Mainly no,' he said. 'If you do that, you're kind of putting yourself in the place of the legislator. I think it's more important to figure out what the people who wrote the law had in mind and what they meant by the words they used.' Roberts shook his head and said, 'No,' when asked by Vilardo if he had ever considered retiring from the Supreme Court. 'I'm going out feet first,' he said, while smiling and chuckling. The chief justice also told his audience that he has no plans to write an autobiography of his life. 'I think my life is intensely interesting, to me,' Roberts said with a relaxed laugh. 'But I'm not sure it is to anyone else.' The candid conversation with Roberts was praised by Western District Court Chief Justice Elizabeth Wolford. 'There can't be anything more exciting than this,' Wolford said. 'We're so honored to have (Roberts) here. We work hard to provide justice to all who appear before us.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In rare public appearance, Chief Justice Roberts reiterates support for judicial independence
May 8 (UPI) -- In a rare public appearance at a time when the courts have come under attack, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated his support for judicial independence and his rejection of calls to impeach judges. Roberts, a conservative appointee of President George W. Bush, made the comments Wednesday in Buffalo, N.Y., during a talk held in celebration of the 125th anniversary of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. With District Judge Lawrence Vilardo of the court being honored, Roberts discussed his career and spoke of his ascent to the highest court in the country. Though President Donald Trump was not mentioned by name, his presence loomed over the conversation, which was held against the backdrop of judges who have ruled against the Trump administration being attacked and calls for their resignation coming from the president, members of his party and his supporters. oOn Wednesday, Roberts championed the independence of the judicial branch from the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government as "the only real political science innovation of our Constitution." "In our Constitution, the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. That innovation doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent," he said. "Its job is to decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive, and that does require a degree of independence." In response to a question from Vilardo concerning the calls for impeachment of judges, Roberts highlighted the statement he issued in mid-March that decried such calls as an inappropriate response to decisions one disagrees with. "Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," the chief justice reiterated Wednesday. "That's what we're there for." The Trump administration has repeatedly attacked the judicial system, attracting condemnation from legal and other organizations since early in its second term. Those criticisms have only increased amid growing fears about the potential that the White House will defy court orders it disagrees with, ignore the due process rights afforded immigrants by the Constitution and threaten -- and potentially arrest -- judges who stand against its policies. Roberts issued his rare public statement in mid-March in response to Trump calling for the impeachment of a judge who blocked his attempt to deport hundreds of Venezuelans. "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," Roberts said. "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What. we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them." Trump had lambasted Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia hours earlier, calling him a "Radical Left Lunatic," "crooked," "a troublemaker," and an "agitator" who "should be impeached!!!" On Monday, a group of more than 140 retired state and federal judges sent Attorney General Pam Bondi a letter condemning the Trump administration's attack on the judiciary, including the April arrest of a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge in her courthouse on allegations of aiding a migrant defendant in evading federal immigration arrest. They called Hannah Dugan's arrest the latest action by the Trump administration "to intimidate and threaten the judiciary" following rulings by judges appointed by both parties holding it "accountable for its countless violations of the Constitution." "The American people understand that the Constitution of the United States has made the nation's judicial officers the guardians of the rule of law in our country, not the president. The nation's judiciary does not operate at the President's instruction or at his discretion," they said. "We unequivocally reject your and the Trump Administration's assault on the judiciary, the Rule of Law and those who administer it, including Judge Dugan. This does not make us 'deranged,'" the retired judges continued, quoting an often-uttered insult by Trump directed at members of the judiciary who rule against him. "It's what makes us Americans."
