July 1, 2024 • 26 mins
Several new laws go into effect today in California.US supreme court issues Trump immunity decision. Even wealthy Americans are struggling to make ends meet. How does CalKids work? Free college funds for Californians.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demandfrom KFI AM six forty. This is
KFI Bill Handle here talking about tripledigits. But I grew up with this,
so it's going to be a well, it's a hot one and summer
are starting really early. A coupleof big stories after Joe Biden's debacle,
(00:21):
a horrible, horrible performance in thedebate, a lot of talk about him
being forced to or asked to dropout of the race. Well, his
family, his supporters are saying no, no, no, By the way,
he is not dropping out. He'sthe only one that can make that
decision because he has the nomination andyou can't turn her around, not legally,
(00:45):
Okay. Now, July one,which means there are a bunch of
laws that come into effect. Usually, and this is California. Usually what
happens when laws are passed, there'sone of two dates and or one of
three dates. That is January first, the law kicks in July first,
a law kicks in, or alaw kicks in immediately, and that's pretty
(01:07):
rare. And July first, sinceit's midyear, that happens all the time
it has been, and it dealswith how long whoever is being regulated,
or whatever is being regulated, orwhatever service is being regulated, that organization,
that entity is given time to makewhatever changes, and sometimes it's years
(01:33):
down the road. For example,in the case of evs, till two
thirty five, twenty thirty five iswhen California has to have all evs on
the road or sell all evs.So let me tell you a couple of
bills that are going in drug testingkits in bars because there is such a
fear of spike drinks and it hashappened, the bars have to provide either
(01:57):
strips or stickers or straws that cantest for rape drug date rate drugs like
hypnol, roofies, ketamine, andthere has to be a sign there and
either offered for free or at cost. A gun tax for those of you
that are gun owners, there isnow a new law that adds an eleven
(02:20):
percent state tax on top of whatevertax, federal tax, etc. For
all firearms and ammo sold in theUS, making California, strangely enough,
what a surprise the only state inthe US to have such a tax,
and the state is you can goahead and argue, and there, of
course there's arguments all day long.I don't know where the lawsuits are saying
(02:46):
that that's a violation of Second Amendmentrights. I don't know where that goes.
New law raises the carry permit agsfrom eighteen to twenty one. However,
yeah, there's another one because eighteenyear olds therefore are being violated their
Second Amendment rights. Also, youcannot have if you're a firearm carrier,
(03:07):
you can't be in sensitive areas atschools, hospitals, parks, and once
you do get a permit, peopleover the age of twenty one will not
be able to carry in most placeswithout signage indicating you're allowed to carry,
which is in direct violation of what'sgoing in the South, where a few
laws have been passed that people aremandated to carry guns and you cannot go
(03:30):
to school, even kindergarten without carryinga gun. So six year old must
not only be allowed to carry guns, they must be forced to carry guns
over the age of sixteen. Differentlaws. By the way, that is
just me you know where I'm goingwith that. Also, junk fees now
simply become part of published fees hotels, airbnbs particularly, that's what this has
(03:54):
passed for. You can't say it'sone hundred and fifty dollars a night or
two hundred and fifty dollars a nightin a hotel. And then you walk
up there and you find out thatthere is the resort fee and there are
additional fees. And I've gone toplaces where there's a resort fee during COVID
and I go there's not even apool. Everything is closed down, the
(04:17):
spa doesn't work there. We stillhave the resort fee. Isn't that special?
So now you can still have theresort fee, but it's not two
fifty a night, it's two thirtyfive night. They have to actually tell
you the truth. You know.What's funny is like you go, this
is not a resort and they said, oh no, no, no,
no, we're going broke. Sowe had the resort to charge it very
(04:41):
strong. Resort fee, very strong. And I can't use suspension anymore for
minor misbehavior covered under the quote disruptionor will Field defiance category for California K
through twelve. So you can kicka teacher, can kick a student out
of class, but the student can'tbe suspend or can't be suspended or expelled
(05:05):
from school. Just go to theprincipal's office or stand in the corner.
You're going to stand in the cornerduring class that you can do. And
then finally, and there's many,many more bills. This one kind of
floored me. That public schools haveto provide free menstrual products in restroom and
(05:27):
that expands from grade six to twelveand now includes grade three to five.
Third grade girls have to have accessto menstrual product. How old are you
when you're in the third grade?By the way, first grade is eight.
You're eight years old in the thirdgrade? Do I have that right?
Probably going on nine? Yeah?How many eight or nine year old
(05:51):
girls are on their period or begintheir period? I don't know. But
anyway, what hey Surrey, Uhyeah, go ahead and ask that and
have that blog right, quay,Surrey? How many nine year old girls
(06:11):
begin their period? Most girls?Yeah, between ten and fifteen. That's
interesting. Well, that makes sense. Even ten is pretty young. Well,
I can tell you as the momof an eleven year old, it
happens a lot more than you think. Andre. The average age is twelve,
by the way, Yeah, whichmakes sense. All right, Well,
I guess nine, eight or ninemakes it? And anyway, so
(06:32):
free menstal products. I hope she'slistening. It's happening. It's happening.
Well, I mean, I'm notsaying that my daughter has, but her
friends have. And it happens moreoften than you think. And these young
girls don't have what they need.Yeah, and it's parents are caught off
guard, right, so yeah,And it's happening younger and younger. Okay.
(06:53):
And they have music playing in therestrooms, girls' restrooms not an element
non in public maybe private schools.Yeah, by the news, by the
new Christy minstrels that that's a rockgroup or excuse me, a folk a
folk group, and it's that datesme. All right, We're done cono
even laughs, thank you kono forthat. Okay. Now, the Supreme
(07:16):
Court last week came down big timeon the homeless encampments. Does a city
have the right to ban homeless encampments? The argument was the city does not
have the right because it's cruel andunusual punishment violation under the Eighth Amendment,
(07:38):
where the victims of the cities takingaway their right to sleep on the street
in homeless encampments can not be denied. You cannot stop cities cannot stop people
from living intents on the sidewalks.Now, I don't think there's ever been
an issue of camping in front ofa business that is clearly illegal, and
(08:03):
the city can enforce those. It'sout in various places. For example,
Los Angeles, the city has theright to remove and does remove homeless encampments.
And as I go home, Igo under get off the freeway and
then go under the overpass making aleft, and there is on the sidewalk
(08:24):
a whole line of tents under thebridge, the one next to the porta
Potti that the city put up orwhatever nonprofit put up. They advertise that
as a one bedroom, one baththat is an expensive tent. Well,
the city has come in and cleanedit up. There ain't any more people
(08:48):
there, which for us driving throughthere is a wonder. I mean,
we don't like homeless encampments. Now, the question is does a city have
the right And with the court saidyou bet you six to three, split
down liberal and conservative lines, NinthCircuit Court had said that it is not
(09:13):
cruel or Ninth Circuit Court said it'scruel and unusual for city officials to ban
the homeless for sleeping on the streetsfrom parks. Neil Gore Sich, she
said the city does have the right, said, homelessness is complex. The
causes are many, so maybe thepublic policy responses those are complex, and
the Eighth Amendment, which centers oncruel and unusual punishment, does not authorize
(09:37):
federal judges to take those rights awayfrom the American people and the cities,
which is a logical extension of thepeople, and dictate the nation's homelessness policy.
Courts don't have the right to dothat. It's the cities that have
the right to do that. Andthe three liberal justices dissented. Of course,
(10:00):
Justice Sonia Soda Mayor said, forpeople with no access to shelter,
that punishes them for being homeless,it's unconscionable and unconstitutional. And punishing people
for their status, which is homelessness, it is unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment, and so the Court hasnow gone in favor of the cities.
(10:24):
Gorses wrote that people will disagree.At bottom, the question this case presents
is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federaljudges primary responsibility for assessing those causes.
Gavin Newsome said and agreed with thecourt. The ruling provides state and local
(10:46):
officials the definitive authority to implement andenforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our
streets. So the cities are arguingthat it's an issue of safety. Also,
when you have encampments that are justloaded with trash because they're not the
cleanest people in the world that livein homeless encampments, You've got disease,
(11:09):
you've got the danger of fire,which we know people are in danger,
and even to protect them, thelaws can be introduced and enforced. Now
that's kind of interesting because protecting someoneby not letting them live in a tent
in a public park, where dothey live? You know, it doesn't
(11:30):
quite go that far, And soit's the cities are thrilled. Lancaster mayor
said the court finally made a goodruling and the city plans to be much
more aggressive. I don't know whatthat means in Lancaster, but I'll tell
you what it means. If youget popped for drunk driving in Lancaster,
(11:52):
you're going to get nailed. Theyare aggressive and punishment is meet it out
or met it out big time.San Francisco Mayor London Breed a liberal,
real liberal, welcome the Supreme Court'sreview because San Francisco last year really came
(12:16):
down to crack down on crime andhomelessness in the city and said that the
decision will help cities like San Franciscomanage our public spaces. The vast majority
of city officials say, yeah,we want to deal with the homeless,
and we want to be able toget rid of those encampments and those who
are homeless. Advocates say, thesepeople have a right to live in your
(12:39):
parks, which means, of courseyour kids can't go anywhere near there.
And because it's cruel and unusual toget rid of them, no way.
Courts said, no way, Jose, because a lot of people who live
in the camps are named Jose.And the court said done. Finish.
Cities have the right now. Theissue is cities have the right to toss
(13:01):
them. Where do these people go? Does the city have the duty to
make sure they are housed? Idon't know the answer to that. And
if they move them in a certainarea, then the argument is concentration Campsilo,
they're not forced. There's no winon this one. There really isn't,
never has been. Okay, probablythe most anticipated case, or one
(13:22):
of them this term. Supreme Courtjust ruled that former President Trump, any
president, does have immunity for officialacts. This thing is going to blow
wide open, and I'll tell youwhy a president has immunity for anything that
can determined an official act. Hisargument always has been, as he has
(13:48):
taken this to the courts, thatwhat he did in attempting to overturn what
the courts have held is a legalelection of Joe Biden. Trying to overturn
that, Trump is arguing he didthat as an official act of the president.
Same thing with trying to stop theelectoral college from voting for Joe Biden,
(14:11):
even though by law they were forcedto vote, or they by law,
yeah, they were forced to vote. What the electoral call what the
electors are forced to do. Somestates, by the way, electors can
bolt and go to the other side, but the vast majority not. And
also stopping the counting of the votesby Joe Biden, who officially announces,
(14:33):
which, by the way, doesn'tmatter whether he announces or not. It's
president. Biden was still elected president. Now is everything that Trump did official?
That's what he is arguing. Thatwas the argument that was in front
of Elena Kagan when she asked Trump'sattorney is an official act anything the president
does? And Trump said yes,even ordering the assassination of a rival.
(14:58):
His lawyer's basically he said, yes, that's an official act. So what
does this mean, Well, itdoesn't mean that Trump's not going to get
nailed because now he goes to thelower court and each individual act has to
be deemed official or not. Now, I can't imagine that a court is
(15:18):
going to hold, maybe depending ifthey go court shopping judge shopping somewhere in
the South. I can't imagine thata court would hold that trying to overturn
a legal election is an official act. I can't see that. By the
way, Trump's argument that the electionwas rigged, and therefore his argument was
(15:39):
all he was trying to do isoverturn an election that constitutionally, if it's
rigged, cannot go forward because doeshe have a duty to overturn or try
to overturn a rigged election? That'shis argument. Well, the problem is
is that the Trump team went tocourt sixty three times to hold that the
(16:04):
election was rigged or it was fraudulent, sixty three different judges, federal,
local, federal, and state judgessaid no, this was not a rigged
election, and he argues that itwas. So here it is what I
did. This is President Trump sayingmy attempt to overturn a rigged election,
(16:27):
even though all of the courts saidit's not rigged. It's my constitutional duty
and I'm allowed to do it,and I can't be charged criminally for trying
to do it. Also, interferencewith Congress. That's the other thing that
he has been accused of. Andthis one is a little flakeyar in the
(16:48):
sense that he's being accused of askinghis followers to go to Congress, go
to the basically, go to theCongress or where they were accounting the votes
and trying to stop it. Andthat was interference with a legal preceding a
congressional federal proceeding. The argument thathe said go and overrun the Capitol building,
(17:15):
I don't think he said that.He said go down there and show
them what you think. I thinkthat's a stretch to say go down there
and overrun the Capitol building. Sothat one, I don't know. But
this one, as I said,blows it wide open because now there will
be an argument each and every case, was this official Was this an official
(17:40):
act? And if it was,he has complete immunity. Now, if
I'm a judge, you see,I think this just is if he says
I am. If a president isnot immune from a criminal investigation or criminal
prosecution, what Trump said, thatstops any president from moving forward because Congress
(18:03):
or the prosecutors can second guests andcharge him. It's never happened before in
the history of the United States.By the way, even when martial law
was declared by the president, habeascorpus was completely eliminated. In other words,
a fundamental right is you have theright to be charged and go to
court and argue whether you should befreed, bail bonds, have a trial.
(18:26):
You can argue that when martial lawis declared, that's all that all
disappears, and the government can keeppeople in jail without even charging them for
however long a president wants to dothat. You know which president did that,
by the way, A guy byany mean, Abraham Lincoln eliminated eliminated
(18:51):
habbeast corpus during the Civil War,so I guess he, although of course
he was never charged with that bythe courts. A prosecutor never went after
him. Now it's gonna get reallyinteresting. I wish the court had said,
(19:11):
no, there is no immunity andhe can be charged. I mean,
Trump had an argument, but thisblows everything wide open. Now it's
whatever I did was an official actas president, and it doesn't matter what
I did, even trying to overturna federal election, which was deemed legitimate
by every authority. All fifty statesdeemed it to be a legitimate, a
(19:37):
legitimate election. It takes the statesto make that determination. And he said
states are wrong, the courts arewrong, the election was wrong. I
have a constitutional duty to overturn thiselection. Are the courts actually going to
back that up? Well, now, yeah, a court can say it
was done during the course of hispresidency and it was an official and that's
(20:02):
in quotes act man. That's alittle scary, isn't it. It just
came down just a few minutes ago. The Supreme Court has ruled that President
Trump does have immunity for acts thathe engaged in during his presidency. Remember,
he's being tried for what he didduring the presidency, and that is
(20:26):
try to overturn the election. Stopthe Congress from certifying the election, and
so so he is he does haveimmunity if he did whatever he did as
an official act, and that's inquotes, and then it's up to individual
(20:47):
courts, individual times to decide whatis official and what isn't. So does
that stop him? Is he stillgoing to get nailed? Yeah? I
think try and overturn a legal electionand would not be an official act of
the president. But there are judgesthat will hold that. So I'm going
to read most of the opinion,or I'm trying to during the breaks.
(21:08):
Just it just came down a fewminutes ago, and it's one hundred and
nineteen pages, so it gets asyou can imagine, he gets very wonky.
I do want to mention too,Oh sorry to interrupt, No,
no, please, I just wantto mention to what we're hearing already from
Justice Sotomayor. Very upset in herresponse to this ruling. It's her descent.
(21:29):
She says, let the president violatethe law, let him exploit the
trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for
evil ends, Because if he knewthat he may one day face liability for
breaking the law, he might notbe as bold and fearless as we would
like him to be. That's themajority's message today. But look where she
(21:51):
is gone for personal gain. Ifhe uses the presidency, for example,
books a governor men meeting at oneof his hotels, is that an official
act that he can do as presidentfor personal gain? There is in the
Constitution an Emolliens clause which says specificallya president cannot do something in his position
(22:21):
as president for personal gain. It'sright there in the Constitution. So him
booking or him making money or sellingtickets at a speech in which he gets
paid fifty bucks a ticket, notfor a campaign, just he gets paid
for doing speeches like anybody else's president. Well, I'd argue that's personal gain,
(22:45):
and therefore it's in violation of theConstitution, the Emollien's clause, and
I can't imagine that would be anofficial act that any court would determine.
However, at this point he isimmune from even the allegation or to some
extent, that it was an officialact. Depending on the court, they
(23:06):
can blow wide open what official means. He thinks official is virtually anything he
did. So this brings me tomy question if the Distinguished distinction requirement here
is between official and unofficial rights,and that is okay. So the court's
(23:27):
role here a final reviewer versus afirst interpreter interpreter, what does that mean
with the court. Does that meanthat as a final reviewer they get to
say specifically what thefi Yeah. Everysingle case in which a president is charged
(23:48):
for a criminal act, for example, he can argue that it was an
official act. The decision it goesagainst him immediately is go to the appeals
court. If the appeals court arguesthat it was either official or not official,
then it goes to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can either
(24:11):
rule on it or simply deny circiori. That says we don't want to hear
it, and that means that theappeals court does a decision now prevails.
And that happens in the vast majorityof cases where the court says, no,
we don't want to hear it,and so therefore whatever the appeals court
has determined that is now the finaldecision. Seems like it's a good time
(24:34):
to have friends on the Supreme Court, don't you. Uh, well,
I don't know if it's going togo that high. Well, I can't
imagine the court hearing every single case. That's why I'm saying, I mean,
how exhausting that it would be.Well, the court said right out
there saying that any official act thepresident does is now immune from he is
(24:56):
immune from prosecution. And let's decidewhat official is is at every single point.
And Trump right now is calling theimmunity ruling a quote big win.
He just posted on his on atruth social big win for our constitution and
democracy. Proud to be an American. Well me, Ryle Biden is stealing
(25:18):
all the ice cream right now inWashington, d C. Saying that it
is an official act. Yeah,shoplifting because he doesn't know that you have
to pay for that stuff as youwould describe. Yeah yeah, Okay,
all right man, I'm going totalk about more of that. I still
have to read the decision. Solet's do the wealthy Americans struggling and make
(25:41):
ends meet this nest segment, andthen we might not end up doing that
as more information comes out, becausethis decision, massive decision that I think
is going to blow wide open whatofficial means, because I don't think think
the courts even describe what official is. They couldn't because every argument is this
(26:06):
was official, No it wasn't.This was official, No it wasn't.
And I think that's what the courtreally allowed. Now, as Alena Kagan
has said, is the president orderingthe assassination of arrival is at official?
Is that does that? Is thepresident immune from that? His lawyer said
(26:26):
yes. Can you imagine a courtsaying, yep, ordering the killing of
someone is an official act. Ihave a hard time seeing that even with
this crazy ass court. This isKFI AM six forty live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app. You've been listening tothe Bill Handle Show. Catch my Show
Monday through Friday six am to nineam, and anytime on demand on the
(26:51):
iHeartRadio app.
You're listening to Bill Handle on demandfrom KFI AM six forty. This is
KFI Bill Handle here talking about tripledigits. But I grew up with this,
so it's going to be a well, it's a hot one and summer
are starting really early. A coupleof big stories after Joe Biden's debacle,
(00:21):
a horrible, horrible performance in thedebate, a lot of talk about him
being forced to or asked to dropout of the race. Well, his
family, his supporters are saying no, no, no, By the way,
he is not dropping out. He'sthe only one that can make that
decision because he has the nomination andyou can't turn her around, not legally,
(00:45):
Okay. Now, July one,which means there are a bunch of
laws that come into effect. Usually, and this is California. Usually what
happens when laws are passed, there'sone of two dates and or one of
three dates. That is January first, the law kicks in July first,
a law kicks in, or alaw kicks in immediately, and that's pretty
(01:07):
rare. And July first, sinceit's midyear, that happens all the time
it has been, and it dealswith how long whoever is being regulated,
or whatever is being regulated, orwhatever service is being regulated, that organization,
that entity is given time to makewhatever changes, and sometimes it's years
(01:33):
down the road. For example,in the case of evs, till two
thirty five, twenty thirty five iswhen California has to have all evs on
the road or sell all evs.So let me tell you a couple of
bills that are going in drug testingkits in bars because there is such a
fear of spike drinks and it hashappened, the bars have to provide either
(01:57):
strips or stickers or straws that cantest for rape drug date rate drugs like
hypnol, roofies, ketamine, andthere has to be a sign there and
either offered for free or at cost. A gun tax for those of you
that are gun owners, there isnow a new law that adds an eleven
(02:20):
percent state tax on top of whatevertax, federal tax, etc. For
all firearms and ammo sold in theUS, making California, strangely enough,
what a surprise the only state inthe US to have such a tax,
and the state is you can goahead and argue, and there, of
course there's arguments all day long.I don't know where the lawsuits are saying
(02:46):
that that's a violation of Second Amendmentrights. I don't know where that goes.
New law raises the carry permit agsfrom eighteen to twenty one. However,
yeah, there's another one because eighteenyear olds therefore are being violated their
Second Amendment rights. Also, youcannot have if you're a firearm carrier,
(03:07):
you can't be in sensitive areas atschools, hospitals, parks, and once
you do get a permit, peopleover the age of twenty one will not
be able to carry in most placeswithout signage indicating you're allowed to carry,
which is in direct violation of what'sgoing in the South, where a few
laws have been passed that people aremandated to carry guns and you cannot go
(03:30):
to school, even kindergarten without carryinga gun. So six year old must
not only be allowed to carry guns, they must be forced to carry guns
over the age of sixteen. Differentlaws. By the way, that is
just me you know where I'm goingwith that. Also, junk fees now
simply become part of published fees hotels, airbnbs particularly, that's what this has
(03:54):
passed for. You can't say it'sone hundred and fifty dollars a night or
two hundred and fifty dollars a nightin a hotel. And then you walk
up there and you find out thatthere is the resort fee and there are
additional fees. And I've gone toplaces where there's a resort fee during COVID
and I go there's not even apool. Everything is closed down, the
(04:17):
spa doesn't work there. We stillhave the resort fee. Isn't that special?
So now you can still have theresort fee, but it's not two
fifty a night, it's two thirtyfive night. They have to actually tell
you the truth. You know.What's funny is like you go, this
is not a resort and they said, oh no, no, no,
no, we're going broke. Sowe had the resort to charge it very
(04:41):
strong. Resort fee, very strong. And I can't use suspension anymore for
minor misbehavior covered under the quote disruptionor will Field defiance category for California K
through twelve. So you can kicka teacher, can kick a student out
of class, but the student can'tbe suspend or can't be suspended or expelled
(05:05):
from school. Just go to theprincipal's office or stand in the corner.
You're going to stand in the cornerduring class that you can do. And
then finally, and there's many,many more bills. This one kind of
floored me. That public schools haveto provide free menstrual products in restroom and
(05:27):
that expands from grade six to twelveand now includes grade three to five.
Third grade girls have to have accessto menstrual product. How old are you
when you're in the third grade?By the way, first grade is eight.
You're eight years old in the thirdgrade? Do I have that right?
Probably going on nine? Yeah?How many eight or nine year old
(05:51):
girls are on their period or begintheir period? I don't know. But
anyway, what hey Surrey, Uhyeah, go ahead and ask that and
have that blog right, quay,Surrey? How many nine year old girls
(06:11):
begin their period? Most girls?Yeah, between ten and fifteen. That's
interesting. Well, that makes sense. Even ten is pretty young. Well,
I can tell you as the momof an eleven year old, it
happens a lot more than you think. Andre. The average age is twelve,
by the way, Yeah, whichmakes sense. All right, Well,
I guess nine, eight or ninemakes it? And anyway, so
(06:32):
free menstal products. I hope she'slistening. It's happening. It's happening.
Well, I mean, I'm notsaying that my daughter has, but her
friends have. And it happens moreoften than you think. And these young
girls don't have what they need.Yeah, and it's parents are caught off
guard, right, so yeah,And it's happening younger and younger. Okay.
(06:53):
And they have music playing in therestrooms, girls' restrooms not an element
non in public maybe private schools.Yeah, by the news, by the
new Christy minstrels that that's a rockgroup or excuse me, a folk a
folk group, and it's that datesme. All right, We're done cono
even laughs, thank you kono forthat. Okay. Now, the Supreme
(07:16):
Court last week came down big timeon the homeless encampments. Does a city
have the right to ban homeless encampments? The argument was the city does not
have the right because it's cruel andunusual punishment violation under the Eighth Amendment,
(07:38):
where the victims of the cities takingaway their right to sleep on the street
in homeless encampments can not be denied. You cannot stop cities cannot stop people
from living intents on the sidewalks.Now, I don't think there's ever been
an issue of camping in front ofa business that is clearly illegal, and
(08:03):
the city can enforce those. It'sout in various places. For example,
Los Angeles, the city has theright to remove and does remove homeless encampments.
And as I go home, Igo under get off the freeway and
then go under the overpass making aleft, and there is on the sidewalk
(08:24):
a whole line of tents under thebridge, the one next to the porta
Potti that the city put up orwhatever nonprofit put up. They advertise that
as a one bedroom, one baththat is an expensive tent. Well,
the city has come in and cleanedit up. There ain't any more people
(08:48):
there, which for us driving throughthere is a wonder. I mean,
we don't like homeless encampments. Now, the question is does a city have
the right And with the court saidyou bet you six to three, split
down liberal and conservative lines, NinthCircuit Court had said that it is not
(09:13):
cruel or Ninth Circuit Court said it'scruel and unusual for city officials to ban
the homeless for sleeping on the streetsfrom parks. Neil Gore Sich, she
said the city does have the right, said, homelessness is complex. The
causes are many, so maybe thepublic policy responses those are complex, and
the Eighth Amendment, which centers oncruel and unusual punishment, does not authorize
(09:37):
federal judges to take those rights awayfrom the American people and the cities,
which is a logical extension of thepeople, and dictate the nation's homelessness policy.
Courts don't have the right to dothat. It's the cities that have
the right to do that. Andthe three liberal justices dissented. Of course,
(10:00):
Justice Sonia Soda Mayor said, forpeople with no access to shelter,
that punishes them for being homeless,it's unconscionable and unconstitutional. And punishing people
for their status, which is homelessness, it is unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment, and so the Court hasnow gone in favor of the cities.
(10:24):
Gorses wrote that people will disagree.At bottom, the question this case presents
is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federaljudges primary responsibility for assessing those causes.
Gavin Newsome said and agreed with thecourt. The ruling provides state and local
(10:46):
officials the definitive authority to implement andenforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our
streets. So the cities are arguingthat it's an issue of safety. Also,
when you have encampments that are justloaded with trash because they're not the
cleanest people in the world that livein homeless encampments, You've got disease,
(11:09):
you've got the danger of fire,which we know people are in danger,
and even to protect them, thelaws can be introduced and enforced. Now
that's kind of interesting because protecting someoneby not letting them live in a tent
in a public park, where dothey live? You know, it doesn't
(11:30):
quite go that far, And soit's the cities are thrilled. Lancaster mayor
said the court finally made a goodruling and the city plans to be much
more aggressive. I don't know whatthat means in Lancaster, but I'll tell
you what it means. If youget popped for drunk driving in Lancaster,
(11:52):
you're going to get nailed. Theyare aggressive and punishment is meet it out
or met it out big time.San Francisco Mayor London Breed a liberal,
real liberal, welcome the Supreme Court'sreview because San Francisco last year really came
(12:16):
down to crack down on crime andhomelessness in the city and said that the
decision will help cities like San Franciscomanage our public spaces. The vast majority
of city officials say, yeah,we want to deal with the homeless,
and we want to be able toget rid of those encampments and those who
are homeless. Advocates say, thesepeople have a right to live in your
(12:39):
parks, which means, of courseyour kids can't go anywhere near there.
And because it's cruel and unusual toget rid of them, no way.
Courts said, no way, Jose, because a lot of people who live
in the camps are named Jose.And the court said done. Finish.
Cities have the right now. Theissue is cities have the right to toss
(13:01):
them. Where do these people go? Does the city have the duty to
make sure they are housed? Idon't know the answer to that. And
if they move them in a certainarea, then the argument is concentration Campsilo,
they're not forced. There's no winon this one. There really isn't,
never has been. Okay, probablythe most anticipated case, or one
(13:22):
of them this term. Supreme Courtjust ruled that former President Trump, any
president, does have immunity for officialacts. This thing is going to blow
wide open, and I'll tell youwhy a president has immunity for anything that
can determined an official act. Hisargument always has been, as he has
(13:48):
taken this to the courts, thatwhat he did in attempting to overturn what
the courts have held is a legalelection of Joe Biden. Trying to overturn
that, Trump is arguing he didthat as an official act of the president.
Same thing with trying to stop theelectoral college from voting for Joe Biden,
(14:11):
even though by law they were forcedto vote, or they by law,
yeah, they were forced to vote. What the electoral call what the
electors are forced to do. Somestates, by the way, electors can
bolt and go to the other side, but the vast majority not. And
also stopping the counting of the votesby Joe Biden, who officially announces,
(14:33):
which, by the way, doesn'tmatter whether he announces or not. It's
president. Biden was still elected president. Now is everything that Trump did official?
That's what he is arguing. Thatwas the argument that was in front
of Elena Kagan when she asked Trump'sattorney is an official act anything the president
does? And Trump said yes,even ordering the assassination of a rival.
(14:58):
His lawyer's basically he said, yes, that's an official act. So what
does this mean, Well, itdoesn't mean that Trump's not going to get
nailed because now he goes to thelower court and each individual act has to
be deemed official or not. Now, I can't imagine that a court is
(15:18):
going to hold, maybe depending ifthey go court shopping judge shopping somewhere in
the South. I can't imagine thata court would hold that trying to overturn
a legal election is an official act. I can't see that. By the
way, Trump's argument that the electionwas rigged, and therefore his argument was
(15:39):
all he was trying to do isoverturn an election that constitutionally, if it's
rigged, cannot go forward because doeshe have a duty to overturn or try
to overturn a rigged election? That'shis argument. Well, the problem is
is that the Trump team went tocourt sixty three times to hold that the
(16:04):
election was rigged or it was fraudulent, sixty three different judges, federal,
local, federal, and state judgessaid no, this was not a rigged
election, and he argues that itwas. So here it is what I
did. This is President Trump sayingmy attempt to overturn a rigged election,
(16:27):
even though all of the courts saidit's not rigged. It's my constitutional duty
and I'm allowed to do it,and I can't be charged criminally for trying
to do it. Also, interferencewith Congress. That's the other thing that
he has been accused of. Andthis one is a little flakeyar in the
(16:48):
sense that he's being accused of askinghis followers to go to Congress, go
to the basically, go to theCongress or where they were accounting the votes
and trying to stop it. Andthat was interference with a legal preceding a
congressional federal proceeding. The argument thathe said go and overrun the Capitol building,
(17:15):
I don't think he said that.He said go down there and show
them what you think. I thinkthat's a stretch to say go down there
and overrun the Capitol building. Sothat one, I don't know. But
this one, as I said,blows it wide open because now there will
be an argument each and every case, was this official Was this an official
(17:40):
act? And if it was,he has complete immunity. Now, if
I'm a judge, you see,I think this just is if he says
I am. If a president isnot immune from a criminal investigation or criminal
prosecution, what Trump said, thatstops any president from moving forward because Congress
(18:03):
or the prosecutors can second guests andcharge him. It's never happened before in
the history of the United States.By the way, even when martial law
was declared by the president, habeascorpus was completely eliminated. In other words,
a fundamental right is you have theright to be charged and go to
court and argue whether you should befreed, bail bonds, have a trial.
(18:26):
You can argue that when martial lawis declared, that's all that all
disappears, and the government can keeppeople in jail without even charging them for
however long a president wants to dothat. You know which president did that,
by the way, A guy byany mean, Abraham Lincoln eliminated eliminated
(18:51):
habbeast corpus during the Civil War,so I guess he, although of course
he was never charged with that bythe courts. A prosecutor never went after
him. Now it's gonna get reallyinteresting. I wish the court had said,
(19:11):
no, there is no immunity andhe can be charged. I mean,
Trump had an argument, but thisblows everything wide open. Now it's
whatever I did was an official actas president, and it doesn't matter what
I did, even trying to overturna federal election, which was deemed legitimate
by every authority. All fifty statesdeemed it to be a legitimate, a
(19:37):
legitimate election. It takes the statesto make that determination. And he said
states are wrong, the courts arewrong, the election was wrong. I
have a constitutional duty to overturn thiselection. Are the courts actually going to
back that up? Well, now, yeah, a court can say it
was done during the course of hispresidency and it was an official and that's
(20:02):
in quotes act man. That's alittle scary, isn't it. It just
came down just a few minutes ago. The Supreme Court has ruled that President
Trump does have immunity for acts thathe engaged in during his presidency. Remember,
he's being tried for what he didduring the presidency, and that is
(20:26):
try to overturn the election. Stopthe Congress from certifying the election, and
so so he is he does haveimmunity if he did whatever he did as
an official act, and that's inquotes, and then it's up to individual
(20:47):
courts, individual times to decide whatis official and what isn't. So does
that stop him? Is he stillgoing to get nailed? Yeah? I
think try and overturn a legal electionand would not be an official act of
the president. But there are judgesthat will hold that. So I'm going
to read most of the opinion,or I'm trying to during the breaks.
(21:08):
Just it just came down a fewminutes ago, and it's one hundred and
nineteen pages, so it gets asyou can imagine, he gets very wonky.
I do want to mention too,Oh sorry to interrupt, No,
no, please, I just wantto mention to what we're hearing already from
Justice Sotomayor. Very upset in herresponse to this ruling. It's her descent.
(21:29):
She says, let the president violatethe law, let him exploit the
trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for
evil ends, Because if he knewthat he may one day face liability for
breaking the law, he might notbe as bold and fearless as we would
like him to be. That's themajority's message today. But look where she
(21:51):
is gone for personal gain. Ifhe uses the presidency, for example,
books a governor men meeting at oneof his hotels, is that an official
act that he can do as presidentfor personal gain? There is in the
Constitution an Emolliens clause which says specificallya president cannot do something in his position
(22:21):
as president for personal gain. It'sright there in the Constitution. So him
booking or him making money or sellingtickets at a speech in which he gets
paid fifty bucks a ticket, notfor a campaign, just he gets paid
for doing speeches like anybody else's president. Well, I'd argue that's personal gain,
(22:45):
and therefore it's in violation of theConstitution, the Emollien's clause, and
I can't imagine that would be anofficial act that any court would determine.
However, at this point he isimmune from even the allegation or to some
extent, that it was an officialact. Depending on the court, they
(23:06):
can blow wide open what official means. He thinks official is virtually anything he
did. So this brings me tomy question if the Distinguished distinction requirement here
is between official and unofficial rights,and that is okay. So the court's
(23:27):
role here a final reviewer versus afirst interpreter interpreter, what does that mean
with the court. Does that meanthat as a final reviewer they get to
say specifically what thefi Yeah. Everysingle case in which a president is charged
(23:48):
for a criminal act, for example, he can argue that it was an
official act. The decision it goesagainst him immediately is go to the appeals
court. If the appeals court arguesthat it was either official or not official,
then it goes to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can either
(24:11):
rule on it or simply deny circiori. That says we don't want to hear
it, and that means that theappeals court does a decision now prevails.
And that happens in the vast majorityof cases where the court says, no,
we don't want to hear it,and so therefore whatever the appeals court
has determined that is now the finaldecision. Seems like it's a good time
(24:34):
to have friends on the Supreme Court, don't you. Uh, well,
I don't know if it's going togo that high. Well, I can't
imagine the court hearing every single case. That's why I'm saying, I mean,
how exhausting that it would be.Well, the court said right out
there saying that any official act thepresident does is now immune from he is
(24:56):
immune from prosecution. And let's decidewhat official is is at every single point.
And Trump right now is calling theimmunity ruling a quote big win.
He just posted on his on atruth social big win for our constitution and
democracy. Proud to be an American. Well me, Ryle Biden is stealing
(25:18):
all the ice cream right now inWashington, d C. Saying that it
is an official act. Yeah,shoplifting because he doesn't know that you have
to pay for that stuff as youwould describe. Yeah yeah, Okay,
all right man, I'm going totalk about more of that. I still
have to read the decision. Solet's do the wealthy Americans struggling and make
(25:41):
ends meet this nest segment, andthen we might not end up doing that
as more information comes out, becausethis decision, massive decision that I think
is going to blow wide open whatofficial means, because I don't think think
the courts even describe what official is. They couldn't because every argument is this
(26:06):
was official, No it wasn't.This was official, No it wasn't.
And I think that's what the courtreally allowed. Now, as Alena Kagan
has said, is the president orderingthe assassination of arrival is at official?
Is that does that? Is thepresident immune from that? His lawyer said
(26:26):
yes. Can you imagine a courtsaying, yep, ordering the killing of
someone is an official act. Ihave a hard time seeing that even with
this crazy ass court. This isKFI AM six forty live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app. You've been listening tothe Bill Handle Show. Catch my Show
Monday through Friday six am to nineam, and anytime on demand on the
(26:51):
iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!