8-25-25 - 9am - SCOTUS and Government Appointments

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
About Katrina. There's a big difference between Blanco and Barber
that never gets mentioned. Bye, I I don't know. Maybe
it was I don't know. There was something on television
last night and Tam and I both were going to

(00:21):
change the channel because it was you know, some maybe
it was sixty minutes. I just don't remember what it
was because I don't care. And it was about Katrina
and Tamer was just getting ready to flip it, and
I said, no, no, no, wait a minute. And what
caught my eye was the reporter was standing and where

(00:44):
she was standing. I knew that that was not Louisiana,
that it had to either be Alabama or Mississippi. And yes,
it turned out they were talking to somebody in Biloxi,
which you're right, never gets mentioned. The devastation in Mississippi.

(01:10):
I you know, I don't know. Hailey doesn't mind me
if I tell this story. I probably have probably told
the story before. So after I kind of got my
situational awareness of what was going on in New Orleans,
we took the plane and immediately went to Mississippi. We

(01:30):
decided not to go to Alabama because I had talked
to governor he used to be a congressman. Anyway, I
talked to him and he was like, no, don't spend
your time here. We're fine. Go on, and so I
land and I get to the emergency operations center where

(01:51):
Haley is with his team, and I walk in and
he starts describing to me everything that's happened, and he
starts crying because it is horrible. But as I explained,
you know, this is one time, you know, Russian Limbaugh

(02:11):
talked talked about me maybe four or five times in
his career, which is probably more than you can claim.
So I'm quite proud of it. And all four or
five times he was very positive. One time he said
something to the fact that, well, that was a stupid
thing for Brown to say, and it was a stupid
thing for me to say. But he went on to

(02:33):
talk about it alb. But I was still right about
X y Z. But he I had on Kovudo's show
was explaining the Limbaugh theorem and how what was going
on in New Orleans was because there was a focal point.

(02:53):
And this had to do with why people like Barack
Obama would not go to the southern border, and that
was because he would draw a focal point on the
border and the number of illegals crossing. And I said,
and so what happened in Katrina was the cabal had
a focal point to foc focus on, and that was

(03:15):
the Superdome and the Convention Center, but primarily the Superdome,
And so that became the focal point. And that proved
as I was telling this to Cavudo, and so that
proved the limb ball theorem that they are avoiding talking
about going to or discussing the border because they don't
want that focal point. And New Orleans became the focal point,

(03:37):
and quite frankly, the focal point to the detriment of
all of those victims that were in Alabama and Mississippi.
And it just it drives me crazy to this day
that the devastation was as widespread over there as it

(03:57):
was in Louisiana. But yeah, and then the flooding that
occurred throughout Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia and the Carolinas was
horrible too, But no, it was just nolins. Did we
make this list? Dragon?

Speaker 2 (04:13):
Is it a good list or a bad list?

Speaker 1 (04:14):
Well? States that are the most fun?

Speaker 2 (04:17):
Oh yeah, I did print this one because I saw.

Speaker 1 (04:19):
The site looked at all fifty states across more than
two dozen metrics and two main categories, entertainment and recreation,
which covers everything from weather beat weather. It's freezing cold outside.
It's now sixty one degrees. I need a parka beach quality. Well,
we sucked there. Number of miles along the shore, well

(04:42):
we kind of sucked there unless you count lakes or streams,
to the restaurants and amusement parks, golf courses, arcades, other
recreational sites per capita, and the nightlife. You could tell
us about the nightlife. How's the night life in Colorado? Dragon?

Speaker 2 (04:58):
I go to fed at like nine, so I had
no idea.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
Most fun California, Florida, Nevada, Illinois, New York and coming
in at number six, Colorado, followed by Washington, Texas, Minnesota,
and Oregon. Least fun Kansas, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Alabama, Vermont, Arkansas, Delaware,
Rhode Island, Mississippi, and last and least West Virginia. Do

(05:28):
you think that's a fair rating for us number six?
I don't know if it is or not.

Speaker 3 (05:38):
I think Colorado is a state maybe right, because you
got the mountains.

Speaker 1 (05:46):
Yeah, and we you know, we do. We got the
great outdoors, and we've got lots of malls. We got,
you know, the Pearl Street mall, we got Park Meadows,
and we got the Sixteenth Street in a ul we
got the mall on Sixteenth Street two. So forget that.

(06:07):
There was oh, I don't know how long gil. It
was an opinion written by Justice Amy Colemy Barrett. I
do I think it was last month, joined by five
other Justices of the Supreme Court, in which remember this story,
we talked about this for a while, in which she
just eviscerated the legal reasoning or lack thereof, quite honestly,

(06:31):
of a dissent written by Justice Jackson was one of
the final cases heard in the Court's term, and the
harshness of Justice Barrett's comments that were directed to Justice
Jackson alone, that alone was striking. The fact that her
opinion was joined in by five other justices meant that

(06:54):
she had been given permission by her colleagues to actually
go challenge Justice Jackson's understanding of jurisprudence and the law
and the use of legal reasoning in very strident terms.

Speaker 2 (07:10):
Didn't she pretty much say a first year law student
would know better. Yes.

Speaker 1 (07:14):
In fact, she may have actually said that in that opinion.
So they just eviscerated her, which is highly unusual. Well,
the Supreme Court just issued an order last week granting
in part and denying in part a motion to stop

(07:35):
the District Court's judgment after a bench trial in a
case called NIH versus the American Public Health Administration again Massachusetts.
What is with Massachusetts or Delaware and Maryland judges? The
District Judge of Massachusetts had ordered the Trump administration to

(07:56):
restore funding to research grants that had been issued by
the Biden administration. But then we're canceled based on guidance
issued by the National Institutes of Health to various agencies
that are under its purview. The guidance and the cancelations
followed some changes in policy announced in three different executive

(08:21):
orders issued by Trump. The targeted grant cancelations was research
involving COVID nineteen DEI objectives, gender identity, and any grant
that included a racial preference with regard to the applicant

(08:43):
for that grant. I don't disagree with any of those, So,
of course, as is now the case with anything Trump farts,
there's a there's an order to you know, application for
a temporary restraining order to stop Trump from farting on
the elevator in the East Wing. I mean, it's absurd.

(09:04):
So all these plants get together to try to reverse
these policies, which I think is a fool's errand because
if you can't, I mean, we've how many times have
you heard that when you accept federal money it comes
with strings attached. Sometimes the strings change, sometimes strings get cut,

(09:27):
sometimes strings get added, but it always comes with you're
going to do what the person writing the check wants
you to do.

Speaker 3 (09:38):
Well.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
Anyway, they claim that these changes, which seem pretty rational
in my part, to be violations of the Administrative Procedures
Act with regard to to subset of these claims the
cancelation of specific instances of grant funding. So they're complaining that,
in very specific instances you didn't follow a procedure right.

(10:03):
And the second is claims involving the issuance of guidance
by NIH based on the executive voters, which then led
to cancelations, all of which seemed to me to be
executive functions, which all seemed to me to be the
kinds of rules and regulations that get promulgated and issued
all the time. You can have a grant for anything,

(10:24):
a grant to build rose gardens, and suddenly they decide,
you know, the Department of Vague decides, well, we're going
to change the terms of this grant. Now, depending on
how substantial those terms are, you know, it might be
a violation of the contractual agreement, or it may not.
It's always based, it's always a fact situation. But when

(10:47):
you're deciding that you're going to eliminate certain things, you're
no longer going to fund DEI or gender identity, or
particularly anything that has a racial preference in it, they
should be on its face violation of the law. Well,
the distinction between those two subsets of claims and the

(11:08):
jurisdiction of the Judge of the Federal Judge of Massachusetts
to provide a remedy for each particular claim was the
basis for the split among the justices that resulted in
two outcomes, a five to four decision and a four
to five decision with regard to those two subsets. Now,
regarding the cancelation of individual grants, the justices held in

(11:33):
a five to four decision that the nature of those
claims was a breach of contract, and the exclusive jurisdiction
for that kind of claim is not in federal district court,
but in the Court of Federal Claims, and that the
claims could not be brought in the district court. Most

(11:53):
first year well I shouldn't say first year, but most
law students graduate understanding that if you're going to claim
a breach of contract with the federal government, you're not
going to go to federal district court. You're going to
go to the federal Court of Claims. That's just basic
federal jurisdiction. So the Supreme Court granted to stay on
the enforcement of the Massachusetts judge ordering restoration of the

(12:17):
funding pending the outcome of the appeal in the first Circuit.
That's pretty standard operating procedure too. Then let's go to
the guidance cases for a moment. So NIH issues some
guidance all again pursuit to the executive orders. And when
you follow the guidance, that means that some grants are
going to be canceled. Well, the Justice vote. The justices

(12:38):
voted five to four in this case, Barrett switch sides.
They voted five to four that the Administrative Procedures Act.
All those claims relating relating to guidance were within the
jurisdiction of the district Court. So in the first subset, no,
you had to go to the Federal Court of Claims.
In the second when they said no, the guidance were

(13:01):
within the jurisdiction of the district Court, and so the
motion to stop the lower court's judgment was denied. So
in essence you get an outcome that resulted in four
different opinions. Justice Barrett issued the sixth page opinion, first
joining with four other justices in the conservative wing Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas,

(13:25):
and Kavanaugh, and granted a partial stay based on the
likelihood the district Court didn't have jurisdiction over the grant
cancelation claims. But then Amy Colemy Barrett declined to provide
a fifth vote regarding the Administrative Procedures Act involving the
NIH guidance. Now, she does say explicitly in her opinion

(13:48):
that the judgment vacating the guidance does not restore the
grant funding. So you can bitch and moan about the
grant guidance, but it didn't restore the funding, and that's
not an issue. The injunction simply stops the Trump administration
from relying on the guidance in any future decision making

(14:09):
until all the other errors are addressed. Kavanaugh wrote a
two page opinion in which he talked about Justice Barrett's
split resolution, and he came to the conclusion that the
two subsets of claims are likely not separate, and that
we should be resolving that they should be resolving those
together in the Court of Claims. So I mean, it's

(14:32):
all convoluted procedural stuff. Justice Gorsuch wrote a four page
opinion joined by Kavanaugh, in which he made the very
same point in comments directed at the lower coins lower courts,
also joining Kavanaugh's opinion that all of the claims should
be stayed and they should all be in the Federal
Court of Claims. Justice Roberts wrote one page opinion. I

(14:54):
mentioned all these page numbers to make know the fact
that eight of the nine justices managed to somehow make
what they thought were the necessary legal points on resolving
the motion to stay in thirteen pages across four opinions.
That's where I want you to understand. Thirteen pages across

(15:16):
four opinions all trying to say the same thing. But
then Justice Jackson wrote a dissent that was not joined
by any other justice, including her liberals on the court.
Hers as opposed to Remember, you had nine justices wrote

(15:40):
thirteen pages. Here you have one justice that wrote a
descent not joined by any of the others. There was
twenty one pages long. Now, I think it's there's an
underlying theme here that really isn't what I want to make,
but I think I want, I want you to note

(16:02):
what I'm thinking. If nine justices across all those different
opinions total only thirteen pages, and then she writes one
descent that's not joined by any even her friends, neither Kagan,
so dom I or no, we have nothing to do

(16:24):
with what she wrote, and she writes twenty one pages.
I think we're understanding why there's a reason that these
decisions are coming out only after long delays, because they're
waiting on Justice Jackson to finish her lengthy and like
honestly pointless descents. The Descent includes another collection of assaults

(16:46):
of insults by Justice Jackson in which she at taxed
the integrity of the justice she disagrees with, including her
own liberal justices.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
She is truly a dei.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
Hire in a broader sense. She wrote, However, today's ruling
is a piece with this court, is of a peace
with this Court's recent tendencies. Right when the Judiciary should
be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve
the laws constraint, the Court opts instead to make vindicating
the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious government action

(17:26):
as difficult as possible. There are no fixed rules, but
we seem to have too that one and that this
administration always wins. That's now part of the history of
the US Supreme Court. It's hard to imagine language from
the Justice that more directly impurs the integrity and the

(17:47):
commitment to the rule of law that even her liberal
colleagues all along, than her saying that we, you know,
and the administration always wins.

Speaker 4 (17:56):
I wonder how many people within one hundred miles of
Jesus the work in a facility that doesn't have air
conditioning during the summertime. Also, how many people are working outside,
such as landscapers and homebuilders. Part of our problem with
our current politicians is they are not strong enough to

(18:18):
suck it up for a while.

Speaker 1 (18:22):
I think that both Pete Hegsith and Bobby Kenny Junior.
I'll speak for Dragon on this one too. I think
they could out do us and push ups and pull ups.
Did you see them doing that?

Speaker 3 (18:36):
I definitely agree on the pull ups because I'm still
struggling with those, but I'd like to think i'd give
them a run for the money on the push ups.

Speaker 1 (18:43):
So you really good for you? I'm not sure. I'm
not sure that I could.

Speaker 2 (18:48):
Hu, but maybe definitely try.

Speaker 1 (18:53):
I will say not two thirds, maybe a little more,
sellly more than half of what they could do. Maybe,
but I don't know. I don't know. More body strength's
very good. Everybody's strength, yes, not that great. So but
mom Donnie tried to do it. Failed miserably. Oh yeah,

(19:13):
failed miserably. There's some video online. It's just hilarious. What
is it about? Everybody has to imitate everybody else? What
is it about? So there is uh And I haven't
done the story. I'm planning to do the story. But
somebody's been doing deep fakes of Gavin Newsom because he's
now trying to imitate everything that Trump does. He's got

(19:35):
a little team of pimple faced kids doing all the
social media stuff, and so they now, you know, they
now type in all caps and you know, thank you
for your attention. Well, someone made a deep fake photo
of that iconic picture of Donald Trump after being shot
in Butler, Pennsylvania, except all the Secret Service agents are

(19:55):
laughing and Gavin Newsom is holding a bottle of Hinds.
Of course it would be Hines for John Kerry, and
there is ketchup drifting from his ear, and I guess
it's supposed to be funny. I guess they're jealous that,
you know, nobody's trying to try to assassinate Gavin Newsom?
Is that what they really want? And then I mentioned

(20:16):
this a little bit on Saturday too. I dragon watched this.
I don't know how entertaining he found it, but I
found it just kind of funny that the whole woke
thing is. I don't know if it's coming or going.
Because I admit that I looked at the new Cracker.
I'm not a fan of cracker barrel. I've been in

(20:36):
a Cracker barrel. I bet twice in my entire life,
and again probably because I was on an interstate highway
somewhere and I was dying of hunger. So I pulled
into a cracker barrel. And I take that back. Maybe
I've been maybe four or five times, because sometimes in
a disaster zone that might be one of the few
places you could eat as you were trying to get
in or out of the zone. Well, so I saw

(20:58):
the change in the logo, and I thought me until
I started learning about the CEO, and they actually have
a DEI person and they're still out there pushing DEI.
Crap has great jeans during during that I'll forw that
to Dragon. He put it up on Michael says go

(21:20):
here dot com.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
If you're listening on the podcast, you didn't hear it,
so go to Michael says go here dot com.

Speaker 1 (21:25):
I thought about that about halfway throughout that. Well, crap,
they're not gonna hear this anyway on the podcast.

Speaker 3 (21:30):
Just one one more step for you guys. That's it,
just Michael says, go here dot com.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
Yeah. So Colorado is by the way. During that video,
which eventually you will be you will be able to see,
they show all of the different stock prices, Target and
Cracker Barrel and everybody else, uh, bud lights as it
begins to just crash and crater when they start doing

(21:56):
the stuff. But the best line to me was just quick,
you know, all you brands, just quit sermonizing. You know,
I don't want the sermonizing. I don't want you know,
if I go to a Bruce Springsteen's concert, I don't
want to be lectured about Donald Trump. Just shut up
and sing your songs. That's all. That's all I want.
There was a story that broke so you know, the
pullit bureaus in special session trying to fill up gigantic

(22:21):
budget holes caused by overspending. Well, a Republican state rep
is resigning effective September first, because, at least in one
story I read, because he took a photograph of another
state legislator unbeknown to that state legislator, and then they

(22:42):
put it on signal, people quit using signal, and they
made fun of the way she was dressed or the
way she looked or something. And now they, you know,
the Democrats was censor this guy because he was well,
you know, he was crewe or root or something good Greek, grossing,

(23:04):
overly sensitive. Holy cow. Well, it made me start digging
because Colorado is one of seventeen states that fill legislative
vacancies by appointment when they first occur, So a group
of Republican muckety MUCKs will get together and appoint someone
to serve in this Republican Pulit Bureau member's House seat

(23:26):
until the next general election, which is November of twenty
twenty six. But then there was this little factoid in
the story. His replacement will be one of at least
twenty four members of the Colorado Puloit Bureau next year
who at some point started their careers because they were

(23:50):
appointed to the Senate or the House through a vacancy committee.
Now that means that nearly one in five state lawmakers
Colorado oh their legislative careers, either in hole or in
part because they never stood for an election in a
primary to replace the resigning member. But they got the

(24:14):
benefits of incumbency because a bunch of muckety MUCKs decided
to appoint them. Republicans get to appoint the Republican Democrats
appoint the Democrats. That process got to change because I
just think it's wrong that you've got one in five
one in five. There are twenty four members of the

(24:34):
House and Senate right now who got their start not
because they stood before the voters. Now I agree, they
eventually have to stand before the voters, but they already
that gives them the leg up, that gives them the
advantage of incumbency. Hey, I'm your current state rep. Yeah,
I got to point them, but don't tell anybody. But
now I'm asking for your vote. I just don't think

(24:56):
it's fair. Oh, Michael, it cased so much to hold
a lit Yeah, will made if you spent money on
the right things. And maybe if you saved money, we'd
have money to have special elections when people resign. And
then it got me to thinking, too, why so many resignations?
Twenty four next year there will be twenty four members

(25:19):
of the Colorado Pullet Bureau that got their start through
an appointment. If you're going to run for office, unless
you know there's some medical problem or as in the
case of this guy, he's not only in trouble with
the Democrats, but apparently he's moving to Arizona because he's
got a love bird in Arizona. He's got a job

(25:41):
in Arizona. Okay, well, I guess I accept that. But
when you run, maybe you ought to make a commitment
to serve your term just say it, because I'm kind
of sick of all these appointments.

Speaker 4 (25:52):
Color Democrats are screaming, oh, Taper hencuffs us. Really very
interesting how we can give the state representative from Colorado
House District one, Maybrey's nonprofit sixteen million dollars in the
last month. I think we know where the problem is, Dems.

(26:15):
It's in all your ridiculous spending YEP and.

Speaker 1 (26:20):
Your money laundering. So the dumbasses that infest our legal system,
like Justice Jackson, have now subverted that legal system in
favor of an arco tyranny. Edward Courstein and Charles Burgess.

(26:42):
I bet just those two names don't mean anything to you. Well,
I bet you do. You will now because you'll recall
that Edward Corstein aka Big Balls of Doswain, got a
really severe beating in Washington in while defending his girlfriend
during an attempt carjackie. All of these feral teams are

(27:04):
just kind of roaming around who attacked him. Well, the
system is on their side. They're the criminals, they're the thugs,
and the criminal justice system is on their side. You
want the receipts. DC Supreior Court Judge Kendra Briggs, a
Biden appointing, released two of the teams who attacked former

(27:26):
DOGE member Edward Costein Briggs released one team to a
youth shelter and the other to his mommy. Now, the
thugs probably assumed in advance that, yeah, there probably will
be essentially no punishment even if we're caught, because nobody's
getting caught, and then nobody's really getting any trouble, so
let's just go do it anyway. That's what they did. Now,

(27:50):
Courstine offered the liberals by helping to cut government waste.
M we helped them. I'd say he actually probably offended them.
And then he compounded that by being a white victim
of black criminal thugs. Not that they would have been

(28:11):
punished anyway, but nonetheless, what if the roles have been reversed.
Now let's go to the other one yet, Edward Courstein.
But you also had Charles Burgess. Remember Charles Burgess. Well,
his offense was horrific. He poked fun at the ninety
nine point nine percent lesbian WNBA by participating in that

(28:33):
fat of tossing a sex toy onto the court. Remember
that New York Post Charles Burgess thirty two of Dayton
surrendered Wednesday morning at Brooklyn's seventy eighth Precinct, which covers
the area of the Barkley Center where he allegedly threw
the great Lime Green sex toy around. Isn't it hilarious

(28:55):
that we can say sex toy but we can't say
what the sex toy is. I mean, it's just in sanity, insanity.
Around eight forty five pm on August five, according to Popo,
the thanks toy allegedly hit somebody in the leg. Burgess
was arranged on multiple New York posts. He was arraigned

(29:15):
on multiple charges, including attempted assault and second and third
degrees third degree assault, second degree menacing, second degree reckless endangerment,
third degree obscenity, third degree obscenity, fourth degree what's first
and second degree fourth degree criminal possession of a weapon. Hmmm,
interference with a professional sporting event, and second degree harassment.

(29:37):
According to the criminal.

Speaker 2 (29:38):
Complaint, doesn't make the Sandwich guy sound so crazy anymore.

Speaker 1 (29:41):
Now. The Sandwich guy seemed like he ought to get
a medal, good degree when a minor act of let's
call it what it is, tasteless and yeah, you did
interfere with a professional sporting event when that's treated as
vastly more serious than beating somebody to a bloody paul
while you're trying to steal the car. I'm not sure

(30:04):
we have a system of justice anymore. You have a
system of social justice, because one is not the same
as the other. Even though Lady Justice is supposed to
be blind, think about just think about the prosecutors involved.
So one says to the court, Yeah, just you know what,

(30:27):
let's defer the sentence. The other one let's go after it.
Let's throw his ass in jail. Yeah, we don't have
a justice system anymore.