I really do think that this court is calling President Donald J. Trump their daddy. - I really do. - Well, this was a big one, wasn't it? This was a big decision, an amazing decision, one that we're very happy about. This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory [00:00:17] for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch. The Supreme Court has stopped the presidency itself. [00:00:34] That's what they've done. And really, it's been it's been an amazing period of time this last hour. Okay, so grandpa's train of thought fell apart a little bit at the end there. But it is a big day not only for President Donald Trump, [00:00:49] but any aspiring autocrat who wants the power to trample not only what Congress is constitutionally obligated to do, but the Supreme Court, lower courts as well. And so they announced earlier today that what he wants, which is an end to a lower court ruling that was temporarily blocking his bid to end birthright citizenship. [00:01:09] He got it. And he got it not only in the birthright citizenship case, but effectively, it could be that for all cases in which lower courts try to even temporarily block Donald Trump's executive decrees, they won't be able to do that in the future. [00:01:25] And that has only, like the widest implications. We're going to get into all of it, the arguing where we go from here. But Jake, what do you think? Yeah. Real quick. The substance of this decision is not that bad or important. In fact, it doesn't even exist. I'll explain that in a little bit after we give you all the details of the story. [00:01:43] But the process argument made here is a disaster. So it's important why? It's a disaster. And that's what we're going to explain to you after you get all the details first. Yeah, I think it's a disaster on like, seven different levels. [00:01:59] And hearing Donald Trump announce it as a win for the Constitution and the separation of powers. I mean, that's that's your Orwellian bizarro world reversal of the truth. And Donald Trump here, of course, as president, not happy that these nationwide injunctions are happening. [00:02:15] And I would love to see one example of him when he wasn't president, arguing against a nationwide injunction, stopping a president if a nationwide injunction stopped Joe Biden, did he ever say that that was a core exceeding its authority? No, of course they cheered it. They thought it was the best thing ever. [00:02:31] And in this case, they have their conservative supermajority on the court. And so most of the time, the right is going to get what it wants. And this is what happened here. Six three ruling. As we've come to expect the liberal justices dissenting. Now, Jake mentioned substance. This does not actually rule on whether birthright citizenship will continue to be [00:02:51] a constitutionally guaranteed right, as it has been for over 150 50 years. They'll get to that. At some point. I suppose this is just going to allow, after a 30 day pause, the resumption of whatever it is that Trump decides to do when it comes to birthright citizenship. [00:03:06] So it is looking like in the majority of states, it will not be a right for a day or a month or two years or forever, however long it takes the Supreme Court to eventually circle back around to this crucial topic. But don't get too down on them. It does take a lot of time to figure out whether something that's [00:03:24] clearly stipulated in the Constitution is, in fact, constitutional. Can you tell that I'm not happy about this? So here is what Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. In this case, by the end of the Biden administration, we had reached a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act was immediately frozen [00:03:40] by a federal district court. The trend has continued during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, district courts issued approximately 25 universal injunctions. As the number of universal injunctions has increased, so too has the importance of the issue, basically saying there that now both sides are just they're doing too much of this [00:04:00] and judges at the lower levels are allowing it too often. And then she throws her hands up in the air and says, it's impossible for us to quickly adjudicate whether an executive order or action is, on its face, explicitly unconstitutional. [00:04:15] So rather than engaging on a case by case basis with something like two dozen lower court rulings, instead we'll just allow the president to do whatever he wants. Seems like a dereliction of their duty. So that's the majority. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the minority in this case, says with [00:04:33] the stroke of a pen, the president has made a solemn mockery of our Constitution. Rather than stand firm, the court gives way. The court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution. This is so sudden, Sotomayor goes on to say, because the administration [00:04:49] may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court. And by the way, we've already had many instances in just the past few months where the Trump administration has made very clear that even when a court order is still standing, [00:05:04] they're just not going to abide by it. We found out that one of his nominees for, I believe, an appeals court, a judicial position, was advising the lawyers in the DOJ. Just don't pay attention to it. You don't have to follow literally any of that. So we know and the members of the Scotus know exactly what the Trump regime's [00:05:22] approach to the separation of powers and in particular, the judiciary is. They know all of that, and yet they are still delivering. Not every single time, but in the vast majority of cases, more power to the Trump administration. Perhaps the administration in American history least qualified [00:05:39] or deserving of the increased powers that are being delegated to them. So we have more. We have videos, but we should probably jump into discussion. Yeah. So first thing that I want everybody to recognize is John mentioned it, but dear, I want to double down on it so people don't panic it. [00:05:55] This is not to take away birthright citizenship. They have not decided anything about that. They have remanded the it to the lower courts to go back up. They do this all the time. They send it back down to have it go back up. Okay. And so because they're ruling quickly theoretically. [00:06:11] Right. And and so they have another 30 days here and then it'll go into effect. Okay. So and again the birthright citizenship ban doesn't is not adjudicated. Right. They have not made a decision. Okay. So then what is going to happen. [00:06:27] Well this is the like the awful part of this ruling and it's preposterous. And I have a couple of theories as to why they did this. So let me give you an example. So they're saying no nationwide injunction even if the president seems to do something blatantly unconstitutional. [00:06:42] So this is blatantly and obviously constitutional. Why birthright citizenship is in the 14th amendment. It's been adjudicated by the court multiple times. There's massive precedent over it. There's no question about it. Right. So okay, here's another thing that's been adjudicated a lot, which is torture [00:06:58] is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Right. And so if the president says, you know what, I'm going to start doing torture now. You can't do a nationwide injunction on it. So what they would have to do is, according to this ruling, only the people [00:07:13] who sued, who had already been tortured, or the states that say, hey, I would not like to torture. It applies to them. An injunction applies to them. Okay. But not to any of the other states and not to the people who are about to get tortured. [00:07:29] Okay, that makes no sense. Do we have a constitution or don't we have a constitution? You can't say, oh, the Constitution applies only to people who sue. Wait, did you get it? The second problem that means now there's going to be a flood of lawsuits because nobody wants to get tortured. [00:07:44] Right. So now that's a comparison and analogy. But in this case there is already a flood of lawsuits because people are like, oh, okay, well, I was born in America, or my kid's about to be born in America, I'm pregnant or, you know, you know, [00:08:00] or my kid just got born in America, but I'm not in one of those states. So now I have to go file a lawsuit to make sure that my kid's rights aren't taken away. We could have a ridiculous, enormous amount of lawsuits. By the way, some states have already, and groups and human rights groups [00:08:16] have already started suing. Right. So what are we doing here? That's so dumb. So, look, I think that the right way to do this is I get the issue with the nationwide injunction. I. You know what I always do shoe on the other foot, right? So Biden had a lot of his stuff blocked by, nationwide injunctions. [00:08:35] And I didn't like some of the stuff that was blocked like I wanted it to go through. Student debt relief was one that was blocked. Right. And it takes forever to get out of the block. So they should have a rule. This is a fair thing that if. Hey, if you're going to do a nationwide injunction on some constitutional issues that are necessary, then the case gets significantly expedited, right? [00:08:55] Okay, that makes sense because, hey, is it constitutional or not? We got to adjudicate that right away. But and we have to stop the president from doing unconstitutional things in the meanwhile. But if it turns out it's not unconstitutional, then he can go forward. So that makes sense. [00:09:10] This doesn't they're going to reverse this at some point. I don't know how long it will take, but this will clog up the courts. It's a super dumb decision. So why do they do it? Here's my very generous theory, and you feel free to totally not believe it. And we'll see how it actually plays out. [00:09:28] Is that since what Trump is doing is so obviously unconstitutional, they're going to have to rule against it when it comes back up to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, they're just throwing out a huge chunk of precedent. And and how we interpret the Constitution in America. [00:09:45] It'll have enormous ramifications on the substance. Right. No, I hear you, I hear you. That's why I say everyone's free to totally not believe me on this one. Okay. You're all released. Okay. No, seriously, I think that they have to rule against them. [00:10:01] So part of what I think Roberts is doing here, in my opinion, is splitting the baby and going, oh, on the procedural stuff. Oh, Donald Trump is so right. So right now don't get mad at us later when we tell you that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to the Constitution. So that feels like a Roberts type of, you know, compromise. [00:10:20] But that had the good part hasn't happened yet. Only the bad part has happened. So, Nina, what do you think? Well, Jake, I hope you're right about that. I it's hard for me to put faith in Roberts, but what you're saying, you know, it makes sense. It makes too much sense. So I hope that you're right. [00:10:36] But on the face of what is happening right now, you know, the point that John was making. The court totally abdicated its responsibility, cut the legs out from under other courts. And, you know, I really do think that this court is calling President Donald J. Trump their daddy. I really do. [00:10:54] I mean, it's as sick as all of this is with the daddy stuff, the t shirts and all of that. But it just it just feels like this. And this man is celebrating, you know, you got people who are hungry, you know, people who need health care. [00:11:10] You know, all the things that this president could be doing with his power. But he steps up to a mic in the press room to celebrate a so-called victory, which is really no victory at all for the vast majority of people in this country, [00:11:25] because they come for immigrants. Eventually they're coming for everybody else. I mean, there is no red line for Donald J. Trump. This this is not good. By the way, I have been dreading later in the show when I have to present the daddy story and ask Senator Nina Turner to talk about it, [00:11:43] and she actually brought it up first. So now I feel a little bit better about that whole thing. Yeah. So look, my concern is that, like Amy Coney Barrett's like, yeah, the Republicans did this a lot to Biden. Yeah, but, like, can the Supreme Court not tell the difference between a frivolous attempt [00:12:01] to block something that is definitely within the power of the executive branch and something that seems intentionally designed to violate the Constitution? And it's not even just this. It's not even just like they found the birthright citizenship. And they were like, yeah, you know what? Some of the white supremacists have voted for us don't like this, so we're gonna get rid of this. [00:12:17] I mean, they're dispatching the military to US citizens. They've they've now taken over 250 miles of the southern border and said, yeah, that's actually all of a military base. So the military can arrest migrants in their their case after case. They are just trying to find the few remaining limitations [00:12:35] on executive power and knock them down. This is where the Supreme Court has to act expeditiously, particularly in cases of life and death. I mean, maybe it's the case that they do end up ruling on this in a month and it never goes into effect or very soon after that. [00:12:50] But when you combine the willingness of Donald Trump to now start choosing who gets to be a citizen and who doesn't scary in the first place with his nonstop horniness to deport people, you could have kids that are born that should, by rights, be citizens, but won't be the only possible protection they have under this lawless regime to not [00:13:10] be sent to El Salvador or South Sudan or Alligator, Alcatraz or Guantanamo. And then he deports them and the Supreme Court. We're just waiting around. I hope they get back in session and pick this up. But maybe the kid is now in South Sudan. So what's going to happen once they get their citizenship retroactively reapplied? [00:13:28] The Trump administration is going to fly him back over. Boy, I hope they weren't assaulted or robbed or sexually abused or murdered in the mean time. Like if there's any time where the Supreme Court has to act, it's the easiest thing in the world. If in four years, President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez signs an executive order [00:13:45] that just says, oh, by the way, y'all can't own guns anymore. Do you think the Supreme Court is going to be like, well, let's not be hasty. No nationwide injunctions, and we'll think about it. We'll get back to you in two years. You know, damn sure they're not going to do that. They acted quicker on student debt relief than something that seems designed [00:14:02] to give the double middle finger to the Constitution. Yeah, you're stealing my thunder. And you're stealing the thunder of one of the members that I was about to. - Oh, really? - Okay. What's that? So on twitch drenched wildfire said seems like a really bad precedent for the GOP's agenda to set for president and AOC. Okay, so. [00:14:21] And the reason I wanted to read that is similar to what you said, John, but I'll make a prediction on it. I know procedurally that this will lead to a giant mess. It's totally untenable. They'll have to reverse themselves on this decision. - Right? - Just in time for the progressive. So as I was, you were talking John, and I'm reading drenched wildfires comment. [00:14:39] I thought, oh, I know when they're going to reverse it as soon as there's a Democratic president and they need a nationwide injunction on something. They're like, well, it turns out this is a procedural mess. Jake was right. We're reversing it. I'm sure they'll throw that in. And then I'm going to do one last member for me, at least. [00:14:55] John Bongino on Titcomb, right, wrote in already. Funny, if we get rid of birthright citizenship, what claim do any of us have to being an American? Well, so that leads to two points. I'm going to feel really good about this because I feel like naturalized citizens. You know, should have the same rights to everyone else, [00:15:12] including the right to run for president. But it turns out now we have more rights than you guys because none of you are citizens anymore. If this the substance of this stays by definition, you all kind of have to prove that you had American parents or some other documentation. [00:15:30] Whereas naturalized citizens by definition are naturalized. We already proved it. We have the documentation. So I'm going to need to see all your papers. Okay. And think about how ridiculous that is. Because in the states that didn't sue right now they have to start asking [00:15:48] the parents, are you American or not? And there's no way to verify. So and there's no system for the doctors or nurses or the hospital to verify. So they don't know what to write on the birth certificate. So monumentally dumb. [00:16:05] So there's going to be potentially thousands and thousands of kids that have birth certificates that are unclear as to whether they're U.S. Citizens or not. And then what are you going to do with all those cases? This is so dumb, it hurts the mind to think about it. [00:16:21] All right. Last word goes to Nina. Thanks. I was thinking about the administrative nightmare. You know, it is a nightmare, but you think about the amount of money that hospitals are going to have to spend, states will have to spend, or counties will have to spend to create a system [00:16:36] to to be in line with this dumbness. And then another point I want to make. What good is a lifetime appointment? You're supposed to have courage, right? I thought, have a little extra courage because I think if you run for office, you should have courage. Anyway. Don't worry so much about the next election. [00:16:52] Do all that you can in the one that you just won. But especially when you have a lifetime appointment, you're supposed to be able to do more of the right thing. But this particular Supreme Court has shown time and time again that it is not willing to do so. I mean, they act like they their names are on the ballot or something. [00:17:09] Am I missing something? Do they still have lifetime appointments? It feels like it feels like longer than one lifetime. Yeah. They always they like whenever there's a Republican president, they're always like feeling out public opinion and stuff like that. - Yes. - Yeah. But whenever it's, you know, anything related to corporations, [00:17:26] money and politics, they're like, who cares about public opinion. No, you guys don't have a democracy anymore. Corporations. You're now human beings, and you can spend unlimited money bribing our politicians. Go ahead. Okay, then. They never checked the polls because that polls at 7% in popularity, but. Oh, well. [00:17:41] Yeah, well, we're gonna we're going to take a break as we go to the break. I want to give the conservatives an additional thing to think about, not only the precedent this is setting for President Buttigieg or whatever, who will not be bound by lower court decisions. But also, Donald Trump announced in his victory speech today that one [00:17:56] of the reasons he's right about birthright citizenship is because it was only intended to apply to newly freed slaves. Now, obviously it doesn't say that in the Constitution, but he's saying ignore the literal text of the Constitution and add whatever context you want. [00:18:12] That is the official position of your dear leader. I think that we can run with that in the future. - Especially for the Second Amendment. - Exactly. Lot's changed since then. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.