June 27, 2025 • 40 mins
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of final decisions Friday as they wrapped up session ahead of their summer break. Dan broke down the Supreme Court cases and decisions.
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm tell you Basy
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Thank you Al Griffin. As we head into the ten
o'clock hour, we have a couple of hours left and
just want to thank everyone who took the time to
call in last night. That was a fun hour. We
were talking about this article in the Boston Globe today
by a writer who was not thrilled with the Cape traffic.
The name is Billy Baker. We invited Bill to be
on the show tonight, but again, sometimes people have other
(00:29):
plans and we certainly understand that. And I wasn't being
critical of him at all. It just used his thoughts
and his comments as a pretty good hour of conversation.
We have two hours left at eleven o'clock. I will
ask you during the eleven o'clock hour or two, perhaps
tell me a story of something good that happened to
you this week. I had something good happened to me
(00:50):
on Sunday night and it was with someone actually helped me.
And I hope that some of you will share some
stories and maybe you did something that helps someone this week.
So that's that's the eleven this hour. Donald Trump's on
a roll. Donald Trump during the campaign used to say
(01:11):
that you'll get so tired of winning. Well, today, President
Trump had a win from the United States Supreme Court,
a six to three decision basically told judges the nine
the nine Supreme Court justices told federal judges that they
(01:31):
have to limit this legal tact that federal judges had
been using. And in fairness, this is not so much
a fight of Donald Trump against federal judges. This is
a fight of the presidents of the United States, not
only Donald Trump, Joe Biden, President Obama and others before them.
(01:56):
There came a point in time where federal judges uh
basically decided to issue injunctions against executive orders. Now, President
Biden had a lot of executive orders. President Trump had
a flurry of executive orders. The case that was decided
today did not decide the substantive issue of birthright citizenship.
(02:19):
That case will be decided in the United States Supreme
Court in the next next term, which begins next October. First,
the US Supreme the USA Supreme Court basically is in session.
They're in session year round in theory because you can
(02:41):
always get to a justice if you if you have to. Okay,
lawyers know how to do that. However, the Supreme Court
basically begins to meet the first week in October and
they wrap it up generally by June thirtieth, but they
wrapped it up this year days earlier. There are no
more decisions coming out and the case that basically got
(03:08):
its way to the court on procedural issues. Now, birthright
citizenship is still an open question. Birthright citizenship, as I'm
sure most of my listeners know, is a part of
the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed right
(03:29):
after the Civil War. It was the thirteenth, fourteenth and
fifteenth Amendment that codified the abolition of slavery and also
a variety of rights, including citizenship for anyone born in
the United States of America and under the jurisdiction of
(03:53):
Now this birthright citizenship had has been on the books
birthright citizenship as it's known for pretty close to one
hundred and fifty years, and this is probably the most
serious challenge. I don't think the Court's going to agree
with President Trump in my opinion. That's again, let me
(04:21):
just read to you Fourteenth Amendment, Section one all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and this is
the phrase that the Trump administration wants to challenge and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United
States and the state wherein they reside. I don't think
(04:43):
he will find five votes on the Court to agree
with his interpretation. However, however, that case is what allowed
the Supreme Court that challenge is what allowed the Supreme
Court to look at the idea that a single federal
judge sitting anywhere in America Alaska, from Alaska to Florida,
(05:07):
from Maine to Hawaii, that the individual judges, federal judges,
and they are about six hundred and fifty of them
at any given time, can basically issue what was considered
to be a nationwide injunction. And now this of course
would stop executive orders that any president, every president wants
(05:32):
more power. So Donald Trump has won that procedural issue
today six to three vote. It's interesting one of the judges, Justices,
Elena Kagan, when she was Solicitor General, she argued against
the very point at this very point, so she did
not write the minority opinion was written by Sonya Soda Majora.
(05:53):
But anyway, the bottom line is that's a win for
Donald Trump. We talked earlier this week about what occurred
last Saturday night. I mean, it seemed just six nights ago.
Six nights ago, we were sitting at this point listening
to Donald Trump claim a great achievement in Iran by
(06:14):
taking out these three nuclear installations facilities in Iran. And
it's been six days. And as you know, initially there
was a elked initial assessment whether it was leaked in
its entirety or a portion of it, which seemed to
suggest that maybe the raids were not as successful as
(06:38):
President Trump had expressed. But I think subsequent to that,
certainly the presentation that General Dan Kane made l yesterday,
we played a lot of that last night, was pretty impressive.
(06:58):
And as you know, there is now been an acknowledgment
from Iran that their facilities have been hit and hurt.
The President today on the birthright citizen case, made his
argument as to what it means, and he sees the
timing of the fourteenth Amendment coming as it did shortly
(07:23):
after the end of the Civil War. He sees the
ratification of the fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
which actually I believe it's let me get the date here,
just to be sure we have the right date. Yeah,
it's eighteen sixty eight, July ninth, eighteen sixty eight. He
sees it as lenked very much to the Civil War.
(07:45):
So Rob, if you would be so kind, let's play.
This is the president today claiming victory as well, he
should cut twenty one.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
And thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file
to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined
on a nationwide basis. And some of the cases we're
talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes
to the fore that was meant for the babies of slaves.
It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system
(08:20):
and come into the country on a vacation. This was,
in fact, it was the same date, the exact same date,
the end of the Civil war.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
It was meant for the babies of slaves. And it
is so clean and so obvious.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
But this lets us go there and finally win that
case because hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into
our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for
that reason. It was meant for the babies of slaves.
So thanks to this decision, we can now properly file
to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have
(08:52):
been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Well, I'm not certain he's going to win on birthright
citizenship on the substantive case, there are other cases that,
in my opinion, this opens the door. And he lists
some of those rob cut twenty two, please.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding,
stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous
other priorities of the American people.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
We have so many of them. I have a whole list.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
I'm not going to bore you, and I'm going to
have pamped up and say a few words, but there's
really as you can talk as long as she wants,
because it's a very important decision. This is a decision
that covers a tremendous amount of territory. But I want
to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
It's a giant.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
It's a giant, and they should be very proud, and
our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
And the Attorney General and Bondi did put it in
some perspective. Now again, I don't think that this means
birthright citizenship is out the door. I don't think there
are five votes in the court for that. If you disagree,
feel free. This is the Attorney General Pam Bondi cut
number twenty three. Please rob twenty three.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer
while we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies
across the entire nation. No longer today. In the six
to three opinion, Justice Barrett correctly holds that the District
Court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal injunctions. These
(10:41):
lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world instead
of the parties before the court, as the Supreme Court
held today, they turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.
Active liberal justices. Judges have used these injunctions to block
(11:01):
virtually all of President Trump's policies.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Ironically, when there is a democratic president, and there will
be someday a democratic president, those democratic president, that democratic
president will be very happy with this decision because it
will impede the efforts that some judges might be Republican
judges would have used to enjoin democratic initiatives. So again,
(11:31):
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think everybody understands that concept. And all this says
is that if you're a judge in the district of Massachusetts,
your decision affects the parties in front of you and
theoretically can't affect the rest of the district while that
case is being brought up on appeal. But this is,
(11:54):
without question, it minimizes the role. It's one way try
to explain it to Youmi is the role, the expanded
role that federal judges were exercising, and uh, there, this
is a victory for the White House, but it's nollly
victory for the Trump white House. It's a victory for
(12:15):
successor white houses. And when the dynamics of the White
House change, there will be democratic presidents and Republicans will
have their hands tied because there were Republican judges who
did the same in terms of enjoying initiatives by Democratic presidents.
So I think it's the right ruling. I'd love to
hear from you. There's also a couple of other important
(12:37):
rulings today. Six one seven more than a couple of
others actually six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty
six months, seven nine, three, one, ten thirty. Let's get
at it. Coming back right after this.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Back to the well, we're going to get right to
the phones. There are some other decisions that we can
talk about as well. And again, I don't want to
get too wonky on this, and I don't want to
try to run a law school class here. I'm just
trying to put it in language that most people will understand.
And yeah, it's a victory for the current president, but
it's a victory for presidents going forward. Franklin Roosevelt fought
(13:17):
with the Supreme Courts. As Supreme courts, effect he tried
to basically change the number of justices in the Supreme Courts.
So this is a long battle that exists. It's forever
between the executive branch and the judicial branch. And this
is one that rightfully, I think was decided today. I
(13:37):
thought that some of the hyperbolic language in the descents
served no purpose. Will on Long Island, Hey will welcome back.
How are you hey?
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Dan? I think you know how I feel about this.
I am elated. I couldn't even be more happy, because
as an originalist, okay, I'm not a big fan of
star decisive and precedent and all of this nonsense and
twisting and manipulating the Constitution until it becomes what you
want it to be, which is completely subverting the process
(14:10):
of making amendments and changing it if you need to
change it. Okay, this brings back the power that belongs
to the executive branch that was intended by our founding
fathers period, not just mostly obviously in the area of
one of hundreds of federal judges just being able to say, eh,
I'm not going to allow this because I'm a part
(14:31):
of the hack, so I'm going to throw my gamble down.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
I think that the decision today was the right decision
in terms of Starry deciusis and precedent and all of that.
I think that they're important factors. There were cases in
this country that needed to be overturned. Plus versus Ferguson
basically said, suffer, but the Eagle was constitutional, no right,
(14:54):
I mean assigned that. I don't know how well you
felt about plus versus Ferguson.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
But I agree with that, and obviously, but I also
do you agree with and.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
You're not telling me you agreed with plus versus Ferguson.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
I assume no, I agree with overturning it. I understand that.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Sure, okay, bra versus Board of Education. So yeah, there
there were mistakes. The dread Scott decision had to be overturned.
I mean, I get that. I think that it's going
to be a tougher fight for the Trump administration to
basically change the practice in which the fourteenth Amendment because
(15:39):
of the language.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Because of the language, right, the language makes it pretty
clear that it's almost like an anchor baby is a thing.
But I definitely understand Trump uh pointing out the invention
of the amendment because that's exactly what it was for.
And now what we've turned the anchor baby into is
anchor baby. Change my great, that's what we turned into.
(16:01):
Run over here, pop out a baby. Now we have
to say, oh, well, the baby can't just be here,
and we have to allow the mom and the dad
and now wait, grandma and grandpa could fight.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
The fight next term will be over the phrase and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So, in other words, diplomats
who are here in the United States, they are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Now the
question is going to be if diplomats are not subject
(16:33):
to the jurisdiction of the United States, and if a
diplomat was here and she and her husband or he
and his wife had a child, that child would not
be automatically a United States citizen.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Right, that makes sense and that small narrow window of
a possibility of what could happen. But that's obviously not
what the Trump administration is interested in. Trying to, you know,
serve convent its way around the anchor baby.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
They're going to try to use that. They're going to
try to use that phrase and say that when someone
comes here, particularly the people who now actually come here
with a specific purpose. I mean, there's an entire travel
industry with women coming from China to California. Uh, the
(17:22):
purpose is not to live here, not to be here,
but to gain citizenship for the child when they have
the child here. That's this, There's there's some possibility here.
I don't think Trump will prove the White House will
prevail on this, but they haven't.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
I gotta be honest, I'm not really a I'm not
I'm not really interested in his battle with the fourteenth Amendment,
to tell you the truth, I'm not looking to turn
that over in any way really. And if that's you know, hey,
you got a wait with one, it's kind of how
I look at that on the fourteenth Amendment. So but
as far.
Speaker 5 (17:53):
As it got away with, right whoever, whoever, whoever came
across the border and had a baby on our soil
and then all of a sudden became a citizen, that's
kind of how I look at it that you you
you got one past us.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
You literally landed here on vacation and uh and had
a baby, you know, on purpose because you knew of
our our our amendment and you knew that it would
make them a citizen. That's you know, I kind of
have to chalk that one up to it's the way
they wrote it, and I have to deal with that.
Like like I said, I'm into original interpretation.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
You've got to go to the legislative history and you
got to see what the argument was. That's where you
get into legislative history. Uh, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof that's I don't think Trump will win, but it's
not as certainty he will he will lose. That's what
in front of fraid, right.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
I mean, like you said, you can make the argument.
There's lots of arguments you can make. They made the
argument for abortion on pretty uh un you know, really
not a very strong foundation for making uh you know,
the Roe v. Wade decision, Okay, and that's why subsequently
it was overturned because it was a shaky found fundation. Right,
(19:00):
So you could make an argument here. Anybody can make
an argument for anything. I've seen all types of people
make arguments over crazy things. I don't think that one stands.
But this one, this one was huge because this one,
I can't believe we ever allowed one of six hundred
or so federal judges to just be able to bang
his gavel and decide to just absolutely stop or have
(19:21):
an injunction that stops, you know, executive powers across the
entire nation that the people voted for by millions and millions.
Eighty million people voted for what we're doing here, and
a lot of these things that they try to stop
fit within the laws that already exist under the executive branch.
And they find some way to try to stop it,
(19:42):
and now you know those powers have been severely limited.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Thanks ren Real, Thank you much. Talk to you soon.
Have a great weekend. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, six one, seven, nine, ten thirty. We will
get to some of the other decisions as well. The
others are interesting. They're all interesting. Back on Nightside after
this Night Side.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Wow, Wow, that's such a sad story. IL appreciate it
in terms of some of the other decisions that came
down today that perhaps were not as technical as the
decision dealing with the federal judges and the extent of
their authority their power. Okay, I think that that was
(20:34):
the correct decision. There is a decision in which the
Supreme Court sided with parents, essentially saying that parents who
want to withdraw the elementary school children with an emphasis
on elementary from class with storybooks with LGBTQ plus characters
are being read a six to three decision again, same
(20:56):
division that divided along ideological lines. The court, reading here
from a piece out of USA today, said a Maryland
public school district refusal to allow opt outs likely burdens
parents First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They
said the school must allow opt outs while the legal
challenge continues. Justice Sonya Soda Majora disagree with the ruling,
(21:17):
saying children of all faiths and backgrounds deserve an education
and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society.
So what that shows is how you phrase the issue.
If you phrase the issue in the context of religious liberty,
the parents win. If you phrase the issue in the
context of us being a multicultural society and we all
(21:40):
must understand one another, then the minority would win. Here,
the Justice has blocked a challenge from the Conservatives to
end a eight billion dollar phone and internet subsidy program.
In addition to that, let me see what else. What
(22:01):
are the ones that are probably the most Yeah, there's
one here that upheld a Texas law which said that
individuals in the state of Texas, if they want to
access pornography on their computers, they have to be eighteen
(22:22):
years of age. Again, I don't know how that will
be enforced, but that's what the court said. So some
interesting decisions from the Supreme Court today, If you'd like
to comment on any of them, including the one in
which the power of individual federal judges are limited. You
were more than welcome. We have a couple of lines
(22:44):
at six, one, seven, nine, three, ten thirty. Let's go
to joe An and Waltham. Joeanne, you are next on nightside. Welcome.
Speaker 6 (22:51):
Hi Dan, How you doing.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
I'm doing fine here for a Friday night. Yeah, a
couple hours left. Nice to hear your voice. What which decision?
Speaker 6 (23:00):
I wanted to call you during the week, but it
was too done.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Hot. Yeah, it's been a hot week, that's for sure.
Speaker 6 (23:06):
And I couldn't think straight.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
That's okay. It's going to warm up next week too,
So I'm glad you got through tonight. What's yeah, you
want to talk about these decisions?
Speaker 6 (23:17):
Tickled? I am so happy they finally put a stop
to these Pattison judges. It's wonderful. Yeah, it just it's
the correct decision, and finally they did it.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
I think it is, but but realized that the next
time there's a democratic president.
Speaker 6 (23:38):
And it'll be the same.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Yeah, well the roles will be reversed. So again, it's
there have been strong Every president, Democrat or Republican, has
tried to exert their authority, either through executive orders or
or in any of a number of ways. And if
they clip the wings, if there are Republican judges or
(24:02):
conservative judges, they will be limited in how much they
can clip the wings of a Biden presidency or a
Barack Obama presidency or whoever the next Democratic president will be,
and there will be a next Democratic president at some point.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
Except how many times did Republicans try to do injunctions
on fewer Obama or Biden? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Yeah, no question is in terms of quantity, no question,
the activist groups on the left outnumbered the activist groups
on the right.
Speaker 6 (24:40):
The quest Yeah, yeah, yeah, but yeah, I think it's wonderful. Okay,
well at least well, at least now he can do
what the people wanted.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Well, yeah, I mean the US can still try to
join him in the district in which they sid and
if the I guess there's there's there's some other procedural
activities a little bit more difficult, class action suits. The
Democrats will figure out a way and the Republicans will
figure out a way. There's always going to have that
(25:16):
that tension and that competition between the executive and the judicial.
Obviously there's three equal branches of government, but presidents think
they're they're the top dog. The A lot of judges
think the judicials the top dog, and of course everyone
in Congress thinks they're the top dog.
Speaker 6 (25:38):
That Yeah, I understand in some countries the judicial took
over and it was like the downfall of the head
of state whatever it was.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Well, I don't know what I mean, It depends upon
if you have some rogue dictator a pressing people. I
suspect that we would we would cheer on the uh,
the judicial activists.
Speaker 6 (26:08):
Yeah, so you got to.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Think about that. There's some judges that took down ed.
I mean, good for them. Joeyn, thank you much as always.
You have a great weekend.
Speaker 6 (26:16):
Okay, talk to you you too. They take care.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Good night. Let me go next, go next to WILLI
is in Quincy. Will are you next on nightside? Your
thoughts on any of these cases? Will you go right ahead?
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Yes?
Speaker 7 (26:30):
Just a question on the not what information on the
birth right citizenship? Yes, something that's to your heart the
country of Ireland. Yes, I'm not sure sure if you
know what the birth rights the citizenship that was changed
in two thousand and five.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
There, I'm not familiar with that. I happen to be
a dual citizen. I have my citizenship in Ireland, which
I was able to get through the legacy of my
my paternal grandfather. What what what? What was? How was
rule changed in Ireland?
Speaker 7 (27:01):
Really he went to a referendum for the people and
after two thousand and four, if we were born, if
a child was born to parents who were not citizens,
they would not be allowed in the country. There was
a certain stipulations. If you google it, it's pretty like
a case study. It would help people understand because before
(27:23):
you know, you know, in Ireland, it was unusual to
immigrants to Ireland, but it became a prosperous country and
the economy is pretty good there now.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
So oh yeah, absolutely. Look, Ireland historically was flat on
its back economically in the early to mid nineteen eighties
and then the Celtic Tiger occurred and a lot of
American companies invested in Ireland and Ireland did really well
(27:53):
in the nineteen nineties. Immigration is up there, you're absolutely true.
And of course now you're saying in two thousand and
they said, okay, we've had it with the immigration and
we're going to end. So you had a form of
birthright citizenship in Ireland which was ended, was that ended
in the courts or through some sort of a referendum.
Speaker 7 (28:14):
Or if the referendum to the people went to which
is different from here. But you know, as I say,
the people spoke. But back it goes back to the
old way of as you were saying, people come on
vacation or coming as students and having kids and then
trying to stay through the berths of the kid.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
You know. Yeah, Well, the one of the arguments would
have been and again, obviously Trump's going to make the
argument that the fourteenth Amendment was intended for the children
of the newly emancipated slave population, which is a pretty
good argument. No one who was alive and in the
US Senate when the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth amendments were passed
(28:56):
could have anticipated the ease at which people from other
continents could fly here, because airplanes were beyond their imagination
at this point. You know. So, I don't know, it's
going to be interesting to see what the legislative history.
And that's sometimes.
Speaker 7 (29:17):
Terminology is a modern you know, modern terminology, not like
the you know, for as I said, it was the
whole new case.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Well, you had the ability if if there was a
referendum in this country. Because it's in the constitution, it
can't be overturned by a simple referendum. It would have
to be either changed by a constitutional amendment or the
US Supreme Court, through case law, would have to decide
that that that it is that it is that the
(29:48):
practice of birthright citizen needs to change. Obviously, it's not
going to affect American citizens who live here and were
born here and are having children here. It might effect
there actually is a tourist trade where we're walking people
from China fly to California, UH, and they're put up
(30:08):
in very nice hotels and it's a and and then
when the time comes they have the child, and the
child then UH is a citizen. And at some point
down the line, those children might return with their parents
and the parents might argue, our child's as it is,
and we should be a citizen.
Speaker 7 (30:27):
Yes, yeah, yeah, all right, yeah. I just think if
you're googled it, you know, if someone googled it, it
just is a modern day terminology, you know.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Okay, really I appreciate it. Have I spoken with you before?
Speaker 7 (30:41):
No, no, first time.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
I have to give I wish your first time callers,
would you would announce yourselves, because we don't want someone
to be a first time caller and not be welcome
here at night side. Really, what county did you come
here from?
Speaker 7 (30:57):
I'm from them, can be here over thirty five years.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
And oh yeah, I took my father to Ireland and
we went to Limerick in nineteen eighty four, so that
would have been before when you were born. And I
remember some beautiful tennis courts in Limerick. Limerick is an
old estra an industrial city, but I think it's made
a bit of a comeback as well.
Speaker 7 (31:20):
It's high tech yea and pharmaceutical and a great university
as well.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Absolutely, well, Willie, glad to have you with us, and
you got your citizenship and we're the same, we're both
dual citizens. Thanks Willy, congratulation, thank you, thank you, good night. Okay,
I got wide open lines here. I'd love to hear
from any of you if you'd like to talk about
the Supreme Court decisions today, the birthright citizenship decision, which
(31:46):
was a procedural decision in which the Trump administration utilized
that decision to basically cut back the power and the
influence of individual federal judges they have been using a
device which is called a nationwide injunction, which would enjoin
the the orders presidential orders that President Trump was signing
(32:13):
furiously in the fierce free weeks first few weeks of
his administration. He still signs them periodically as he comes along.
And then there would at least two others that I
think are of real interest, and one of them is
the Supreme Court, by again the same six to three split,
(32:35):
decided to support parents, a group of parents who wanted
to withdraw their kids from this again elementary school, not
talking junior high school, not talking high school, elementary school
when story books with LGBTQ plus characters were being read.
The justices also upheld a Texas porn age verification law.
(32:57):
How this will be endorsed, I don't know. They also
held the same six to three majority that the laws
survived because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.
If you're not an adult is supposedly in Texas, cant
a few pornography on the internet will well. I don't
(33:19):
know how they enforced that. Maybe someone smarter than me
can explain that. But once you've got a computer, access
to a computer, I guess you pretty much can do
what you want. We'll be right back on Nightside. Got
a couple of lines at six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, and got one line in six one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty Maria from Plymouth. She's not a first time caller.
(33:39):
We'll be back at the at the other side of
the break, we'll have Maria from Plymouth coming back on
Nightside on a Friday night. A little cooler tonight than
it was earlier this week, so we're kind of slowing
it down here. It will be in the twentieth hour
in a few minutes, coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
It's Nightside with Dan Ray, Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Back to the Phones is go to Maria in Plymouth. Maria,
welcome back. How are you welcome to Nightside?
Speaker 8 (34:08):
Hi?
Speaker 9 (34:08):
Dan, how's going.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
I'm going great? Thanks so much for calling in your
thoughts on any of all of the Supreme Court decisions today.
Speaker 9 (34:16):
Okay, a couple of things, the one about the kids
wanting to have the l g V T Q X
y Z in the schools. The I'm just curious that
those same people would be like, Okay, hey, they can
have kids can have Bible stories in there.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
You know, well no, yeah, no, no, that they would
they would not they would not allow Bible stories because
that would be religious religious based. I agree with you.
I mean, uh, I'm and they.
Speaker 9 (34:47):
Haven't been allowing them, so I don't see how they're
you know, it's allow this.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
And well it's it's it's it's parental it's parental rights.
I agree with you, it's parental rights. If you your
kid is in elementary school and he's said he or
she's six or seven years old, just because you're sending
now again, the argument was, well, if you don't like
the public school curriculum, said your kid to a private school.
That's not fair, that's not fair. And so I think
(35:15):
that decision was the right decision today. No, junior high
school is different, not fair different. You know, there's a
point when they get to sixth, seventh, eighth grade, they're
going to know about most of that stuff anyway, and
if they choose, if and.
Speaker 9 (35:27):
They're going to read what they choose, if they've actually
been taught to read.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Well that's another problem. Which when they get to that point,
that's a separate problem. Whether they can't read.
Speaker 9 (35:39):
Yeah, you know, and the second part I had was
about the dissenting opinion the Son of Year. There she
had said that it was being an open invitation for
the government to bypass the constitution. So that's a government,
she meaning just the executive branch or she's talking about
(36:02):
the legislative branch or.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
The I think that would be. I haven't read her descent,
but I'm sure she was talking about the president. And
yet if it was the president that she agreed with,
that's the problem. It's so difficult to separate the politics
from the law. I think legally that's a sound decision today.
But in order to be consistent when there's a democratic
president who wants to put through some you know, executive
(36:28):
order that I'm not happy about, I kind turn around
and say, well, let's get some judge to issue a
nationwide injunction. That's what we're talking about the extent. So
I think the principal should apply either way.
Speaker 9 (36:43):
Well, let's say they If they do that, I don't
understand how it's possible because the president, I don't know,
senators and representatives also, But I mean he swears to
uphold the Constitution of the United States, whatever that is.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Well, well, I.
Speaker 9 (36:59):
Would at some point they would have to change the
constitution if they want, if that's the way they want
to go about it.
Speaker 2 (37:05):
No, no, no, no, I think you're overthinking. If there
was a piece of legislation that Congress passed and a
president signed, unless it was inherently unconstitutional. If they if
let us say, Congress passed the law and the president
signed it that said black people have lost the right
to vote, that's patently unconstitutional. Uh, the judicial, the judiciary
(37:26):
would take precedents and that would be ruled unconstitutional. I
don't want to get too deep into the weeds here,
but just I think it was the right decision today.
Irrespective of whether it's liberal judges curtailing a Republican president
or conservative judges curtailing a democratic president, they should have
(37:48):
a right to exercise their their authority.
Speaker 9 (37:51):
I want to get one morement. It's like the Karen
Reid thing is like, you know, would you keep I'm
back and forth to the court. It's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
Good decisions.
Speaker 2 (38:03):
Again, I'm not going to mix Karen reading with this.
I got to get one more in. Thanks, Thanks, Maria,
thank you very much. Julia in reading You're a little late,
but I've got I got some time for you, Julia, go.
Speaker 8 (38:13):
Right ahead, Oh, thank you. Hi. So I wanted to
just comment on the decisions today. So sure, you know,
I think that you're absolutely right that what's going to
happen is we are going to have a democratic president. Oh,
we're going to have a socialist president one of these days.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
I hope not. I hope not.
Speaker 8 (38:35):
Go ahead, you hope not. I I am not in
of that same mind. So we're going to have a
democratic president, let's ray, and he's going to decide that
LGBT is absolutely fine, and he's going to make some
decisions and people are going to hate it, and and
all the Republicans are going to hate it, right, and
(38:56):
they're going to want to do the same exact thing
to a judge that is politically swayed towards the Republicans. Yes,
and so I think what we're gonna do is play whackabab.
You know, this country is gonna play whack a ball.
It depends on right.
Speaker 2 (39:14):
But I think I think that. But Julia, Julia, I
think what this does is it says to future presidents,
you're gonna you're gonna have some you can you know,
do your executive orders. Uh, and you'll be able. You
you'll have less harassment from judges who are who are
ideologically opposed to you. So I think this this gives
(39:37):
the president, whoever the president is a little more political
level room, and I think that's a good thing. And
there may be something that some president does that I'm
going to disagree with them. However, I think from a
purely procedural point of view, we cannot tie the hands
of presidents. If presidents do things that are patently unconstitutional,
(39:58):
then they they will be create tied. Julia, I hate
to tell you, but I'm flat out of time. Have
you called my show before? Is this your first time?
Speaker 8 (40:07):
It's time?
Speaker 2 (40:08):
Well, we want to give you out of applause, but
I also want to encourage you to please call back
and call a little earlier. I think we're going to
have some great conversations. We might agree or disagree, but
I think there'll be great conversations. Thank you so much,
were welcome.
Speaker 7 (40:22):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (40:23):
Talk to you soon. Have a great weekend. All right,
we are done with this hour. We're coming back on
the other side, and I want stories of something good
that happened to you this week. Maybe a story of
someone who helped you or someone assisted you. I will
explain what I mean right after the eleven o'clock News
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm tell you Basy
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Thank you Al Griffin. As we head into the ten
o'clock hour, we have a couple of hours left and
just want to thank everyone who took the time to
call in last night. That was a fun hour. We
were talking about this article in the Boston Globe today
by a writer who was not thrilled with the Cape traffic.
The name is Billy Baker. We invited Bill to be
on the show tonight, but again, sometimes people have other
(00:29):
plans and we certainly understand that. And I wasn't being
critical of him at all. It just used his thoughts
and his comments as a pretty good hour of conversation.
We have two hours left at eleven o'clock. I will
ask you during the eleven o'clock hour or two, perhaps
tell me a story of something good that happened to
you this week. I had something good happened to me
(00:50):
on Sunday night and it was with someone actually helped me.
And I hope that some of you will share some
stories and maybe you did something that helps someone this week.
So that's that's the eleven this hour. Donald Trump's on
a roll. Donald Trump during the campaign used to say
(01:11):
that you'll get so tired of winning. Well, today, President
Trump had a win from the United States Supreme Court,
a six to three decision basically told judges the nine
the nine Supreme Court justices told federal judges that they
(01:31):
have to limit this legal tact that federal judges had
been using. And in fairness, this is not so much
a fight of Donald Trump against federal judges. This is
a fight of the presidents of the United States, not
only Donald Trump, Joe Biden, President Obama and others before them.
(01:56):
There came a point in time where federal judges uh
basically decided to issue injunctions against executive orders. Now, President
Biden had a lot of executive orders. President Trump had
a flurry of executive orders. The case that was decided
today did not decide the substantive issue of birthright citizenship.
(02:19):
That case will be decided in the United States Supreme
Court in the next next term, which begins next October. First,
the US Supreme the USA Supreme Court basically is in session.
They're in session year round in theory because you can
(02:41):
always get to a justice if you if you have to. Okay,
lawyers know how to do that. However, the Supreme Court
basically begins to meet the first week in October and
they wrap it up generally by June thirtieth, but they
wrapped it up this year days earlier. There are no
more decisions coming out and the case that basically got
(03:08):
its way to the court on procedural issues. Now, birthright
citizenship is still an open question. Birthright citizenship, as I'm
sure most of my listeners know, is a part of
the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed right
(03:29):
after the Civil War. It was the thirteenth, fourteenth and
fifteenth Amendment that codified the abolition of slavery and also
a variety of rights, including citizenship for anyone born in
the United States of America and under the jurisdiction of
(03:53):
Now this birthright citizenship had has been on the books
birthright citizenship as it's known for pretty close to one
hundred and fifty years, and this is probably the most
serious challenge. I don't think the Court's going to agree
with President Trump in my opinion. That's again, let me
(04:21):
just read to you Fourteenth Amendment, Section one all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and this is
the phrase that the Trump administration wants to challenge and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United
States and the state wherein they reside. I don't think
(04:43):
he will find five votes on the Court to agree
with his interpretation. However, however, that case is what allowed
the Supreme Court that challenge is what allowed the Supreme
Court to look at the idea that a single federal
judge sitting anywhere in America Alaska, from Alaska to Florida,
(05:07):
from Maine to Hawaii, that the individual judges, federal judges,
and they are about six hundred and fifty of them
at any given time, can basically issue what was considered
to be a nationwide injunction. And now this of course
would stop executive orders that any president, every president wants
(05:32):
more power. So Donald Trump has won that procedural issue
today six to three vote. It's interesting one of the judges, Justices,
Elena Kagan, when she was Solicitor General, she argued against
the very point at this very point, so she did
not write the minority opinion was written by Sonya Soda Majora.
(05:53):
But anyway, the bottom line is that's a win for
Donald Trump. We talked earlier this week about what occurred
last Saturday night. I mean, it seemed just six nights ago.
Six nights ago, we were sitting at this point listening
to Donald Trump claim a great achievement in Iran by
(06:14):
taking out these three nuclear installations facilities in Iran. And
it's been six days. And as you know, initially there
was a elked initial assessment whether it was leaked in
its entirety or a portion of it, which seemed to
suggest that maybe the raids were not as successful as
(06:38):
President Trump had expressed. But I think subsequent to that,
certainly the presentation that General Dan Kane made l yesterday,
we played a lot of that last night, was pretty impressive.
(06:58):
And as you know, there is now been an acknowledgment
from Iran that their facilities have been hit and hurt.
The President today on the birthright citizen case, made his
argument as to what it means, and he sees the
timing of the fourteenth Amendment coming as it did shortly
(07:23):
after the end of the Civil War. He sees the
ratification of the fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
which actually I believe it's let me get the date here,
just to be sure we have the right date. Yeah,
it's eighteen sixty eight, July ninth, eighteen sixty eight. He
sees it as lenked very much to the Civil War.
(07:45):
So Rob, if you would be so kind, let's play.
This is the president today claiming victory as well, he
should cut twenty one.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
And thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file
to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined
on a nationwide basis. And some of the cases we're
talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes
to the fore that was meant for the babies of slaves.
It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system
(08:20):
and come into the country on a vacation. This was,
in fact, it was the same date, the exact same date,
the end of the Civil war.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
It was meant for the babies of slaves. And it
is so clean and so obvious.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
But this lets us go there and finally win that
case because hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into
our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for
that reason. It was meant for the babies of slaves.
So thanks to this decision, we can now properly file
to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have
(08:52):
been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Well, I'm not certain he's going to win on birthright
citizenship on the substantive case, there are other cases that,
in my opinion, this opens the door. And he lists
some of those rob cut twenty two, please.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding,
stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous
other priorities of the American people.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
We have so many of them. I have a whole list.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
I'm not going to bore you, and I'm going to
have pamped up and say a few words, but there's
really as you can talk as long as she wants,
because it's a very important decision. This is a decision
that covers a tremendous amount of territory. But I want
to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
It's a giant.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
It's a giant, and they should be very proud, and
our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
And the Attorney General and Bondi did put it in
some perspective. Now again, I don't think that this means
birthright citizenship is out the door. I don't think there
are five votes in the court for that. If you disagree,
feel free. This is the Attorney General Pam Bondi cut
number twenty three. Please rob twenty three.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer
while we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies
across the entire nation. No longer today. In the six
to three opinion, Justice Barrett correctly holds that the District
Court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal injunctions. These
(10:41):
lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world instead
of the parties before the court, as the Supreme Court
held today, they turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.
Active liberal justices. Judges have used these injunctions to block
(11:01):
virtually all of President Trump's policies.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Ironically, when there is a democratic president, and there will
be someday a democratic president, those democratic president, that democratic
president will be very happy with this decision because it
will impede the efforts that some judges might be Republican
judges would have used to enjoin democratic initiatives. So again,
(11:31):
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think everybody understands that concept. And all this says
is that if you're a judge in the district of Massachusetts,
your decision affects the parties in front of you and
theoretically can't affect the rest of the district while that
case is being brought up on appeal. But this is,
(11:54):
without question, it minimizes the role. It's one way try
to explain it to Youmi is the role, the expanded
role that federal judges were exercising, and uh, there, this
is a victory for the White House, but it's nollly
victory for the Trump white House. It's a victory for
(12:15):
successor white houses. And when the dynamics of the White
House change, there will be democratic presidents and Republicans will
have their hands tied because there were Republican judges who
did the same in terms of enjoying initiatives by Democratic presidents.
So I think it's the right ruling. I'd love to
hear from you. There's also a couple of other important
(12:37):
rulings today. Six one seven more than a couple of
others actually six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty
six months, seven nine, three, one, ten thirty. Let's get
at it. Coming back right after this.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Back to the well, we're going to get right to
the phones. There are some other decisions that we can
talk about as well. And again, I don't want to
get too wonky on this, and I don't want to
try to run a law school class here. I'm just
trying to put it in language that most people will understand.
And yeah, it's a victory for the current president, but
it's a victory for presidents going forward. Franklin Roosevelt fought
(13:17):
with the Supreme Courts. As Supreme courts, effect he tried
to basically change the number of justices in the Supreme Courts.
So this is a long battle that exists. It's forever
between the executive branch and the judicial branch. And this
is one that rightfully, I think was decided today. I
(13:37):
thought that some of the hyperbolic language in the descents
served no purpose. Will on Long Island, Hey will welcome back.
How are you hey?
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Dan? I think you know how I feel about this.
I am elated. I couldn't even be more happy, because
as an originalist, okay, I'm not a big fan of
star decisive and precedent and all of this nonsense and
twisting and manipulating the Constitution until it becomes what you
want it to be, which is completely subverting the process
(14:10):
of making amendments and changing it if you need to
change it. Okay, this brings back the power that belongs
to the executive branch that was intended by our founding
fathers period, not just mostly obviously in the area of
one of hundreds of federal judges just being able to say, eh,
I'm not going to allow this because I'm a part
(14:31):
of the hack, so I'm going to throw my gamble down.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
I think that the decision today was the right decision
in terms of Starry deciusis and precedent and all of that.
I think that they're important factors. There were cases in
this country that needed to be overturned. Plus versus Ferguson
basically said, suffer, but the Eagle was constitutional, no right,
(14:54):
I mean assigned that. I don't know how well you
felt about plus versus Ferguson.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
But I agree with that, and obviously, but I also
do you agree with and.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
You're not telling me you agreed with plus versus Ferguson.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
I assume no, I agree with overturning it. I understand that.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Sure, okay, bra versus Board of Education. So yeah, there
there were mistakes. The dread Scott decision had to be overturned.
I mean, I get that. I think that it's going
to be a tougher fight for the Trump administration to
basically change the practice in which the fourteenth Amendment because
(15:39):
of the language.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Because of the language, right, the language makes it pretty
clear that it's almost like an anchor baby is a thing.
But I definitely understand Trump uh pointing out the invention
of the amendment because that's exactly what it was for.
And now what we've turned the anchor baby into is
anchor baby. Change my great, that's what we turned into.
(16:01):
Run over here, pop out a baby. Now we have
to say, oh, well, the baby can't just be here,
and we have to allow the mom and the dad
and now wait, grandma and grandpa could fight.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
The fight next term will be over the phrase and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So, in other words, diplomats
who are here in the United States, they are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Now the
question is going to be if diplomats are not subject
(16:33):
to the jurisdiction of the United States, and if a
diplomat was here and she and her husband or he
and his wife had a child, that child would not
be automatically a United States citizen.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Right, that makes sense and that small narrow window of
a possibility of what could happen. But that's obviously not
what the Trump administration is interested in. Trying to, you know,
serve convent its way around the anchor baby.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
They're going to try to use that. They're going to
try to use that phrase and say that when someone
comes here, particularly the people who now actually come here
with a specific purpose. I mean, there's an entire travel
industry with women coming from China to California. Uh, the
(17:22):
purpose is not to live here, not to be here,
but to gain citizenship for the child when they have
the child here. That's this, There's there's some possibility here.
I don't think Trump will prove the White House will
prevail on this, but they haven't.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
I gotta be honest, I'm not really a I'm not
I'm not really interested in his battle with the fourteenth Amendment,
to tell you the truth, I'm not looking to turn
that over in any way really. And if that's you know, hey,
you got a wait with one, it's kind of how
I look at that on the fourteenth Amendment. So but
as far.
Speaker 5 (17:53):
As it got away with, right whoever, whoever, whoever came
across the border and had a baby on our soil
and then all of a sudden became a citizen, that's
kind of how I look at it that you you
you got one past us.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
You literally landed here on vacation and uh and had
a baby, you know, on purpose because you knew of
our our our amendment and you knew that it would
make them a citizen. That's you know, I kind of
have to chalk that one up to it's the way
they wrote it, and I have to deal with that.
Like like I said, I'm into original interpretation.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
You've got to go to the legislative history and you
got to see what the argument was. That's where you
get into legislative history. Uh, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof that's I don't think Trump will win, but it's
not as certainty he will he will lose. That's what
in front of fraid, right.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
I mean, like you said, you can make the argument.
There's lots of arguments you can make. They made the
argument for abortion on pretty uh un you know, really
not a very strong foundation for making uh you know,
the Roe v. Wade decision, Okay, and that's why subsequently
it was overturned because it was a shaky found fundation. Right,
(19:00):
So you could make an argument here. Anybody can make
an argument for anything. I've seen all types of people
make arguments over crazy things. I don't think that one stands.
But this one, this one was huge because this one,
I can't believe we ever allowed one of six hundred
or so federal judges to just be able to bang
his gavel and decide to just absolutely stop or have
(19:21):
an injunction that stops, you know, executive powers across the
entire nation that the people voted for by millions and millions.
Eighty million people voted for what we're doing here, and
a lot of these things that they try to stop
fit within the laws that already exist under the executive branch.
And they find some way to try to stop it,
(19:42):
and now you know those powers have been severely limited.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Thanks ren Real, Thank you much. Talk to you soon.
Have a great weekend. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, six one, seven, nine, ten thirty. We will
get to some of the other decisions as well. The
others are interesting. They're all interesting. Back on Nightside after
this Night Side.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Wow, Wow, that's such a sad story. IL appreciate it
in terms of some of the other decisions that came
down today that perhaps were not as technical as the
decision dealing with the federal judges and the extent of
their authority their power. Okay, I think that that was
(20:34):
the correct decision. There is a decision in which the
Supreme Court sided with parents, essentially saying that parents who
want to withdraw the elementary school children with an emphasis
on elementary from class with storybooks with LGBTQ plus characters
are being read a six to three decision again, same
(20:56):
division that divided along ideological lines. The court, reading here
from a piece out of USA today, said a Maryland
public school district refusal to allow opt outs likely burdens
parents First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They
said the school must allow opt outs while the legal
challenge continues. Justice Sonya Soda Majora disagree with the ruling,
(21:17):
saying children of all faiths and backgrounds deserve an education
and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society.
So what that shows is how you phrase the issue.
If you phrase the issue in the context of religious liberty,
the parents win. If you phrase the issue in the
context of us being a multicultural society and we all
(21:40):
must understand one another, then the minority would win. Here,
the Justice has blocked a challenge from the Conservatives to
end a eight billion dollar phone and internet subsidy program.
In addition to that, let me see what else. What
(22:01):
are the ones that are probably the most Yeah, there's
one here that upheld a Texas law which said that
individuals in the state of Texas, if they want to
access pornography on their computers, they have to be eighteen
(22:22):
years of age. Again, I don't know how that will
be enforced, but that's what the court said. So some
interesting decisions from the Supreme Court today, If you'd like
to comment on any of them, including the one in
which the power of individual federal judges are limited. You
were more than welcome. We have a couple of lines
(22:44):
at six, one, seven, nine, three, ten thirty. Let's go
to joe An and Waltham. Joeanne, you are next on nightside. Welcome.
Speaker 6 (22:51):
Hi Dan, How you doing.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
I'm doing fine here for a Friday night. Yeah, a
couple hours left. Nice to hear your voice. What which decision?
Speaker 6 (23:00):
I wanted to call you during the week, but it
was too done.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Hot. Yeah, it's been a hot week, that's for sure.
Speaker 6 (23:06):
And I couldn't think straight.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
That's okay. It's going to warm up next week too,
So I'm glad you got through tonight. What's yeah, you
want to talk about these decisions?
Speaker 6 (23:17):
Tickled? I am so happy they finally put a stop
to these Pattison judges. It's wonderful. Yeah, it just it's
the correct decision, and finally they did it.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
I think it is, but but realized that the next
time there's a democratic president.
Speaker 6 (23:38):
And it'll be the same.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Yeah, well the roles will be reversed. So again, it's
there have been strong Every president, Democrat or Republican, has
tried to exert their authority, either through executive orders or
or in any of a number of ways. And if
they clip the wings, if there are Republican judges or
(24:02):
conservative judges, they will be limited in how much they
can clip the wings of a Biden presidency or a
Barack Obama presidency or whoever the next Democratic president will be,
and there will be a next Democratic president at some point.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
Except how many times did Republicans try to do injunctions
on fewer Obama or Biden? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Yeah, no question is in terms of quantity, no question,
the activist groups on the left outnumbered the activist groups
on the right.
Speaker 6 (24:40):
The quest Yeah, yeah, yeah, but yeah, I think it's wonderful. Okay,
well at least well, at least now he can do
what the people wanted.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Well, yeah, I mean the US can still try to
join him in the district in which they sid and
if the I guess there's there's there's some other procedural
activities a little bit more difficult, class action suits. The
Democrats will figure out a way and the Republicans will
figure out a way. There's always going to have that
(25:16):
that tension and that competition between the executive and the judicial.
Obviously there's three equal branches of government, but presidents think
they're they're the top dog. The A lot of judges
think the judicials the top dog, and of course everyone
in Congress thinks they're the top dog.
Speaker 6 (25:38):
That Yeah, I understand in some countries the judicial took
over and it was like the downfall of the head
of state whatever it was.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Well, I don't know what I mean, It depends upon
if you have some rogue dictator a pressing people. I
suspect that we would we would cheer on the uh,
the judicial activists.
Speaker 6 (26:08):
Yeah, so you got to.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Think about that. There's some judges that took down ed.
I mean, good for them. Joeyn, thank you much as always.
You have a great weekend.
Speaker 6 (26:16):
Okay, talk to you you too. They take care.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Good night. Let me go next, go next to WILLI
is in Quincy. Will are you next on nightside? Your
thoughts on any of these cases? Will you go right ahead?
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Yes?
Speaker 7 (26:30):
Just a question on the not what information on the
birth right citizenship? Yes, something that's to your heart the
country of Ireland. Yes, I'm not sure sure if you
know what the birth rights the citizenship that was changed
in two thousand and five.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
There, I'm not familiar with that. I happen to be
a dual citizen. I have my citizenship in Ireland, which
I was able to get through the legacy of my
my paternal grandfather. What what what? What was? How was
rule changed in Ireland?
Speaker 7 (27:01):
Really he went to a referendum for the people and
after two thousand and four, if we were born, if
a child was born to parents who were not citizens,
they would not be allowed in the country. There was
a certain stipulations. If you google it, it's pretty like
a case study. It would help people understand because before
(27:23):
you know, you know, in Ireland, it was unusual to
immigrants to Ireland, but it became a prosperous country and
the economy is pretty good there now.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
So oh yeah, absolutely. Look, Ireland historically was flat on
its back economically in the early to mid nineteen eighties
and then the Celtic Tiger occurred and a lot of
American companies invested in Ireland and Ireland did really well
(27:53):
in the nineteen nineties. Immigration is up there, you're absolutely true.
And of course now you're saying in two thousand and
they said, okay, we've had it with the immigration and
we're going to end. So you had a form of
birthright citizenship in Ireland which was ended, was that ended
in the courts or through some sort of a referendum.
Speaker 7 (28:14):
Or if the referendum to the people went to which
is different from here. But you know, as I say,
the people spoke. But back it goes back to the
old way of as you were saying, people come on
vacation or coming as students and having kids and then
trying to stay through the berths of the kid.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
You know. Yeah, Well, the one of the arguments would
have been and again, obviously Trump's going to make the
argument that the fourteenth Amendment was intended for the children
of the newly emancipated slave population, which is a pretty
good argument. No one who was alive and in the
US Senate when the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth amendments were passed
(28:56):
could have anticipated the ease at which people from other
continents could fly here, because airplanes were beyond their imagination
at this point. You know. So, I don't know, it's
going to be interesting to see what the legislative history.
And that's sometimes.
Speaker 7 (29:17):
Terminology is a modern you know, modern terminology, not like
the you know, for as I said, it was the
whole new case.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Well, you had the ability if if there was a
referendum in this country. Because it's in the constitution, it
can't be overturned by a simple referendum. It would have
to be either changed by a constitutional amendment or the
US Supreme Court, through case law, would have to decide
that that that it is that it is that the
(29:48):
practice of birthright citizen needs to change. Obviously, it's not
going to affect American citizens who live here and were
born here and are having children here. It might effect
there actually is a tourist trade where we're walking people
from China fly to California, UH, and they're put up
(30:08):
in very nice hotels and it's a and and then
when the time comes they have the child, and the
child then UH is a citizen. And at some point
down the line, those children might return with their parents
and the parents might argue, our child's as it is,
and we should be a citizen.
Speaker 7 (30:27):
Yes, yeah, yeah, all right, yeah. I just think if
you're googled it, you know, if someone googled it, it
just is a modern day terminology, you know.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Okay, really I appreciate it. Have I spoken with you before?
Speaker 7 (30:41):
No, no, first time.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
I have to give I wish your first time callers,
would you would announce yourselves, because we don't want someone
to be a first time caller and not be welcome
here at night side. Really, what county did you come
here from?
Speaker 7 (30:57):
I'm from them, can be here over thirty five years.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
And oh yeah, I took my father to Ireland and
we went to Limerick in nineteen eighty four, so that
would have been before when you were born. And I
remember some beautiful tennis courts in Limerick. Limerick is an
old estra an industrial city, but I think it's made
a bit of a comeback as well.
Speaker 7 (31:20):
It's high tech yea and pharmaceutical and a great university
as well.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Absolutely, well, Willie, glad to have you with us, and
you got your citizenship and we're the same, we're both
dual citizens. Thanks Willy, congratulation, thank you, thank you, good night. Okay,
I got wide open lines here. I'd love to hear
from any of you if you'd like to talk about
the Supreme Court decisions today, the birthright citizenship decision, which
(31:46):
was a procedural decision in which the Trump administration utilized
that decision to basically cut back the power and the
influence of individual federal judges they have been using a
device which is called a nationwide injunction, which would enjoin
the the orders presidential orders that President Trump was signing
(32:13):
furiously in the fierce free weeks first few weeks of
his administration. He still signs them periodically as he comes along.
And then there would at least two others that I
think are of real interest, and one of them is
the Supreme Court, by again the same six to three split,
(32:35):
decided to support parents, a group of parents who wanted
to withdraw their kids from this again elementary school, not
talking junior high school, not talking high school, elementary school
when story books with LGBTQ plus characters were being read.
The justices also upheld a Texas porn age verification law.
(32:57):
How this will be endorsed, I don't know. They also
held the same six to three majority that the laws
survived because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.
If you're not an adult is supposedly in Texas, cant
a few pornography on the internet will well. I don't
(33:19):
know how they enforced that. Maybe someone smarter than me
can explain that. But once you've got a computer, access
to a computer, I guess you pretty much can do
what you want. We'll be right back on Nightside. Got
a couple of lines at six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, and got one line in six one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty Maria from Plymouth. She's not a first time caller.
(33:39):
We'll be back at the at the other side of
the break, we'll have Maria from Plymouth coming back on
Nightside on a Friday night. A little cooler tonight than
it was earlier this week, so we're kind of slowing
it down here. It will be in the twentieth hour
in a few minutes, coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
It's Nightside with Dan Ray, Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Back to the Phones is go to Maria in Plymouth. Maria,
welcome back. How are you welcome to Nightside?
Speaker 8 (34:08):
Hi?
Speaker 9 (34:08):
Dan, how's going.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
I'm going great? Thanks so much for calling in your
thoughts on any of all of the Supreme Court decisions today.
Speaker 9 (34:16):
Okay, a couple of things, the one about the kids
wanting to have the l g V T Q X
y Z in the schools. The I'm just curious that
those same people would be like, Okay, hey, they can
have kids can have Bible stories in there.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
You know, well no, yeah, no, no, that they would
they would not they would not allow Bible stories because
that would be religious religious based. I agree with you.
I mean, uh, I'm and they.
Speaker 9 (34:47):
Haven't been allowing them, so I don't see how they're
you know, it's allow this.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
And well it's it's it's it's parental it's parental rights.
I agree with you, it's parental rights. If you your
kid is in elementary school and he's said he or
she's six or seven years old, just because you're sending
now again, the argument was, well, if you don't like
the public school curriculum, said your kid to a private school.
That's not fair, that's not fair. And so I think
(35:15):
that decision was the right decision today. No, junior high
school is different, not fair different. You know, there's a
point when they get to sixth, seventh, eighth grade, they're
going to know about most of that stuff anyway, and
if they choose, if and.
Speaker 9 (35:27):
They're going to read what they choose, if they've actually
been taught to read.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Well that's another problem. Which when they get to that point,
that's a separate problem. Whether they can't read.
Speaker 9 (35:39):
Yeah, you know, and the second part I had was
about the dissenting opinion the Son of Year. There she
had said that it was being an open invitation for
the government to bypass the constitution. So that's a government,
she meaning just the executive branch or she's talking about
(36:02):
the legislative branch or.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
The I think that would be. I haven't read her descent,
but I'm sure she was talking about the president. And
yet if it was the president that she agreed with,
that's the problem. It's so difficult to separate the politics
from the law. I think legally that's a sound decision today.
But in order to be consistent when there's a democratic
president who wants to put through some you know, executive
(36:28):
order that I'm not happy about, I kind turn around
and say, well, let's get some judge to issue a
nationwide injunction. That's what we're talking about the extent. So
I think the principal should apply either way.
Speaker 9 (36:43):
Well, let's say they If they do that, I don't
understand how it's possible because the president, I don't know,
senators and representatives also, But I mean he swears to
uphold the Constitution of the United States, whatever that is.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Well, well, I.
Speaker 9 (36:59):
Would at some point they would have to change the
constitution if they want, if that's the way they want
to go about it.
Speaker 2 (37:05):
No, no, no, no, I think you're overthinking. If there
was a piece of legislation that Congress passed and a
president signed, unless it was inherently unconstitutional. If they if
let us say, Congress passed the law and the president
signed it that said black people have lost the right
to vote, that's patently unconstitutional. Uh, the judicial, the judiciary
(37:26):
would take precedents and that would be ruled unconstitutional. I
don't want to get too deep into the weeds here,
but just I think it was the right decision today.
Irrespective of whether it's liberal judges curtailing a Republican president
or conservative judges curtailing a democratic president, they should have
(37:48):
a right to exercise their their authority.
Speaker 9 (37:51):
I want to get one morement. It's like the Karen
Reid thing is like, you know, would you keep I'm
back and forth to the court. It's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
Good decisions.
Speaker 2 (38:03):
Again, I'm not going to mix Karen reading with this.
I got to get one more in. Thanks, Thanks, Maria,
thank you very much. Julia in reading You're a little late,
but I've got I got some time for you, Julia, go.
Speaker 8 (38:13):
Right ahead, Oh, thank you. Hi. So I wanted to
just comment on the decisions today. So sure, you know,
I think that you're absolutely right that what's going to
happen is we are going to have a democratic president. Oh,
we're going to have a socialist president one of these days.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
I hope not. I hope not.
Speaker 8 (38:35):
Go ahead, you hope not. I I am not in
of that same mind. So we're going to have a
democratic president, let's ray, and he's going to decide that
LGBT is absolutely fine, and he's going to make some
decisions and people are going to hate it, and and
all the Republicans are going to hate it, right, and
(38:56):
they're going to want to do the same exact thing
to a judge that is politically swayed towards the Republicans. Yes,
and so I think what we're gonna do is play whackabab.
You know, this country is gonna play whack a ball.
It depends on right.
Speaker 2 (39:14):
But I think I think that. But Julia, Julia, I
think what this does is it says to future presidents,
you're gonna you're gonna have some you can you know,
do your executive orders. Uh, and you'll be able. You
you'll have less harassment from judges who are who are
ideologically opposed to you. So I think this this gives
(39:37):
the president, whoever the president is a little more political
level room, and I think that's a good thing. And
there may be something that some president does that I'm
going to disagree with them. However, I think from a
purely procedural point of view, we cannot tie the hands
of presidents. If presidents do things that are patently unconstitutional,
(39:58):
then they they will be create tied. Julia, I hate
to tell you, but I'm flat out of time. Have
you called my show before? Is this your first time?
Speaker 8 (40:07):
It's time?
Speaker 2 (40:08):
Well, we want to give you out of applause, but
I also want to encourage you to please call back
and call a little earlier. I think we're going to
have some great conversations. We might agree or disagree, but
I think there'll be great conversations. Thank you so much,
were welcome.
Speaker 7 (40:22):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (40:23):
Talk to you soon. Have a great weekend. All right,
we are done with this hour. We're coming back on
the other side, and I want stories of something good
that happened to you this week. Maybe a story of
someone who helped you or someone assisted you. I will
explain what I mean right after the eleven o'clock News
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com