7-30-24 - 6am - The U.S. Supreme Court

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
I'm really not in the mood tohear the cackling, so in an effort
to block it this morning, I'mleaving this talk back. Michael, does
it sound like you heard what Iheard? After President Biden made his little
proposal about changing the Supreme Court likethey do in Venezuela. That was that

(00:24):
threatening language that he had regarding thespeaker of the House. Well, if
Michael were like paying attention this morning, he may, you know, answer
that that talkback. But we're justwaiting to see if he's going to participate
in his own show this morning.But but oh, you weren't paying a

(00:44):
tail butt head. If I holdit down, can you still turn it
off? I have no idea whatyou're talking about. Well, like my
microphone, which you turned No,it doesn't matter if you hold it down,
I can turn it off. Yeah, but it still shows blue.
But it's off. Right, ifI do that, it is now off,

(01:07):
even though even though here it stillshows that it's on. Now it's
on. Yeah, but even ifI'm holding it down and you turn it
off, it still shows blue hereas if it's on. But it's actually
not right. But I would neverjust turn off your microphone bull crap.
You totally would, you totally would. It's interesting. The talk back's interesting
because last night I'm in fact,tonight and tomorrow night I'm filling in for

(01:34):
Jesse Kelly again. So if you'dlike to, if you'd like to have
three more hours of me today,not a chance, seven full hours of
Michael Brown, I mean, canyou imagineful? And for those of you
that have come over from around thecountry to listen this morning, as you
told me you would on the textline, well, welcome to the situation
with Michael Brown and sometimes the occasionalDragon Redbeard, who will insert in insane

(01:57):
things at totally inner appropriate moments,which we enjoy because well, we just
like to feel better than because we'retwelve years old. That's right, because
we are twelve years old. Butwe're gonna and you know me, I
really hate repeating things I've already talkedabout, and I talked last night on

(02:21):
the Jesse Kelly Show about the president'sremarks, but I haven't talked to you
guys about it. So we aregoing to do it. So if you
heard this last night, well sucksto be you. Maybe you should listen
again because perhaps you didn't catch everything, and we have additional soundbites from what
occurred last night. I want tostart with Clarence Thomas before we get to

(02:49):
anybody else or anything else that wasdiscussed last night. Clarence Thomas has a
personal friend, much like I can'tused Dragon because Dragon would never do this
for me. But I have Ihave a couple of friends that if if
I were in political office, ifI or if I was a let's say,

(03:12):
a federal district judge here in inthe district of Colorado. Uh and
I and you know, we werehaving dinner, and I said, you
know, i'd really it'd be reallygreat, Tam, and I really want
to go to I don't know,the Maldives. And and this friend of
mine said, well, as amatter of fact, I happen to have
a cabana, I've got a house, I've got something on one of those

(03:38):
one of the islands somewhere. You'rewelcome to use it. And in addition
to this, I'm thinking about afriend of mine who actually does on a
on a private jet, and I'dbe more than happy to let you use
the jet to fly over there.This person, this friend of mine,
has no business at all in frontof the court. Now he might have

(04:00):
a you know, because because he'sa billionaire, and he might have some
businesses elsewhere that maybe he owns butdoesn't actively participate in he's a majority shareholder
or something. But eventually, somewheredown the road, one of those companies
or a subsidiary of that company mightend up in front of the court on

(04:24):
some you know, le some someesultic legal issue. Have I, as
a an Associate Justice of the SupremeCourt, violated any code of ethics,
either the American Bar Association's Canons ofJudicial Ethics or any federal law. No,

(04:45):
I have not the only thing Ineed to do, I think,
And Clarence Thomas did go back anddo this after somebody pointed out, Hey,
you probably should have included that.Is included that as a gift on
my financial disclosure form. I filledout, though, and I forget the
number. You you government employees wouldremember the number. I've long since forgot

(05:09):
because it's unnecessary, so I don'tkeep that in my brain. Whatever the
number is of those financial disclosure reportsI had, you know, for almost
six years, I had to fillthose out, disclosing you know, which,
which really kind of in some waysbugs me when it actually happens to
you. If I ask you howmuch money you make, you would rightfully

(05:31):
tell me it's so none of mybusiness. However, when you're a federal
employee, you're being paid by thetaxpayers, so that is the public's business,
and I do agree to I canmake an argument both on both sides,
but I tend to follow on theside of if I'm a federal employee,

(05:51):
particularly if if, like I wasthe under Secretary of Homeland Security,
I twice confirmed by the un Iwas appointed by the President, nominated by
the President, and twice confirmed bythe United States Senate. I do believe
that I have an obligation to discloseto the public my financial condition and to

(06:12):
disclose any gifts or any royalties thatI might receive. Let's say, for
example, you know Tamer's family receivesroyalties from an oil and gas company for
mineral rights that they own in Oklahoma. I would probably, even though I
might not technically be required to disclosethose royalties, I nonetheless probably would,

(06:36):
either as a judge or as apolitics as a presidential presidential appointee, I
would probably disclose those even though thoseare really not mine, except in the
marital sense. I would inherit thoseunder the community property laws of Colorado if
Tamar were to uh to to andI might even have some right to some

(07:01):
of them if we were to endup in a horrible divorce situation. Clarence
Thomas got a Winnebago and got acouple of trips from a personal friend of
his who had no direct business withthe Court, and when those came to

(07:23):
light, he was like, Oh, yeah, I probably should have put
those on my financial disclosure form.And whether he should or not is really
a question of debate. I fallon the side of you might as well
have done it, because not doingit gave the Democrats something to bitch and
moan about. But there's no legalviolation, there's no ethical violation, And

(07:48):
knowing Clarence Thomas as I do,I would say there was no intent whatsoever
for him to try to hide somethingother members of the Court justice. So
in fact, I would say II think I can fairly say this with
some confidence that probably every member ofthe United States Supreme Court has it one

(08:11):
time or another, given a paidspeech before some organization, including maybe a
group of lawyers. There's five hundredlawyers in the room, there's seven hundred,
there's a thousand lawyers in the room. And don't send me the jokes
about putting those thousand lawyers at thebottom of the ocean. I know that's
a good start. But he's speakingto one thousand lawyers. Now, Is

(08:33):
he speaking to every lawyer in thatroom directly? No, he is not.
He is giving he or she isgiving a presentation to a thousand lawyers
at a conference somewhere, and oneof those lawyers might somewhere, somehow eventually
have business before the court. Hasthere been a violation of any code of
ethics? Has there been a violationof any financial disposure laws? No,

(08:54):
no, there's not. And thenthere's this, and this gets lost in
the entire discussion about the United StatesSupreme Court. Article one of the Constitution,
I'm just thumbing through it. Alllegislative powers here in granted, shall

(09:18):
be vested in a Congress of theUnited States, which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives.Article one, Section one, and then
Section two and the other sections goon to describe the powers and the authorities
and the duties of the Congress ofthe legislative branch. So that is Article
one. Then you flip over andyou get to Article two. The executive

(09:45):
power shall be vested in a Presidentof the United States of America. He
shall hold his office during the termof four years, and together with the
vice President chosen for the same term, be elected as follows. So have
an Article two the executive branch.Now think about what the founders are doing.

(10:07):
We'll get Article three in just asecond. They're establishing a system of
government that is comprised of three branchesof government, two of which I've described
to you that are separate, independentof each other equal branches. A legislative
branch, which their duties are youmake the laws. And then an executive

(10:33):
branch, a separate branch of government. It is an equal branch of government,
but it has different authorities and powers, and that is to administer the
laws, to faithfully execute the lawsthat are passed by Congress. Now there
are some checks and balances. If, for example, Congress passes a law

(10:56):
that passes both the House and theSenate that the President doesn't like, that
he thinks is wrong, he canveto that. But there's still further checks.
If the president vetos that then Congress, by a two thirds vote of
both houses, can override that vetoand make that law become law anyway.

(11:18):
Or the president can do a pocketveto and he can refuse to sign it,
but after a certain period of timeadds in his signature, but without
a veto, it still becomes law. There. Oh, and there's a
check on the presidency. If thepresident doesn't do something that the Congress believes

(11:39):
is unlawful, they can impeach him. But even within the impeachment powers,
they're checks and balances. The Houseis the one that has to bring the
charges. The people's House, thepeople that are elected every two years,
those four hundred and thirty five goofballsthat we tend to elect and reelect and

(12:01):
re elect, They have to initiatethe charges. Now, why would this
founder say that they want the Houseof Representatives to initiate the charges to impeach
a president, Because that is thegroup of people that are most accountable to
us because we elect every single oneof them. All four hundred and thirty

(12:24):
five seats are up for election everytwo years, so we can hold them
accountable. So that if they wantto impeach a president, they have to
be the ones to in essence thatthey're the prosecutor. They have to they
have to look at the case.They have to decide that, yeah,

(12:45):
there is an impeachable offense here,a high crime and misdemeanor, and so
we're going to have hearings and we'regoing to vote to impeach the president.
So they're the prosecutor, they're theda they're they're the ones that bring the
charges. But now there's a checkto a balance there, and that checking
that balance there is the United StatesSenate who has to decide whether or not

(13:05):
they're going to hear the charges,which I believe in all instances they should
because they're acting as a jury.So give the prosecutors the House the opportunity
to present their case. Now Ipoint that out because Chuck Schumer is refusing
to hold a hearing, a trial, if you will, on the impeachment

(13:28):
charges that the House or representatives ourHouse has filed against the Secretary of Homeland
Security, Alejandro Mayorcis for dereliction ofduty for high crimes and misdemeanor for failing
to perform his duties. But ChuckSchumer is not fulfilling his obligation to give
the members of the Senate, whichare the jury, the opportunitistes to hear

(13:48):
the case and decide for themselves andto vote up and down whether or not
to impeach and remove Alejandro Mayorcus.You see, there's all of these checks
and balances. And then we getto Article three. So now you have
this triangle, and you have Articlethree, Section one. The judicial power

(14:11):
of the United States shall be vestedin one Supreme Court. And here's the
checks and balances, and in suchinferior courts as the Congress may, from
time to time ordain and establish.The judges, both of the Supreme Court
and of the inferior courts, shallhold their offices during good behavior, and

(14:37):
shall of course be compensated for theirtime. In other words, Now it
also goes on to point out howthose justices get appointed checks and balances.
Again, a vacancy occurs, someonedies, someone resigns, The president nominates

(14:58):
and in individual and a president canuse whatever standard they want. I like
this person, I like how they'vebehaved on the court before, or they
don't. You know, anybody,anyone can be nominated to be an associate
or a chief Justice of the UnitedStates Supreme Court. What yeah, well,

(15:24):
yes, of course you have to. You have to have a black
female. Then you have to announcethat that's what you're going to do.
Right. That was his qualifications forchoosing right Jackson Brown. And so there's
a check of balances there, andthen that nomination has to be confirmed by
the Senate. And if it's notconfirmed by the Senate, well the president's

(15:45):
sol and now the president has tofind somebody else until they find someone that
they can agree upon should be confirmedto the US Supreme Court. Now they
have lifetime tenure or what does itsay, uh, shall hold their all

(16:07):
I just had to find it here. I want to read it verbatim.
Shall hold their offices during good behavior, that's all. Now, if they
do something that's illegal, they couldbe impeached. Also, federal judges have
been impeached. I can't remember thejudge's name. There was a federal judge

(16:30):
in Florida that was absolute corrupt andhe ended up being impeached and removed from
office. I don't know whether he'sstill in Congress or not. But you
know what he did because he hadthe qualifications, because he had been impeached
for bribery and corruption. So whatdoes he do? He runs for the
United States Congress and gets elected.Alsie Hastings was his name. He runs

(16:53):
for Congress and gets elected. Checksand balances, baby checks and balances.
So the Supreme Court. Now,well, let me back up. So
the House of Representatives and the Senateboth establish their own rules for and don't

(17:14):
spew your coffee out here. Butthey establish their own rules for ethics.
They establish their own rules for theirprocedures for how they're going to operate and
conduct their business. The President hasno control over that. The Supreme Court
has no control over that. Infact, the Supreme Court is sett in
cases before that. Those are that'sthe purview of the House, that's the

(17:37):
purview of the Senate. They maketheir own rule. Think Fetterman and dress
code. Yeah, Fetterman and dressCode exactly, perfect example. And then
so the White House to some degreecan establish their own code of ethics,
although Congress can pass laws that theycould impose on that branch of government,

(17:57):
but I think I would question theconstituteationality of that. The same is true
for the Supreme Court. They establishtheir own rules or procedure. They established
their own ethical rules. They establishall of that because again they are a
separate, equal branch of government.It's perfect symmetry. And then long comes

(18:21):
adult, old brain, old fartJoe Biden, and he's pissed off.
If anyone needs a good laugh,please listen to Joe Biden talking yesterday.
He's discussing term limits and ethics forthe Supreme Court. Huh, I wish
we had term limits and ethics withyou, Joe Biden. Well, you

(18:45):
just hang tight because you're going toget that. So we've gone through the
constitutional structure. If the US SupremeCourt wants to adopt, which they do,
if they want to adopt rules andregulations they mean, they have procedures
in place for how they hear casesand then how they deliberate the cases,

(19:07):
and how they you know, howthe Chief Justice will select someone to write
the minority or I'm sorry, towrite the majority opinion, and then the
others can decide whether or not theywant to join the majority or write their
own separate, you know, concurringopinion. They have adopted a code of
ethics. They they they can dowhatever they want to do because they are

(19:32):
a separate branch of government. Now, I want you to think about why
are we here today. Why didhe go to Austin yesterday to speak from
the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library andtalk about reforming the Supreme Court. Let's

(19:53):
just think about that phrase, reformingthe Supreme Court. By what authority does
the President of the United States haveto impose term limits on the Supreme Court?
He has none. He can talkabout it all he wants to.

(20:15):
He can try to do, whichis what I believe he's doing is making
it a campaign issue. And hecan disagree with the Court's decisions. It's
not unusual if you think about let'sjust go back what started all of this.
The Dobbs decision, which overruled Roev. Wade, which was the

(20:36):
epitome. It was the touchstone,it was the gold standard. It was
my, oh my gosh. Theup until Roe v. Wade, why
women were just treated as second classcitizens. Oh wait a minute. They
didn't have the right to vote fora while either, all of which required

(20:56):
what a constitution amendment? So what'sreally going on here? Biden is,
in his last few days in office, simply trying to create a campaign issue,
a political issue out of decisions thathe and quite frankly most of the

(21:19):
Democrat Party happens to disagree with.Now, if all of the decisions that
they currently disagree with had been decidedon a five to fours, just let's
say five to four in their favor, do you think, do you honestly
think we would be having any ofthis discussion? None? Whatsoever? They

(21:42):
think, and they truly believe.This is how they are, so that
for them, power has become somesort of opiate. It is. It
is fentanyl, cocaine, it's crackcocaine, it's herald one, it's marijuana,
it's alcohol, it's everything all combinedinto one, and they are addicted

(22:04):
to all of it. Power,power, power, and they're addicted to
that power because they see on thehorizon. This is the scary part for
me. They see on the horizontheir ultimate fantasy land of a European socialist
America, the United Socialist States ofAmerica. They see they're almost there,

(22:30):
but there's this one little thing thatkeeps them from actually getting there, and
that's that damned Supreme Court. Solet's change it. So the old fart
goes to Austin, and I werehere. It is let's work our way

(22:51):
through it. The face of increasingthreats to American democratic institutions. Oh,
we're facing see this is going totake a while. We're facing threats to
our democratic institutions. Here's where thegas lighting is occurring. I talked last
night about gaslighting. The gas lightingis just lying to our face, trying

(23:14):
to convince us that what we seewith our own eyes is not true,
that some alternate reality is really true. That just telling us that, no,
don't believe what you see, don'tbelieve what you hear, don't believe
what you read, believe what wetell you. Just like they gaslighted us
about Joe Biden. We saw withour own eyes that he was infirm,

(23:36):
frail, incapable of carrying out theduties. We laughed about his schedule all
the time. We know what hisschedule was, And when I think about
my schedule and Bush's schedule compared tohis schedule, I'm kind of resentful.
Why was I up every morning atyou know, four am, getting ready
for a classified briefing at six am? Why did I Why couldn't I wait
till ten o'clock have breakfast in bed? Our institutions, they're projecting our institutions

(24:08):
are indeed under attack by them,not by us. They're the ones that
are anti democratic. I use theCommission's analysis today, I'm calling for three
bold reforms. Bold reforms, trustand accountability. He because he wants to

(24:30):
restore trust and accountability. No,he wants to change their decisions. He
wants the ability to have this fastalmost what I forget, every two years
a president would have a chance toreplace a justice on the court. So

(24:51):
that think about that every two years. So that means that a president could
in an eight year term do whatpoint for justices. So if you keep
that turnover going, you can,depending on who gets elected president, you
could actually maintain control over the USSupreme Court. That's what they're really after,

(25:15):
to the court and our democracy andof course our democracy. You know,
I actually want to puke. Iwant to puke or I want to
take a sledgehammer to somebody every timethey use the word democracy. All we
got to preserve democracy when they themselvesare the ones that are actually a threat
to our democratic way of doing businessin this country. There's a pressure out

(25:37):
to me. Is I got offfair force one The Republicans speak of the
House said, whatever he proposes deadon arrival. Well, I think he's
thinking is dead and arounal Okay,not funny at all, but it is
dead on arrival. You have tohave the House initiate a constitutional amendment,

(26:00):
and you have to have a constitutionalamendment, and it's not going to happen.
Let's say that it did happen.Let's say that the House of Representatives
actually initiated a constitutional amendment. Doyou wait a minute. You don't have
the votes to do that in theSenate. Even if Chuck Schumer wanted to
bring it to the floor, he'sgonna have to convince numerous Republicans to join

(26:21):
him, and they're not going todo it. Again, check some balances.
You want to drastically change the perfectlyalmost perfectly until the seventeenth Amendment,
the perfectly symmetrical form of government wehave with this beautiful checks and balances system,
and you want to upend that.No, sir, it's not going
to happen, So shut the fup. First, I'm calling for a

(26:49):
constitution of amendment, call noe isabove the law amendment. No, we
have to have a constitutional amendment toclaim that no one is above the law.
Well, guess what, No onealready is above the law. But
that's not what he thinks because he'snever read the cases on presidential immunity.

(27:12):
All he's heard is that though theSupreme Court gave the president absolute immunity.
No, sir, that's not entirelytrue. But forgive me for recognizing that
you don't care about the facts,you don't care about the case, because
all you're doing is now you're gaslightingeveryone to think that that's what the court

(27:36):
did when that's not what the courtdid. I mean it, sincerely.
It halls no immunity for crimes formerpresident committed while in office. That's not
what the court said at all,not at all. There are powers vested

(27:56):
in the president for which he hasabsolutely immunity, those constitutional powers that you
have to have a president immune fromanyone suing him for exercising what are his
inherent constitutional duties. That's absolute immunity. But then there's a gray area.

(28:18):
Is it within his power or isit not? Or is it discretionary.
There's all of those things. Butthen there are those other things that have
nothing to do with his constitutional duties. Well, there's no immunity for that.
Now you may have to wait untilhe's out of office, but he
will still be held accountable for crimes, let's say actual crimes. He owns

(28:45):
a company that he has put intoa trust while he's president, but nonetheless
he's embezzling from his own company,Well, he can be held criminally liable
for that. He may not beable to be secuted while he's president,
but once he leaves office, hecan be prosecuted for embezzlement or for that

(29:07):
matter, murder. So this,this president, this adult, old fool,
is trying to convince you otherwise.You know why, because even if
he has read the Supreme Court decision, which I do not believe he has,
he wants to lie to you aboutit. He wants to gaslight to
you about it. He wants toconvince you that it says something, and

(29:27):
it does not say I share ourfounder's belief. The president must answer to
the law. The president is accountablethe exercise of the great power of the
presidency. We're a nation of lawis not kings and dictators. What's that

(29:52):
really about kings and dictators? Youknow, if Trump were a dictator,
he'll still be in office. IfTrump were a dictator, he would have
refused to leave. He would havetold that Secret Service detail, I'm not
I'm not leaving here, and Irefuse to leave. Now, that would

(30:14):
be interesting because the Secret Service,even though they're required to protect the president,
they may have taken him physically outof the Oval Office and put him
on Marine one, taking him toAir Force one and flown him tomorrow Lago.
And even if they didn't do that, once Biden took the oath of

(30:37):
office, he had no authority todo anything. He could have ordered.
He could have tried to order themilitary, hey go rest that guy,
Biden, take him, you know, because that it would be a coup.
Right. He didn't because he can'tbecause the military has the authority to

(30:59):
refuse us to follow an unlawful order. We don't have dictators, and Biden
knows it. And Biden's gaslighting you. Hey heard you on the Jesse Kelly
Show. Your voice is a littleyou know, strained, raspy, dark,
really deep, a little overused.For God's sake, you sound like

(31:21):
Demi Moore. Demi Moore, Youknow, I do wonder it's kind of
interesting because I use a different studioin this building when I do the Saturday
show, the weekend show, andobviously with them. When I fill in
for one of the other national shows, I do it from a different studio
downstairs, and it's an entirely differentsetup. I wonder if it does sound

(31:42):
differently, you know, but eitherway, you know, it's it's still
a pretty sexy voice. And Iknow, I know that all you ladies
are really turned on by it andkind of creeps me up because some of
you guys are turned on by ittoo, so you know, But but
I can't help it. I justI am what I am, and that
you know that that's it. Andyou know, even Dragon, you know,

(32:04):
well, well, while there's nosexual attraction here, Dragon does really
admire me. He really is.He's he's my number one fan. It
might have eaten breakfast. I wouldhave vomited it. Dragon Redbeard the number
one fan of Michael Brown. NowMissus Redbeard on the other hand, yeah,

(32:25):
uh huh, he is my numberone fan because fam is not mine
and Missus Redbeard is not yours.So Chris, that's the way it is.
So let me get back. Iwant to finish Joe Biden because it
is so many things to say abouthim, it's amazing,