Fresno Attorney & Author Nathan Brown on the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Immigration Provision

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
There's a whole bunch of immigration stuff in the OBBB,

(00:03):
the One Big Beautiful Bill. Now, I guess it's the
one big beautiful law, a whole bunch of immigration stuff.
A lot of conservatives growing that it's a once in
a generation immigration accomplishment. I want to sort of dig
into that claim and see, you know, how stable is this,
how long reaching are these reforms with me to discuss it.

(00:25):
He's got a book out called Rescuing the American Project,
How Nationalism and immigration.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Will revive the Republic.

Speaker 1 (00:32):
He also has an immigration law firm here in the
city of Fresno. Nathan Brown, Welcome to the John Girardi Show.

Speaker 3 (00:39):
John, thank you very much for having me on.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
All right, well, we're going to talk about the book
in a bit. But and it's a very good book,
and I'm liking the general thesis of it, and you're
kind of charting this path for what I think is
a much more reasonable American immigration policy. But I do
want to get your thoughts about the OBBB and.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
It being the hot news of the week of the month.

Speaker 1 (01:06):
What are some of the key big time immigration reform
things that are in it. I guess let's just start there.
Are what are some of the biggest changes.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
To American immigration law that this is going to make.

Speaker 3 (01:18):
Yeah, this is definitely going to have a major impact
in terms of funding and the ability for ICE to
carry out Trump's objectives. Overall, it's one hundred and seventy
billion dollars for enforcement. Generally, we're looking at forty five
billion for detention facilities. And this has been a major

(01:39):
sticking point. Yeah, during the first Trump administration and even
these first few months, constantly running out of beds.

Speaker 1 (01:46):
Right, Well, it brought about the whole problem of we
have way too many asylum claimants.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
They're supposed to be detained for.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
The period where we're assessing their asylum claim, but we
don't have enough beds. So Trump solves it with remain
in Mexico, and Biden solves it with just come into
the United States and then never show up for your
court date, you know, two or three years later.

Speaker 3 (02:10):
Right right with the Texas litigation a few years ago,
even the Supreme Court was saying, Okay, DHS is at
a sticking point. Under the law, they're supposed to be detained.
But what do you do if you have tens of thousands,
of hundreds of thousands of people more than you have beds, right, right,
So is this going to totally solve that issue you

(02:32):
think long term?

Speaker 2 (02:33):
Or is that is even this amount of money not
at not.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
Yeah, it's not going to solve the issue, but it's
definitely going to help that particular issue. Okay, there's also
forty five billion dollars for a border wall, where that's
another thing where that's not going to solve at all. Sure,
but talk to anybody at DHS and it's very clear

(02:56):
it's going to help enormously.

Speaker 2 (02:59):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (03:00):
Yeah, Well, because I mean I think a lot more
illegal immigration. I mean there's two kinds of illegal immigration.
There's sneaking over a border, and then there's overstaying whatever
legal permission you have, so you have visa, visa expires,
you're still hanging around. But sneaking across the border is

(03:20):
still a big deal and still and a border wall
is going to be super effective to help stopping a
lot of that.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
Yeah. For the agents on the border, they're able to
if there's a wall, obviously, they're able to focus in
and funnel wherever that illegal entry might be and be
there ready to.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
Pick people up.

Speaker 3 (03:39):
So there's also in the first year, thirty one billion
for ICE to hire supposedly about ten thousand additional agents, okay,
and over four years it's we're looking at one hundred
and forty three billion, let's see. And it does add

(04:02):
a large number of judges. By the end of twenty
twenty eight, will have one hundred additional judges right well.

Speaker 1 (04:11):
And the judges angle, that's kind of similar to the
detention beds angle, right like that Basically you have, again
you have a gazillion people making an asylum claim. You've
gotta you can't just tell everyone making an asilum like
I would guess a lot of people making asylum claims
do not have legit asylum cases. But you can't just

(04:33):
tell those people a buzz off. You have to assess
the claim.

Speaker 3 (04:37):
You've got to go through the process right to take testimony.

Speaker 1 (04:39):
And so if you don't have enough judges, then you
have this huge backlog. And that has been another massive
contributing factor to sort of our immigration problems.

Speaker 3 (04:49):
Definitely, that is the major bottleneck. And right now we're
at about three point six million cases backlogged, and I
think with those numbers, I mean we currently have seven
hundred judges over adding one hundred judges. In the long term,
if anything, this helps, I wish there would have been

(05:12):
a lot more of this enormous budget going toward judges.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
I think one hundred is okay, so we have so
we'll go through those again.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
We currently have about seven hundred immigration judges in the
entire United States, one hundred.

Speaker 2 (05:26):
This bill is adding only one hundred.

Speaker 1 (05:29):
Well maybe only maybe only is too strong, too much editorializing.

Speaker 3 (05:34):
You know, there's a recognition that if this works like
they want, at some point you're going to have judges
who don't have a lot of work to do. So
it's actually the idea is in heaven forbid, Heaven.

Speaker 1 (05:45):
Forbid, Heaven forbid, we keep lawyers from from doing more damage.

Speaker 3 (05:50):
You don't want that. So the idea is that year
two or three, it might be one hundred and seventy
five or one hundred and fifty judges. But it's interesting
the stand says that at the end of twenty twenty
eight there shall be no more than eight hundred. So
there's a recognition that hopefully there's a surge.

Speaker 1 (06:09):
Well, Jess, and that's that is sort of touching on
a point that I have been struggling.

Speaker 2 (06:17):
With and sort of scratching my head about.

Speaker 1 (06:20):
A lot of conservatives have been crowing that, like, this
is it, this is the historic, once in a lifetime
opportunity to solve, you know, the immigration problem, stop the
flow of illegal immigrant immigrants, you know, get illegal immigrants
out of the country. And I just sort of there
are certain things that I think are long term improvements.

(06:41):
You can't It's not like a president. And I keep
going to the example of what will a president AOC
do in January of twenty twenty nine. Okay, imagine AOC
wins the White I don't think that's going to happen.
But if AOC wins and she's in the White House
in January twenty twenty nine, she can't unbuild a wall.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
Presumably maybe she'll try. I I don't know.

Speaker 1 (07:03):
I don't think she could unilaterally do that without without
congressional approval.

Speaker 2 (07:08):
She can't.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
She's not gonna fire immigration judges. So I think that
could long term be useful. But as far as I mean,
ICE can have the biggest budget it wants. If she
tells them to just you know, sit at I don't
know their office and twiddle their thumbs rather than you know,
arresting and deporting bad guys. You know, it doesn't matter

(07:32):
how much you fund ice, you know, And I guess
that's the core of it. What are your thoughts about, Like,
how much could a new Democrat president coming in mute
the effectiveness of this law with executive non enforcement?

Speaker 3 (07:45):
Absolutely, that is a good point. And yeah, a new
progressive president would have enormous power to undo a lot
of it. Again, maybe not the wall, but if they're parolling,
you know, however big your wall is at the gate,
they're parolling you know, infinity people. Right, That gets around

(08:06):
a lot of what they're trying to accomplish.

Speaker 1 (08:08):
Well, And and that's that's another question I had. So
we're expanding detention cells, but the mech is so again,
just take it a step back. When someone makes an
asylum claim, they're supposed to be detained. Trump, we didn't
have enough bets. Trump solved this by saying, remain in
Mexico while we assess your claim. Biden solves it by saying, well,

(08:32):
we're going to detain you, but we give you parole
from this detention, so you can just walk walk around
in the United States for whatever and make sure, you
come back here in two or three years for your hearing,
and then no one does. That issue feels like it's
still alive. The president's alleged authority to just parole people

(08:52):
without any kind of clear, without any kind of clear
statutory authority, is that I I mean, could you just again,
is this another thing where a Democrat president could just
start mass parolling people rather than detaining them?

Speaker 3 (09:09):
Absolutely? Yes, And the parole issue has been a major
headache since the Eisenhower presidency. The statute is very broad,
very vague, talks about urgent humanitarian reasons and for the
national benefit. What does that mean, right? Whatever the president
wants it to mean.

Speaker 1 (09:26):
Right, Well, I mean AOC could just say fundamentally it's
wrong to detain people, and that's the urgent and it's.

Speaker 3 (09:32):
Urgent humanitarian reason. And back in two thousand and six,
with some of the anti terrorism legislation, there was a
proposal to limit parole to when it says urgent humanitarian
reasons to specify. So in two thousand and six, Congress
wanted to amend the parole authority to narrow it to

(09:53):
specifically a list of items, for example, an urgent me
medical reason, where the person would either die or suffer
significant physical injury without treatment. That gives a little bit
of give some parameters to what this means. And you
know this is a this is a budgetary piece of legislation, right, Well,

(10:18):
it would be for other legislation to clarify.

Speaker 2 (10:20):
Well, And I guess that's kind of where.

Speaker 1 (10:23):
That's kind of where I feel like it's Republican or
you know, political hacks are are sort of being too
over optimistic about this that a lot of this stuff
to really get solved, it's going to need something other
than a reconciliation bill, you know, I mean a reconciliation bill.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
Where again, the OBBB.

Speaker 1 (10:45):
Was a reconciliation bill, meaning it's kind of attached to
the budget and therefore it only needs fifty votes plus
one to pass, rather than most normal legislation in the Senate,
something that's separate from budget hear stuff, you usually need
sixty votes to pass it, and that's obviously much more difficult.

(11:07):
But you have a much broader field of activity that
you can actually regulate with normal legislation.

Speaker 2 (11:13):
And I feel like conservatives who are saying this was
the greatest most historic victory.

Speaker 1 (11:17):
The well again because it's budgetary and it's right spending. Right.
I feel like so much of this can just wind
up getting undone by a Democrat president.

Speaker 3 (11:27):
Absolutely, that's right. This leaves a lot of work to
be done. There's that, there's the parole issue, and across
the board there's a lot of recognition that asylum requirements
need to be clarified. Sure, and part of the reason
that the backlog is so enormous is that the law,

(11:47):
the asylum law is so complex and so many nuances
that even if there's a decision on the case, you
could still have three to five years on appeal back
and forth. Yeah, So the more complex the law is,
the longer the appeals are going to take. So aside
from these budgetary issues, there's a lot of work still
to do.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
On immigration, right, all right.

Speaker 1 (12:09):
Talking with Nathan Brown, local Fresno area immigration attorney, author
of a great new book on immigration, Rescuing the American Project,
How Nationalism and Immigration will revive the Republic. When we return,
we're going to spend some time talking about his book
and immigration proposals. You're not going to want to miss it.
This is the John Girardi Show. We're talking with Nathan Brown.

(12:32):
He's the author of the book Rescuing the American Project.
He's a local Fresno area immigration attorney. Where can you
find the book, by the way, Nathan, I got it
on Amazon. You can download it on Amazon on kindle.

Speaker 3 (12:44):
That's right. It's available on Amazon, kindle and paperback. No
no hardback.

Speaker 2 (12:48):
Yet, no hardback yet, right, but we got a paperback.
Very good.

Speaker 1 (12:51):
All right, So why don't we talk about your book
a little bit. I've been skimming through it, and you're
sort of charting a kind of a you're proposing a
kind of different American immigration proposal. That the foundation of it, though,
is that you need to have some sort of sense

(13:15):
of nationalism in order for immigration to work something into
which people can assimilate. And maybe I'll let you expand
on it, but I thought that made a lot of sense.
I mean, the immigrants of say, my great grandparents. You know,
my great grandpa was on a boat from Italy.

Speaker 2 (13:33):
As a kid.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
There was enough of a national identity for him to
you know, integrate into right. And I sort of wonder
with the way modern liberalism is, has such a lack
of confidence or such a lack of respect or appreciation
for anything, any kind of American ideal that America is

(13:58):
like worse than some people have said America is an idea,
not a place. I feel like the modern left doesn't
even really have much of a sense of what the
idea is, right, right, Yeah, So maybe you could expand
on that sort of central theme of your book.

Speaker 3 (14:12):
Well, yeah, a lot of people are afraid of the
word nationalism, and they'll say, why don't we just say patriotism,
And of course patriotism is love of country. But I
think why nationalism is important is that it's about a broad,
horizontal with their fellow citizens' sense of identity and a
sense of going somewhere together. And yes, there's an idea,

(14:35):
but there's also a history. There's a set of particular
heroes and particular traditions.

Speaker 2 (14:42):
And things that you can't have a love of country
if you don't have a country, right, what.

Speaker 3 (14:47):
Is it your love a love to finance?

Speaker 2 (14:49):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (14:50):
Absolutely, yeah, so, and I think that is something we've
been missing in the immigration debate that the left and
the right have not been very specific about as far
as the idea of assimilation. You know, back in the
nineteen twenties, nineteen thirties, there were all these organizations that
were focused on helping new immigrant groups assimilate into something

(15:14):
this national identity. And you have pro immigration groups, they're
focused on bringing people in. You have anti immigration groups,
they're focused on the opposite. But there's this gap. What
about assimilation for the ones who are here?

Speaker 2 (15:26):
You know?

Speaker 1 (15:26):
Actually, I just saw this my wild random story. My
mother in law was at a church used book sale
and it was like an Eastern Catholic church and it
was for Ruthenian Catholics.

Speaker 2 (15:40):
It was just a book of like popular.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
American songs, and you could tell that this was like, Okay,
these are a bunch of people from Eastern Europe who
are just immigrating to America. And it's like it's like
popular American songs and like the translation of what they meant,
and it's like clearly like Okay, these people are just
off the boat. We got to teach them, you know, Oh, Susannah, yeah,
doctor anyway, and so and so, I think one of

(16:09):
the things you point out is sort of that this
lack of confidence is sort of afflicting a little bit
both the left and the right. Like the ultra restrictionist
folks on the right who sort of don't have this.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
Confidence about people's ability to integrate.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
As well as people on the left who don't want
people to integrate at all.

Speaker 3 (16:27):
Yeah, for the left, assimilation is bad to start with.
But yeah, whatever level of immigration you want, you know,
whatever level of deportations you want, what are you going
to do with the people who are here? Sure, and
I think the vast majority of immigrants are patriotic. They
want to assimilate, they want to be part of this,

(16:48):
and we should embrace that. And I'm not saying we
want top down government social engineering. Sure, but at the
civic level there could be a lot more of an
effort to address that. Bring them on board, they want
to come on board.

Speaker 1 (17:01):
Yeah, Well, even relating to these the sort of joke
I've been joking with my wife over the fourth of
July weekend about you know, having some kind of identity
and not that I I think Republicans or Trump have
the perfect sense of what is our American identity, but
mentioning to my wife, we're so glad that Trump is

(17:23):
going to be president rather than Kamala Harris for the
two hundred and fiftieth birthday of the country because basically,
oh yeah, because she would be like, this country was
built on the back of lesbian bipoke, you.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
Know, and we should just be too a whole year
of mourning.

Speaker 3 (17:40):
That's Emerald Sackcloth. Oh my goodness. Yeah, I'm glad we
don't have her for the celebration because it wouldn't be
a celebration.

Speaker 2 (17:47):
Right exactly.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
All right, Well, let me just ask, I mean, coming
out of your book, which again is a bit more
of a positive, I think approach to the immigration question
than I think a lot of people on the right have.
Are there there are some kind of big picture policy
things you would love to see a complicate you know,
if you know, we talked in the last segment how

(18:10):
the hard work would be to pass something with sixty
votes in the Senate rather than something budgetary that could
affect some long term changes. What are some if you
had to give maybe your top two or three policy
priorities for helping address American Some of them seem to
be not policy things, maybe more cultural things about how
to help people assimilate. But what are a couple of

(18:32):
policy things that you would love to see.

Speaker 3 (18:33):
Yeah, we have a chapter on policy and on the
enforcement and of things. I think a major gap that
we've had even under the Trump administration is illegal entry. Right,
That's the crux of the illegal immigration issue is that
moment of illegal entry. It's still treated as a civil matter.
And again, I'm pro emigration, I'm immigration lawyer, but if

(18:56):
you want to stop entry long term, there has to
be a shift of it from a civil matter to
a criminal matter.

Speaker 1 (19:03):
And it's because it's basically the rules are your first
time you come in illegally, it's a civil violation.

Speaker 2 (19:10):
Second time it's a felony. Or maybe explain how that structure.

Speaker 3 (19:13):
Technically, the first entry is a misdemeanor with a maximum
of a six month sentence. Even under the Trump administration
his first term, only like five to six percent actually
got prosecuted or that misdemeanor and the sentence they would
get would generally be about two weeks.

Speaker 1 (19:34):
Oh and so it being was it just being dealt
with like as a civil administrative matter most of the time,
or or.

Speaker 3 (19:40):
In the vast majority of the cases it's a civil consequence.
You get a piece of paper that says you're not
supposed to do this again. And I mean, okay, I
already know that that's great. Yeah, but if you look at
the calculation of a life in the greatest country in
the world versus you know you're gambling. Okay, maybe I
get some weeks, most slapping the wrist, most people looking

(20:02):
at calculation are going to go for it, right.

Speaker 1 (20:05):
Well, and you opened my eyes with this about when
people are crossing the border illegally, it's invariably with help
from the cartels and with money given to them. I
know you would texted me those figures before, but I mean,
when someone's crossing illegally, very often it's with help from

(20:26):
horrible gang elements.

Speaker 3 (20:28):
Right, absolutely, yes, at this point. You know, twenty thirty
years ago that was not the case. Coyotes were just random,
crazy guys who know how to get in. But now
it's at the point where it's not like they wear
a shirt saying hey, I'm from the new generation cartel.
But the cartels extract payments from all the coyotes across

(20:49):
the southern border, and nobody, nobody's going to be able
to enter the United States illegally without to say so
ultimately of the cartel.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
Well, and you you'd even we discussed it before, about
like how much money I mean that the cartel's getting
about ten thousand bucks per person or I forget what
the figures were, but yeah, you.

Speaker 3 (21:12):
Know, it's bizarre, but they have like a schedule price.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
They're very orderly.

Speaker 3 (21:17):
If you want to just cross and turn yourself in,
it's about twenty five hundred. If you want to get
through undetected, it's more like eighteen thousand.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
Holy count.

Speaker 3 (21:28):
Yeah, so that's pretty absurd. Well yeah, well breakdown.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
And I think that's the I feel like when I
heard that, I blew me away. I mean, I think
that's just a thing that people are completely I again,
like there's this this sort of attitude, especially a lot
of Christian writers who are talking about this, say, you know,
these people who are coming to the United States and lawfully,
you know, these are not bad people.

Speaker 2 (21:52):
And look, I think there's a difference.

Speaker 1 (21:54):
Between you know, you got a visa and you kind
of overstate it versus if you're coming in illegally, you're
funding the cartel to the tune of thousands of bucks.
I mean, it just seems like that's a lot more
harmful than I think people realize.

Speaker 3 (22:09):
There's no getting around that. And again, I would say
people who have been here twenty thirty years that was
not the case. Twenty thirty years ago. They paid one
hundred bucks to some coyote who was not affiliated with
the cartel, and then they come here and they work.

Speaker 1 (22:25):
And right, yeah, okay, so it's a whole different ballgame.
I think we could talk about the book for probably
two hours, but we got to wrap it up. So again,
Nathan Brown, local Fresno area immigration attorney. He's got his
book out Rescuing the American Project, How Nationalism and Immigration
Will Revive the Republic. You can find it on Amazon,

(22:45):
get it on your kindle, buy it in paperback, any
other stuff you've got to plug or promote Nathan by
the book.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
By the book.

Speaker 1 (22:52):
There you go, Buck, all right, and if you got
an immigration problem, give Nathan a call.

Speaker 2 (22:56):
All right.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
We will be back with more on the John Already Show.
We have some pretty shocking judicial news with the judge
who may be taking over from Judge Boseburg as the
leading activist lefty judge in the country. I don't know,

(23:18):
it seems like there's a lot of competition for this judge,
Indira Talwane. There's a federal district court judge from the
District of Massachusetts. Now it's been a headline making month
for Judge Talwane. First, you had Judge Tilwane. Basically, she

(23:39):
had stopped some Trump immigration policy. By the way, she's
Federal District court judge based in Massachusetts. She had given
an injunction to stop a Trump administration immigration policy. She
was overturned by the Supreme Court, and she then proceeded

(24:02):
to just kind of ignore the Supreme Court's order and say, no,
I'm still entering this injunction to stop the Trump administration
from doing this. So the Supreme Court had to go
back and clarify on July third, No, you may not
for enforce this injunction and absolutely not. You have to
follow what this court says. You won, Federal districturt judge

(24:26):
in Massachusetts, you have to obey what the Supreme Court says.
If we say that you can't give this injunction stopping
the Trump administration from acting, you have to uphold that
you don't have a choice in the matter. So even
Justice Kagan went along with so do my Orda and

(24:48):
Jackson were still being ludicrous about it. Even Justice Kagan
went along with this and saying, look, I didn't even
agree with the Court's initial ruling, but an individual district
court judge is not allowed to ignore the Supreme Court.
So I'm going to concur in this second judgment judgment.
All right, Well, not satisfied with those headlines, Judge Talwanee gets.

Speaker 2 (25:16):
A big case.

Speaker 1 (25:17):
Planned Parenthood files a case in the District of Massachusetts
to try to stop the OBBB the one Big Beautiful Bill.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
I guess now it's the one Big Beautiful law and its.

Speaker 1 (25:30):
Provision cutting off federal Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Now,
let me explain what they did and what this judge did,
and how insane it is. Planned Parenthood files emotion for
a temporary restraining order, and it is not what I
would call the strongest such applications. So basically what you

(25:54):
have is if you are going to suffer imminent irreparable
harm from the enforcement of say a law, and it's
basically a thing that you can't wait on, you can
file emotion for a temporary restraining order. Basically, it's an expedited,

(26:17):
quick process asking the judge, hey, can you stop the
enforcement of this law against us while we hash out
the case. Okay, So while the case is ongoing, the
application of this law will be so harmful to us
that we want you to stop the application of this

(26:37):
law for the duration of the case, and we.

Speaker 2 (26:39):
Need you to do it asap, like within a week
or something.

Speaker 1 (26:42):
Okay, so it's an expedited process, a sped up timeline.
Planned Parenthood files this motion for a temporary restraining order
before the government, because it's basically planned Parenthood suing the
federal government. Before the federal government can even respond, she

(27:05):
issues she grants the temporary restraining order, which is an
extraordinary thing to do, like within the day. She grants
the temporary restraining order without having even heard the response
from the government, which is extraordinary and in violation of
some of the federal ules of civil procedure, which say, hey,

(27:26):
if you're going to do that, you have to explain
what you're doing. She grants this temporary restraining order with
no explanation of why, no explanation at all. Now, let
me count the ways in which this is insane. First,

(27:49):
just procedurally, it's nuts, But then let's just talk about substantively.
The federal government has spending authority. It can decide what
it wants to spend, it can decide what.

Speaker 2 (28:04):
It wants to cut. This is not. You know, this
is not a excuse me. This is not an executive
action by a president.

Speaker 1 (28:14):
This is a statute passed by Congress signed by the
President having to do with federal spending authorities, an authority
that is fairly well.

Speaker 2 (28:25):
Established at this point.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
Pretty much everyone is in the clear that federal government
they can spend money. And so what possible arguments she
could have that cutting off money from a certain category

(28:47):
of recipients, because it doesn't I don't, I don't believe
the one big, beautiful bill says planned parenthood shall not
receive money. It gives a description of a kind of
entity that will not be eligible to receive federal Medicaid
funding for a year, and that kind of entity is
planned parenthood.

Speaker 2 (29:06):
Okay, planned parenthood fits the description that Congress has in
the bill.

Speaker 1 (29:09):
So it's not even a bill like singling out you know, oh,
do we're cutting off funding from planned parenthood, inc. No,
it's we're cutting off federal funding for abortion providers who
are seeking.

Speaker 2 (29:22):
Reimbursement for other kinds of services. Blah blah blah blah blah.

Speaker 1 (29:26):
It's clearly legal, there's clearly no problem with it. It's
going to be very very hard for anyone to find
some reason why or how there is some sort of
legal or constitutional problem. And the thing is, there's not
even I mean, she doesn't even explain what the problem is.

(29:50):
That's the extraordinary thing. Substantively, it's very hard to find
what reason there could possibly be for holding that Congress
saying no, we're not going to fund planned parented We're
not going to provide medicaid funding for abortion providers. Abortion
providers are not eligible for Medicaid funding. I mean especially,
I mean Congress was. The Supreme Court, rather, was not

(30:12):
sympathetic to arguments that abortion has to be publicly funded,
even before the Dobbs decision, Even before the Dobbs decision,
Even under various iterations of the Supreme Court from Row
until the current day Roberts Court, the Supreme Court was

(30:34):
never sympathetic to the idea that the right to abortion
required that money be spent, public money be spent, federal
health care dollars be spent to support abortion or abortion providers.
That is the view of the California State Supreme Court.
The California State Supreme Court basically prevented the California legislature

(30:56):
from ever cutting off funding for abortion providers or even
cutting off direct funding of abortion itself.

Speaker 2 (31:04):
But the U. S.

Speaker 1 (31:05):
Supreme Court was never sympathetic to that idea, and it
certainly is not going to be sympathetic to that idea
post Dobbs, where in the Dobbs decision the Supreme Court said, no,
there's no right to abortion in the constitution whatsoever. If
there's no right to abortion in the constitution whatsoever, there
certainly is no right to abortion providers to receive federal

(31:26):
funding or for abortion itself to be used as a
category for excluding someone from funding. So the ruling is insane,
and I think it's it's getting to a point where,

(31:46):
you know, and maybe I'll say, let me say that
for the next thing. So again, one individual federal District
court judge in Massachusetts, hearing a lawsuit brought by Planned
Parent of Massachusetts, and then all the other Planned Parent
affiliates throughout the country Planned parented Federation of a mayor,
et cetera issues are ruling saying, no, the one big
beautiful bill cannot cut off abortion funding.

Speaker 2 (32:05):
And I'm not going to say why.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
When we return, I want to talk about the constitutional
crisis type problems we've got with this one federal judge
and if there's a way to fix it next on
the JIHNTS already show Judge Taliwani, Judge Indira Talwani of
an individual federal district court judge in Massachusetts, has tried
to order that the Trump administration has to keep funding

(32:31):
Planned Parenthood, even though the one big beautiful bill just
duly passed by Congress, signed by the President, not an
executive action. A congressional action says no, we're not going
to fund them through.

Speaker 2 (32:43):
The Medicaid program.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
Judge Tilwani says, yes, you have to. And one of
the problems is if Judge Taiwani gets her way and
Planned Parenthood keeps getting money.

Speaker 2 (33:01):
While this decision.

Speaker 1 (33:03):
Is appealed, if the appeal takes a long time, that
money is out the door, that money that the horse
has left the barn. This is irreparable harm to the
will of the American people, as expressed in a law
passed by their duly elected representatives and signed into law
by their duly elected president. And Dan mcglofflin writing about

(33:30):
this in National Review, he's a very sharp legal commentator.
He writes, if Congress lacks the power to decide when
not to spend taxpayer money, it may as well disband.
The administration is well within its rights, he says, to
refuse to disperse any funds unlessen until it has exhausted

(33:51):
all avenues of appeal. In doing so, it will be
defending not only the prerogative of its own branch, but
of Congress and the Supreme Court. I think that's totally right.
So one, the President Shure refused to disperse any of
this money unless told too, I guess by the Supreme Court,
which there's no way the Supreme Court is going to
do that. But here again we've got one. We've still

(34:13):
got the problem. Even after the Kasta case, the Cosa
case said no universal injunctions. Well, if you've got a
plaintiff who kind of controls a given market, which Planned
Parentod effectively does. It's largest abortion provider in America, Planned
Parenthood itself filed this lawsuit basically what the court said,
We're not going to do universal judge injunctions. You can't

(34:34):
an individual federal judge can't stop a whole policy nationwide.
An individual federal judge can only stop a policy as
it relates to providing total relief to the plaintiffs who
are actually in front of him or well, the problem
is the plaintiff in front of Judge Malwaunee is National
Planned Parenthood. So all of the Planned Parenthood affiliates are

(34:56):
joining the lawsuit and this is going to apply to
all of them.

Speaker 2 (35:02):
So what can the Supreme Court do here?

Speaker 1 (35:04):
I mean, this same judge just ignored a Supreme Court
ruling a month ago, and on July third, the Supreme
Court had to smack her down and say, no, you
will obey our ruling.

Speaker 2 (35:20):
So what do we do with this gal? This is
the problem.

Speaker 1 (35:23):
This is sort of the thorny problem with these totally
lawless resistance judges.

Speaker 2 (35:30):
What do you do with them?

Speaker 1 (35:35):
Is there a possibility for either the First Circuit, which
the District of Massachusetts is located within the first Circuit?
The first Circuit is the appeals court. They hear appeals
from all the decisions from all the federal individual federal
district court cases coming from the district courts in Maine, Massachusetts,

(35:57):
I think, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, a bunch of state
it's in the northeast and Puerto Rico. So the first
Circuit could reassign her her cases, say Nope, you're not
allowed to take this case, You're not allowed to take
that case. There's even a possibility. Some people have written
about the Supreme Court directly reassigning cases assigned to her,
and her conduct has been so egregious that I think

(36:20):
it's not inappropriate. But short of that, this woman has
a lifetime appointment, and the only way to get rid
of her, to fire her would be impeachment and removal.
Majority of the House of Representatives and two thirds of
the Senate, which two thirds of the Senate is never
going to remove this woman. So that's the thorny thing

(36:43):
unless Congress is willing to really restrict the authority of
federal judges. But even then, I'm not sure how that
would work here. I mean, she she ignored the federal
rules of civil procedure in how she granted this motion.
It's just a fly wrong decision. Again, this individual federal

(37:03):
judge said that the OBBB a duly enacted federal statue.
This provision of the OBBB that says we're not going
to provide Medicaid reimbursement to abortion providers. Abortion providers are
ineligible for Medicaid reimbursement for a year. It's Congress deciding

(37:25):
not to spend money, not even Congress deciding to spend money.
Not to spend money. Congress is allowed to spend money.
The spending power is fairly well established at this point.
If Congress can't decide when it will or won't spend
medicaid money, who it will or won't give the money to.
As long as it's not on the basis of an

(37:47):
of a protected category, which we know abortion provision isn't,
it's not a federal constitutional right, how can a judge
say it's unlawful. Again, if Congress can't decide not to
spend money, you might as well we'll close up shop,
and we might as well just be ruled by, however
many a couple hundreds of federal judges we have in
this country. Let's hope the Supreme Court acts asap to

(38:11):
stop this.

Speaker 2 (38:12):
That'll do it. John Dirolady Show, See next time on
Power Talk