America's judicial system faces a constitutional showdown as the Supreme Court debates whether single federal judges can block presidential actions nationwide, focusing on Trump's birthright citizenship order rather than its actual merits. Politics crosses ideological lines as justices from both conservative and liberal wings express frustration about the proliferation of nationwide injunctions, with Trump facing 64 such injunctions during his first term compared to far fewer for previous presidents.
• Supreme Court justices debating whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions against presidential actions
• Elena Kagan questioning how to stop potentially illegal executive orders without nationwide injunctions
• Trump administration fighting against injunctions from judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state
• Zelensky criticizing Putin for sending a low-level delegation to peace talks in Turkey
• Ukraine pushing for implementation of a US-proposed 30-day ceasefire
• Uber and DoorDash publicly supporting Trump's no-tax-on-tips proposal
• 40,000 DoorDash workers lobbying lawmakers to support the tax break
• House Ways and Means Committee approving Trump's budget bill after an all-night session
Follow us on X at RantingRP and catch full episodes on YouTube, Spotify, iHeartRadio, and Apple Podcasts. For articles, extended commentary, and all our previous episodes, head over to RantingPolitics.com.
Source Credits:
https://nypost.com/2025/05/15/us-news/supreme-court-agonizes-over-whether-lower-courts-can-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order/ https://nypost.com/2025/05/15/world-news/zelensky-slams-unserious-putin-over-peace-talk-snub/ https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/gig-economy-titans-uber-doordash-back-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-capitol-hill-push
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ranting-politics/id1677427078
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2rFqmUhX6ReG2s2DX824Rk?si=b450dbea7a5a4dce
X/Twitter: @rantingRP
YouTube: @RantingPolitics
Website: www.RantingPolitics.com
This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only. All information should be verified and treated as an opinion.
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This show may use copyrighted material that is made available for commentary and educational purposes only. This constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. Section 106A-117 of the US copyright law.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hello America, joc, here with your ranting politics
headline updates, where we arediving into today's most
explosive political stories thatyou need to know about Coming
up.
The Supreme Court is having afull-on legal wrestling match
over Trump's birthrightcitizenship order.
Justices are split on whetherlower courts can block
(00:22):
presidential moves withnationwide injunctions.
It's constitutional drama atits finest.
Also on deck, zelensky iscalling Putin out for his no
show at peace talks in Turkey.
When you send your aid insteadof showing up yourself, that's
what we call a diplomatic burn.
And the gig economy's biggestplayers, uber and DoorDash, are
(00:42):
jumping on the Trump trainbacking his no tax on tips
proposal.
Service workers, yourgratuities might be getting a
whole lot sweeter If you're justtuning in for the first time.
Welcome to America's fastestgrowing daily news rundown,
designed specifically for yourcommute run or coffee time.
Stick around for all this andmore in your daily dose of
unfiltered news and common sensecommentary.
(01:04):
This is Ranting PoliticsHeadline Updates.
The Supreme Court justices werepractically tying themselves in
(01:26):
knots yesterday during amarathon two-and-a-half-hour
session debating Trump'sbirthright citizenship order.
But here's the kicker theybarely touched the actual
citizenship issue.
Instead, they obsessed overwhether a single federal judge
should have the power to blockpresidential actions nationwide.
According to reporting from theNew York Post, the Trump
(01:47):
administration is fightingagainst three separate
injunctions issued by federaljudges in Maryland,
massachusetts and Washingtonstate.
These injunctions have keptTrump's day one executive order,
which would end automaticcitizenship for children of
illegal immigrants born in theUS, from taking effect.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan cutright to the heart of the
matter, asking there are allkinds of abuses of nationwide
(02:09):
injunctions.
But if one thinks that it'squite clear that the executive
order is illegal, how does oneget to that result without the
possibility of a nationwideinjunction?
That's the million-dollarquestion hanging over this case.
What's fascinating is how thisissue crosses ideological lines.
Conservative heavyweights likeNeil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas
(02:29):
have been just as frustrated asliberal justice Katonji Brown
Jackson about lower courtsthrowing around these sweeping
injunctions like confetti.
The numbers tell a revealingstory.
The Harvard Law Review talliedat least 64 national injunctions
against Trump during his firstterm, compared to just 6 against
Bush, 12 against Obama and 14against Biden during their
(02:52):
entire presidencies.
Trump's lawyer, joshua Sauer,called it a bipartisan problem
spanning five presidentialadministrations.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn'thold back either, pointing out
that these district judgesaren't just throwing these
universal injunctions, they arefinding these actions illegal
because they're exceedingexisting authority, and
(03:13):
oftentimes we are too.
The debate got particularlyspicy when Justice Sonia
Sotomayor posed a hypothetical.
You claim there is absolutelyno constitutional way to stop a
president from anunconstitutional act A clearly,
indisputably unconstitutionaltaking every gun from every
citizen.
We couldn't stop it.
That's when things got real.
(03:34):
Amy Coney Barrett emerged as apotential swing vote, seeming
stunned when the Trump teamsuggested they might not always
follow circuit court precedents.
Meanwhile, clarence Thomasreminded everyone that we
survived until the 1960s withoutuniversal injunctions.
The case is expected to bedecided by the end of June,
potentially reshaping how thejudicial branch can check
(03:57):
executive power.
Whatever the court decides willhave massive implications for
presidential authority forgenerations to come.
The Trump administration isfighting an uphill battle
against what they view asjudicial overreach.
Their legal team, led by JoshuaSauer, is challenging three
separate injunctions that haveeffectively frozen Trump's
controversial executive order onbirthright citizenship before
(04:19):
it could even take effect.
The core of their argument ispretty straightforward they
believe that nationwideinjunctions from single district
judges fundamentally exceed thejudicial power granted in
Article 3 of the Constitution.
According to Sauer, theseinjunctions should only address
the specific injury to thecomplaining party, not block
policies for the entire country.
(04:40):
During the Supreme Courthearing, sauer hammered home
that these universal injunctionscreate a legal free-for-all
where opponents of anyadministration can engage in
what he called rampant forumshopping, essentially picking
judicial venues most likely tobe sympathetic to their case.
He warned that this forcesjudges to make rushed,
high-stakes, low-informationdecisions with nationwide
(05:02):
consequences.
On the flip side, JeremyFeigenbaum, representing the 22
states challenging Trump's order, made an equally compelling
counter-argument.
He laid out a three-prongedtest to determine when universal
injunctions might beappropriate, focusing on the
practicality of alternativeremedies, congressional
authorization and alternativeforms of non-party relief.
(05:24):
Feigenbaum didn't mince wordsabout what's at stake, warning
of unprecedented chaos on theground if Trump's order were
allowed to stand.
The states argue they wouldsuffer significant pocketbook
and sovereign harms withoutbroad injunctive relief.
What makes this caseparticularly thorny is that many
legal experts consider Trump'sbirthright citizenship order to
(05:46):
be on exceptionally shaky legalground, putting the court in the
awkward position of potentiallylimiting judicial checks on
executive power at the exactmoment when such checks might be
most necessary.
This case represents a criticalinflection point in the ongoing
power struggle between theexecutive and judicial branches,
in the ongoing power strugglebetween the executive and
judicial branches.
When the Supreme Court issuesits final ruling by June, it
(06:08):
could fundamentally reshape howpresidential authority is
checked, or not checked, by thecourts for generations to come.
The justices appear torecognize the gravity of their
decision.
Justice Clarence Thomas, knownfor his originalist
interpretation of theConstitution, made his position
clear with his observation thatwe survived until the 1960s
(06:30):
without universal injunctions.
His statement reflects aconservative view that the
recent proliferation ofnationwide injunctions
represents a modern judicialoverreach rather than a
necessary constitutionalsafeguard.
What really raised eyebrowsduring the hearing was the
exchange between Justice AmyConey Barrett and the Trump
(06:50):
administration's attorney.
Barrett, typically aligned withthe court's conservative wing,
appeared genuinely shocked whenSauer suggested the
administration might selectivelyignore circuit court precedents
they disagree with.
Did I understand you correctly?
She asked incredulously thatthe government wanted to reserve
(07:12):
its right to maybe not follow asecond circuit precedent, say
in New York, because you mightdisagree with the opinion?
Sauer's tepid response thatgenerally we follow precedent
did little to alleviate concernsabout executive overreach.
No-transcript.
(07:42):
Lower courts issued at least 64national injunctions against
Trump during his first term,compared to just six against
George W Bush, 12 against Obamaand 14 against Biden during
their entire presidencies.
Chief Justice Roberts seemed toacknowledge the need for
balance, suggesting the SupremeCourt itself could help address
these problems by actingexpeditiously on such disputes.
(08:04):
These problems, by actingexpeditiously on such disputes.
Well, in the latest diplomaticdrama, ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky isn't holdingback his frustration after
Russian President Vladimir Putinpulled a classic no-show at
Thursday's peace talks in Turkey.
Instead of showing up himself,putin sent his aide, vladimir
Medinsky, his former cultureminister, who, let's remember,
(08:28):
once tried to negotiate Kyiv'ssurrender in the early days of
the war.
Talk about sending a message.
After we understood the levelof the Russian delegation, we
saw that they, unfortunately,are very unserious about real
negotiations, zelensky toldreporters in Ankara, pointing
out that it was actually Putinwho initially called for these
(08:49):
talks just last Saturday.
So much for following through.
In response to Russia'sdowngraded delegation, zelensky
made a similar move, dispatchingUkrainian Defense Minister
Rustam Umarov rather thanattending personally.
This diplomatic tit-for-tatmarks the first time Ukraine and
Russia have engaged in formaldiscussions since 2022, though
(09:10):
not exactly at the level anyonehoped for.
Taking to social media,zelensky didn't mince words.
Russia once again demonstratedthat it does not intend to end
the war, having sent adelegation of rather low-level
representatives.
Moreover, such a Russianapproach is a sign of disrespect
toward the world and allpartners.
(09:31):
He followed this with a cleardemand we expect a clear and
strong response from partners.
Medinsky tried to save face uponarriving in Istanbul, posting
to Telegram that the Russiandelegation is representing Putin
and committed to carrying outserious and professional work.
But Zelensky called the wholething theatrical, openly
(09:52):
questioning whether Medinsky hasany actual authority to make
decisions.
As he pointedly noted, we allknow who actually makes
decisions in Russia.
So what exactly are theUkrainians hoping to accomplish
with these talks?
Despite the downgradeddelegations, ukraine has a clear
agenda.
They're pushing for theimplementation of a US-proposed
(10:13):
30-day ceasefire.
This would be the first realpause in hostilities since
Russia's full-scale invasionbegan more than three years ago.
It's not much, but at thispoint, any respite from the
constant bombardment would bewelcome for Ukrainian civilians.
Zelensky isn't just askingnicely either.
He's calling on the UnitedStates, european allies and even
(10:34):
nations from the global southto ramp up sanctions against
Russia if Putin refuses to agreeto this modest pause in the
fighting.
It's a strategic move that putsadditional international
pressure on Moscow, whilehighlighting their unwillingness
to take even small steps towardde-escalation.
The real problem, according toZelensky, is that Putin's
(10:55):
representative likely doesn'thave the authority to make any
meaningful agreements, it isessential to understand the
level of the Russian delegation,what mandate they hold and
whether they are authorized tomake any decisions at all.
Zelensky posted, beforedelivering the diplomatic
equivalent of an eye roll, byadding because we all know who
actually makes decisions inRussia.
(11:16):
The theatrical nature ofRussia's approach has Ukraine
justifiably skeptical.
This ceasefire push appears tobe less about Ukraine believing
real progress will happen andmore about exposing Russia's
lack of serious commitment topeace.
By showing up ready to discussconcrete measures while Russia
sends lower-level officials,zelensky is winning the
(11:36):
diplomatic optics battle, evenif the actual talks yield little
tangible progress.
The gig economy giants arelining up behind Trump's tax
plan folks.
Uber and DoorDash are going allin supporting the
no-tax-on-tips provision in whatTrump has dubbed his big,
beautiful budget bill.
This is a major endorsementfrom two companies that
(11:58):
collectively employ millions ofgig workers across America.
Uber's CEO, dara Khosrowshahi,didn't hold back his enthusiasm
on social media, where hepublicly thanked President Trump
and House Ways and MeansCommittee Chairman Jason Smith
for championing this policy.
In his post, khosrowshahispecifically highlighted that
the legislation would benefitall tipped workers, no matter
(12:21):
how they work an importantdistinction that would extend
tax benefits to ridesharedrivers and delivery workers,
not just traditional restaurantservers.
Thanks to POTUS andRepresentative Jason Smith for
backing all tipped workers, nomatter how they work.
Khosrowshahi wrote let's getthis done Simple, direct and
clearly aligning his massivecompany with Trump's economic
(12:43):
policy.
Not to be outdone, doordashco-founder Tony Hsu took things
a step further by orchestratinga significant grassroots
lobbying effort.
Hsu shared a photo on socialmedia showing DoorDash drivers,
known as Dashers, gathered onthe steps of the Capitol
building in Washington.
According to Hsu, an impressive40,000 DoorDash workers have
(13:04):
been advocating to lawmakers invarious ways, pushing them to
pass what they're calling a taxbreak on their hard-earned tips.
Hsu praised the House's budgetbill as an important step in
making no tax on tips a reality.
This is no small thing.
When you have tens of thousandsof workers actively lobbying
for legislation.
It can significantly influencerepresentatives who know these
(13:28):
are voters in their districts.
The timing couldn't be betterfor Trump's policy proposal,
initially floating this ideaback in June 2024,.
The no tax on tips plan hasproven exceptionally popular
with service industry workers.
What started as a campaignpromise is now working its way
through Congress with seriousmomentum and corporate backing
(13:49):
from some of the largestemployers in the gig economy
space.
Talk about a legislativemarathon.
The House Ways and MeansCommittee just wrapped up what
can only be described as apolitical endurance test,
pulling an all-night sessionthat literally had lawmakers
from both parties nodding off atthe dais.
Despite the late-night yawnsand coffee-fueled debates, the
(14:10):
committee ultimately approvedTrump's big, beautiful budget
bill on a strictly party-linevote of 26-19.
This wasn't your typicalcommittee meeting.
We're talking about a trueovernight session where members
push through until dawn debatingand shooting down several
Democratic amendments along theway.
By the time they finally calledthe vote, at least one
(14:31):
Republican and one Democrat hadbeen caught catching some
shut-eye right there in thecommittee room.
Politics may divide them, butapparently the need for sleep
unites lawmakers across theaisle.
The centerpiece of the billthat's generating the most buzz
continues to be theno-tax-on-tips provision that
Trump first introduced back inJune 2024.
(14:51):
When Trump initially floatedthis idea, he made it clear who
he was targeting For those hotelworkers and people that get
tips.
You're going to be very happyBecause when I get to office, we
are not going to charge taxeson tips.
This policy proposal has strucka particularly strong chord
with service industry workersacross the country.
Las Vegas rideshare drivershave been especially vocal in
(15:14):
their support, with Fox Businessreporting that even some
registered Democrats driving forUber near the MGM Grand have
indicated they'll cross partylines to vote for Trump
specifically because of thispolicy.
As one Vegas driver put it toFox News Digital, the policy
would make a significantdifference in their take-home
pay, calling Trump's planawesome, even as then-Vice
(15:35):
President Harris held a campaignrally just across town.
It's exactly the kind ofkitchen table economic issue
that resonates beyondtraditional partisan divides.
Well, that's a wrap for today'sRanting Politics headline
updates.
Thanks for hanging with methrough our deep dive into the
Supreme Court's birthrightcitizenship debates, zelensky
(15:56):
calling out Putin's peace talktheatrics and the gig economy
giants throwing their weightbehind Trump's no tax on tips
plan.
Whether you're commuting,working out or just trying to
make sense of the politicalcircus, I hope this breakdown
gave you something to thinkabout and maybe even a chuckle
or two along the way.
If you're hungry for morepolitical rants and rapid-fire
(16:17):
analysis, follow us on X atRantingRP.
You can also catch fullepisodes on YouTube, spotify,
iheartradio and Apple Podcasts.
For articles, extendedcommentary and all our previous
episodes, head over toRantingPoliticscom.
This is JOC signing off andthank you, our loyal listeners,
(16:37):
for choosing Ranting PoliticsHeadline Updates.
We'll be back soon with theupdates you need to navigate
these interesting times.
Remember we don't align with apolitical party.
We align with you, the Americancitizen.
Until then, stay tuned, stayinformed and, as always, stay
free.
Thank you, thank you.
Hello America, joc, here with your ranting politics
headline updates, where we arediving into today's most
explosive political stories thatyou need to know about Coming
up.
The Supreme Court is having afull-on legal wrestling match
over Trump's birthrightcitizenship order.
Justices are split on whetherlower courts can block
(00:22):
presidential moves withnationwide injunctions.
It's constitutional drama atits finest.
Also on deck, zelensky iscalling Putin out for his no
show at peace talks in Turkey.
When you send your aid insteadof showing up yourself, that's
what we call a diplomatic burn.
And the gig economy's biggestplayers, uber and DoorDash, are
(00:42):
jumping on the Trump trainbacking his no tax on tips
proposal.
Service workers, yourgratuities might be getting a
whole lot sweeter If you're justtuning in for the first time.
Welcome to America's fastestgrowing daily news rundown,
designed specifically for yourcommute run or coffee time.
Stick around for all this andmore in your daily dose of
unfiltered news and common sensecommentary.
(01:04):
This is Ranting PoliticsHeadline Updates.
The Supreme Court justices werepractically tying themselves in
(01:26):
knots yesterday during amarathon two-and-a-half-hour
session debating Trump'sbirthright citizenship order.
But here's the kicker theybarely touched the actual
citizenship issue.
Instead, they obsessed overwhether a single federal judge
should have the power to blockpresidential actions nationwide.
According to reporting from theNew York Post, the Trump
(01:47):
administration is fightingagainst three separate
injunctions issued by federaljudges in Maryland,
massachusetts and Washingtonstate.
These injunctions have keptTrump's day one executive order,
which would end automaticcitizenship for children of
illegal immigrants born in theUS, from taking effect.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan cutright to the heart of the
matter, asking there are allkinds of abuses of nationwide
(02:09):
injunctions.
But if one thinks that it'squite clear that the executive
order is illegal, how does oneget to that result without the
possibility of a nationwideinjunction?
That's the million-dollarquestion hanging over this case.
What's fascinating is how thisissue crosses ideological lines.
Conservative heavyweights likeNeil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas
(02:29):
have been just as frustrated asliberal justice Katonji Brown
Jackson about lower courtsthrowing around these sweeping
injunctions like confetti.
The numbers tell a revealingstory.
The Harvard Law Review talliedat least 64 national injunctions
against Trump during his firstterm, compared to just 6 against
Bush, 12 against Obama and 14against Biden during their
(02:52):
entire presidencies.
Trump's lawyer, joshua Sauer,called it a bipartisan problem
spanning five presidentialadministrations.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn'thold back either, pointing out
that these district judgesaren't just throwing these
universal injunctions, they arefinding these actions illegal
because they're exceedingexisting authority, and
(03:13):
oftentimes we are too.
The debate got particularlyspicy when Justice Sonia
Sotomayor posed a hypothetical.
You claim there is absolutelyno constitutional way to stop a
president from anunconstitutional act A clearly,
indisputably unconstitutionaltaking every gun from every
citizen.
We couldn't stop it.
That's when things got real.
(03:34):
Amy Coney Barrett emerged as apotential swing vote, seeming
stunned when the Trump teamsuggested they might not always
follow circuit court precedents.
Meanwhile, clarence Thomasreminded everyone that we
survived until the 1960s withoutuniversal injunctions.
The case is expected to bedecided by the end of June,
potentially reshaping how thejudicial branch can check
(03:57):
executive power.
Whatever the court decides willhave massive implications for
presidential authority forgenerations to come.
The Trump administration isfighting an uphill battle
against what they view asjudicial overreach.
Their legal team, led by JoshuaSauer, is challenging three
separate injunctions that haveeffectively frozen Trump's
controversial executive order onbirthright citizenship before
(04:19):
it could even take effect.
The core of their argument ispretty straightforward they
believe that nationwideinjunctions from single district
judges fundamentally exceed thejudicial power granted in
Article 3 of the Constitution.
According to Sauer, theseinjunctions should only address
the specific injury to thecomplaining party, not block
policies for the entire country.
(04:40):
During the Supreme Courthearing, sauer hammered home
that these universal injunctionscreate a legal free-for-all
where opponents of anyadministration can engage in
what he called rampant forumshopping, essentially picking
judicial venues most likely tobe sympathetic to their case.
He warned that this forcesjudges to make rushed,
high-stakes, low-informationdecisions with nationwide
(05:02):
consequences.
On the flip side, JeremyFeigenbaum, representing the 22
states challenging Trump's order, made an equally compelling
counter-argument.
He laid out a three-prongedtest to determine when universal
injunctions might beappropriate, focusing on the
practicality of alternativeremedies, congressional
authorization and alternativeforms of non-party relief.
(05:24):
Feigenbaum didn't mince wordsabout what's at stake, warning
of unprecedented chaos on theground if Trump's order were
allowed to stand.
The states argue they wouldsuffer significant pocketbook
and sovereign harms withoutbroad injunctive relief.
What makes this caseparticularly thorny is that many
legal experts consider Trump'sbirthright citizenship order to
(05:46):
be on exceptionally shaky legalground, putting the court in the
awkward position of potentiallylimiting judicial checks on
executive power at the exactmoment when such checks might be
most necessary.
This case represents a criticalinflection point in the ongoing
power struggle between theexecutive and judicial branches,
in the ongoing power strugglebetween the executive and
judicial branches.
When the Supreme Court issuesits final ruling by June, it
(06:08):
could fundamentally reshape howpresidential authority is
checked, or not checked, by thecourts for generations to come.
The justices appear torecognize the gravity of their
decision.
Justice Clarence Thomas, knownfor his originalist
interpretation of theConstitution, made his position
clear with his observation thatwe survived until the 1960s
(06:30):
without universal injunctions.
His statement reflects aconservative view that the
recent proliferation ofnationwide injunctions
represents a modern judicialoverreach rather than a
necessary constitutionalsafeguard.
What really raised eyebrowsduring the hearing was the
exchange between Justice AmyConey Barrett and the Trump
(06:50):
administration's attorney.
Barrett, typically aligned withthe court's conservative wing,
appeared genuinely shocked whenSauer suggested the
administration might selectivelyignore circuit court precedents
they disagree with.
Did I understand you correctly?
She asked incredulously thatthe government wanted to reserve
(07:12):
its right to maybe not follow asecond circuit precedent, say
in New York, because you mightdisagree with the opinion?
Sauer's tepid response thatgenerally we follow precedent
did little to alleviate concernsabout executive overreach.
No-transcript.
(07:42):
Lower courts issued at least 64national injunctions against
Trump during his first term,compared to just six against
George W Bush, 12 against Obamaand 14 against Biden during
their entire presidencies.
Chief Justice Roberts seemed toacknowledge the need for
balance, suggesting the SupremeCourt itself could help address
these problems by actingexpeditiously on such disputes.
(08:04):
These problems, by actingexpeditiously on such disputes.
Well, in the latest diplomaticdrama, ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky isn't holdingback his frustration after
Russian President Vladimir Putinpulled a classic no-show at
Thursday's peace talks in Turkey.
Instead of showing up himself,putin sent his aide, vladimir
Medinsky, his former cultureminister, who, let's remember,
(08:28):
once tried to negotiate Kyiv'ssurrender in the early days of
the war.
Talk about sending a message.
After we understood the levelof the Russian delegation, we
saw that they, unfortunately,are very unserious about real
negotiations, zelensky toldreporters in Ankara, pointing
out that it was actually Putinwho initially called for these
(08:49):
talks just last Saturday.
So much for following through.
In response to Russia'sdowngraded delegation, zelensky
made a similar move, dispatchingUkrainian Defense Minister
Rustam Umarov rather thanattending personally.
This diplomatic tit-for-tatmarks the first time Ukraine and
Russia have engaged in formaldiscussions since 2022, though
(09:10):
not exactly at the level anyonehoped for.
Taking to social media,zelensky didn't mince words.
Russia once again demonstratedthat it does not intend to end
the war, having sent adelegation of rather low-level
representatives.
Moreover, such a Russianapproach is a sign of disrespect
toward the world and allpartners.
(09:31):
He followed this with a cleardemand we expect a clear and
strong response from partners.
Medinsky tried to save face uponarriving in Istanbul, posting
to Telegram that the Russiandelegation is representing Putin
and committed to carrying outserious and professional work.
But Zelensky called the wholething theatrical, openly
(09:52):
questioning whether Medinsky hasany actual authority to make
decisions.
As he pointedly noted, we allknow who actually makes
decisions in Russia.
So what exactly are theUkrainians hoping to accomplish
with these talks?
Despite the downgradeddelegations, ukraine has a clear
agenda.
They're pushing for theimplementation of a US-proposed
(10:13):
30-day ceasefire.
This would be the first realpause in hostilities since
Russia's full-scale invasionbegan more than three years ago.
It's not much, but at thispoint, any respite from the
constant bombardment would bewelcome for Ukrainian civilians.
Zelensky isn't just askingnicely either.
He's calling on the UnitedStates, european allies and even
(10:34):
nations from the global southto ramp up sanctions against
Russia if Putin refuses to agreeto this modest pause in the
fighting.
It's a strategic move that putsadditional international
pressure on Moscow, whilehighlighting their unwillingness
to take even small steps towardde-escalation.
The real problem, according toZelensky, is that Putin's
(10:55):
representative likely doesn'thave the authority to make any
meaningful agreements, it isessential to understand the
level of the Russian delegation,what mandate they hold and
whether they are authorized tomake any decisions at all.
Zelensky posted, beforedelivering the diplomatic
equivalent of an eye roll, byadding because we all know who
actually makes decisions inRussia.
(11:16):
The theatrical nature ofRussia's approach has Ukraine
justifiably skeptical.
This ceasefire push appears tobe less about Ukraine believing
real progress will happen andmore about exposing Russia's
lack of serious commitment topeace.
By showing up ready to discussconcrete measures while Russia
sends lower-level officials,zelensky is winning the
(11:36):
diplomatic optics battle, evenif the actual talks yield little
tangible progress.
The gig economy giants arelining up behind Trump's tax
plan folks.
Uber and DoorDash are going allin supporting the
no-tax-on-tips provision in whatTrump has dubbed his big,
beautiful budget bill.
This is a major endorsementfrom two companies that
(11:58):
collectively employ millions ofgig workers across America.
Uber's CEO, dara Khosrowshahi,didn't hold back his enthusiasm
on social media, where hepublicly thanked President Trump
and House Ways and MeansCommittee Chairman Jason Smith
for championing this policy.
In his post, khosrowshahispecifically highlighted that
the legislation would benefitall tipped workers, no matter
(12:21):
how they work an importantdistinction that would extend
tax benefits to ridesharedrivers and delivery workers,
not just traditional restaurantservers.
Thanks to POTUS andRepresentative Jason Smith for
backing all tipped workers, nomatter how they work.
Khosrowshahi wrote let's getthis done Simple, direct and
clearly aligning his massivecompany with Trump's economic
(12:43):
policy.
Not to be outdone, doordashco-founder Tony Hsu took things
a step further by orchestratinga significant grassroots
lobbying effort.
Hsu shared a photo on socialmedia showing DoorDash drivers,
known as Dashers, gathered onthe steps of the Capitol
building in Washington.
According to Hsu, an impressive40,000 DoorDash workers have
(13:04):
been advocating to lawmakers invarious ways, pushing them to
pass what they're calling a taxbreak on their hard-earned tips.
Hsu praised the House's budgetbill as an important step in
making no tax on tips a reality.
This is no small thing.
When you have tens of thousandsof workers actively lobbying
for legislation.
It can significantly influencerepresentatives who know these
(13:28):
are voters in their districts.
The timing couldn't be betterfor Trump's policy proposal,
initially floating this ideaback in June 2024,.
The no tax on tips plan hasproven exceptionally popular
with service industry workers.
What started as a campaignpromise is now working its way
through Congress with seriousmomentum and corporate backing
(13:49):
from some of the largestemployers in the gig economy
space.
Talk about a legislativemarathon.
The House Ways and MeansCommittee just wrapped up what
can only be described as apolitical endurance test,
pulling an all-night sessionthat literally had lawmakers
from both parties nodding off atthe dais.
Despite the late-night yawnsand coffee-fueled debates, the
(14:10):
committee ultimately approvedTrump's big, beautiful budget
bill on a strictly party-linevote of 26-19.
This wasn't your typicalcommittee meeting.
We're talking about a trueovernight session where members
push through until dawn debatingand shooting down several
Democratic amendments along theway.
By the time they finally calledthe vote, at least one
(14:31):
Republican and one Democrat hadbeen caught catching some
shut-eye right there in thecommittee room.
Politics may divide them, butapparently the need for sleep
unites lawmakers across theaisle.
The centerpiece of the billthat's generating the most buzz
continues to be theno-tax-on-tips provision that
Trump first introduced back inJune 2024.
(14:51):
When Trump initially floatedthis idea, he made it clear who
he was targeting For those hotelworkers and people that get
tips.
You're going to be very happyBecause when I get to office, we
are not going to charge taxeson tips.
This policy proposal has strucka particularly strong chord
with service industry workersacross the country.
Las Vegas rideshare drivershave been especially vocal in
(15:14):
their support, with Fox Businessreporting that even some
registered Democrats driving forUber near the MGM Grand have
indicated they'll cross partylines to vote for Trump
specifically because of thispolicy.
As one Vegas driver put it toFox News Digital, the policy
would make a significantdifference in their take-home
pay, calling Trump's planawesome, even as then-Vice
(15:35):
President Harris held a campaignrally just across town.
It's exactly the kind ofkitchen table economic issue
that resonates beyondtraditional partisan divides.
Well, that's a wrap for today'sRanting Politics headline
updates.
Thanks for hanging with methrough our deep dive into the
Supreme Court's birthrightcitizenship debates, zelensky
(15:56):
calling out Putin's peace talktheatrics and the gig economy
giants throwing their weightbehind Trump's no tax on tips
plan.
Whether you're commuting,working out or just trying to
make sense of the politicalcircus, I hope this breakdown
gave you something to thinkabout and maybe even a chuckle
or two along the way.
If you're hungry for morepolitical rants and rapid-fire
(16:17):
analysis, follow us on X atRantingRP.
You can also catch fullepisodes on YouTube, spotify,
iheartradio and Apple Podcasts.
For articles, extendedcommentary and all our previous
episodes, head over toRantingPoliticscom.
This is JOC signing off andthank you, our loyal listeners,
(16:37):
for choosing Ranting PoliticsHeadline Updates.
We'll be back soon with theupdates you need to navigate
these interesting times.
Remember we don't align with apolitical party.
We align with you, the Americancitizen.
Until then, stay tuned, stayinformed and, as always, stay
free.
Thank you, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
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!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.