Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
You're listening to Charleston's Morning News on ninety four to
three double USC. Now back to Kelly and Blaze.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
We're covering this morning's top stories. President Trump's tariff plan
is being reinstated by a federal appeals court for now anyway.
The court granted the administration's request to pause the lower
court's ruling they blocked most of Trump's tariffs in other countries.
On Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade rule that
emergency law does not give Trump the authority to impose
(00:31):
tariffs on nearly every country. President Trump wrote on the
social media that he hoped the US Supreme Court would
reverse this horrible, country threatening decision of the Trade Court,
while lambasting the judicial branch of government as anti American.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Well, I don't understand why the courts have a role
in this. The unelected part of this is very important.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Well, these are blue states that went after I think
there's twelve of them, all blue states that went after them,
took them to this Trade court. There's other lawsuits too
that involve businesses. I was reading about a toy company
where the owner of the toy company said, you know,
it feels like, you know, the bottom is falling out
(01:19):
in all of these things because they've relied on China
for years for their manufacturing of their wood toys, which
I'm sure they sell for a substantial profit, by the way.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Yeah, but who is going to push back and ask
about that? I mean, I'm talking about the propaganda press
right now, you know, because they have pds just like
it sounds like a lot of these judges and maybe
even small business owners who are taking on this lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Well you hear well, there's several different lawsuits. So this
one happened to be in the Trade Court in New
York and it was brought by twelve Blue states. Now
there's been other lawsuits, and there is another lawsuit that
involve some of these smaller companies. I remember a few
weeks ago, I was talking about the lady who sat
(02:03):
and cried in the middle of her living room floor
over her baby products that she manufactures in China. Right,
And so the media is trying to frame this as,
you know, the Trump administration doing harm to US small business.
And I'm sorry, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you disagree with me,
but if your US small business involves manufacturing your stuff
in China and then selling it here for a huge markup. Sorry,
(02:27):
I don't feel sorry for you.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Well, and are you really a US small business? So
this is writing a ship that's decades in the making
of strengthening America. Again, if I'm a small business, I
want it to be made in America and employ Americans.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Well, the problem is they're out of business because their
business model doesn't work unless they use Chinese slave labor.
And then they don't have any kind of conscience at
all about using slave labor halfway across the world and
then marking it up and living an upper middle class
life off of the products. But once that's threatened, they're like,
(03:06):
we're on a business otherwise, well find another business model.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Though exactly time to monitor and adjust. My question is
do you really think the Supreme Court of the United
States is I mean, they've dealt some blows to this
presidency so far.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Yeah. I don't know what's going to happen in the
Supreme Court, so probably from what I've read and heard
that they'll side with the President on some of the
tariffs and then but others will be left up to Congress.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
I think it's interesting. Scott Bessant has been making the
rounds on Fox. He was on special report with Brett Behar, saying,
we've done, We've made leaves some bounds when it comes
to China and making a deal with them and the
EU as well. We don't hear a lot about the
positives there.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Well, he actually said he did a link to the
interview with Brett Pear, but he said and is kind
of stalled.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Well, he said, you know, we're before making an agreement,
the leaders will have to share a call. I kind
of thought, well, have you not already been sharing calls
at this point? But I guess that's to that point.
He's they're dragging their feet.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Maybe. Well, he said, they're stalled at the moment, and
he said he thinks the two leaders will have to
get together on a phone call or in a meeting
to move it forward. So foth that they're making progress
with other countries and there might even be a few
big trade agreements here in the today or maybe even
Monday or Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Before the break, we heard from Caroline leve at the
White House Press Secretary talking about the you know, the
judicial and unelected branch here that is thwarting you know,
the power of the presidency and how they need to
get out of the way of progress, frankly, and we
actually got a message that said, need to research their
credentials of the appointed judges. Some of them are suspected
(04:58):
of not even being American citizens. And I look that
up because how could you be appointed as a US
district court judge and not be a US citizen. And
the answer is no, is according to you know, a
quick Google search here, that the Constitution does not. It says, no,
you cannot be a U s District judge without being
(05:19):
a US citizen, although it goes on to say the
US Constitution doesn't specify any specific qualifications for federal judges,
which is to me, kind of goes against the first
sentence here, so I, you know, it goes on, like
I said, down a rabbit hole, says but appropriation law
(05:41):
requires individuals, you know, in paid positions within the continental
US federal judiciary to be US citizens.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Well maybe they're confused by Trump's comments that you know,
that they're anti US, that they're anti America, these judges
making these decisions. So maybe that was misconstrued or something.
And you may think that's hyperbole, but I was even
thinking about this look at all that's going on. Make
no mistake, it's Anni American and it's Ani US and
(06:13):
it's not just because of the side of the political
aisle I'm on that. I think that. I think that
because they've said for years that they're going to win
from the inside. The communists. All of these systems are
meant to or I shouldn't say systems, all of these
(06:34):
actions are meant to break down the system, the US
system of government, and you know, and everything that's gone
before it precedent and everything else. So you know, then
you have to ask, Okay, are the people that are
pushing this are they communists? No, maybe they're just dumb
so they believe in these things. Say AOC. You know,
(06:57):
I won't say that she's a communist. I'll say, but
she doesn't realize she's a communist. She's just dumb and
believes the wrong things and pushes the wrong agenda and
does their work for them.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Well, the pushback and I'll go deeper on this, but
some are saying, you know, one of these judges is
Canadian born outside of the US. They're not US born
citizens or appointed without maybe never having served at the
bench at a lower court level, which would be shocking
to me. But ultimately, maybe they don't know the constitution.
If we're talking about these judges, yeah, maybe to your point,
(07:31):
they're not that smart either.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Well, I mean totally different. Led. If you're a naturalized citizen,
I still think you have the right to become a
federal judge. The only thing you don't have the right
to become is president of the United States if you're
a naturalized citizen, so you don't have to be born
in this country. We've had governors that weren't born in
this country, Arnold Schwartzeneger, Jennifer grand Home, to name just
(07:56):
a few that were governors of states that were not
born in this country, but they were naturalized citizens.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Well, I would think if they were appointed without ever
serving on the bench at a lower court level, that
would be concerning to me.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Well, you know, if we find that out about any
of them, then sure we can discuss that. But in
the meantime, just because somebody said something, you know, I
don't even know how to answer that. It's like, Okay,
maybe they're bozo the cloud. I don't know, you know,
unless we find some kind of evidence or something more
than somebody just saying this then we have to assume
(08:29):
that they're credible in their position. Then you might not
like them, they might not do a good job at
their job. But you know, to go down this rabbit
hole of are the US citizens and all of this
stuff just because somebody said something about it until there's
some kind of evidence that shows otherwise. You know, I
don't even know what to say about that discussion. The
(08:50):
courts should have no role here.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges
inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process. America cannot
function if President Trump or any other president for that matter,
has there sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Truth, Caroline Levett, they're spitting facts from the White House
in front of the White House Press Court, the podium there.
We're talking about the Appeals Court reversing a block on
many a President Trump's tariffs on China. But the court
that made the original ruling said the president exceeded his authority.
Who's exceeding their authority? Again?
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Well, it's a delicate line there, So I don't know
if that's all truth or if that's blustering, because that's
just dismissing the judicial branch's role. Now, I'm not saying
that I agree with the judicial branch. I'm not saying
that I agree with how a lot of these judges
have gone about their rulings. But at the same time,
(09:51):
you just can't dismiss the judicial branch of government. It's
a coequal branch of government and they do have power.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Well, she's not dismissing it, nor is this sounds straight.
Well as they're asking for it to go to the
Supreme Court of the United States, which I'm not really
sure I feel about how they may rule on this,
to be honest. Well, again, so very hands off recently.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
So the Democrats the liberals have again weaponized the judicial
system to try to stemy this president. So it used
to be where you refrained from those things because for
the good of the United States and because the American
people elected a leader and they're like, all right, now
I have to win the next election. Now they do
it through lawsuits and you know, through all these federal
(10:34):
judges and whatnot. So again it's being abused, but it
you know, no system is perfect, including ours, So there's
going to be some inroads that you can make, you
find the cracks, and then you go in there and
you abuse, and I think that's what's happening. But you
just can't say, well, you just have to ignore all
of these judges or whatever. The judges are there for
(10:57):
a reason, and the judicial branch is has a coequal
place in our hierarchy, so.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Of course they're setting up it could be not just
a can of worms, but complete nightmare. It's anthetical to
the Constitution of the United States and all of our
branches of government. I get that.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
That's I mean, I think it's destructive to the United
States in the end, because now everything's come down to
the minutia of arguing in court over every little policy
decision and everything else. And how can that be good?
How can that not be destructive? Actually, so you know,
I don't know what the answer is there, Steve.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
You've been waiting on the line. We appreciate you. Go ahead.
Speaker 5 (11:37):
These judges have absolutely no authority, and yet they're doing
it right in front of our faces. It makes you
wonder what are they taught in law school? All of
the lawyers, like all of them, they don't understand that
a district judge doesn't have authority over international policy.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
See yeah, yeah, you.
Speaker 5 (12:01):
Know, they just don't know this. This is so obvious
that it hardly bears mentioned. I don't know. I'm I'm
with you, guys. I'm just flabbergast. They don't even know
what they're talking about. You know, if they if they're
if their orders were implemented, it would be unbelievably disruptive
and impossible to put into practice. And yet they're demanding
that they get their way. You know, it's it's so
(12:24):
obvious what it is. You know, it's it's obvious what
it is. This is their this is how they think
they can slow down the Trump train until the midterm elections.
That's that's the that's the plan.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Well, they're working hard at this plan, and that is
the plan.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
The problem is is, you know, where does their power stop.
So it's their job to determine the constitutionality of the laws, right,
and it works its way through the different courts, maybe
ultimately to the Supreme Court. But everything just doesn't go
to the Supreme Court. It has to work its way
(13:03):
through these other court systems. So it's being abused, as
I've said before, and they are trying to stop policy,
not through elections or not through debate, but by legal
means and challenging these policies.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
And these are unelected positions. We important to point that out.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
You know, I don't know why that's important to point out.
I mean, it's our system, So our system is.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
I think that's important to point out. If you're talking
about how much level, the level with which you can
wield your power above the President of the United States,
who is a you know, constitution of government, Well that's
the job of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
That's the job of art and balances. It's not just
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Ultimately, in the end, this is where this is going,
at least the Trumpet mission.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
And I just said though, but it doesn't start their
So how do you want this to work? I'm saying,
So it's a sticky wicket because it's being abused. But
you can't say that the judicial. The judiciary has no
role in the government. They have a coequal role, and
(14:18):
it's being abused. So when you say, all right, well, ultimately,
let's see the Supreme Court, So everything should just go
to the Supreme Court and forget all these other judges.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
No, this is part of the process. The judges are
in a layer. You know, there's a whole matrix. Right,
they're down here, the president's up here. The Supreme Court
is called supreme for a reason. At the end of
the day, Well.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
What's the point though, That's what I'm saying. It has
to start somewhere, and it's being abused, right, But that.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Doesn't mean we're about to find out what the point
is because these unelected judges who are appointed are eventually,
at least on the lower court levels, trying to usurp
the power of the president's lane and roll, and but
with it very important people within his administration.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
I think we're getting sidetracked here. Well, because you know what,
the Supreme Court's not elected either.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Right, I understand they're appointed. Again, we have checks, we
have balances. So are you saying that at the end
of the day, even if this goes to the Supreme
Court of the United States, it won't be a settled matter.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
I'm saying that. I think it's misguided to argue that
these are not elected officials. So they have and it
so they should keep their mouth shut.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Well, I didn't say any can Well, I mean what were.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
You saying when you said you have to remember and
I think it's important to point out that these are
not elected officials. So what's the point.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Well, we're talking about people who are appointed to positions
and it's the same sadly, because our judicial branch has
been co opted. And this is you know, to your
point even as well it's been co opted. We're now
we have political parties who are wielding our own system
(15:56):
against us, for their own gains and against whether it's
our con institution, are the will of the American people,
Where do we come in? Where is our power? It's
in our electorate. It's the idea that we have the
ability to vote.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
So I guess the answer is that you need to
remember this at election time and take it to the
ballot box and consider this not only when you're voting
for president, but also for your senator and for your
congress person. And I'll keep going down the line. I mean,
it's a little bit outside of the purview of this argument,
(16:32):
but right down to your local leaders, because these are
the ones that are making these things happen. These are
the ones bringing the lawsuits, these are the ones using
and weaponizing the federal Judiciary, But at the end of
the day, it's a coequal branch of government, so we
have to be careful about how we approach that and
(16:55):
about dismissing them.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
How you doing on a Friday closer to the weekend,
then you realize we'll talk the forecast here coming up
on Uty four to three WSC, we're.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Covering this morning's top stories. The White House wants Jill
Biden to testify before Congress about what she knew about
President Biden's decline while in office. White House Press Secretary
of Caroline Lovitt claimed Thursday, the former First Lady is
still lying to the American people. Levit also said Jill
Biden still thinks the American public is so stupid that
they're going to believe her lies. Her comments come as
(17:28):
House Republicans ramp up investigations into Biden's health and mental
state while in office and whether it was to what
extent covered up.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
I think, frankly, the former First Lady should certainly speak
up about what she saw in regards to her husband
and when she saw it and what she knew, because
I think anybody looking again at the videos and photo
evidence of Joe Biden with your own eyes and a
little bit of common sense can see this was a
clear cover up.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
She's right to Caroline loved White House spokeswoman there. I mean,
Jill Biden, it's got to be should there not be
consequences for lying to the American people and being complicit
and we'll say an alleged cover up? But well it's not.
I mean, how could he even be alleged? The whole
system failed us on Biden?
Speaker 2 (18:16):
My gosh, I'm gonna have to go against the grain.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Here, here we go.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
It's his wife, and yeah, she's a liar, and she's
a fake doctor too. But if a politician does it,
or if the President of the United States does it,
that's one thing. But who's Jill Biden? Nobody. She's a
US citizen who is married to the President of the
United States. Of course she's going to say what she says. Really,
(18:41):
you're gonna bring her up on charges or make her
go testify to Congress. I think it's just that's just
political gamemanship. And sure, bring in members of the administration,
bring in even the media for that matter, that helped
cover all this up. But Jill Biden, really, and I'm
no fan of Jill Biden at all. I'm not a
(19:03):
fan of any of the bid Like those are the
most despicable people on earth. But really, you're going to
drag Jill Biden in front of Congress, threatener with like
throw her in jail for lying to the American public.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Just to be clear, it's not just Jill. I mean,
this houseover is like committee. By the way, the chairs
James Comer, Republican out of Kentucky. They're asking several high
ranking staffers for former President Biden to appear for transcribed
interviews on their suspected roles in this alleged cover up
of his mental decline. So I don't have a problem
(19:35):
with her being put on record and transcribed interviews. I
really don't.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
I think that's going too far. Now. You're dragging the
spouse and everything in if you know, if it comes
up in these other interviews that Jill Biden was working
the auto pen or running the Oval office, then sure
you can drag her in there. But in the meantime,
like I said, I'm going to go against the grain. Yeah,
I think Jill Biden's a liar. So's Jill Biden, but
(20:01):
it's his wife, and it's not against the law to lie,
So you know, if you're just a civilian. So I
think Jill Biden's off the hook to tell you the
truth unless something more nefarious about her activities comes out,
and concentrate on the people that were in the administration
and the people that were operating the auto pen and
(20:22):
the people that were covering all of this up.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
But the First Lady is not just a civilian within
the government.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Yes she is.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
Yes, absolutely, I would love for us to treat any
First Lady, no matter if Dave, an R or D
next to their name, like a regular, average ol civilian.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
I mean, come on, So check this story out. Hiker's
Back from the Dead alive and well after a frantic
emergency call. It happened over the holiday weekend in the
Adirondecks when two New York hikers called and said they
were lost and that their friend had died on the
hiking trail. The first ranger to show up quickly found
(20:59):
that the two were actually tripping on psychedelic mushrooms. Their
friend also called the rangers and was found alive and
uninjured on a separate part of the trail. He had
just gotten separated from his friends.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
I don't mean to laugh it's hilarious because I don't
know if someone has died while eating mushrooms. So I
don't want to laugh if this is some deadly.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
But I no, you can laugh. It's people trip it
out and they lose their buddy and they're tripping and
they're like, oh my god, he's dad, and they call authority.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
I wonder how old these people are. I know, I
don't think we know in the story.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
No, we don't know.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
How I'm gonna go with college age.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
This even goes for I don't know if you'll remember
the cop that call that to nine one that made
the rounds on the internet. This is a long time ago,
probably ten fifteen years ago, maybe even longer. But anyway,
he was a police officer. He confiscated somebody's like pot brownies. Oh,
and he took him home with him and he ate
(21:55):
him with his wife and then he calls nine to
one one and he's like we're dying, we're dying, and
he's tripping out. Yeah. So one of those stories. Nothing
like busting yourself.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Now, that's got to be think about it. Now, I've
been hiking, you've been hiking.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
You've been hiking on psychedelgyal I sure.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
To say with friends nothing about this? You know, was
it at night? Did you say? Because I could see
how scary that would be to lose anyone hiking even
during the day.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Well, I don't think it was at night. Who goes
hiking at night?
Speaker 3 (22:28):
People tripping on mushrooms?
Speaker 2 (22:30):
I guess there would be more like a walk in
the woods to me.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
I can see how that turns into a horror show
real quick, potentially if but even, like I said, even
the day, I'd be panicked. But of course jumping to.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Death is well you'd think, hey, we lost our buddy,
we need to go find him. Not he's dead.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Clearly they were in an altered state.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Where did he's dead enter the equation?
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Well, and you can imagine being the people. This is
where people who work for nine one one rescue and
all that probably could write all kinds of books on
the calls that they could.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Yeah, it's kind of a trip. Forgive the pop.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
Thanks for listening to the Charleston Morning Use podcast. Catch
Kelly and Blaze weekday mornings from six to nine
You're listening to Charleston's Morning News on ninety four to
three double USC. Now back to Kelly and Blaze.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
We're covering this morning's top stories. President Trump's tariff plan
is being reinstated by a federal appeals court for now anyway.
The court granted the administration's request to pause the lower
court's ruling they blocked most of Trump's tariffs in other countries.
On Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade rule that
emergency law does not give Trump the authority to impose
(00:31):
tariffs on nearly every country. President Trump wrote on the
social media that he hoped the US Supreme Court would
reverse this horrible, country threatening decision of the Trade Court,
while lambasting the judicial branch of government as anti American.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Well, I don't understand why the courts have a role
in this. The unelected part of this is very important.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Well, these are blue states that went after I think
there's twelve of them, all blue states that went after them,
took them to this Trade court. There's other lawsuits too
that involve businesses. I was reading about a toy company
where the owner of the toy company said, you know,
it feels like, you know, the bottom is falling out
(01:19):
in all of these things because they've relied on China
for years for their manufacturing of their wood toys, which
I'm sure they sell for a substantial profit, by the way.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Yeah, but who is going to push back and ask
about that? I mean, I'm talking about the propaganda press
right now, you know, because they have pds just like
it sounds like a lot of these judges and maybe
even small business owners who are taking on this lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Well you hear well, there's several different lawsuits. So this
one happened to be in the Trade Court in New
York and it was brought by twelve Blue states. Now
there's been other lawsuits, and there is another lawsuit that
involve some of these smaller companies. I remember a few
weeks ago, I was talking about the lady who sat
(02:03):
and cried in the middle of her living room floor
over her baby products that she manufactures in China. Right,
And so the media is trying to frame this as,
you know, the Trump administration doing harm to US small business.
And I'm sorry, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you disagree with me,
but if your US small business involves manufacturing your stuff
in China and then selling it here for a huge markup. Sorry,
(02:27):
I don't feel sorry for you.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Well, and are you really a US small business? So
this is writing a ship that's decades in the making
of strengthening America. Again, if I'm a small business, I
want it to be made in America and employ Americans.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Well, the problem is they're out of business because their
business model doesn't work unless they use Chinese slave labor.
And then they don't have any kind of conscience at
all about using slave labor halfway across the world and
then marking it up and living an upper middle class
life off of the products. But once that's threatened, they're like,
(03:06):
we're on a business otherwise, well find another business model.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Though exactly time to monitor and adjust. My question is
do you really think the Supreme Court of the United
States is I mean, they've dealt some blows to this
presidency so far.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Yeah. I don't know what's going to happen in the
Supreme Court, so probably from what I've read and heard
that they'll side with the President on some of the
tariffs and then but others will be left up to Congress.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
I think it's interesting. Scott Bessant has been making the
rounds on Fox. He was on special report with Brett Behar, saying,
we've done, We've made leaves some bounds when it comes
to China and making a deal with them and the
EU as well. We don't hear a lot about the
positives there.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Well, he actually said he did a link to the
interview with Brett Pear, but he said and is kind
of stalled.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Well, he said, you know, we're before making an agreement,
the leaders will have to share a call. I kind
of thought, well, have you not already been sharing calls
at this point? But I guess that's to that point.
He's they're dragging their feet.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Maybe. Well, he said, they're stalled at the moment, and
he said he thinks the two leaders will have to
get together on a phone call or in a meeting
to move it forward. So foth that they're making progress
with other countries and there might even be a few
big trade agreements here in the today or maybe even
Monday or Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Before the break, we heard from Caroline leve at the
White House Press Secretary talking about the you know, the
judicial and unelected branch here that is thwarting you know,
the power of the presidency and how they need to
get out of the way of progress, frankly, and we
actually got a message that said, need to research their
credentials of the appointed judges. Some of them are suspected
(04:58):
of not even being American citizens. And I look that
up because how could you be appointed as a US
district court judge and not be a US citizen. And
the answer is no, is according to you know, a
quick Google search here, that the Constitution does not. It says, no,
you cannot be a U s District judge without being
(05:19):
a US citizen, although it goes on to say the
US Constitution doesn't specify any specific qualifications for federal judges,
which is to me, kind of goes against the first
sentence here, so I, you know, it goes on, like
I said, down a rabbit hole, says but appropriation law
(05:41):
requires individuals, you know, in paid positions within the continental
US federal judiciary to be US citizens.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Well maybe they're confused by Trump's comments that you know,
that they're anti US, that they're anti America, these judges
making these decisions. So maybe that was misconstrued or something.
And you may think that's hyperbole, but I was even
thinking about this look at all that's going on. Make
no mistake, it's Anni American and it's Ani US and
(06:13):
it's not just because of the side of the political
aisle I'm on that. I think that. I think that
because they've said for years that they're going to win
from the inside. The communists. All of these systems are
meant to or I shouldn't say systems, all of these
(06:34):
actions are meant to break down the system, the US
system of government, and you know, and everything that's gone
before it precedent and everything else. So you know, then
you have to ask, Okay, are the people that are
pushing this are they communists? No, maybe they're just dumb
so they believe in these things. Say AOC. You know,
(06:57):
I won't say that she's a communist. I'll say, but
she doesn't realize she's a communist. She's just dumb and
believes the wrong things and pushes the wrong agenda and
does their work for them.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Well, the pushback and I'll go deeper on this, but
some are saying, you know, one of these judges is
Canadian born outside of the US. They're not US born
citizens or appointed without maybe never having served at the
bench at a lower court level, which would be shocking
to me. But ultimately, maybe they don't know the constitution.
If we're talking about these judges, yeah, maybe to your point,
(07:31):
they're not that smart either.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Well, I mean totally different. Led. If you're a naturalized citizen,
I still think you have the right to become a
federal judge. The only thing you don't have the right
to become is president of the United States if you're
a naturalized citizen, so you don't have to be born
in this country. We've had governors that weren't born in
this country, Arnold Schwartzeneger, Jennifer grand Home, to name just
(07:56):
a few that were governors of states that were not
born in this country, but they were naturalized citizens.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Well, I would think if they were appointed without ever
serving on the bench at a lower court level, that
would be concerning to me.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Well, you know, if we find that out about any
of them, then sure we can discuss that. But in
the meantime, just because somebody said something, you know, I
don't even know how to answer that. It's like, Okay,
maybe they're bozo the cloud. I don't know, you know,
unless we find some kind of evidence or something more
than somebody just saying this then we have to assume
(08:29):
that they're credible in their position. Then you might not
like them, they might not do a good job at
their job. But you know, to go down this rabbit
hole of are the US citizens and all of this
stuff just because somebody said something about it until there's
some kind of evidence that shows otherwise. You know, I
don't even know what to say about that discussion. The
(08:50):
courts should have no role here.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges
inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process. America cannot
function if President Trump or any other president for that matter,
has there sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Truth, Caroline Levett, they're spitting facts from the White House
in front of the White House Press Court, the podium there.
We're talking about the Appeals Court reversing a block on
many a President Trump's tariffs on China. But the court
that made the original ruling said the president exceeded his authority.
Who's exceeding their authority? Again?
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Well, it's a delicate line there, So I don't know
if that's all truth or if that's blustering, because that's
just dismissing the judicial branch's role. Now, I'm not saying
that I agree with the judicial branch. I'm not saying
that I agree with how a lot of these judges
have gone about their rulings. But at the same time,
(09:51):
you just can't dismiss the judicial branch of government. It's
a coequal branch of government and they do have power.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Well, she's not dismissing it, nor is this sounds straight.
Well as they're asking for it to go to the
Supreme Court of the United States, which I'm not really
sure I feel about how they may rule on this,
to be honest. Well, again, so very hands off recently.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
So the Democrats the liberals have again weaponized the judicial
system to try to stemy this president. So it used
to be where you refrained from those things because for
the good of the United States and because the American
people elected a leader and they're like, all right, now
I have to win the next election. Now they do
it through lawsuits and you know, through all these federal
(10:34):
judges and whatnot. So again it's being abused, but it
you know, no system is perfect, including ours, So there's
going to be some inroads that you can make, you
find the cracks, and then you go in there and
you abuse, and I think that's what's happening. But you
just can't say, well, you just have to ignore all
of these judges or whatever. The judges are there for
(10:57):
a reason, and the judicial branch is has a coequal
place in our hierarchy, so.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Of course they're setting up it could be not just
a can of worms, but complete nightmare. It's anthetical to
the Constitution of the United States and all of our
branches of government. I get that.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
That's I mean, I think it's destructive to the United
States in the end, because now everything's come down to
the minutia of arguing in court over every little policy
decision and everything else. And how can that be good?
How can that not be destructive? Actually, so you know,
I don't know what the answer is there, Steve.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
You've been waiting on the line. We appreciate you. Go ahead.
Speaker 5 (11:37):
These judges have absolutely no authority, and yet they're doing
it right in front of our faces. It makes you
wonder what are they taught in law school? All of
the lawyers, like all of them, they don't understand that
a district judge doesn't have authority over international policy.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
See yeah, yeah, you.
Speaker 5 (12:01):
Know, they just don't know this. This is so obvious
that it hardly bears mentioned. I don't know. I'm I'm
with you, guys. I'm just flabbergast. They don't even know
what they're talking about. You know, if they if they're
if their orders were implemented, it would be unbelievably disruptive
and impossible to put into practice. And yet they're demanding
that they get their way. You know, it's it's so
(12:24):
obvious what it is. You know, it's it's obvious what
it is. This is their this is how they think
they can slow down the Trump train until the midterm elections.
That's that's the that's the plan.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Well, they're working hard at this plan, and that is
the plan.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
The problem is is, you know, where does their power stop.
So it's their job to determine the constitutionality of the laws, right,
and it works its way through the different courts, maybe
ultimately to the Supreme Court. But everything just doesn't go
to the Supreme Court. It has to work its way
(13:03):
through these other court systems. So it's being abused, as
I've said before, and they are trying to stop policy,
not through elections or not through debate, but by legal
means and challenging these policies.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
And these are unelected positions. We important to point that out.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
You know, I don't know why that's important to point out.
I mean, it's our system, So our system is.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
I think that's important to point out. If you're talking
about how much level, the level with which you can
wield your power above the President of the United States,
who is a you know, constitution of government, Well that's
the job of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
That's the job of art and balances. It's not just
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Ultimately, in the end, this is where this is going,
at least the Trumpet mission.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
And I just said though, but it doesn't start their
So how do you want this to work? I'm saying,
So it's a sticky wicket because it's being abused. But
you can't say that the judicial. The judiciary has no
role in the government. They have a coequal role, and
(14:18):
it's being abused. So when you say, all right, well, ultimately,
let's see the Supreme Court, So everything should just go
to the Supreme Court and forget all these other judges.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
No, this is part of the process. The judges are
in a layer. You know, there's a whole matrix. Right,
they're down here, the president's up here. The Supreme Court
is called supreme for a reason. At the end of
the day, Well.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
What's the point though, That's what I'm saying. It has
to start somewhere, and it's being abused, right, But that.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Doesn't mean we're about to find out what the point
is because these unelected judges who are appointed are eventually,
at least on the lower court levels, trying to usurp
the power of the president's lane and roll, and but
with it very important people within his administration.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
I think we're getting sidetracked here. Well, because you know what,
the Supreme Court's not elected either.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Right, I understand they're appointed. Again, we have checks, we
have balances. So are you saying that at the end
of the day, even if this goes to the Supreme
Court of the United States, it won't be a settled matter.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
I'm saying that. I think it's misguided to argue that
these are not elected officials. So they have and it
so they should keep their mouth shut.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Well, I didn't say any can Well, I mean what were.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
You saying when you said you have to remember and
I think it's important to point out that these are
not elected officials. So what's the point.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Well, we're talking about people who are appointed to positions
and it's the same sadly, because our judicial branch has
been co opted. And this is you know, to your
point even as well it's been co opted. We're now
we have political parties who are wielding our own system
(15:56):
against us, for their own gains and against whether it's
our con institution, are the will of the American people,
Where do we come in? Where is our power? It's
in our electorate. It's the idea that we have the
ability to vote.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
So I guess the answer is that you need to
remember this at election time and take it to the
ballot box and consider this not only when you're voting
for president, but also for your senator and for your
congress person. And I'll keep going down the line. I mean,
it's a little bit outside of the purview of this argument,
(16:32):
but right down to your local leaders, because these are
the ones that are making these things happen. These are
the ones bringing the lawsuits, these are the ones using
and weaponizing the federal Judiciary, But at the end of
the day, it's a coequal branch of government, so we
have to be careful about how we approach that and
(16:55):
about dismissing them.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
How you doing on a Friday closer to the weekend,
then you realize we'll talk the forecast here coming up
on Uty four to three WSC, we're.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Covering this morning's top stories. The White House wants Jill
Biden to testify before Congress about what she knew about
President Biden's decline while in office. White House Press Secretary
of Caroline Lovitt claimed Thursday, the former First Lady is
still lying to the American people. Levit also said Jill
Biden still thinks the American public is so stupid that
they're going to believe her lies. Her comments come as
(17:28):
House Republicans ramp up investigations into Biden's health and mental
state while in office and whether it was to what
extent covered up.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
I think, frankly, the former First Lady should certainly speak
up about what she saw in regards to her husband
and when she saw it and what she knew, because
I think anybody looking again at the videos and photo
evidence of Joe Biden with your own eyes and a
little bit of common sense can see this was a
clear cover up.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
She's right to Caroline loved White House spokeswoman there. I mean,
Jill Biden, it's got to be should there not be
consequences for lying to the American people and being complicit
and we'll say an alleged cover up? But well it's not.
I mean, how could he even be alleged? The whole
system failed us on Biden?
Speaker 2 (18:16):
My gosh, I'm gonna have to go against the grain.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Here, here we go.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
It's his wife, and yeah, she's a liar, and she's
a fake doctor too. But if a politician does it,
or if the President of the United States does it,
that's one thing. But who's Jill Biden? Nobody. She's a
US citizen who is married to the President of the
United States. Of course she's going to say what she says. Really,
(18:41):
you're gonna bring her up on charges or make her
go testify to Congress. I think it's just that's just
political gamemanship. And sure, bring in members of the administration,
bring in even the media for that matter, that helped
cover all this up. But Jill Biden, really, and I'm
no fan of Jill Biden at all. I'm not a
(19:03):
fan of any of the bid Like those are the
most despicable people on earth. But really, you're going to
drag Jill Biden in front of Congress, threatener with like
throw her in jail for lying to the American public.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Just to be clear, it's not just Jill. I mean,
this houseover is like committee. By the way, the chairs
James Comer, Republican out of Kentucky. They're asking several high
ranking staffers for former President Biden to appear for transcribed
interviews on their suspected roles in this alleged cover up
of his mental decline. So I don't have a problem
(19:35):
with her being put on record and transcribed interviews. I
really don't.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
I think that's going too far. Now. You're dragging the
spouse and everything in if you know, if it comes
up in these other interviews that Jill Biden was working
the auto pen or running the Oval office, then sure
you can drag her in there. But in the meantime,
like I said, I'm going to go against the grain. Yeah,
I think Jill Biden's a liar. So's Jill Biden, but
(20:01):
it's his wife, and it's not against the law to lie,
So you know, if you're just a civilian. So I
think Jill Biden's off the hook to tell you the
truth unless something more nefarious about her activities comes out,
and concentrate on the people that were in the administration
and the people that were operating the auto pen and
(20:22):
the people that were covering all of this up.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
But the First Lady is not just a civilian within
the government.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Yes she is.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
Yes, absolutely, I would love for us to treat any
First Lady, no matter if Dave, an R or D
next to their name, like a regular, average ol civilian.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
I mean, come on, So check this story out. Hiker's
Back from the Dead alive and well after a frantic
emergency call. It happened over the holiday weekend in the
Adirondecks when two New York hikers called and said they
were lost and that their friend had died on the
hiking trail. The first ranger to show up quickly found
(20:59):
that the two were actually tripping on psychedelic mushrooms. Their
friend also called the rangers and was found alive and
uninjured on a separate part of the trail. He had
just gotten separated from his friends.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
I don't mean to laugh it's hilarious because I don't
know if someone has died while eating mushrooms. So I
don't want to laugh if this is some deadly.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
But I no, you can laugh. It's people trip it
out and they lose their buddy and they're tripping and
they're like, oh my god, he's dad, and they call authority.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
I wonder how old these people are. I know, I
don't think we know in the story.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
No, we don't know.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
How I'm gonna go with college age.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
This even goes for I don't know if you'll remember
the cop that call that to nine one that made
the rounds on the internet. This is a long time ago,
probably ten fifteen years ago, maybe even longer. But anyway,
he was a police officer. He confiscated somebody's like pot brownies. Oh,
and he took him home with him and he ate
(21:55):
him with his wife and then he calls nine to
one one and he's like we're dying, we're dying, and
he's tripping out. Yeah. So one of those stories. Nothing
like busting yourself.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Now, that's got to be think about it. Now, I've
been hiking, you've been hiking.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
You've been hiking on psychedelgyal I sure.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
To say with friends nothing about this? You know, was
it at night? Did you say? Because I could see
how scary that would be to lose anyone hiking even
during the day.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Well, I don't think it was at night. Who goes
hiking at night?
Speaker 3 (22:28):
People tripping on mushrooms?
Speaker 2 (22:30):
I guess there would be more like a walk in
the woods to me.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
I can see how that turns into a horror show
real quick, potentially if but even, like I said, even
the day, I'd be panicked. But of course jumping to.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Death is well you'd think, hey, we lost our buddy,
we need to go find him. Not he's dead.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Clearly they were in an altered state.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Where did he's dead enter the equation?
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Well, and you can imagine being the people. This is
where people who work for nine one one rescue and
all that probably could write all kinds of books on
the calls that they could.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Yeah, it's kind of a trip. Forgive the pop.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
Thanks for listening to the Charleston Morning Use podcast. Catch
Kelly and Blaze weekday mornings from six to nine
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.