Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Corton Channe Nine's can be partly mostly Sunday Today humid,
I have ninety same thing over nine down to seventy
one humid Tomorrow, partly cloudy, isolated storms in the afternoon,
in the evening ninety one, seventy three overnight with maybe
a chance of a storm. Thursday a mostly sunny day
with a chance of showers of thunderstorms as well. Ninety
(00:24):
five is going to be the high end. Right now,
it's seventy two. Time for traffick update.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
From the UCL Tramphic Center. No matter the injury you
see health orthophedics, san supports medicine, redefines recovery to get
you back to doing what you love. Called five one, three, four, seven,
five eighty six. Ninety crews continue to work with the
three vehicle wreck. It has the left wing block just
before you get to seventy five. That traffic is now
backing up to North Bend for close to a half
(00:49):
hour delay. South Bend seventy five slows a bit out
of Lackland and there's a wreck bbomorrow that's on twenty
two at Stubbs Mill, chuck Ingram on fifty five krs.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
He Talks Station.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Two fifty have care c DE Talks Station. I've been
looking forward to this all morning, knowing that Steve Gooden
was returning to the program at this time to talk
about Biden's efforts to transform the Supreme Court into some
sort of I don't know liberal mind meld cord there.
I'm unhappy with various decisions. They don't believe in originalism.
They believe in judicial activism only when it benefits them.
(01:22):
Welcome back from the law firm. Reporter right, Steve Gooden.
Great to have you on the show today, My friend.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Good morning. Good to be here. Brian.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Well, let's just start from the realization that there's no
way in God's green earth that Biden's proposals to transform
the Supreme Court are ever going to go through. One
would require constitutional amendment, which requires well and embraced by
the vast majority of states, which many would not do.
Second would require congressional action, which, of course in a
divide of Congress where the Republicans at least control the House.
(01:50):
It's not going anywhere, but this is going to be
a springboard for advocacy by the Kamala Harris campaign and
hopefully not administration correct.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
I think that's one hundred percent correct. This is politics,
pure and simple. I mean, I think it's as simple
as this. The Supreme Court's approval rating right now with
about thirty six percent. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v.
Away was very very unpopular among younger voters. So really
(02:23):
this allows Harris Biden and whoever congressional candidates whatever to
talk about the Court in a way that will really
potentially appeal to those voters, that lets them talk about
abortion without directly talking about abortion, and sort of the
idea here is, look, we're unhappy with Dobbs, so we're
(02:45):
going to change the court. It's very very similar to
what FDR did back in nineteen thirty seven when the
Supreme Court refused to approve some of the new aspects
of the New Deal Plan, which were politically popular. So
we tried to quote unquote pack the court. He tried
to take it from nine members to fifteen. He was
ultimately unsuccessful, but it was a real political hot potato
(03:08):
back then. It was advantageous to have into his party.
And I think there's something very very similar going on here.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Well clearly, but I suppose history has demonstrated that when
FDR tried to pack the court, the judges ended up
doing a liberal more liberal pro FDR policy shift. They
see their own jobs on the line maybe and decide
to capitulate to some degree.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Well, that's correct. He did get two of the big
things he wanted, the National Labor Review Board and the
Supreme or the Social Security Administration ended up being narrowly
approved after that, because I think a couple of the
judges probably did flip. And I do think you're going
to see some action from the Court here, particularly the
one aspect. Well, I think the eighteen year term part
(03:53):
is dead on arrival, and the efforts to overturn their
recent decision about presidential immunities dead on arrival. But the
co of ethics part of it, I do think the
Court will end up doing something different with They've been
kind of grappling with that. Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice,
has been grappling with that. We have a couple Justices Alito,
(04:13):
particularly Thomas, who have admitted going on, you know, big
trips and so forth with wealthy political donors, even though
those donors didn't have cases immediately before the court. They
were the kinds of gifts and at the kind of
price point that have attracted attention. So I do think
they're going to do something on the ethics front.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Well, and that's fine, But and I know Thomas didn't
disclose that he flew in a friend's private aircraft, but
that was before the Judicial Conference changed its rules to
require that judges disclosed that kind of flight. So he
didn't violate any judicial rules at the time. But I
know the appearance of impropriety is right there, and that's
just what's genning all the people up about Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
I think that, Look, clart Thomas has been a lightning
rod since the moment he got nominated. Yeah, well, it
doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do, he's going
to come under some some you know, more scrutiny than
than anyone else I think who serves on the court
maybe ever, maybe anyone in the history of the country
who has served in the court. No one has had
their personal life, finances and things scrutinized the way Thomas has.
(05:18):
But you know he did in this one. I think
kind of lean into it. You're right, he didn't violate
any rules, but that's the kind of thing that the
average person want they hear about it, just the kind
of you know that is that okay? Is that right?
You know they're you know, big Republican donors, you know,
fly on private jet, dedicate, they paid for a cruise
for he and his wife. There several several items like
(05:38):
that that I think when you add them all up,
it was a value of several hundred thousand dollars, uh,
things that the average citizen really can't afford. It is.
It is an appearance thing, and I think that's going
to kind of linger for him because there's so much
there's so much animus against him anyway. I think that
they're going to continue to make that tough, and I
predict that the court will do something on the on
(05:59):
the FIC side of it. But these other two items
I think are just purely political or they're going to
lnker are they just as political talking points.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Are legal experts to you good and from Pord to Wright,
let's possible. And we'll bring it back and find out
why the ethics changes may end up being a train
wreck as well. Considering enforcement seven thirty seven to fifty
five KRCD talk stations, whos Att Lows Camp for your
not buying a home, or you financing your existing mortgage.
You need Suzette loads Camp with Cross Country Mortgage. She
is definitely going to help you out and you will
be very happy with the help that sust provides you
(06:29):
because she is wonderful to work with, a true, wonderful
customer service agent with more than probably anybody in the
mortgage business in terms of experience thirty five plus years
since she's with Cross Country Mortgage. I don't care what
state you're sitting in. She can help you right there
where you are deal with mortgage, whether you want to
get some money out of your house, release some of
that equity, or even a reverse mortgage if you think
that's the right direction to go. Not a fan I am,
(06:50):
but if you are, there's an option for you first
time buyers pre approval letter and help you get financing.
No junk fees, no application fees. It is always great
rates at a low cost and a well oiled machine.
She and Cross Country Mortgage are I think it was
like two days for my daughter to call her and
then get the nancing locked in. That could be you
two so's call her up and she'll get right back
(07:10):
with it. You can even call her right now before
business hours. It's five one three three one three fifty
one seventy six. Five one three three one three fifty
one seventy six, or shoot her an email Suzette dot
Low's camp, los e Kamp Suzette dot Low's Camp at
CCM dot.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Com fifty five KRC.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Partly cloudy to mostly Sunday. Today, it'll be humid going
up to ninety seventy one overnight. It or remain humid Tomorrow,
Partly cloudy, isolated thunderstorms and showers in the afternoon and evening,
going up to ninety one down to seventy three overnight,
with maybe a spotty storm popping up somewhere. Thursday I
mostly sunny day, chance of showers and storms as well.
Ninety five for the high. Right now, we're looking at
(07:49):
seventy two degrees. It is time for traffic.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Chuck from the UCL Tramphings Center. No matter the injury
you see, health orthopedics and supports medicine, redefines recovery to
get you back to doing what you love. Call five
one three, four, seven, five eight six nine zero inbound
seventy four crawling from before North Bend to an accident
that blocks the left lane before seventy five. You're over
(08:11):
a half hour delay southbound seventy five slows through. Blackman
and Cruiser are working with a wreck below Morrow. That's
on twenty two at subs milk Chucking, Vermont fifty five
krc the talk station.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
About KRCD Talk station Brion Thomas with legal expert Extraordinary
from the law firm. Reporter right, Steve Gooden. Always welcome
to you coming on the program and explaining things for us. Steve,
I wrote the word lawfare down on this. The justices
already have a code of conduct, but it's kind of
like the Internal Affairs Department that since Saint Police monitors
its own if there's a complaint, the IA looks at
(08:48):
it and then makes a decision on whether there's been
misconduct or not. I don't the justices already sort of
monitor each other under their code of conduct because Biden
is basically calling for outside enforcement, wanting lower court judges
to investigate charges of ethics violations and then rule on
Supreme Court justices behavior that sounds to me like a
(09:08):
train wreck waiting to happen with thousands of complaints following,
and they even have that going on right now. Judge
Eileen Cannon, the one that's sitting on Donald Trump's document case,
apparently he's already received more of a one thousand complaints
in one week, what the Circuit Court called an orchestrated campaign.
If that kind of volume comes in, they're not going
to be doing anything but investigating allegations or judicial misconduct.
(09:30):
How could this be right or a good way to go, Steve?
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Or is it? I think it's a terrible way to go.
And I mean, look, I get again the politics behind this.
I mean, we have this situation where you know, in
my view, two of the justices, particularly Thomas, you have
opened up this issue by accepting and ultimately disclosing these gifts.
But you know, what we're forgetting is is that you know,
(09:54):
when they updated and redid their code of conduct last year,
it did require these disclosures in tom Us quickly disclosed them.
So we know about them. We know about them for
sure because he told us. So from that standpoint, it
is working. And if there was any you know, presumed
bias or anything, it has been disclosed and it's out there.
That's the whole point. But you're right, otherwise this you know,
(10:15):
the Supreme Court has really been outside denomination process, which
is terrible now and highly politicized, but outside of that process,
the Supreme Court is one of the last parts of
our government that really kind of is exempt from lawfare
and does work the way it's supposed to work. I mean,
these are lifetime appointments. Once folks are there, they're able
(10:35):
to do generally, able to do their job. This would
change that. This would open the door, as you put
it out, to all kinds of artists in the tax.
It would open the door to orchestrate the tax. That
would open the door to you know, if you don't
like the politics of someone on the court, you can
engage a lawyer who is like minded to file a
complaint and just tie the justice up and these endless
(10:58):
disciplinary processes. That's not what this is before about. And
you know they call this, Biden's calling this that nobody
is above the law Act. Well, we're not really sitting
in the Supreme Courts above the law, but they are there.
They basically are the final arbiter of the law under
our constitution. Our founders, you know, set it up this way,
(11:18):
and I think they were correct set it up this way,
see right, I think this would just be the opening
a door into nothing but put more chaos that will
undermine the rule of law long term, but will undermine
the Court's legitimacy. Ironically, they're thing, we're doing this to
make the court to preserve its legitimacy. All it's going
to do is long term undermine it's legitimacy.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
In my view, well, couldn't they just simply ban the
judges from accepting any outside contributions, gifts, donations, flights on
aircraft period in the story, regardless of whether it results
in a conflict or not. Oh oh, but the hypocrites
in Congress might have to look to themselves in the
mirror and say, gee, we go on all kinds of
trips and conferences, resorts, we get speaking fees, we get
(11:58):
booked on I mean, I mean position heal byself.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Well, that's exactly right. I mean, look, if you're in Congress,
your ability to take honor area for speeches with no limit,
like you could charge somewhat, you know, fifty thousand dollars
for speech, They'll pay it. You can write a book
and have your donors buy it massive amounts of copies
of it. Because no one in the general publics ever
going to buy your book, but the book can become
(12:24):
profitable because donors buy it in an orchestrated way. I mean,
there's all these things that people do to supplement their income.
In Congress, and some of the justices have explored things
like that over the years, there's no question, and they've
been pretty open about it, both liberal justices and conservative justices.
And in fairness to them, they get paid roughly what
a regular judge is paid in the federal judiciary. They're
(12:47):
not getting rich. They're getting paid roughly two hundred thousand dollars,
which is a lot of money for the average citizen.
But if you're if you're living in the district at
clubs are the most expensive places in the country to live,
and you really have to travel the country check you know,
as a part of your duties supervising the federal courts,
it's really not as much money as it might seem.
(13:08):
So the temptation to look for outside income, speaking fees
and so forth is very much there. But you're right,
I mean, look in Ohio, if you're a public official,
you know, if you are the governor or even work
for you know, Department of National Resources or a state trooper.
You can't take more than fifty bucks from somebody, and
any gives time. And that's but if again it's good
(13:31):
for the goose is good for the gander. If you're
going to do something like that to the court, you're
going to have to do it to the other branch
as a government as well. And that would send shock
waves through Washington because the average citizen, I don't think,
understands how these things work. And how can particular numbers
of Congress find ways to supplement their income through speaking
fees and books and things of that nature.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
It's interesting you even brought that up, because, as you know,
something's subject to the SEC's rules. I've got a heapload
of rules about you know, plug all a pail. You
can't accept anything more than like twenty five bucks or something.
I mean, it's they're really, i mean, across the board,
very broad prohibitions on you know, because I have a
forum here, I could you know, promote something for as
(14:13):
a favor for a friend or whatever. I at least
understand and get all that. But here I am living
under these types of rules, and wouldn't be a wonderful
thing if Congress had to go do the same thing.
But no, you'll think they're going to vote money out
of their own pocket, do you, Steve?
Speaker 3 (14:28):
They haven't yet. We've we've been waiting two hundred and
thirty four years for something like that. Now I don't
think it's happened.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
Yeah, yeah, still lay away good night, dreaming of the day.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Hey.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
And finally, insofar as the proposal for eighteen year term
women from justices, and coming from a guy like Joe Biden,
given his age, I thought was kind of comical. The
Constitution does give them life tenure, which means there would
have to be a constitutional amendment to change that.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Correct, you know, I believe shown. Now what's interesting to
me is this commission that he has put together, that
Biden has put together, seems to be of the impression
that Congress could change the terms themselves. And that's not
how I understand it. And I know there's other folks
much much more verse than these matters than I who
(15:15):
are throwing the caution flag on that particular proposal as well.
In a way, it doesn't matter. There's an absolutely no
way this gets through Congress, and even my senses, there's
even quite a few Democrats who are sort of institutionalists
who would really not want to make these changes. So
I think it's dead on that. Proposals dead on arrival.
(15:37):
But if you read his proposal closely, he seems to
be of the mindset that Congress has the ability to
do that. So and I think if somehow or other
he were to get through the votes, or if Harris
were to win and get a large majority in both
houses next time and actually pursue this, which I don't
think they even would if they did, But if they
did pursue this, I think that would end up being
(15:58):
litigated and ironically right back in front of the court.
So I would think that this would require a constitutional
amendment that they seem to think it would not. And
the Constitution is hard to amend on purpose. You know,
it requires it's going to pass both houses of Congress
by super majority, and it has to pass three orts
of the state legislatures. You have to have a real
support among the state been a country for two hundred
(16:21):
and thirty four years, give or take, and it was
only amended the Constitution or what twenty six times, and
those are for big giant issues, you know, like they
deal with you know, women getting the vote and ending
slavery and things of that, where there are gigantic political
movements and a lot of consensus, and they're certainly not
that kind of energy or consensus around this. So I
think that's that's the debt on arrival. But you know,
(16:44):
they do seem to think that they could just do
this by act of Congress.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Well, amen, and I just just before we part company,
that approval rating in people's approval rating of the constant
of the Supreme Court. To me, that just represents a
fundamental misunderstanding of how the courts work, whether you or
a originalist or a liberal activist. That's the real distinction
between the left and the right. The originalists believe in
(17:09):
the righting of the document and stick to it, and
that to me is a sound legal foundation to be
you know, to be working on. Can you imagine if
this conversation came up during the war in court administration,
where the right was freaking out about all the left
leaning decisions coming out. No, you didn't scream and yell
and talk about packing the court back then, did they?
Speaker 3 (17:29):
No? You know, And I think that really cuts to
the bottom of what's happening here. Is. You know, there
were folks in the conservative legal circles who were very
very upset about Roebuck in nineteen fifty or seventy three
and a lot of the other decisions that followed out
of that court. So they began what was really a
fifty plus year project kind of grooming conservative justices and
(17:52):
going through the political process to try to get those
justices appointed over time so that a different sort of
philosophy would take over the court. And that's what's happened here.
So you know, this group Biden is basics saying, hey,
we don't like the bend of the court. We're not
going to do We're not going to do our own
project and groom our own judges and make the argument
and win over you know, Congress and try to win
(18:15):
the presidency. We're just going to change the rules. And
that's that's really what they're doing here. Amen.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
That Steve Goodinporter Right dot Coms where you find them online.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, Steve. It's always a
real pleasure having you on the.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Program, Sir, that's great being here. Take care of Brian.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
You two fifty bout KRCD talk station and plum type
Plumbing the right plumbers to call for your residential plumbing needs.
Whether you're in Northern Kentucky, the Dayton area Cincinnati, call
Plump Type Plumbing. They provide every customer with a truly
exceptional plumbing experience with a licensed plumber, highest quality product,
services and customer relations in the industry. That's why they
enjoying a plus with a better business veureau. You got
(18:50):
a dream problem, They're the ones to call you have
a backup, no problem there. They do any plumbing job,
no matter how big or small, and it's always fair
and ethical prizing. Let you know when they're on they'll
arrive on time and they will establish that customer service
and then give you a free quote. And that is
a free quote. Those service charge with Plumb Tight Plumbing,
no mileage fee. Family Nown operated your neighborhood plumbing company
(19:11):
since nineteen ninety nine. So call them at five one
three seven two seven Tight t I T E seven
two seven eighty four eighty three. Online you'll find them
at plumtight dot com. Fifty five KRC the talk station
men over forty five
Corton Channe Nine's can be partly mostly Sunday Today humid,
I have ninety same thing over nine down to seventy
one humid Tomorrow, partly cloudy, isolated storms in the afternoon,
in the evening ninety one, seventy three overnight with maybe
a chance of a storm. Thursday a mostly sunny day
with a chance of showers of thunderstorms as well. Ninety
(00:24):
five is going to be the high end. Right now,
it's seventy two. Time for traffick update.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
From the UCL Tramphic Center. No matter the injury you
see health orthophedics, san supports medicine, redefines recovery to get
you back to doing what you love. Called five one, three, four, seven,
five eighty six. Ninety crews continue to work with the
three vehicle wreck. It has the left wing block just
before you get to seventy five. That traffic is now
backing up to North Bend for close to a half
(00:49):
hour delay. South Bend seventy five slows a bit out
of Lackland and there's a wreck bbomorrow that's on twenty
two at Stubbs Mill, chuck Ingram on fifty five krs.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
He Talks Station.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Two fifty have care c DE Talks Station. I've been
looking forward to this all morning, knowing that Steve Gooden
was returning to the program at this time to talk
about Biden's efforts to transform the Supreme Court into some
sort of I don't know liberal mind meld cord there.
I'm unhappy with various decisions. They don't believe in originalism.
They believe in judicial activism only when it benefits them.
(01:22):
Welcome back from the law firm. Reporter right, Steve Gooden.
Great to have you on the show today, My friend.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Good morning. Good to be here. Brian.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Well, let's just start from the realization that there's no
way in God's green earth that Biden's proposals to transform
the Supreme Court are ever going to go through. One
would require constitutional amendment, which requires well and embraced by
the vast majority of states, which many would not do.
Second would require congressional action, which, of course in a
divide of Congress where the Republicans at least control the House.
(01:50):
It's not going anywhere, but this is going to be
a springboard for advocacy by the Kamala Harris campaign and
hopefully not administration correct.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
I think that's one hundred percent correct. This is politics,
pure and simple. I mean, I think it's as simple
as this. The Supreme Court's approval rating right now with
about thirty six percent. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v.
Away was very very unpopular among younger voters. So really
(02:23):
this allows Harris Biden and whoever congressional candidates whatever to
talk about the Court in a way that will really
potentially appeal to those voters, that lets them talk about
abortion without directly talking about abortion, and sort of the
idea here is, look, we're unhappy with Dobbs, so we're
(02:45):
going to change the court. It's very very similar to
what FDR did back in nineteen thirty seven when the
Supreme Court refused to approve some of the new aspects
of the New Deal Plan, which were politically popular. So
we tried to quote unquote pack the court. He tried
to take it from nine members to fifteen. He was
ultimately unsuccessful, but it was a real political hot potato
(03:08):
back then. It was advantageous to have into his party.
And I think there's something very very similar going on here.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Well clearly, but I suppose history has demonstrated that when
FDR tried to pack the court, the judges ended up
doing a liberal more liberal pro FDR policy shift. They
see their own jobs on the line maybe and decide
to capitulate to some degree.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Well, that's correct. He did get two of the big
things he wanted, the National Labor Review Board and the
Supreme or the Social Security Administration ended up being narrowly
approved after that, because I think a couple of the
judges probably did flip. And I do think you're going
to see some action from the Court here, particularly the
one aspect. Well, I think the eighteen year term part
(03:53):
is dead on arrival, and the efforts to overturn their
recent decision about presidential immunities dead on arrival. But the
co of ethics part of it, I do think the
Court will end up doing something different with They've been
kind of grappling with that. Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice,
has been grappling with that. We have a couple Justices Alito,
(04:13):
particularly Thomas, who have admitted going on, you know, big
trips and so forth with wealthy political donors, even though
those donors didn't have cases immediately before the court. They
were the kinds of gifts and at the kind of
price point that have attracted attention. So I do think
they're going to do something on the ethics front.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Well, and that's fine, But and I know Thomas didn't
disclose that he flew in a friend's private aircraft, but
that was before the Judicial Conference changed its rules to
require that judges disclosed that kind of flight. So he
didn't violate any judicial rules at the time. But I
know the appearance of impropriety is right there, and that's
just what's genning all the people up about Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
I think that, Look, clart Thomas has been a lightning
rod since the moment he got nominated. Yeah, well, it
doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do, he's going
to come under some some you know, more scrutiny than
than anyone else I think who serves on the court
maybe ever, maybe anyone in the history of the country
who has served in the court. No one has had
their personal life, finances and things scrutinized the way Thomas has.
(05:18):
But you know he did in this one. I think
kind of lean into it. You're right, he didn't violate
any rules, but that's the kind of thing that the
average person want they hear about it, just the kind
of you know that is that okay? Is that right?
You know they're you know, big Republican donors, you know,
fly on private jet, dedicate, they paid for a cruise
for he and his wife. There several several items like
(05:38):
that that I think when you add them all up,
it was a value of several hundred thousand dollars, uh,
things that the average citizen really can't afford. It is.
It is an appearance thing, and I think that's going
to kind of linger for him because there's so much
there's so much animus against him anyway. I think that
they're going to continue to make that tough, and I
predict that the court will do something on the on
(05:59):
the FIC side of it. But these other two items
I think are just purely political or they're going to
lnker are they just as political talking points.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Are legal experts to you good and from Pord to Wright,
let's possible. And we'll bring it back and find out
why the ethics changes may end up being a train
wreck as well. Considering enforcement seven thirty seven to fifty
five KRCD talk stations, whos Att Lows Camp for your
not buying a home, or you financing your existing mortgage.
You need Suzette loads Camp with Cross Country Mortgage. She
is definitely going to help you out and you will
be very happy with the help that sust provides you
(06:29):
because she is wonderful to work with, a true, wonderful
customer service agent with more than probably anybody in the
mortgage business in terms of experience thirty five plus years
since she's with Cross Country Mortgage. I don't care what
state you're sitting in. She can help you right there
where you are deal with mortgage, whether you want to
get some money out of your house, release some of
that equity, or even a reverse mortgage if you think
that's the right direction to go. Not a fan I am,
(06:50):
but if you are, there's an option for you first
time buyers pre approval letter and help you get financing.
No junk fees, no application fees. It is always great
rates at a low cost and a well oiled machine.
She and Cross Country Mortgage are I think it was
like two days for my daughter to call her and
then get the nancing locked in. That could be you
two so's call her up and she'll get right back
(07:10):
with it. You can even call her right now before
business hours. It's five one three three one three fifty
one seventy six. Five one three three one three fifty
one seventy six, or shoot her an email Suzette dot
Low's camp, los e Kamp Suzette dot Low's Camp at
CCM dot.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Com fifty five KRC.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Partly cloudy to mostly Sunday. Today, it'll be humid going
up to ninety seventy one overnight. It or remain humid Tomorrow,
Partly cloudy, isolated thunderstorms and showers in the afternoon and evening,
going up to ninety one down to seventy three overnight,
with maybe a spotty storm popping up somewhere. Thursday I
mostly sunny day, chance of showers and storms as well.
Ninety five for the high. Right now, we're looking at
(07:49):
seventy two degrees. It is time for traffic.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Chuck from the UCL Tramphings Center. No matter the injury
you see, health orthopedics and supports medicine, redefines recovery to
get you back to doing what you love. Call five
one three, four, seven, five eight six nine zero inbound
seventy four crawling from before North Bend to an accident
that blocks the left lane before seventy five. You're over
(08:11):
a half hour delay southbound seventy five slows through. Blackman
and Cruiser are working with a wreck below Morrow. That's
on twenty two at subs milk Chucking, Vermont fifty five
krc the talk station.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
About KRCD Talk station Brion Thomas with legal expert Extraordinary
from the law firm. Reporter right, Steve Gooden. Always welcome
to you coming on the program and explaining things for us. Steve,
I wrote the word lawfare down on this. The justices
already have a code of conduct, but it's kind of
like the Internal Affairs Department that since Saint Police monitors
its own if there's a complaint, the IA looks at
(08:48):
it and then makes a decision on whether there's been
misconduct or not. I don't the justices already sort of
monitor each other under their code of conduct because Biden
is basically calling for outside enforcement, wanting lower court judges
to investigate charges of ethics violations and then rule on
Supreme Court justices behavior that sounds to me like a
(09:08):
train wreck waiting to happen with thousands of complaints following,
and they even have that going on right now. Judge
Eileen Cannon, the one that's sitting on Donald Trump's document case,
apparently he's already received more of a one thousand complaints
in one week, what the Circuit Court called an orchestrated campaign.
If that kind of volume comes in, they're not going
to be doing anything but investigating allegations or judicial misconduct.
(09:30):
How could this be right or a good way to go, Steve?
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Or is it? I think it's a terrible way to go.
And I mean, look, I get again the politics behind this.
I mean, we have this situation where you know, in
my view, two of the justices, particularly Thomas, you have
opened up this issue by accepting and ultimately disclosing these gifts.
But you know, what we're forgetting is is that you know,
(09:54):
when they updated and redid their code of conduct last year,
it did require these disclosures in tom Us quickly disclosed them.
So we know about them. We know about them for
sure because he told us. So from that standpoint, it
is working. And if there was any you know, presumed
bias or anything, it has been disclosed and it's out there.
That's the whole point. But you're right, otherwise this you know,
(10:15):
the Supreme Court has really been outside denomination process, which
is terrible now and highly politicized, but outside of that process,
the Supreme Court is one of the last parts of
our government that really kind of is exempt from lawfare
and does work the way it's supposed to work. I mean,
these are lifetime appointments. Once folks are there, they're able
(10:35):
to do generally, able to do their job. This would
change that. This would open the door, as you put
it out, to all kinds of artists in the tax.
It would open the door to orchestrate the tax. That
would open the door to you know, if you don't
like the politics of someone on the court, you can
engage a lawyer who is like minded to file a
complaint and just tie the justice up and these endless
(10:58):
disciplinary processes. That's not what this is before about. And
you know they call this, Biden's calling this that nobody
is above the law Act. Well, we're not really sitting
in the Supreme Courts above the law, but they are there.
They basically are the final arbiter of the law under
our constitution. Our founders, you know, set it up this way,
(11:18):
and I think they were correct set it up this way,
see right, I think this would just be the opening
a door into nothing but put more chaos that will
undermine the rule of law long term, but will undermine
the Court's legitimacy. Ironically, they're thing, we're doing this to
make the court to preserve its legitimacy. All it's going
to do is long term undermine it's legitimacy.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
In my view, well, couldn't they just simply ban the
judges from accepting any outside contributions, gifts, donations, flights on
aircraft period in the story, regardless of whether it results
in a conflict or not. Oh oh, but the hypocrites
in Congress might have to look to themselves in the
mirror and say, gee, we go on all kinds of
trips and conferences, resorts, we get speaking fees, we get
(11:58):
booked on I mean, I mean position heal byself.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Well, that's exactly right. I mean, look, if you're in Congress,
your ability to take honor area for speeches with no limit,
like you could charge somewhat, you know, fifty thousand dollars
for speech, They'll pay it. You can write a book
and have your donors buy it massive amounts of copies
of it. Because no one in the general publics ever
going to buy your book, but the book can become
(12:24):
profitable because donors buy it in an orchestrated way. I mean,
there's all these things that people do to supplement their income.
In Congress, and some of the justices have explored things
like that over the years, there's no question, and they've
been pretty open about it, both liberal justices and conservative justices.
And in fairness to them, they get paid roughly what
a regular judge is paid in the federal judiciary. They're
(12:47):
not getting rich. They're getting paid roughly two hundred thousand dollars,
which is a lot of money for the average citizen.
But if you're if you're living in the district at
clubs are the most expensive places in the country to live,
and you really have to travel the country check you know,
as a part of your duties supervising the federal courts,
it's really not as much money as it might seem.
(13:08):
So the temptation to look for outside income, speaking fees
and so forth is very much there. But you're right,
I mean, look in Ohio, if you're a public official,
you know, if you are the governor or even work
for you know, Department of National Resources or a state trooper.
You can't take more than fifty bucks from somebody, and
any gives time. And that's but if again it's good
(13:31):
for the goose is good for the gander. If you're
going to do something like that to the court, you're
going to have to do it to the other branch
as a government as well. And that would send shock
waves through Washington because the average citizen, I don't think,
understands how these things work. And how can particular numbers
of Congress find ways to supplement their income through speaking
fees and books and things of that nature.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
It's interesting you even brought that up, because, as you know,
something's subject to the SEC's rules. I've got a heapload
of rules about you know, plug all a pail. You
can't accept anything more than like twenty five bucks or something.
I mean, it's they're really, i mean, across the board,
very broad prohibitions on you know, because I have a
forum here, I could you know, promote something for as
(14:13):
a favor for a friend or whatever. I at least
understand and get all that. But here I am living
under these types of rules, and wouldn't be a wonderful
thing if Congress had to go do the same thing.
But no, you'll think they're going to vote money out
of their own pocket, do you, Steve?
Speaker 3 (14:28):
They haven't yet. We've we've been waiting two hundred and
thirty four years for something like that. Now I don't
think it's happened.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
Yeah, yeah, still lay away good night, dreaming of the day.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Hey.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
And finally, insofar as the proposal for eighteen year term
women from justices, and coming from a guy like Joe Biden,
given his age, I thought was kind of comical. The
Constitution does give them life tenure, which means there would
have to be a constitutional amendment to change that.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Correct, you know, I believe shown. Now what's interesting to
me is this commission that he has put together, that
Biden has put together, seems to be of the impression
that Congress could change the terms themselves. And that's not
how I understand it. And I know there's other folks
much much more verse than these matters than I who
(15:15):
are throwing the caution flag on that particular proposal as well.
In a way, it doesn't matter. There's an absolutely no
way this gets through Congress, and even my senses, there's
even quite a few Democrats who are sort of institutionalists
who would really not want to make these changes. So
I think it's dead on that. Proposals dead on arrival.
(15:37):
But if you read his proposal closely, he seems to
be of the mindset that Congress has the ability to
do that. So and I think if somehow or other
he were to get through the votes, or if Harris
were to win and get a large majority in both
houses next time and actually pursue this, which I don't
think they even would if they did, But if they
did pursue this, I think that would end up being
(15:58):
litigated and ironically right back in front of the court.
So I would think that this would require a constitutional
amendment that they seem to think it would not. And
the Constitution is hard to amend on purpose. You know,
it requires it's going to pass both houses of Congress
by super majority, and it has to pass three orts
of the state legislatures. You have to have a real
support among the state been a country for two hundred
(16:21):
and thirty four years, give or take, and it was
only amended the Constitution or what twenty six times, and
those are for big giant issues, you know, like they
deal with you know, women getting the vote and ending
slavery and things of that, where there are gigantic political
movements and a lot of consensus, and they're certainly not
that kind of energy or consensus around this. So I
think that's that's the debt on arrival. But you know,
(16:44):
they do seem to think that they could just do
this by act of Congress.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Well, amen, and I just just before we part company,
that approval rating in people's approval rating of the constant
of the Supreme Court. To me, that just represents a
fundamental misunderstanding of how the courts work, whether you or
a originalist or a liberal activist. That's the real distinction
between the left and the right. The originalists believe in
(17:09):
the righting of the document and stick to it, and
that to me is a sound legal foundation to be
you know, to be working on. Can you imagine if
this conversation came up during the war in court administration,
where the right was freaking out about all the left
leaning decisions coming out. No, you didn't scream and yell
and talk about packing the court back then, did they?
Speaker 3 (17:29):
No? You know, And I think that really cuts to
the bottom of what's happening here. Is. You know, there
were folks in the conservative legal circles who were very
very upset about Roebuck in nineteen fifty or seventy three
and a lot of the other decisions that followed out
of that court. So they began what was really a
fifty plus year project kind of grooming conservative justices and
(17:52):
going through the political process to try to get those
justices appointed over time so that a different sort of
philosophy would take over the court. And that's what's happened here.
So you know, this group Biden is basics saying, hey,
we don't like the bend of the court. We're not
going to do We're not going to do our own
project and groom our own judges and make the argument
and win over you know, Congress and try to win
(18:15):
the presidency. We're just going to change the rules. And
that's that's really what they're doing here. Amen.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
That Steve Goodinporter Right dot Coms where you find them online.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, Steve. It's always a
real pleasure having you on the.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Program, Sir, that's great being here. Take care of Brian.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
You two fifty bout KRCD talk station and plum type
Plumbing the right plumbers to call for your residential plumbing needs.
Whether you're in Northern Kentucky, the Dayton area Cincinnati, call
Plump Type Plumbing. They provide every customer with a truly
exceptional plumbing experience with a licensed plumber, highest quality product,
services and customer relations in the industry. That's why they
enjoying a plus with a better business veureau. You got
(18:50):
a dream problem, They're the ones to call you have
a backup, no problem there. They do any plumbing job,
no matter how big or small, and it's always fair
and ethical prizing. Let you know when they're on they'll
arrive on time and they will establish that customer service
and then give you a free quote. And that is
a free quote. Those service charge with Plumb Tight Plumbing,
no mileage fee. Family Nown operated your neighborhood plumbing company
(19:11):
since nineteen ninety nine. So call them at five one
three seven two seven Tight t I T E seven
two seven eighty four eighty three. Online you'll find them
at plumtight dot com. Fifty five KRC the talk station
men over forty five
Brian Thomas 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!