June 27, 2025 • 31 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 1 (06/27) - Lou Penrose fills in for John. Garrett Epps comes on the show to talk about Pres. Trump's legal battle over birthright citizenship. More on Pres. Trump's legal battle over birthright citizenship. How does the SCOTUS decision impact "Dreamers"? SCOTUS also made a decision that people are considering a victory for parents' rights.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can't find AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Louke Penrose sitting in for John Cobelt today. Thank you
for tuning in. Good to have you along with us.
Huge win for President Trump today at the Supreme Court.
No other way to look at it with respect to
birthright citizenship, a question that has been debated in Congress
for years. The Supreme Court today did not say the
(00:27):
birthright citizenship question has been answered. They didn't say yes,
they didn't say no. They did effectively say maybe. Garrett
Ebbs is a constitutional scholar. He's the legal affairs editor
for the Washington Monthly. Garrett, thanks for coming on. Effectively,
(00:48):
the Supreme Court decided today that the question can move
forward through the courts at the district level.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
And even more than that, they ruled that the district
courts are quite limited in the actions they can take
against the administration. Three district courts had simply issued an
order saying, you can't do this to anyone. You can't
take any baby and strip their citizenship away. And the
Supreme Court said, oh no, that's excessive, and you can
only apply your remedy to the parties to your litigation.
(01:21):
It's a very weird ruling for a provision of the
Constitution that applies to literally everybody to say that the
president can ignore it unless he is the subject of
a specific order. But that's what the majority did.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
So this means that if somebody challenges a deportation order
saying my child's citizen, therefore you can't support my child
in some place in the United States in a district,
that means that another district federal judge cannot stop it
from happening. That's effectively what the ruling amounts to.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Right, you'd have to get a judgment from accord as
to your specific child or a specific group of children,
very you know, relatively narrowly defined. You couldn't just say,
you know, the order is blocked. That is no longer
a tool that federal judges have in their toolbox.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
So the fourteenth Amendment is short with respect to this issue.
And I mean it just talks about born naturalized US
soil jurisdiction thereof the in the in the opinion, they
didn't say no, like they didn't say, look, we know
what we're getting out here. Let's just be very clear.
The fourteenth Amendment. The plot like, in the absence of
(02:40):
a no, it sounds like the president may They're saying,
the president may very well have an argument.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Yeah, they they They don't give any expression to that
at all except by silence. And Justice Sodomyora in her
descent points out that this is the president violating one
of the most fundamental rules of the Constitution that has
been affirmed by the federal courts and by Congress and
(03:10):
by the executive branch for the past one hundred and
fifty years, so that if there's any decision that you know,
you could say is wrong, this is as wrong as
it gets. And the court is saying, well, you know,
let's let's go slow and let's not get carried away.
Let's not block a lot of orders. It's it's, as
I say, a very weird decision. You can't figure out
(03:31):
what the court is thinking. They picked a very odd
case to go after, this so called universal injunction, but
that's what they did.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Do you get a sense I read some of my
ors descent, and every decision today was six y three,
and every descent written somebody had their hair on fire,
and in this case she did as well. It seems
like she doesn't want to be presented with the constitutional
question of whether somebody who was brought here illegally, someone
(04:01):
who's here illegally, if they have a child, if they
are under our jurisdiction. You would think the Supreme Court
would love to tackle that legal question, and in fact
they're like and they're effectively rooting for lower courts to
get it take this cup from them.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Well, you know, the fact is that's actually not really
by the standards of what we used to call law
a question, because the Supreme Court has ruled on it
repeatedly in the past. Congress has ruled on it repeatedly
in the past, and so has the executive branch as
recently is nineteen ninety five, all agreeing that the status
(04:38):
of your parents is not important if you are born here,
unless your parents are diplomatic personnel. That's the one exception.
If you are born here, you're an American citizen. And
for the President to be messing with this fundamental rule
of the post Civil War order, it's very troubling.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Do you expect this to come back? I mean, certainly
at district court levels. It's going to happen in one
hundred district courts across the country. Do you expect it
to come back in front of the Supreme Court in
the next session.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
I do. There is a weird little snapper in this
that was pointed out by Justice sodom Or, which is
the government can lose case after case after case in
the lower courts and simply refuse to appeal them to
the Supreme Court. And as long as it does that,
the rule doesn't apply to anything except the specific parties
(05:32):
that brought the case. So we may see, you know,
literally two tracks of citizens in this country, and the
government has shown that it is willing to play games
with jurisdiction, to play games with the issues presented. They
will do anything they can to defend this birthright citizenship order,
(05:53):
and we're kind of in for a very confusing period
of time.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Garrett Ebs, thanks so much. Good to catch up with you.
Constant ductional law scholar, Legal Affairs editor, Washington Monthly. All right,
when we come back, this is a question that has
to be answered. We cannot go forward in this country
any longer without knowing the answer to the most simple question.
Is someone born in this country and their parents were
not legally allowed to be here are they a citizen?
(06:22):
Are do they fit the standard of under our jurisdiction?
And the answer could be yes or no, but we
have to get the answer and then we have to
deal with it. That's all coming up next. Lou Penrose
sitting in for John Coleblt on the John Cobalt Show
k I AM six forty.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
You're listening to John Coblt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Loupenrose sitting in for John Coblt on KFI AM six forty,
talking about the Supreme Court decision finally on the issue
of birthright citizenship. And it wasn't a yes. It wasn't as,
it wasn't a no. It was a full maybe. And
we'll see now now where this goes effectively. The absence of.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
A no.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Is interesting to me because the Fourteenth Amendment is clear
all persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
Not many words, so you would think it would be
really easy for the Supreme Court to make the decision.
And I am happy with the strategy here. I am
(07:28):
very happy with the Trump's strategy of issuing executive orders
or otherwise calling on the State Department to interpret law
in such a way and then having somebody challenge it
they always do, and then having it go to a
three judge panel at an appeals court, and then a
full appeals court decision, and then work its way to
(07:49):
the Supreme Court. That's fine with me. Let's find out
what the rule is, because frankly, subject to the jurisdiction
thereof is unclear. Born in the United States is clear,
But subject to the jurisdiction thereof is That's the sticking point,
(08:11):
isn't it. I would contend that somebody who was in
the country illegally, if they have a child, they are
not subject to our jurisdiction. They can leave if they want.
How could that possibly be? How are they subject to
our jurisdiction? So I would argue that the Supreme Court
(08:32):
needs to make a decision on this so that we
can move on. And I'm happy to be wrong. And
Trump's expressed the same thing. He's like, what, I don't
think it's true. I think it's for the children of slaves.
But going forward, we need to have the Supreme Court
make a decision and we'll deal with it. And I
think that's the right attitude. I don't know why so
many Democrats are afraid for this issue to go in
(08:56):
front of the Supreme Court. And that's what they're doing
with their functions and their actions through district court levels.
These are games that states and Trump haters are playing
with the issue to try and keep the issue from
being decided once and for all. And I think that's wrong.
I think this is a healthy discussion. We are grown
(09:18):
ups in this country. Self government is messy work, and
that's why we elect problem solvers. I noticed in the
Descent I think some of my or mentioned the chaos
that would ensue chaos is okay, Like, it's okay. We
can handle chaos. We can straighten it out. We can
(09:40):
sort it out. We can certainly move through the legislature
through Congress to sort it out. We can make changes,
we can make exceptions, we can grandfather in. Look, President
Obama instituted something called DACA. We now call it Dreamers.
DAKA stands for Deferred Action for Childlihood Arrivals. Now what
(10:02):
does that mean. That means that if you were brought
brought here as a child, like literally carried here, and
your parents crossed into the country illegally, then we are
going to defer action. Is that legal? Is that constitutional?
I don't know. It's the president's interpretation and the president's
(10:23):
directive to the State Department. The President of the United
States oversees the cabinet. They work for him. So the
State Department under the Obama administration was told, look, defer
the action, which means, don't worry about the children, let's
work on other things. This president has a new State Department,
and that State Department works for Trump, and Trump can
(10:45):
say I'm changing that. So it's perfectly legitimate for the
President of the United States in his administration to issue
executive orders or direct his cabinet to interpret law the
way that he sees fit, and then if it's challenged,
it's challenged. This is all very healthy, there's nothing wrong
with this. But I think it is unhealthy to have
(11:07):
the question undecided. And I don't know why they are
throwing roadblocks and hurdles in front of the Trump administration.
If you can make the legal argument that a child
born of illegal aliens in this country illegally is actually
a US citizen and because they are under our jurisdiction,
then make your best case in front of the Supreme Court,
(11:29):
and let's get decided once and for all, because it's
too messy. Otherwise, we really can't move forward having this
two level of citizenship. It doesn't make much sense to me.
The Fourteenth Amendment came out. It was literally proposed in
sixty six and not ratified until eighteen sixty eight. I
(11:53):
noticed the Fourteenth Amendment is nestled in between the thirteenth Amendment,
which ended slavery. The fourteenth Amendment made them citizens, and
the fifteenth Amendment gave them the right to vote. So
it seems to me that the people that were drafting
these amendments to the Constitution had one singular thing in mind.
And I don't think there was a lot of international
(12:16):
travel going on in eighteen sixty three. I don't think
pregnant women traveled internationally much very dangerous to do that.
Nobody came here, and there was no such notion of
illegal immigration in eighteen sixty three. So it is clear
to me that President Trump is right this was about
the children of slaves. Having said that, it might just
(12:40):
be the case that the description applies and people that
are in twenty twenty five, someone that's born to an
illegal alien technically meets the legal definition under the fourteenth
Amendment of somebody born here in subject to our jurisdiction.
I don't think it does, but it might. And so
(13:00):
they win the game. They played the game. They were
using an eighteen sixty three law or a yeah, eighteen
sixty three law, or a proposal and amendment of the
Constitution to make it appla trying to put a size
ten foot in a size eight shoe, and they were
able to get that shoe on and winter winter chicken dinner.
(13:23):
So if that's the case, that's the case. But one
way or another, I think it is better that we
have this discussion and have it out loud, and I
think that we are better off knowing one way or another,
and then we can do all kinds of adjustments. If
we have to grandfather people that happened before the decision,
who knows will work it all out. Speaking of which,
(13:46):
and I mentioned the FIRD action against Childhood Arrivals, there
are a lot of people, and many that work at
the radio station, or not many. One that I know
of that is unhappy, not this radio station that is
very unhappy with the ambiguity of it. All, and I
think that's an unfair position that we're putting in far
(14:08):
too many people. So one way or another, we have
to go forward with this and talk about it. So
when we came back, we'll talk a little bit about
where we go from here with respect to the unanswered question,
in other words, what are Dreamers do now? Because we
have a significant amount of people who are no longer children,
no longer teenagers, but are still existing in this no
(14:29):
man's land of American society. They are able to work,
able to earn, they have no legal status, and they
have legal right under a former administration, and this administration
may or may not recognize the former administration's actions with
respect to DOCA. So we will find out what the
(14:49):
Dreamers are going to do. Not the only decision that
was made by the Supreme Court today also a big
ruling in favor of parents' rights and their ability to
opt out. So we will talk about that a lot
coming up today on the Supreme Court. But there's no
question that you cannot characterize this decision today on birthright
citizenship as a huge win for the Trump administration because
(15:13):
it keeps the ball in play now. The Trump administration,
which believes that children born to ethigalaliens are not citizens
of the United States. They can go forward now and
continue the process of deportation, and the family stays together
as they are deported. And the argument you can't deport
me because my child was born here no longer is
(15:36):
going to be something that's going to hold things up.
So we'll see where this goes. But as I said,
one way or another, we have to end this whole
discussion because it really is a matter of Congress at
this point, and it should be. If Congress wants to
make a decision and say, if you are a tourist
and you have a baby, that baby's not a citizen.
(15:58):
If you're in the country illegally and you had a baby,
that baby's not a citizen, they can make that law
and the President can sign it. You can amend the
Constitution to make amendments to the fourteenth Amendment. You can
do all kinds of things. But I don't like this
No Man's land. Louke Penrose sitting in for John Cobelt
on KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Louke Penrose sitting in for John Cobelt today. Thanks for
tuning in. So talking about the Supreme Court decision, the
most high profile one, of course, this birthright citizenship question.
The Supreme Court, for the most part said the Trump
administration can go forward and the federal courts cannot do
a nationwide blocking of the President of the United States
(16:44):
to remove people who are in the country illegally, even
if they were born in the country because their parents
were illegal aliens. The President, you just heard it during
the newscast, said that it was intended the Fourteenth Amendment
was intended for the children of slaves, not for people's
scaled the system. I think that is clear. It might
(17:05):
be an artful but I think he's absolutely right. Let's
be perfectly honest about this. I mean, come on, everybody
knows the Fourteenth Amendment was about slavery. Now does the
definition work for an illegal alien who has a baby
in twenty twenty five, that's the question before the court.
(17:25):
I don't think it does. I don't know how you
could possibly conclude that the baby of an illegal alien
is subject to our jurisdiction. Illegal aliens are not subject
to our jurisdiction. If they were subject to our jurisdiction,
they would do what we want, which is go home
and apply at the embassy in their home country. If
(17:48):
they were subject to our jurisdiction, we wouldn't have to
send the ice fan out for them. So it's a stretch,
a real stretch to say that they are to our jurisdiction,
especially since they can leave, like there's nothing stopping a
foreign national in the country illegally from leaving. Some are
(18:11):
so how can that be subject to our jurisdiction? That
they were born in the United States is true, and
so that will be ultimately the question before the Supreme Court,
and we'll deal with it. So the question came up
earlier about the anxiety I saw this on the news,
anxiety this entire debate is having on dreamers. These are
(18:32):
the people that were brought into the country by their
parents illegally when they were young. And I noticed that
the age keeps going up and up and up, like
when we talk about the children of illegal aliens. Sometimes
we're talking about four year olds, sometimes we're talking about
twenty four year old. But they get older and older
and older every year, the age of year every year,
(18:53):
and they are still kind of sitting in no man's land.
And here's my answer to that. If you're asking me
to feel bad about the child of an illegal that
was brought into the country when they were young, this
is not the right day to ask, This is not
the right month to ask, and this is not the
right year to ask. After ICE completes all their warrants
(19:18):
and completes the process of finding people and having to
deal with the American citizen maniacs that are throwing rocks
at them or popping their tires or harassing them and
gets them in the back of the icevan and process
them for deportation. All that's over, and we go through
all the names of all the warrants signed by judges
(19:41):
of all people that are in the country illegally and
have problems on their record, whether it's coming back into
the country illegally, which is a felony or duy or
violation of a tro or a nonviolent crime, you know,
like salt of a spouse, so like domestic violence, like
(20:03):
all these people. Once all that is solved, and then
you want to come back and ask, politely, for the
grace of the American taxpayer, what do we do with
these people that were brought into the country when they
were children. Then we can have the discussion, but not now,
not today, not this month. The other question is, and
(20:27):
I think a decent one, is this our problem. I
don't think it is. I keep hearing the collective. We
we have to handle this problem. We have to do
something about this problem. If somebody is a child, or
if someone was born and their parents were illegally, that
isn't our problem. That's their problem. I get that it's
(20:51):
a problem. I respect that it's a problem, but it's
your problem. You should probably talk to your parents, But
they don't. They stamp their feet and they demand and
I think that is the worst strategy, especially giving the
passion of this administration to solve this problem. And by
(21:15):
the way, with the wind at their back, there's no
question that things will continue in the direction they were going.
Nothing at the Supreme Court today signaled to me that
they are trying to rope in this administration. So the
quote unquote ICE raids will continue, and they are going
to continue in Los Angeles, and from what I have heard,
(21:38):
they will then move to San Francisco. I got word
that the Marines from twenty nine Palms will be in
Los Angeles for sixty days, but then maybe rotated out
and then we'll support federal agents in San Francisco. So
this is going to go on. It's going to continue
to go on. And the news on Los Angeles television
(21:58):
has been overwhelm like they are trying to make you
feel bad each and every day. That's what we're down.
No longer are we discussing legalities. No longer are we
discussing federal law. No longer are we discussing the facts.
No longer are we discussing what and a violent crime
or a nonviolent crime is committed by somebody that was
in the country legally. No longer is a discussion about
(22:21):
eligibility to work in the country at all if you're
in the country legally. And they're not even talking about
how we're going to starve to death because nobody will
work in agriculture. Not only are they talking about how
nobody's going to have any waiters or bus boys. They're
not even going that route anymore. They have literally exhausted
all of those arguments, and now they just put crying
(22:44):
people on TV. Every day. KTLA is the worst. Every night,
there's just a crying person lead story. Somebody got busted
by ICE and their family is crime. So lou Penrose
Rule number six, there is no crying in the back
of the ice van. No crime. You can be mad
(23:04):
that you got busted by ICE. I suspect you're disappointed,
and I'll give you frustrated. You're allowed those emotions, but
no crying, no crime. I don't want to hear any crying.
Don't cry. What did you think was going to happen?
What was your plan when you left for work? So
(23:26):
no crime. I don't want to see any more crying
on the news. I don't want to hear anymore because
it's it's it's exhausting. You see these stories and you think, oh,
that's terrible, and then you read three paragraphs down and
they were in the country illegally and wanted for domestic
violence two years ago on an outstanding warrant and think,
oh okay, So back to Guatemalia. Go. Louke Penrose sitting
(23:48):
in for John Colebelt on KFI AM six forty Live
Everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (23:54):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM six.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Penrose sitting in for John Covelt, thanks for tuning in.
Good to have you along with us. The Supreme Court
didn't just rule on the issue of birthright citizenship today
a number of rulings all six to three. So there
is a clear philosophical difference on all these constitutional issues.
And the one we're going to talk about after the
News at two, they're calling it a huge success for parents' rights.
(24:26):
So this is so fascinating to me as the back
and forth over these changing communities. There's a community in
Maryland where the local school is overwhelmingly New Americans from
Muslim countries. And that's not all. There's also a lot
(24:47):
of Orthodox Christians, So that's beautiful. You got Muslims and
Christians living in harmony in Maryland at this local school district.
And the school district wanted to have material in their
curriculum that involved effectively marriage equality issues that means same
(25:10):
sex couples. And these are not just your run of
the mill Christians or run of the Muslims. These are
very conservative people, socially conservative people, very religious, and they
went nuts when they saw what was being taught to
their kids in the public school. And that's a hot
one for them. That whole man marrying a man, girl,
(25:34):
woman marrying a woman thing. So they did what good
New Americans do, and they went to their school board,
and the school board said, well, if you don't want
your kids to be involved in this curriculum, it's pretty simple.
You just sign this and opt out and you keep
your kid home that day, or we'll put them in
study hall. You've been through this, right, I mean, this
is not like a new process. I remember my sons
(25:57):
are now thirteen, fifteen and six team, but I remember
the first time I saw that letter that came from
health class. I think it might have been sixth grade.
And you know, should you have the right to opt out.
We're gonna be talking about sensitive material with respect to
sexuality and reproduction, but if you're not comfortable with it,
you can opt out. And I'm like, no, I told
(26:17):
my wife, we're not opting out. I mean, what could
it be. They'll be fine. But I remember that event,
and so this happened to these parents. Well, wouldn't you
know it? Like the entire sixth grade opted out at
this elementary school in Maryland, like like everybody, And it
wasn't just the people that didn't want their children exposed
(26:41):
to this material that included some discussion of marriage equality.
But it was also the parents who had no problem
with having books that mentioned or referred to same sex couples.
But they didn't want the their parents to think that
(27:02):
they were heathens, right, So they didn't want their kids
to lose friends. I don't want to find out that
the oh Johnny is going to this you know, this
this harlet fest that they're throwing down there in health class.
So I don't want my kids playing with your kids
because your kids are dirty. Now they're looking at the
dirty books. So it became a huge mess. So what
(27:24):
happened was the court, the lower court decided that all right,
we need to take this to the Supreme Court because
the school district took away the opt out element. They said,
this is ridiculous, everyone's opting out. So we're just going
to make the decision. This is what we teach here.
This is public school. We're not going to have your
religious concerns influence the public school. So and everybody can't
(27:45):
opt that. If you want to opt out, then you
fully opt out, go to private school or homeschool. That
was the attitude of the school board in Maryland. So
a huge question of parental rights, a huge question of
public education, and it went all the way to the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that no, can't
do that. Parents pay the taxes, parents have a say
(28:07):
in the curriculum. Parents have the right to say what's
going on. And if the parents want to opt out,
they have every right to opt out. Even if the
entire grade opts out, you have to let them mop out.
So a huge ruling in favor of parents' rights, and
we'll talk about it with ABC News legal analyst Royal Oaks.
(28:27):
But two things that are going to happen as a
result of this won't end because I suspect the parents
will opt out and it will just be a weird
day for the sixth graders at that elementary school. And
then there is an effect that happens that I notice
every time this takes place. There is what I call
(28:48):
the are you their god, it's me Margaret effect? The
are you there, god it's me Margaret effect is if
everybody gets there nickers in a twist over a certain book,
then that becomes the most popular book in the elementary
school library. Everybody got their nickers in a twist when
(29:09):
I was in fifth and sixth grade over the Judy
Bloom classic are You There, God, It's Me Margaret, and
I'm dating myself now, And it was like it was
on a booklist. And then some parents were said, Ah,
the kids are too young to get into that coming
of age stuff, puberty, sexualizing youth. You don't want to
do that, can't wait till high school. And then of
(29:31):
course the are you there, God, It's Me Margaret book
in the in the stacks in the library at the
elementary school became the hottest thing never there. Everybody always
checked it out. Everybody knew it was page fifty nine,
Like that's what tends to happen. So there is an
interesting kind of overreaction that happens, and all these books
(29:53):
are going to be the hottest commodity. Now everyone's going
to know what are the books all about? And this
then becomes new thing. So that will be the first
effort that takes place. And of course the second, the
second reaction to all this is you are going to
have some parents that don't want their children playing with
your children. And then there is the other question. These
(30:16):
I looked at these books, some of these book covers
were in the decision. And I have seen some of
the naughty books that the school districts here in California
are insisting on thrusting upon the third graders and fourth graders.
And these books in California are sex manuals. The books
(30:37):
that were discussed in Maryland and the case made it
all the way to the Supreme Court, referenced same sex marriage.
So there is a real difference here. And I think
we can be a grown up enough society to say, look,
I get your cultural beliefs, and I get your religion.
(30:58):
We are Western, we are modern, and same sex couples exist,
so to reference them in a book, even for children,
doesn't really cost too much of a problem in our culture.
That like, there's a huge difference between referencing same sex
couples in a children's book and the absolute sex manuals
(31:20):
that they are trying to push on children. You know,
out In was in Temecula Unified School District. So I
think we need to make that distinction, and we'll do
that and also talk with ABC legal analysts where oaks.
That's all happening Following the news at two, lou Penrose
sitting in for John Coblt on KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Hey, you've been listening to the John Coblt Show podcast.
You can always hear the show live on KFI AM
six forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course, anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
Can't find AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Louke Penrose sitting in for John Cobelt today. Thank you
for tuning in. Good to have you along with us.
Huge win for President Trump today at the Supreme Court.
No other way to look at it with respect to
birthright citizenship, a question that has been debated in Congress
for years. The Supreme Court today did not say the
(00:27):
birthright citizenship question has been answered. They didn't say yes,
they didn't say no. They did effectively say maybe. Garrett
Ebbs is a constitutional scholar. He's the legal affairs editor
for the Washington Monthly. Garrett, thanks for coming on. Effectively,
(00:48):
the Supreme Court decided today that the question can move
forward through the courts at the district level.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
And even more than that, they ruled that the district
courts are quite limited in the actions they can take
against the administration. Three district courts had simply issued an
order saying, you can't do this to anyone. You can't
take any baby and strip their citizenship away. And the
Supreme Court said, oh no, that's excessive, and you can
only apply your remedy to the parties to your litigation.
(01:21):
It's a very weird ruling for a provision of the
Constitution that applies to literally everybody to say that the
president can ignore it unless he is the subject of
a specific order. But that's what the majority did.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
So this means that if somebody challenges a deportation order
saying my child's citizen, therefore you can't support my child
in some place in the United States in a district,
that means that another district federal judge cannot stop it
from happening. That's effectively what the ruling amounts to.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Right, you'd have to get a judgment from accord as
to your specific child or a specific group of children,
very you know, relatively narrowly defined. You couldn't just say,
you know, the order is blocked. That is no longer
a tool that federal judges have in their toolbox.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
So the fourteenth Amendment is short with respect to this issue.
And I mean it just talks about born naturalized US
soil jurisdiction thereof the in the in the opinion, they
didn't say no, like they didn't say, look, we know
what we're getting out here. Let's just be very clear.
The fourteenth Amendment. The plot like, in the absence of
(02:40):
a no, it sounds like the president may They're saying,
the president may very well have an argument.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Yeah, they they They don't give any expression to that
at all except by silence. And Justice Sodomyora in her
descent points out that this is the president violating one
of the most fundamental rules of the Constitution that has
been affirmed by the federal courts and by Congress and
(03:10):
by the executive branch for the past one hundred and
fifty years, so that if there's any decision that you know,
you could say is wrong, this is as wrong as
it gets. And the court is saying, well, you know,
let's let's go slow and let's not get carried away.
Let's not block a lot of orders. It's it's, as
I say, a very weird decision. You can't figure out
(03:31):
what the court is thinking. They picked a very odd
case to go after, this so called universal injunction, but
that's what they did.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Do you get a sense I read some of my
ors descent, and every decision today was six y three,
and every descent written somebody had their hair on fire,
and in this case she did as well. It seems
like she doesn't want to be presented with the constitutional
question of whether somebody who was brought here illegally, someone
(04:01):
who's here illegally, if they have a child, if they
are under our jurisdiction. You would think the Supreme Court
would love to tackle that legal question, and in fact
they're like and they're effectively rooting for lower courts to
get it take this cup from them.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Well, you know, the fact is that's actually not really
by the standards of what we used to call law
a question, because the Supreme Court has ruled on it
repeatedly in the past. Congress has ruled on it repeatedly
in the past, and so has the executive branch as
recently is nineteen ninety five, all agreeing that the status
(04:38):
of your parents is not important if you are born here,
unless your parents are diplomatic personnel. That's the one exception.
If you are born here, you're an American citizen. And
for the President to be messing with this fundamental rule
of the post Civil War order, it's very troubling.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Do you expect this to come back? I mean, certainly
at district court levels. It's going to happen in one
hundred district courts across the country. Do you expect it
to come back in front of the Supreme Court in
the next session.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
I do. There is a weird little snapper in this
that was pointed out by Justice sodom Or, which is
the government can lose case after case after case in
the lower courts and simply refuse to appeal them to
the Supreme Court. And as long as it does that,
the rule doesn't apply to anything except the specific parties
(05:32):
that brought the case. So we may see, you know,
literally two tracks of citizens in this country, and the
government has shown that it is willing to play games
with jurisdiction, to play games with the issues presented. They
will do anything they can to defend this birthright citizenship order,
(05:53):
and we're kind of in for a very confusing period
of time.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Garrett Ebs, thanks so much. Good to catch up with you.
Constant ductional law scholar, Legal Affairs editor, Washington Monthly. All right,
when we come back, this is a question that has
to be answered. We cannot go forward in this country
any longer without knowing the answer to the most simple question.
Is someone born in this country and their parents were
not legally allowed to be here are they a citizen?
(06:22):
Are do they fit the standard of under our jurisdiction?
And the answer could be yes or no, but we
have to get the answer and then we have to
deal with it. That's all coming up next. Lou Penrose
sitting in for John Coleblt on the John Cobalt Show
k I AM six forty.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
You're listening to John Coblt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Loupenrose sitting in for John Coblt on KFI AM six forty,
talking about the Supreme Court decision finally on the issue
of birthright citizenship. And it wasn't a yes. It wasn't as,
it wasn't a no. It was a full maybe. And
we'll see now now where this goes effectively. The absence of.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
A no.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Is interesting to me because the Fourteenth Amendment is clear
all persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
Not many words, so you would think it would be
really easy for the Supreme Court to make the decision.
And I am happy with the strategy here. I am
(07:28):
very happy with the Trump's strategy of issuing executive orders
or otherwise calling on the State Department to interpret law
in such a way and then having somebody challenge it
they always do, and then having it go to a
three judge panel at an appeals court, and then a
full appeals court decision, and then work its way to
(07:49):
the Supreme Court. That's fine with me. Let's find out
what the rule is, because frankly, subject to the jurisdiction
thereof is unclear. Born in the United States is clear,
But subject to the jurisdiction thereof is That's the sticking point,
(08:11):
isn't it. I would contend that somebody who was in
the country illegally, if they have a child, they are
not subject to our jurisdiction. They can leave if they want.
How could that possibly be? How are they subject to
our jurisdiction? So I would argue that the Supreme Court
(08:32):
needs to make a decision on this so that we
can move on. And I'm happy to be wrong. And
Trump's expressed the same thing. He's like, what, I don't
think it's true. I think it's for the children of slaves.
But going forward, we need to have the Supreme Court
make a decision and we'll deal with it. And I
think that's the right attitude. I don't know why so
many Democrats are afraid for this issue to go in
(08:56):
front of the Supreme Court. And that's what they're doing
with their functions and their actions through district court levels.
These are games that states and Trump haters are playing
with the issue to try and keep the issue from
being decided once and for all. And I think that's wrong.
I think this is a healthy discussion. We are grown
(09:18):
ups in this country. Self government is messy work, and
that's why we elect problem solvers. I noticed in the
Descent I think some of my or mentioned the chaos
that would ensue chaos is okay, Like, it's okay. We
can handle chaos. We can straighten it out. We can
(09:40):
sort it out. We can certainly move through the legislature
through Congress to sort it out. We can make changes,
we can make exceptions, we can grandfather in. Look, President
Obama instituted something called DACA. We now call it Dreamers.
DAKA stands for Deferred Action for Childlihood Arrivals. Now what
(10:02):
does that mean. That means that if you were brought
brought here as a child, like literally carried here, and
your parents crossed into the country illegally, then we are
going to defer action. Is that legal? Is that constitutional?
I don't know. It's the president's interpretation and the president's
(10:23):
directive to the State Department. The President of the United
States oversees the cabinet. They work for him. So the
State Department under the Obama administration was told, look, defer
the action, which means, don't worry about the children, let's
work on other things. This president has a new State Department,
and that State Department works for Trump, and Trump can
(10:45):
say I'm changing that. So it's perfectly legitimate for the
President of the United States in his administration to issue
executive orders or direct his cabinet to interpret law the
way that he sees fit, and then if it's challenged,
it's challenged. This is all very healthy, there's nothing wrong
with this. But I think it is unhealthy to have
(11:07):
the question undecided. And I don't know why they are
throwing roadblocks and hurdles in front of the Trump administration.
If you can make the legal argument that a child
born of illegal aliens in this country illegally is actually
a US citizen and because they are under our jurisdiction,
then make your best case in front of the Supreme Court,
(11:29):
and let's get decided once and for all, because it's
too messy. Otherwise, we really can't move forward having this
two level of citizenship. It doesn't make much sense to me.
The Fourteenth Amendment came out. It was literally proposed in
sixty six and not ratified until eighteen sixty eight. I
(11:53):
noticed the Fourteenth Amendment is nestled in between the thirteenth Amendment,
which ended slavery. The fourteenth Amendment made them citizens, and
the fifteenth Amendment gave them the right to vote. So
it seems to me that the people that were drafting
these amendments to the Constitution had one singular thing in mind.
And I don't think there was a lot of international
(12:16):
travel going on in eighteen sixty three. I don't think
pregnant women traveled internationally much very dangerous to do that.
Nobody came here, and there was no such notion of
illegal immigration in eighteen sixty three. So it is clear
to me that President Trump is right this was about
the children of slaves. Having said that, it might just
(12:40):
be the case that the description applies and people that
are in twenty twenty five, someone that's born to an
illegal alien technically meets the legal definition under the fourteenth
Amendment of somebody born here in subject to our jurisdiction.
I don't think it does, but it might. And so
(13:00):
they win the game. They played the game. They were
using an eighteen sixty three law or a yeah, eighteen
sixty three law, or a proposal and amendment of the
Constitution to make it appla trying to put a size
ten foot in a size eight shoe, and they were
able to get that shoe on and winter winter chicken dinner.
(13:23):
So if that's the case, that's the case. But one
way or another, I think it is better that we
have this discussion and have it out loud, and I
think that we are better off knowing one way or another,
and then we can do all kinds of adjustments. If
we have to grandfather people that happened before the decision,
who knows will work it all out. Speaking of which,
(13:46):
and I mentioned the FIRD action against Childhood Arrivals, there
are a lot of people, and many that work at
the radio station, or not many. One that I know
of that is unhappy, not this radio station that is
very unhappy with the ambiguity of it. All, and I
think that's an unfair position that we're putting in far
(14:08):
too many people. So one way or another, we have
to go forward with this and talk about it. So
when we came back, we'll talk a little bit about
where we go from here with respect to the unanswered question,
in other words, what are Dreamers do now? Because we
have a significant amount of people who are no longer children,
no longer teenagers, but are still existing in this no
(14:29):
man's land of American society. They are able to work,
able to earn, they have no legal status, and they
have legal right under a former administration, and this administration
may or may not recognize the former administration's actions with
respect to DOCA. So we will find out what the
(14:49):
Dreamers are going to do. Not the only decision that
was made by the Supreme Court today also a big
ruling in favor of parents' rights and their ability to
opt out. So we will talk about that a lot
coming up today on the Supreme Court. But there's no
question that you cannot characterize this decision today on birthright
citizenship as a huge win for the Trump administration because
(15:13):
it keeps the ball in play now. The Trump administration,
which believes that children born to ethigalaliens are not citizens
of the United States. They can go forward now and
continue the process of deportation, and the family stays together
as they are deported. And the argument you can't deport
me because my child was born here no longer is
(15:36):
going to be something that's going to hold things up.
So we'll see where this goes. But as I said,
one way or another, we have to end this whole
discussion because it really is a matter of Congress at
this point, and it should be. If Congress wants to
make a decision and say, if you are a tourist
and you have a baby, that baby's not a citizen.
(15:58):
If you're in the country illegally and you had a baby,
that baby's not a citizen, they can make that law
and the President can sign it. You can amend the
Constitution to make amendments to the fourteenth Amendment. You can
do all kinds of things. But I don't like this
No Man's land. Louke Penrose sitting in for John Cobelt
on KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Louke Penrose sitting in for John Cobelt today. Thanks for
tuning in. So talking about the Supreme Court decision, the
most high profile one, of course, this birthright citizenship question.
The Supreme Court, for the most part said the Trump
administration can go forward and the federal courts cannot do
a nationwide blocking of the President of the United States
(16:44):
to remove people who are in the country illegally, even
if they were born in the country because their parents
were illegal aliens. The President, you just heard it during
the newscast, said that it was intended the Fourteenth Amendment
was intended for the children of slaves, not for people's
scaled the system. I think that is clear. It might
(17:05):
be an artful but I think he's absolutely right. Let's
be perfectly honest about this. I mean, come on, everybody
knows the Fourteenth Amendment was about slavery. Now does the
definition work for an illegal alien who has a baby
in twenty twenty five, that's the question before the court.
(17:25):
I don't think it does. I don't know how you
could possibly conclude that the baby of an illegal alien
is subject to our jurisdiction. Illegal aliens are not subject
to our jurisdiction. If they were subject to our jurisdiction,
they would do what we want, which is go home
and apply at the embassy in their home country. If
(17:48):
they were subject to our jurisdiction, we wouldn't have to
send the ice fan out for them. So it's a stretch,
a real stretch to say that they are to our jurisdiction,
especially since they can leave, like there's nothing stopping a
foreign national in the country illegally from leaving. Some are
(18:11):
so how can that be subject to our jurisdiction? That
they were born in the United States is true, and
so that will be ultimately the question before the Supreme Court,
and we'll deal with it. So the question came up
earlier about the anxiety I saw this on the news,
anxiety this entire debate is having on dreamers. These are
(18:32):
the people that were brought into the country by their
parents illegally when they were young. And I noticed that
the age keeps going up and up and up, like
when we talk about the children of illegal aliens. Sometimes
we're talking about four year olds, sometimes we're talking about
twenty four year old. But they get older and older
and older every year, the age of year every year,
(18:53):
and they are still kind of sitting in no man's land.
And here's my answer to that. If you're asking me
to feel bad about the child of an illegal that
was brought into the country when they were young, this
is not the right day to ask, This is not
the right month to ask, and this is not the
right year to ask. After ICE completes all their warrants
(19:18):
and completes the process of finding people and having to
deal with the American citizen maniacs that are throwing rocks
at them or popping their tires or harassing them and
gets them in the back of the icevan and process
them for deportation. All that's over, and we go through
all the names of all the warrants signed by judges
(19:41):
of all people that are in the country illegally and
have problems on their record, whether it's coming back into
the country illegally, which is a felony or duy or
violation of a tro or a nonviolent crime, you know,
like salt of a spouse, so like domestic violence, like
(20:03):
all these people. Once all that is solved, and then
you want to come back and ask, politely, for the
grace of the American taxpayer, what do we do with
these people that were brought into the country when they
were children. Then we can have the discussion, but not now,
not today, not this month. The other question is, and
(20:27):
I think a decent one, is this our problem. I
don't think it is. I keep hearing the collective. We
we have to handle this problem. We have to do
something about this problem. If somebody is a child, or
if someone was born and their parents were illegally, that
isn't our problem. That's their problem. I get that it's
(20:51):
a problem. I respect that it's a problem, but it's
your problem. You should probably talk to your parents, But
they don't. They stamp their feet and they demand and
I think that is the worst strategy, especially giving the
passion of this administration to solve this problem. And by
(21:15):
the way, with the wind at their back, there's no
question that things will continue in the direction they were going.
Nothing at the Supreme Court today signaled to me that
they are trying to rope in this administration. So the
quote unquote ICE raids will continue, and they are going
to continue in Los Angeles, and from what I have heard,
(21:38):
they will then move to San Francisco. I got word
that the Marines from twenty nine Palms will be in
Los Angeles for sixty days, but then maybe rotated out
and then we'll support federal agents in San Francisco. So
this is going to go on. It's going to continue
to go on. And the news on Los Angeles television
(21:58):
has been overwhelm like they are trying to make you
feel bad each and every day. That's what we're down.
No longer are we discussing legalities. No longer are we
discussing federal law. No longer are we discussing the facts.
No longer are we discussing what and a violent crime
or a nonviolent crime is committed by somebody that was
in the country legally. No longer is a discussion about
(22:21):
eligibility to work in the country at all if you're
in the country legally. And they're not even talking about
how we're going to starve to death because nobody will
work in agriculture. Not only are they talking about how
nobody's going to have any waiters or bus boys. They're
not even going that route anymore. They have literally exhausted
all of those arguments, and now they just put crying
(22:44):
people on TV. Every day. KTLA is the worst. Every night,
there's just a crying person lead story. Somebody got busted
by ICE and their family is crime. So lou Penrose
Rule number six, there is no crying in the back
of the ice van. No crime. You can be mad
(23:04):
that you got busted by ICE. I suspect you're disappointed,
and I'll give you frustrated. You're allowed those emotions, but
no crying, no crime. I don't want to hear any crying.
Don't cry. What did you think was going to happen?
What was your plan when you left for work? So
(23:26):
no crime. I don't want to see any more crying
on the news. I don't want to hear anymore because
it's it's it's exhausting. You see these stories and you think, oh,
that's terrible, and then you read three paragraphs down and
they were in the country illegally and wanted for domestic
violence two years ago on an outstanding warrant and think,
oh okay, So back to Guatemalia. Go. Louke Penrose sitting
(23:48):
in for John Colebelt on KFI AM six forty Live
Everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (23:54):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM six.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Penrose sitting in for John Covelt, thanks for tuning in.
Good to have you along with us. The Supreme Court
didn't just rule on the issue of birthright citizenship today
a number of rulings all six to three. So there
is a clear philosophical difference on all these constitutional issues.
And the one we're going to talk about after the
News at two, they're calling it a huge success for parents' rights.
(24:26):
So this is so fascinating to me as the back
and forth over these changing communities. There's a community in
Maryland where the local school is overwhelmingly New Americans from
Muslim countries. And that's not all. There's also a lot
(24:47):
of Orthodox Christians, So that's beautiful. You got Muslims and
Christians living in harmony in Maryland at this local school district.
And the school district wanted to have material in their
curriculum that involved effectively marriage equality issues that means same
(25:10):
sex couples. And these are not just your run of
the mill Christians or run of the Muslims. These are
very conservative people, socially conservative people, very religious, and they
went nuts when they saw what was being taught to
their kids in the public school. And that's a hot
one for them. That whole man marrying a man, girl,
(25:34):
woman marrying a woman thing. So they did what good
New Americans do, and they went to their school board,
and the school board said, well, if you don't want
your kids to be involved in this curriculum, it's pretty simple.
You just sign this and opt out and you keep
your kid home that day, or we'll put them in
study hall. You've been through this, right, I mean, this
is not like a new process. I remember my sons
(25:57):
are now thirteen, fifteen and six team, but I remember
the first time I saw that letter that came from
health class. I think it might have been sixth grade.
And you know, should you have the right to opt out.
We're gonna be talking about sensitive material with respect to
sexuality and reproduction, but if you're not comfortable with it,
you can opt out. And I'm like, no, I told
(26:17):
my wife, we're not opting out. I mean, what could
it be. They'll be fine. But I remember that event,
and so this happened to these parents. Well, wouldn't you
know it? Like the entire sixth grade opted out at
this elementary school in Maryland, like like everybody, And it
wasn't just the people that didn't want their children exposed
(26:41):
to this material that included some discussion of marriage equality.
But it was also the parents who had no problem
with having books that mentioned or referred to same sex couples.
But they didn't want the their parents to think that
(27:02):
they were heathens, right, So they didn't want their kids
to lose friends. I don't want to find out that
the oh Johnny is going to this you know, this
this harlet fest that they're throwing down there in health class.
So I don't want my kids playing with your kids
because your kids are dirty. Now they're looking at the
dirty books. So it became a huge mess. So what
(27:24):
happened was the court, the lower court decided that all right,
we need to take this to the Supreme Court because
the school district took away the opt out element. They said,
this is ridiculous, everyone's opting out. So we're just going
to make the decision. This is what we teach here.
This is public school. We're not going to have your
religious concerns influence the public school. So and everybody can't
(27:45):
opt that. If you want to opt out, then you
fully opt out, go to private school or homeschool. That
was the attitude of the school board in Maryland. So
a huge question of parental rights, a huge question of
public education, and it went all the way to the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that no, can't
do that. Parents pay the taxes, parents have a say
(28:07):
in the curriculum. Parents have the right to say what's
going on. And if the parents want to opt out,
they have every right to opt out. Even if the
entire grade opts out, you have to let them mop out.
So a huge ruling in favor of parents' rights, and
we'll talk about it with ABC News legal analyst Royal Oaks.
(28:27):
But two things that are going to happen as a
result of this won't end because I suspect the parents
will opt out and it will just be a weird
day for the sixth graders at that elementary school. And
then there is an effect that happens that I notice
every time this takes place. There is what I call
(28:48):
the are you their god, it's me Margaret effect? The
are you there, god it's me Margaret effect is if
everybody gets there nickers in a twist over a certain book,
then that becomes the most popular book in the elementary
school library. Everybody got their nickers in a twist when
(29:09):
I was in fifth and sixth grade over the Judy
Bloom classic are You There, God, It's Me Margaret, and
I'm dating myself now, And it was like it was
on a booklist. And then some parents were said, Ah,
the kids are too young to get into that coming
of age stuff, puberty, sexualizing youth. You don't want to
do that, can't wait till high school. And then of
(29:31):
course the are you there, God, It's Me Margaret book
in the in the stacks in the library at the
elementary school became the hottest thing never there. Everybody always
checked it out. Everybody knew it was page fifty nine,
Like that's what tends to happen. So there is an
interesting kind of overreaction that happens, and all these books
(29:53):
are going to be the hottest commodity. Now everyone's going
to know what are the books all about? And this
then becomes new thing. So that will be the first
effort that takes place. And of course the second, the
second reaction to all this is you are going to
have some parents that don't want their children playing with
your children. And then there is the other question. These
(30:16):
I looked at these books, some of these book covers
were in the decision. And I have seen some of
the naughty books that the school districts here in California
are insisting on thrusting upon the third graders and fourth graders.
And these books in California are sex manuals. The books
(30:37):
that were discussed in Maryland and the case made it
all the way to the Supreme Court, referenced same sex marriage.
So there is a real difference here. And I think
we can be a grown up enough society to say, look,
I get your cultural beliefs, and I get your religion.
(30:58):
We are Western, we are modern, and same sex couples exist,
so to reference them in a book, even for children,
doesn't really cost too much of a problem in our culture.
That like, there's a huge difference between referencing same sex
couples in a children's book and the absolute sex manuals
(31:20):
that they are trying to push on children. You know,
out In was in Temecula Unified School District. So I
think we need to make that distinction, and we'll do
that and also talk with ABC legal analysts where oaks.
That's all happening Following the news at two, lou Penrose
sitting in for John Coblt on KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Hey, you've been listening to the John Coblt Show podcast.
You can always hear the show live on KFI AM
six forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course, anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
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