WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.680 The POTUS said that the SCOTUS is outrageous. 2 00:00:04.680 --> 00:00:07.240 The Supreme Court is outrageous? 3 00:00:07.240 --> 00:00:08.640 That's outrageous. 4 00:00:08.640 --> 00:00:10.080 That is next. 5 00:00:10.080 --> 00:00:15.080 ♪♪ 6 00:00:15.080 --> 00:00:20.080 ♪♪ 7 00:00:20.080 --> 00:00:25.560 ♪♪ 8 00:00:25.560 --> 00:00:27.760 Hey, welcome back to The Barry Farrell Show. 9 00:00:28.120 --> 00:00:32.159 Biden was just overseas at a NATO conference. 10 00:00:32.159 --> 00:00:34.200 The first question he was asked when he was over there 11 00:00:34.200 --> 00:00:39.700 was why 85%, the largest percentage in history, 12 00:00:39.700 --> 00:00:42.900 why 85% of the U.S. public 13 00:00:42.900 --> 00:00:46.140 thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. 14 00:00:46.140 --> 00:00:47.440 Well, he denied reality. 15 00:00:47.440 --> 00:00:49.240 He said that that poll just doesn't exist. 16 00:00:49.240 --> 00:00:53.080 He literally said, they do not think that. 17 00:00:53.080 --> 00:00:54.480 So he went on to say, 18 00:00:54.480 --> 00:00:56.560 the one thing that has been destabilizing 19 00:00:56.560 --> 00:00:59.660 is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court 20 00:00:59.660 --> 00:01:01.260 of the United States. 21 00:01:01.260 --> 00:01:04.560 Now, this is while he was on foreign soil. 22 00:01:04.560 --> 00:01:08.000 It's the president of all of the United States 23 00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:11.840 saying that one of the three branches of government 24 00:01:11.840 --> 00:01:13.940 is outrageous. 25 00:01:13.940 --> 00:01:16.440 Well, is there any truth to this? 26 00:01:16.440 --> 00:01:18.880 The short answer is no. 27 00:01:18.880 --> 00:01:20.640 The Supreme Court had a full session. 28 00:01:20.640 --> 00:01:22.120 It's hard to keep track of everything. 29 00:01:22.120 --> 00:01:23.420 I had to do a little research 30 00:01:23.420 --> 00:01:25.080 to kind of remember all the things that were going on. 31 00:01:25.080 --> 00:01:30.080 I learned that 36% of the major rulings in 2022 32 00:01:31.240 --> 00:01:33.480 were either unanimous, 33 00:01:33.480 --> 00:01:37.080 or seven to two, or eight to one. 34 00:01:37.080 --> 00:01:40.560 Yet of the 14 major rulings in 2022, 35 00:01:40.560 --> 00:01:42.460 the mainstream media would have you think 36 00:01:42.460 --> 00:01:44.400 that they were all six to three 37 00:01:44.400 --> 00:01:47.000 conservative justice rulings. 38 00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:49.700 Truth of the matter is we have five justices 39 00:01:49.700 --> 00:01:52.500 who are largely originalists. 40 00:01:52.500 --> 00:01:54.100 They would look to the constitution 41 00:01:54.160 --> 00:01:56.920 and amend any amendments from the perspective at that time. 42 00:01:56.920 --> 00:01:58.620 And then we have a chief justice 43 00:01:58.620 --> 00:02:00.060 who's sort of in the middle, 44 00:02:00.060 --> 00:02:04.060 but he leans conservative on about 50% of the issues. 45 00:02:04.060 --> 00:02:06.940 Three of the justices are liberal, they're progressive. 46 00:02:06.940 --> 00:02:09.479 They do not believe the constitution's always right. 47 00:02:09.479 --> 00:02:12.640 And they believe it's incumbent upon them to fix it 48 00:02:12.640 --> 00:02:15.740 through the lens of modern day issues. 49 00:02:15.740 --> 00:02:19.080 So, before we dive in, let's look at some numbers. 50 00:02:19.080 --> 00:02:23.420 There were six decisions of the 14 that were six to three. 51 00:02:23.440 --> 00:02:25.180 And of the five to four decisions, 52 00:02:25.180 --> 00:02:26.820 two of them went with the liberals 53 00:02:26.820 --> 00:02:29.180 and one went with the conservatives. 54 00:02:29.180 --> 00:02:32.460 There were five super duper majority decisions. 55 00:02:32.460 --> 00:02:35.660 One was seven to two, two were eight to one, 56 00:02:35.660 --> 00:02:39.200 and two were nine to zero decisions. 57 00:02:39.200 --> 00:02:40.420 You heard that right. 58 00:02:40.420 --> 00:02:43.400 There were two unanimous decisions 59 00:02:43.400 --> 00:02:46.100 of major rulings in 2022. 60 00:02:46.100 --> 00:02:50.400 So, in percentage terms, 43% of the rulings 61 00:02:50.480 --> 00:02:54.860 went with the conservative or lean conservative jurists. 62 00:02:54.860 --> 00:02:57.260 The next category is the super duper majority. 63 00:02:57.260 --> 00:03:00.540 That's 36% of the decisions were either seven to two 64 00:03:00.540 --> 00:03:02.400 or eight to one or nine to zero. 65 00:03:02.400 --> 00:03:03.900 And then the final category 66 00:03:03.900 --> 00:03:06.240 is in that five to four decision category. 67 00:03:06.240 --> 00:03:09.000 And that happens 21% of the time. 68 00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:12.840 And two of the three went with the liberal view of the court. 69 00:03:12.840 --> 00:03:15.580 They believe the constitution is a living document 70 00:03:15.580 --> 00:03:17.480 as opposed to the originalists. 71 00:03:17.480 --> 00:03:19.120 I agree with the originalists. 72 00:03:19.140 --> 00:03:20.900 I think we should uphold the constitution 73 00:03:20.900 --> 00:03:22.680 as it was understood at the time, 74 00:03:22.680 --> 00:03:26.580 including the Bill of Rights and all the amendments since. 75 00:03:26.580 --> 00:03:27.920 So, in other words, 76 00:03:27.920 --> 00:03:29.620 I believe we should look at the 14th Amendment 77 00:03:29.620 --> 00:03:34.620 through the lens of the values of 1868 when it was ratified. 78 00:03:34.620 --> 00:03:38.020 Now, for a republic to last, 79 00:03:38.020 --> 00:03:41.320 the three branches of government have to be intact. 80 00:03:41.320 --> 00:03:43.400 And so, regardless of how upset you might be 81 00:03:43.400 --> 00:03:44.700 over one decision or the other, 82 00:03:44.720 --> 00:03:49.320 one branch should not denigrate another branch of government. 83 00:03:49.320 --> 00:03:52.200 Otherwise, the freedom principles of life, liberty, 84 00:03:52.200 --> 00:03:55.060 and the pursuit of happiness will be at risk. 85 00:03:55.060 --> 00:03:56.820 So, in this podcast, 86 00:03:56.820 --> 00:03:58.900 I'll briefly go over five of the cases 87 00:03:58.900 --> 00:04:00.600 you might not have heard that much about. 88 00:04:00.600 --> 00:04:02.500 And I'll let you decide for yourself 89 00:04:02.500 --> 00:04:05.540 if the Supreme Court is outrageous. 90 00:04:05.540 --> 00:04:06.940 To keep things straight for myself, 91 00:04:06.940 --> 00:04:08.380 I had to put together a table. 92 00:04:08.380 --> 00:04:10.840 The first column shows the date of the ruling 93 00:04:10.840 --> 00:04:12.200 and the name of the case. 94 00:04:12.200 --> 00:04:14.040 The second column is the annotated version 95 00:04:14.040 --> 00:04:15.440 of the summary of the ruling. 96 00:04:15.440 --> 00:04:17.920 The third column shows which justices ruled 97 00:04:17.920 --> 00:04:19.640 to affirm the ruling, the majority. 98 00:04:19.640 --> 00:04:21.920 And then the final column reflects the dissent's opinion 99 00:04:21.920 --> 00:04:24.580 and which justices were the dissenters. 100 00:04:24.580 --> 00:04:26.380 So, let's get started. 101 00:04:26.380 --> 00:04:30.680 On June 30th, 2022, the case was West Virginia versus EPA. 102 00:04:30.680 --> 00:04:33.880 The court's ruling curtailed the EPA's ability 103 00:04:33.880 --> 00:04:36.120 to regulate the energy sector. 104 00:04:36.120 --> 00:04:38.120 The agency can still regulate the industry 105 00:04:38.120 --> 00:04:40.920 by using emission controls at individual power plants, 106 00:04:40.920 --> 00:04:43.980 but it cannot use more ambitious approaches 107 00:04:43.980 --> 00:04:47.060 like cap and trade systems and that sort of thing. 108 00:04:47.060 --> 00:04:49.780 The ruling stated that the court's skeptical 109 00:04:49.780 --> 00:04:51.580 of the power of the federal agencies 110 00:04:51.580 --> 00:04:53.380 to address major issues, 111 00:04:53.380 --> 00:04:55.520 unless they've got congressional approval. 112 00:04:55.520 --> 00:04:57.420 In a minute, we'll look at a ruling 113 00:04:57.420 --> 00:05:00.120 on the Health and Human Services and the OSHA agencies. 114 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:02.200 that are connected to this. 115 00:05:02.200 --> 00:05:04.840 So this was a six to three decision. 116 00:05:04.840 --> 00:05:07.400 Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito, 117 00:05:07.400 --> 00:05:09.320 and Thomas all voted together. 118 00:05:09.320 --> 00:05:11.720 The three liberals, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer 119 00:05:11.720 --> 00:05:12.640 wrote a dissent. 120 00:05:12.640 --> 00:05:15.180 Kagan said the ruling strips federal government 121 00:05:15.180 --> 00:05:18.080 of power to control pollution. 122 00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:22.200 And that's a blow to address climate change. 123 00:05:22.200 --> 00:05:23.980 She started with this long passage 124 00:05:23.980 --> 00:05:26.280 on the devastation of the planet. 125 00:05:26.280 --> 00:05:28.280 Hurricanes and coastal erosion, 126 00:05:28.280 --> 00:05:31.120 floods and famines and mass migration 127 00:05:31.120 --> 00:05:34.320 and all the political crisis that would come as a result. 128 00:05:34.320 --> 00:05:37.440 She said the court doesn't have a clue about climate change 129 00:05:37.440 --> 00:05:39.560 and they should leave it to the EPA. 130 00:05:39.560 --> 00:05:41.560 And then she references a couple other cases 131 00:05:41.560 --> 00:05:43.880 where the agency went beyond their role. 132 00:05:43.880 --> 00:05:47.480 This is not the Attorney General regulating medical care 133 00:05:47.480 --> 00:05:51.400 or even the CDC regulating landlord tenant relations, 134 00:05:51.400 --> 00:05:53.360 she wrote, it's the EPA. 135 00:05:53.360 --> 00:05:55.280 That's the Environmental Protection Agency 136 00:05:55.280 --> 00:05:57.840 in case the majority forgot, she says. 137 00:05:57.880 --> 00:06:00.480 Acting to address the greatest environmental challenge 138 00:06:00.480 --> 00:06:02.040 of our time. 139 00:06:02.040 --> 00:06:04.980 Well, in my view, that's not a legal case, 140 00:06:04.980 --> 00:06:06.480 but it's her opinion. 141 00:06:06.480 --> 00:06:08.000 If I was president of the United States, 142 00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:10.940 I certainly wouldn't say she was outrageous, 143 00:06:12.200 --> 00:06:13.920 but I would disagree. 144 00:06:13.920 --> 00:06:15.980 Now the six in the majority stated that the ruling 145 00:06:15.980 --> 00:06:18.760 simply limits the power of unelected 146 00:06:18.760 --> 00:06:23.240 and unaccountable bureaucrats from over-regulating industry. 147 00:06:23.240 --> 00:06:26.000 Roberts said that Congress had not given the EPA 148 00:06:26.000 --> 00:06:28.840 sweeping power to regulate the energy industry. 149 00:06:28.840 --> 00:06:30.480 The EPA is not supposed to, 150 00:06:30.480 --> 00:06:31.840 the Environmental Protection Agency, 151 00:06:31.840 --> 00:06:35.760 is not supposed to be able to sidestep the Congress. 152 00:06:35.760 --> 00:06:39.760 The key legal issue is called the major questions doctrine. 153 00:06:39.760 --> 00:06:42.760 Now this is the notion of whether an agency 154 00:06:42.760 --> 00:06:46.680 should have highly consequential power 155 00:06:46.680 --> 00:06:48.100 when a problem is recurring 156 00:06:48.100 --> 00:06:50.840 and has wide and significant impact. 157 00:06:50.840 --> 00:06:53.400 Can the federal government agency act 158 00:06:53.400 --> 00:06:56.120 beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood 159 00:06:56.120 --> 00:06:57.520 to have granted? 160 00:06:57.520 --> 00:06:59.280 So Chief Justice Roberts' opinion 161 00:06:59.280 --> 00:07:00.640 advanced the central goal 162 00:07:00.640 --> 00:07:02.560 of the conservative legal movement, 163 00:07:02.560 --> 00:07:06.680 which is to curtail the power of the administrative state. 164 00:07:06.680 --> 00:07:10.140 But it did so in a pretty measured way. 165 00:07:10.140 --> 00:07:11.280 Here's her quote. 166 00:07:11.280 --> 00:07:13.560 When Congress seems slow to solve problems, 167 00:07:13.560 --> 00:07:16.040 it may be only natural that those in the executive branch 168 00:07:16.040 --> 00:07:19.240 might seek to take matters into their own hands, 169 00:07:19.240 --> 00:07:21.240 Justice Gorsuch wrote. 170 00:07:21.240 --> 00:07:23.600 But the Constitution does not authorize agencies 171 00:07:23.600 --> 00:07:26.920 to use pen and phone regulations as substitutes 172 00:07:26.920 --> 00:07:31.260 for laws passed by the people's representatives. 173 00:07:32.120 --> 00:07:35.720 Does that sound pretty outrageous or reasonable? 174 00:07:35.720 --> 00:07:38.160 No, it's just an application of the law. 175 00:07:39.240 --> 00:07:41.720 Six to three, conservative win. 176 00:07:42.800 --> 00:07:44.200 Now as bonus coverage, 177 00:07:45.600 --> 00:07:48.340 and this is for no extra cost on your part, 178 00:07:48.340 --> 00:07:50.640 I also looked at the polling data. 179 00:07:50.960 --> 00:07:53.280 I used the source, the SCOTUS poll, 180 00:07:53.280 --> 00:07:55.880 and I use these folks because it keeps it consistent 181 00:07:55.880 --> 00:07:57.800 versus going from one source to the next 182 00:07:57.800 --> 00:07:59.200 based on the decision. 183 00:07:59.200 --> 00:08:01.720 In other words, whatever accuracy or deficiency 184 00:08:01.720 --> 00:08:02.720 they have in their process, 185 00:08:02.720 --> 00:08:04.880 and they seem to be more or less pretty accurate, 186 00:08:04.880 --> 00:08:07.600 it should be relatively comparable. 187 00:08:07.600 --> 00:08:10.120 They ask Americans their opinion on each ruling, 188 00:08:10.120 --> 00:08:12.280 and they do a pretty good job of summarizing the issue, 189 00:08:12.280 --> 00:08:15.360 and then they ask the respondent, what do you think? 190 00:08:15.360 --> 00:08:17.400 So below each case, I have another table 191 00:08:17.400 --> 00:08:20.160 which uses that SCOTUS poll data. 192 00:08:20.200 --> 00:08:22.680 Now justices are not supposed to make decisions 193 00:08:22.680 --> 00:08:24.960 based on the popularity or the unpopularity 194 00:08:24.960 --> 00:08:26.240 of their legal assessment. 195 00:08:26.240 --> 00:08:28.320 However, it's kind of instructive 196 00:08:28.320 --> 00:08:31.160 to see how people felt overall about each decision. 197 00:08:31.160 --> 00:08:33.320 So in this first case that we looked at, 198 00:08:33.320 --> 00:08:36.179 the ruling was conservative or originalist. 199 00:08:36.179 --> 00:08:38.240 Did the Supreme Court look at the polls 200 00:08:38.240 --> 00:08:39.919 to make their decision? 201 00:08:39.919 --> 00:08:41.000 I don't think so, 202 00:08:41.000 --> 00:08:45.320 because only 53% of Republicans agreed with them. 203 00:08:45.320 --> 00:08:47.320 They agreed that the EPA can set limits 204 00:08:47.320 --> 00:08:48.780 on individual power plants, 205 00:08:48.780 --> 00:08:51.020 but not more broadly regulate emissions 206 00:08:51.020 --> 00:08:53.680 across the energy sector, but only 53%. 207 00:08:53.680 --> 00:08:57.540 In fact, 59% of all people and 73% of Democrats 208 00:08:57.540 --> 00:09:02.540 and 55% of independents think the EPA 209 00:09:02.600 --> 00:09:07.300 should be able to be more broad within what SCOTUS ruled. 210 00:09:07.300 --> 00:09:09.300 So they weren't being outrageous. 211 00:09:09.300 --> 00:09:12.480 Now, let's go back to January and pick up where Kagan, 212 00:09:12.480 --> 00:09:15.940 writing for the dissent on the previous case, was so angry. 213 00:09:15.940 --> 00:09:17.540 Remember when she said that the EPA 214 00:09:17.540 --> 00:09:19.180 should have direct authority, 215 00:09:19.180 --> 00:09:21.580 not based on the Constitution, 216 00:09:21.580 --> 00:09:23.940 not based on any legal theory, 217 00:09:23.940 --> 00:09:26.900 but based on her understanding of climate change 218 00:09:26.900 --> 00:09:29.140 and her progressive view of the world. 219 00:09:29.140 --> 00:09:32.900 So the Biden versus Missouri case of January, 2022 220 00:09:32.900 --> 00:09:35.020 was one of the cases she was referring to. 221 00:09:35.020 --> 00:09:38.140 It found that the Biden administration's mandate 222 00:09:38.140 --> 00:09:40.100 to require healthcare workers at facilities 223 00:09:40.100 --> 00:09:44.460 receiving federal money to be vaccinated was lawful. 224 00:09:44.460 --> 00:09:45.780 No, wait a minute. 225 00:09:45.780 --> 00:09:48.480 I thought we had a six to three majority. 226 00:09:48.480 --> 00:09:50.260 How can that be? 227 00:09:50.260 --> 00:09:52.380 Well, Robertson-Kavanaugh actually joined 228 00:09:52.380 --> 00:09:54.420 the three liberal justices here. 229 00:09:55.540 --> 00:09:57.100 We actually don't know who wrote the opinion 230 00:09:57.100 --> 00:09:59.000 because it's unsigned. 231 00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:00.300 Bugs me when they do that. 232 00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:05.080 But, this was a 5-4 ruling and it sided with the liberals. 233 00:10:05.080 --> 00:10:09.860 The court allowed a limited mandate requiring health care workers at facilities that receive 234 00:10:09.860 --> 00:10:12.620 federal money to be vaccinated. 235 00:10:12.620 --> 00:10:17.620 The majority added that facilities that receive money from Medicare and Medicaid, those programs, 236 00:10:17.620 --> 00:10:22.160 they must comply with whatever the federal health and safety requirements are. 237 00:10:22.160 --> 00:10:26.580 So if we're adding one more safety or health requirement, who are we to intervene with 238 00:10:26.580 --> 00:10:28.120 that or interfere with that? 239 00:10:28.120 --> 00:10:33.120 So the majority wrote that the mandate fits neatly within the language of the statute. 240 00:10:33.120 --> 00:10:39.420 Basically, Congress has authorized sweeping action against the executive branch employees. 241 00:10:39.420 --> 00:10:46.040 So all the executive branch has to do is make up a rule and the executive branch, all those 242 00:10:46.040 --> 00:10:51.220 million plus employees, have to do what the executive branch says. 243 00:10:51.220 --> 00:10:53.360 So the dissent disagreed. 244 00:10:53.360 --> 00:10:57.480 And this was Gorsuch and Barrett and Alito and Thomas. 245 00:10:57.480 --> 00:11:00.760 Alito and Thomas, just for your info, are my two faves. 246 00:11:00.760 --> 00:11:05.500 Now in his dissent, Thomas wrote the federal government should not be allowed to force 247 00:11:05.500 --> 00:11:12.000 health care workers to choose between losing their livelihoods and acquiescing to a vaccine 248 00:11:12.000 --> 00:11:14.520 they have rejected for months. 249 00:11:14.520 --> 00:11:20.560 These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID-19 vaccines, he wrote. 250 00:11:20.560 --> 00:11:25.920 They're only about whether the agency has the statutory authority to force health care 251 00:11:25.920 --> 00:11:32.920 workers by coercing their employers to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and they 252 00:11:32.920 --> 00:11:35.440 cannot undo. 253 00:11:35.440 --> 00:11:38.760 There he goes again, arguing on the basis of law. 254 00:11:38.760 --> 00:11:43.120 But do you find either the affirmation or the dissent outrageous? 255 00:11:43.120 --> 00:11:45.480 This went five to four liberal win. 256 00:11:45.480 --> 00:11:48.640 So far, it's liberals won, conservatives won. 257 00:11:48.640 --> 00:11:49.640 And what do people think here? 258 00:11:49.640 --> 00:11:54.680 Well, the Health and Human Services vaccine mandate is lawful according to 53% of the 259 00:11:54.680 --> 00:12:00.520 people overall, 76% of Democrats, 49% of independents, about in the middle, and only 260 00:12:00.520 --> 00:12:02.440 31% of Republicans. 261 00:12:02.440 --> 00:12:06.920 So this one is totally on party lines. 262 00:12:06.920 --> 00:12:15.200 According to 69% of Republicans, the HHS vaccine mandate should not be lawful. 263 00:12:15.200 --> 00:12:19.200 Yet it is the law of the land, according to SCOTUS. 264 00:12:19.200 --> 00:12:20.700 You know what's funny? 265 00:12:20.700 --> 00:12:27.900 I don't recall anyone burning anything down when the Republicans lost this case. 266 00:12:27.900 --> 00:12:33.360 On that same day, SCOTUS ruled differently on a similar issue. 267 00:12:33.360 --> 00:12:38.820 This was on the case of whether or not OSHA could make the overreach to mandate on the 268 00:12:38.820 --> 00:12:43.700 basis of safety that all employers would have to mandate that all of their employees would 269 00:12:43.700 --> 00:12:45.820 have to get the vaccine. 270 00:12:45.820 --> 00:12:49.500 This was another January 13, 2022 ruling. 271 00:12:49.500 --> 00:12:53.660 The case was called the National Federation of Independent Business versus Department 272 00:12:53.660 --> 00:12:55.260 of Labor. 273 00:12:55.260 --> 00:13:00.540 The court found that Biden administration's vaccine or testing mandate for large employers 274 00:13:00.540 --> 00:13:02.740 was not lawful. 275 00:13:02.740 --> 00:13:04.700 So it was a win for the originalists. 276 00:13:04.700 --> 00:13:10.360 Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas ruled in favor of freedom. 277 00:13:10.360 --> 00:13:16.660 The three in the minority wanted OSHA to have more far-reaching power than any law says. 278 00:13:16.660 --> 00:13:20.660 I'll go to my OR, Kagan, Breyer argued in their dissent that they basically said that 279 00:13:20.660 --> 00:13:25.620 regulating safety in the workplace is precisely what OSHA is commanded to do. 280 00:13:25.620 --> 00:13:26.960 Commanded to do, really? 281 00:13:26.960 --> 00:13:30.860 They believe institutional competence trumps medical freedom. 282 00:13:30.860 --> 00:13:35.020 Who decides how much protection and of what kind American workers need from COVID-19? 283 00:13:35.020 --> 00:13:41.620 An agency with expertise in workplace health and safety acting as Congress and the president 284 00:13:41.620 --> 00:13:48.300 authorized or a court lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces and insulated 285 00:13:48.300 --> 00:13:52.380 from all responsibility for any damage that they cause. 286 00:13:52.380 --> 00:13:57.620 So they believe that all these types of decisions should be in the hands of the agency. 287 00:13:57.620 --> 00:14:03.460 And in this case, the OSHA, the Occupational Safety Health Act guys. 288 00:14:03.460 --> 00:14:09.660 But the majority blocked the Biden administration from enforcing a vaccine or testing mandate 289 00:14:09.660 --> 00:14:10.920 for large employers. 290 00:14:10.920 --> 00:14:12.360 I'm glad they did. 291 00:14:12.360 --> 00:14:18.240 They argued that Congress has not authorized the executive branch to take sweeping actions 292 00:14:18.240 --> 00:14:20.160 against employers. 293 00:14:20.160 --> 00:14:26.000 They said a statute on workplace hazards did not justify a mandate that would have required 294 00:14:26.000 --> 00:14:32.360 more than 80 million workers to be vaccinated against coronavirus or to wear masks and to 295 00:14:32.360 --> 00:14:33.860 be tested weekly. 296 00:14:33.860 --> 00:14:38.640 It also stressed the novelty and the sweep of the mandate that was issued by the Labor 297 00:14:38.640 --> 00:14:43.720 Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, saying Congress had not authorized 298 00:14:43.720 --> 00:14:48.000 the agency to act in describing its response as a blunt instrument. 299 00:14:48.000 --> 00:14:53.680 In other words, not very surgical, not very accurate, and not limited like it should have 300 00:14:53.680 --> 00:14:54.680 been. 301 00:14:54.680 --> 00:14:59.720 The mandate, according to the affirmative, according to the ruling, draws no distinctions 302 00:14:59.720 --> 00:15:00.080 based. 303 00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:04.300 on industry or risk of exposure to COVID-19. 304 00:15:04.300 --> 00:15:08.920 The majority opinion said, adding that it was a significant encroachment into the lives 305 00:15:08.920 --> 00:15:12.960 and health of a vast number of employees. 306 00:15:12.960 --> 00:15:13.960 And what do people think? 307 00:15:13.960 --> 00:15:20.780 Well, you know, interesting here, it was 50-50 overall, but man, this thing went right down 308 00:15:20.780 --> 00:15:21.780 party lines. 309 00:15:21.780 --> 00:15:28.040 Only 23% of Democrats felt that the OSHA vaccine or testing mandates was not lawful, 310 00:15:28.040 --> 00:15:36.200 but 50% of independents and a whopping 72% of Republicans agreed with the ruling. 311 00:15:36.200 --> 00:15:40.600 So here you have a case that was ruled on the basis of the law. 312 00:15:40.600 --> 00:15:43.320 77% of Democrats don't care. 313 00:15:43.320 --> 00:15:49.200 They want OSHA to have the power to force large companies to force their employees to 314 00:15:49.200 --> 00:15:51.340 have a vaccine. 315 00:15:51.340 --> 00:15:55.920 But if SCOTUS had ruled with the Democrats here, that might've been actually kind of 316 00:15:55.920 --> 00:15:57.080 outrageous. 317 00:15:57.080 --> 00:16:01.280 You can't just make up laws from the executive branch. 318 00:16:01.280 --> 00:16:03.720 That check and balance is intentional. 319 00:16:03.720 --> 00:16:09.160 We don't want either side to be able to turn the executive branch into a dictatorship. 320 00:16:09.160 --> 00:16:14.600 So we have SCOTUS ruling here, 5-4 that the vaccine can be mandated when it falls under 321 00:16:14.600 --> 00:16:19.200 the jurisdiction of the federal funds that are being sent to the hospital or the facility. 322 00:16:19.200 --> 00:16:24.920 And that very same court ruled 6-3 that you cannot make that same argument with OSHA when 323 00:16:24.920 --> 00:16:27.920 you're talking about private employers. 324 00:16:27.920 --> 00:16:28.920 Is that outrageous? 325 00:16:28.920 --> 00:16:32.400 It's a 6-3 conservative win. 326 00:16:32.400 --> 00:16:38.560 Let's move to our final two rulings that we're going to discuss this time, Biden versus Texas. 327 00:16:38.560 --> 00:16:41.240 The ruling was just made, June 30th, 2022. 328 00:16:41.240 --> 00:16:47.160 Here the question on the table was, should the Remain in Mexico policy that was put in 329 00:16:47.160 --> 00:16:52.360 place under the Trump administration, which requires that some migrants have to wait in 330 00:16:52.360 --> 00:16:57.240 Mexico while their cases are heard, should that be held in place? 331 00:16:57.240 --> 00:17:04.400 The court in a 5-4 ruling sided with the liberals and actually cleared the way for the Biden 332 00:17:04.400 --> 00:17:08.040 administration to end the Trump era immigration program. 333 00:17:08.040 --> 00:17:13.319 Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer. 334 00:17:13.319 --> 00:17:16.000 Roberts wrestled with the technical issues. 335 00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:20.640 It's tough being in the middle without really clearly defined freedom principles. 336 00:17:20.640 --> 00:17:25.200 There are three statutory decisions that do point in different directions, and to his 337 00:17:25.200 --> 00:17:33.160 defense, one of those laws says that the federal government shall detain immigrants, but Congress 338 00:17:33.160 --> 00:17:34.800 never funded that. 339 00:17:34.800 --> 00:17:41.200 A second law says that government may return migrants, and then the third one allows the 340 00:17:41.200 --> 00:17:44.680 government to release migrants on a case-by-case basis. 341 00:17:44.680 --> 00:17:48.960 So Roberts is looking at these three different laws, and the first one he says is kind of 342 00:17:48.960 --> 00:17:52.920 a moot because we're not funding it, so it's not really a law. 343 00:17:52.920 --> 00:17:58.200 And since one of the laws says that we may return migrants, Roberts said that wasn't 344 00:17:58.200 --> 00:17:59.640 conclusive enough. 345 00:17:59.640 --> 00:18:04.760 Therefore, Biden can do whatever he wants, and it's foreign policy anyway. 346 00:18:04.760 --> 00:18:10.040 And the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't regularly intervene in foreign policy. 347 00:18:10.040 --> 00:18:12.040 They're usually domestic. 348 00:18:12.040 --> 00:18:17.240 Now the four conservatives, Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas dissented. 349 00:18:17.240 --> 00:18:22.000 Alito said he agreed with the court's majority that lower courts did not have the authority 350 00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:28.160 to order the Biden administration to reinstate remain-in-Mexico policy, but he also argued 351 00:18:28.160 --> 00:18:31.720 that officials do not have the authority to release large numbers of migrants. 352 00:18:31.720 --> 00:18:34.320 So where does that leave them? 353 00:18:34.320 --> 00:18:39.240 Alito argued it'd be closer to the reading of the three laws, when you mesh them together, 354 00:18:39.240 --> 00:18:42.360 to understand that we still have a removal process. 355 00:18:42.360 --> 00:18:46.960 If the migrant went through that normal proceeding, a whole large number, a big number of those 356 00:18:46.960 --> 00:18:49.840 would be in fact removed. 357 00:18:49.840 --> 00:18:55.880 So even though Congress didn't fund it, removing the remain-in-Mexico policy, which does not 358 00:18:55.880 --> 00:19:01.440 violate any law, leaving that intact wouldn't have violated any law, but removing it violates 359 00:19:01.440 --> 00:19:04.720 other clear terms of the law. 360 00:19:04.720 --> 00:19:10.080 Now you can get your head spinning on this one, especially when three congressional laws 361 00:19:10.080 --> 00:19:13.560 go in different directions and one of them is not even funded. 362 00:19:13.560 --> 00:19:18.760 But what happened here was a ruling that they thought was right. 363 00:19:18.760 --> 00:19:21.560 It was 5-4 liberal win. 364 00:19:21.560 --> 00:19:22.560 Was it outrageous? 365 00:19:22.560 --> 00:19:27.120 I mean, the SCOTUS is not supposed to make decisions on the basis of what people think 366 00:19:27.120 --> 00:19:31.200 or what they want, but here we go again with looking at what people were thinking here, 367 00:19:31.200 --> 00:19:32.800 just on the basis of the law. 368 00:19:32.800 --> 00:19:34.860 And this one's really interesting. 369 00:19:34.860 --> 00:19:43.440 So 5-4 ruling liberal, yet the SCOTUS poll shows that just less than half, 49%, overall 370 00:19:43.440 --> 00:19:47.920 think Biden should be able to end the remain-in-Mexico policy. 371 00:19:47.920 --> 00:19:53.840 But a whopping 77% of Democrats think that the ruling was correct. 372 00:19:53.840 --> 00:19:59.920 Not so with independents, 56% think the remain-in-Mexico policy should have remained intact. 373 00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:07.360 And 80% of Republicans, this is the largest number on all these polls, 80% of Republicans 374 00:20:07.360 --> 00:20:11.840 think the Remain in Mexico ruling, until we sort out if you're legally able to come to 375 00:20:11.840 --> 00:20:16.240 the United States, was a good deterrent and they think the SCOTUS was wrong here. 376 00:20:16.240 --> 00:20:19.440 Did anybody burn down any buildings? 377 00:20:19.440 --> 00:20:21.440 Was it outrageous? 378 00:20:21.440 --> 00:20:28.840 Finally, there's a June 29, 2022 ruling that almost no one knows anything about. 379 00:20:28.840 --> 00:20:35.480 This was Oklahoma v. Castro Huerta, horribly, I'm probably doing that bad, but he horribly 380 00:20:35.480 --> 00:20:39.880 neglected a child on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma. 381 00:20:39.880 --> 00:20:44.800 Should the local and state authorities have the right to prosecute non-Indians who commit 382 00:20:44.800 --> 00:20:48.360 a crime against Indians on those reservations? 383 00:20:48.360 --> 00:20:53.960 Historically, Indian reservations enjoy huge levels of autonomy and they operate almost 384 00:20:53.960 --> 00:20:59.040 like sovereign city-states in the United States. 385 00:20:59.040 --> 00:21:01.040 They're like little itty-bitty nations. 386 00:21:01.040 --> 00:21:05.880 Previously, if the reservation did not prosecute you for a crime on reservation territory, 387 00:21:05.880 --> 00:21:07.560 that was the end of it. 388 00:21:07.560 --> 00:21:13.080 What this ruling did is limit the sweep of Indian reservation autonomy to just Indian 389 00:21:13.080 --> 00:21:15.280 on Indian crime. 390 00:21:15.280 --> 00:21:19.420 After the ruling, if a non-Native American commits a crime against a Native American 391 00:21:19.420 --> 00:21:23.800 on the Indian reservation, the local and state courts can intervene. 392 00:21:23.800 --> 00:21:29.120 This ruling resulted in Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas polling together 393 00:21:29.120 --> 00:21:31.040 a very slim majority. 394 00:21:31.040 --> 00:21:34.540 They agreed that Indians and non-Indians alike should be protected from the loophole that 395 00:21:34.540 --> 00:21:37.120 previous decisions have left open. 396 00:21:37.120 --> 00:21:40.660 So they overruled a previous court decision. 397 00:21:40.660 --> 00:21:45.440 One of the primary arguments was that the guy who neglected his child, he got only seven 398 00:21:45.440 --> 00:21:49.880 years in Indian court, and that would have been 35 years in U.S. law. 399 00:21:49.960 --> 00:21:55.840 Now, it's kind of funny that the dissent was loudest by another conservative, Gorsuch. 400 00:21:55.840 --> 00:22:00.760 His belief was that it erodes history of Indian law. 401 00:22:00.760 --> 00:22:04.440 It's kind of interesting to note that Gorsuch is from Colorado. 402 00:22:04.440 --> 00:22:08.940 He's the only one on the court who really understands anything about Indian reservations, 403 00:22:08.940 --> 00:22:13.000 and he believes that reducing the sovereignty of Indian law is a slippery slope. 404 00:22:13.000 --> 00:22:14.200 So this is a tough one. 405 00:22:14.200 --> 00:22:17.080 Is it really conservative versus liberal? 406 00:22:17.080 --> 00:22:21.460 I'm not so sure, but since all the liberals voted with Gorsuch in the dissent, we will 407 00:22:21.460 --> 00:22:24.600 call it a five to four conservative win. 408 00:22:24.600 --> 00:22:25.880 Now what do people think? 409 00:22:25.880 --> 00:22:26.880 This one's interesting. 410 00:22:26.880 --> 00:22:30.240 Overwhelmingly in favor of the conservative majority. 411 00:22:30.240 --> 00:22:33.960 States should be able to prosecute non-Native Americans who commit crimes against Native 412 00:22:33.960 --> 00:22:40.480 Americans on Native American land according to 66% of the overall population. 413 00:22:40.480 --> 00:22:47.060 And according to 68% of Democrats, 63% of Independents, and 70% of Republicans, basically 414 00:22:47.060 --> 00:22:51.900 everyone agrees with this five to four conservative decision. 415 00:22:51.900 --> 00:22:58.060 Does this mean that Gorsuch was outrageous to be a dissenter? 416 00:22:58.060 --> 00:22:59.740 Now look, I don't agree with all the rulings. 417 00:22:59.740 --> 00:23:04.100 I don't think I would have known for sure what to do on the Indian thing without more 418 00:23:04.100 --> 00:23:05.100 research. 419 00:23:05.100 --> 00:23:09.500 I think I would have been with Alito and Thomas every time, and probably for the same reasons. 420 00:23:09.500 --> 00:23:14.540 I lean toward individual freedom if it's not clear, but I have to accept that the SCOTUS 421 00:23:14.540 --> 00:23:16.460 is an independent body. 422 00:23:16.460 --> 00:23:20.060 It's put in place to preserve the Republic. 423 00:23:20.060 --> 00:23:25.020 So to all of those who are threatening to burn down buildings because they don't like 424 00:23:25.020 --> 00:23:31.700 one of the rulings, you're not being consistent or fair to the reality on the ground. 425 00:23:31.700 --> 00:23:34.500 Next time, we'll look at some more rulings. 426 00:23:34.500 --> 00:23:36.500 Until then, to your freedom. 427 00:23:36.500 --> 00:23:38.220 Hi, I'm David Farah. 428 00:23:38.220 --> 00:23:43.620 Thank you for listening to my dad's podcast, The Barry Farah Show, Culture Shift. 429 00:23:43.620 --> 00:23:47.220 Click subscribe now to be sure you don't miss an episode. 430 00:23:47.220 --> 00:23:52.140 Share this podcast with your friends on social media and give The Barry Farah Show your five-star 431 00:23:52.140 --> 00:23:53.220 rating. 432 00:23:53.220 --> 00:23:53.940 See you next time.