Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

MANDATES? Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Biden’s OSHA Policies

January 09, 2022 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
MANDATES? Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Biden’s OSHA Policies
Show Notes Transcript

Supreme Court Justices heard oral arguments in two major mandates cases: Biden v. Missouri and National Federation of Independent Business vs. Department of Labor.​

🔹 Scott Keller represents the side of liberty against draconian OSHA policies and argues in front of the Court.​
🔹 Judge Clarence Thomas asks Keller to explain “necessary.”​
🔹 Justice Kagan does not want to be dramatic, but spreads misinformation about pokes.​
🔹 Chief Justice Roberts asks to define the scope of the issue: whose problem is this?​
🔹 Justice Sotomayor says the government should be able to do whatever is necessary.​
🔹 Justice Breyer rants about an increase in numbers right after Kagan said the government can solve the problem.​
🔹 Newly appointed Judge Amy Coney Barrett asks Keller the final question.​
🔹 And more, including your questions!​

COMMUNITY + LIVECHAT + MINDMAP ACCESS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):​

👉 https://www.mindmeister.com/?r=1185699​

Channel List:​

👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

✂ Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 January 2022 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #SCOTUS #Mandates

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gove . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona. And today mandates Supreme court, dun dun dun Joe Biden versus Liberty and freedom and health care choices being reserved to your personal decision making abilities. And so we've got a lot of oral arguments that we're gonna have to break down because we have several people today that we're gonna hear from that we're arguing about very important decisions that are going to impact America talking specifically about the mandates. And so gonna be an interesting time topic to talk about here, because YouTube gets a little bit squirly about some of these issues, but the Supreme court judges are talking about 'em and so we're gonna play their words and hopefully we , uh , don't get thrown off of the inter tubes, but we've got a lot to talk about. We've got judge Clarence, Thomas Justice, Kagan, chief justice. He chimed in a little bit Soto. Meor went off on a lot of different , uh, you know, COVID kind of rants almost. We've got justice Breyer talking about hospitalizations. We've got these judges that are sort of really hinting that they want the Supreme court and the us federal government to have a lot of power that I think are , uh , might be a little bit problematic. And so if you wanna be a part of the show, as we listen to the oral arguments and review them, the place to do that is [email protected] There's a form there that looks just like this, and they are chatting away over there. I'm not gases over there. Sugar . Brits is in the house news. Now Wyoming is over there. I just updated the form news now. So that should be working out. We've got Kenny one, B black cat Meow, and many others. We're also able to pull up some of the chats on the screen now, which is pretty cool. Just house is in the house, modding up and live. So , uh , any super chats or anything that come in, we'll be able to throw those up out on the screen. Sason academy of Egyptian dance just joined in as well. And so without any further ado, let's listen in United States. Supreme court has a couple of cases landing on its desk. Nine Supreme court judges listen to oral arguments the day from two different sides. Now, if you're talking about Supreme court oral arguments, and you're talking about S and this stuff can get very complicated, we can talk all about the , the minutia of the law, but that's not really what I wanna spend time talking about today. What I wanna focus is on is the two big categories, the big kind of buckets of people that are making arguments in this case. And as we've been studying and talking a lot about here on this channel for about the last two years now, it goes into two big identifiable buckets. You have the people that want the government to basically be able to do whatever they can in the name of stopping COVID . These are the people that have been talking about lockdowns and mask mandates and vaccine mandates and social distance mandates and school distancing, and the whole thing, right? All of the nonsense that we've been dealing with for two years, there's a bucket of people that are petrified of COVID and they are wanting to make sure that all of the tools at their disposal are used to the maximum advantage. On the other side, there's a group of people that say, Hey, you know, COVID is a pretty big concern here, and we're also cautious about this, but we think that a lot of these tools that you're using aren't at that effective. And so the government, when they come out here and they start mandating things, not only is it just not effective, but more over, it's also a violation of some very safe grid , constitutional principles, things like, you know, freedom that we cherish here that have been embodied and ingrained in our bill of rights. So it's a pretty hot issue. That's all that we're talking about here. We've got the Biden administration, which is in the first category of people which are using federal laws of obscure laws. Technically they're in the O bucket of , of laws to say that they've got this power that emanates through these laws that Congress passed to do, essentially whatever they want, as it relates to health, they're saying that they can pass these mandates and it can trickle down to gigantic and gigantic swaths of America. That's the legal crux of this. And the , the people filing these lawsuits are saying is you don't have that authority. It's just as simple as that, the federal government doesn't have the ability through this obscure little OSHA provision to finagle this so that they can do whatever they want. It doesn't exist. And so that's really the crux of the argument. Now, this guy here is Scott Keller and he is making that very argument today. And of course, remember, this is the Supreme court. So we don't get cameras in there. Quite frustrating, like we have seen in many of the other federal courts, but this is an artist's sketch. And so we're gonna be listening to a lot of audio today , but this is his argument. He came into court and this is what he was proposing to the judges. Now keep in mind that there's a lot of different arguments that are going to be happening here. There are nine judges, and they're supposed to be this neutral arbiter of judges that are just probing these questions. Now we know what the makeup of the Supreme court is now six so-called conservatives, three lefties and chief justice Roberts. You know, you can kind of go either way in there. It's , you know, you can kind of put him on either category . So it's either five to four. If you wanna throw 'em over there with the lefties or at six to three, if he decides to be a rightie , any , any particular day. And so they're supposed to be observing all of the issues that are in front of them and deciding, you know, how to dissect them and what questions to ask. And so the way that this works is people will, will go in front and they'll make an argument right now. This is the guy Scott Keller. He's actually challenging the law. He's challenging what Biden has done. And so he's going to be saying that they don't have the authority to do it. Let's listen to this argument, Mr. Keller,

Speaker 2:

Mr. Chief justice, and may it please, the court OSHA's economy-wide one size fits all mandate covering 84 million Americans is not a necessary indispensable use of OSHA's extraordinary emergency power, which this court has recognized is narrowly circumscribed. It just three days ago, the us postal service told OSHA that this ETSS requirements are so burdensome for employers that the federal government is now seeking an exemption from its own mandate for the postal service. That's because OSHA's economy-wide mandate would cause permanent worker displacement rippling through our national me , which is already experiencing labor shortages and fragile supply lines. OSHA has never, before mandated vaccines or widespread testing, much less across all industries

Speaker 1:

Never happened before all industries, medical healthcare required months , just with the stroke of a pen. Joe Biden came in and said that this is something that we're doing now, and now you have to do this. And he says that these powers are supposed to be narrowly circumscribed. You can't just do whatever you want, because you say you're the federal government, we're a nation of laws. He says. And so he goes into a big, long argument, actually, not that long. And he stops and he takes questions. And so he's taking questions from everybody. Now, the way this is typically supposed to work is the judges are supposed to sort of probe rather than be cheerleaders for a cause. Right? So the right judges on the right side, they're not supposed to, and you're not going to see them come out here and be cheerleaders for this argument. Justice Gorsuch is not gonna say right on there , brother. Uh , uh , also, can you tell me a little bit more about how dumb OSHA really is? You know, it's , that's not what this is for. It's not this like Patty cake game that happens. So even the conservative judges are gonna be hard probing questions and say , well , why don't you explain that and dig that in there. And I got a question about this, because all they're doing is opening this up. And they're making sure that the people who are making their arguments know what their arguments are, right. You've ever had a conversation at dinner table conversation, and they're like, well, we're losing America. And you say, well, how, how are we losing America? And they go, I don't know. Okay. Well, it , it , it , you know, explain that and you'll, you'll learn a little bit more and you'll, you'll be more powerful with your arguments, if you can explain it. And so that's what the judges are doing. There's okay, well, so explain this and open this up and then they , and then they do explain it and it convinces the judges that their arguments are. Right. And if they find an area where is a problem with your logic, they're going to exploit it. So that's exactly what happens here. Now, Claire's Thomas, you know , normally are used to not ask a lot of questions, but more lately he's been asking more and more questions. And so he starts off the questioning for Scott Keller and we're talking about ETSS and that's the emergency temporary standards that OSHA presented. And so they're talking about that, but he says , uh , you know, explain to me why this is necessary. Okay. Talk about why this is necessary. And so let me explain what we're talking about. Very briefly here. We're gonna get into a lot more clips, but let me sort of lay some found because we're going to get into , uh , uh , some , some good stuff in a minute, but we've got judge Clarence Thomas, who's talking about what's necessary. Okay. And so think about this in terms of criminal law. When somebody goes and they're charged with a crime, what's the standard that we all know, you know, the answer, it's gotta prove somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We all know that we see it in Hollywood. We talk a lot about it on this channel. And that's when somebody is charged with a standard, we say the government has to make a showing of what that they did something beyond a reasonable doubt. Okay. Well , we talk about the constitution. There are also similar standards that we use used to hold the government accountable. Just like we're gonna hold that criminal defendant accountable. We wanna see if the government is sort of doing what it's supposed to be doing, and if they just pass any old law, we, as a society can see whether that law passes the standard. Is it justified? Is it necessary? Do we need it? And, and when we go through this analysis, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt standard, but you can say, it's, it passes intermediate scrutiny, or what's called strict scrutiny, a different standard, or what's called a rational basis. Standard. These are different standards. And you, you jump around the standards based upon , based on sort of what is being infringed upon. So here, if we're talking about somebody's constitutional, right, is being infringed upon. That's a pretty big infringement, isn't it. If they're gonna be saying you don't get free speech anymore, or you have to put something into your body, that's a big deal. And so if the government's gonna pass a law or pass some sort of regulation that is governing that constitutional, right, they better, man, there better be a good reason for it. We're gonna say that that has to pass strict scrutiny. Gotta go beyond that level. If it doesn't that that's unconstitutional because we value that. Right. But there are other laws out there where it's just like, well, whatever. I mean, if the government has a rational basis for doing it, they can do they want, and you see this, oftentimes a good example would be like a monument, some local government, somewhere. They have a piece of land and they wanna put a big dumb monument out there. And you know, the , the city council sits around and they're like, well , this is gonna bring in tourism. And this is gonna , you know , improve the beauty of our small town here and blah, blah, blah, and some citizens Sioux and say , Hey, Hey, dummies a waste of money. This is a waste of taxpayer money. You're wasting all this money on this stupid monument. I'm a taxpayer , I'm offended by this. I'm suing you. Well, the court's gonna come back and say, what right of yours is being infringed? Oh, some abstract, monetary financial reason. You , I mean, you pay taxes for all sorts of stuff. They don't owe you anything for that. They're free to put a dumb monument on whatever they want to, if they want to. And so that's a rational basis test. And so they say, well , it's rash . Is it rationally related? Is it connected to legitimate government interest? Or do they have a rational purpose for doing it? Yeah. Government puts monuments up all over the place and they may waste money, hand over fist. So sure. They're used to doing that. They'll let 'em do it. So we see the different standards as they exist. So that's exactly what justice Clarence Thomas is asking him about. He's saying, Hey, is this necessary to achieve this objective of the government? This is a pretty big ask. You're putting something into your body. It's essentially a mandate, or you lose your job , all this stuff. Right. What does necessary mean to you there, Mr. Keller? So

Speaker 2:

This court should immediately stay OSHA's unprecedented ETS before Monday when OSHA begins enforcement. I welcome the court's question

Speaker 3:

Keller . Um, how are we to decide , um, when , uh , an emergency temporary standard or emergency temporary standards are necessary necessary? What factors do you think we should use

Speaker 2:

Justice? Thomas? I think the first factor that you would have to look at is, is this an indispensable or essential measure that necessarily would require looking at what are the alternatives available? You'd have to also look at necessary to what end and it's to abate a grave danger. And it's for an emergency it's in a temporary setting. So the factors you'd want to consider are what are the risks and not only what are the risks for any isolated situation, but compared to an everyday risk here when OSHA itself has never mandated vaccines or widespread testing before.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. When they've never mandated it before, how has it really necessary? Like, why is it just suddenly necessary? Cause it's the worst . Never whatever they keep telling us this, you know? And so he says, well, this provision OSHA they're, they're bringing this enforcement power under this obscure OSHA provision. They've never used it before. He , he says, well, what is necessary? Cuz they're saying it's necessary. They're saying that, yeah. I mean, this is sort of infringing on people's rights, but it's necessary. And the government has a right to do it because that's the of government and there's nothing else we can do as we're gonna hear from judge Kagan next, what else do you want us to do? They're gonna scream hysterically. And so he's saying, well, how is it necessary? And you hear this very good attorney, obviously he's in arguing in front of the Supreme court. Congratulations to him, by the way is out there saying it's actually not necessary. Uh , judge, because they ever done it before. And there's a lot of different reasons , uh , different alternatives that they could have investigated that they didn't. And I think he's right about that. Now judge Kagan comes out here and says, okay, listen, I'm not gonna be dramatic about this, everybody. I don't mean to be, but I I'm actually, I'm gonna be very dramatic about it. Here's what she says. Yes.

Speaker 2:

Because of playing text the comparison within the O act also statutory context made

Speaker 4:

Question, Mr . Mr . Color . I , I don't understand the point. Uh, whatever necessary means, whether it's an necessary improper or whether it's something more than that, why isn't this necessary to abate a grave risk? See , um, this is a pandemic in which nearly a million people have died. It is by far the greatest public health danger that this country , uh , has faced in the last century. More and more people are dying every day . More and more people are getting sick every day . I don't mean to be dramatic here. I'm just sort of stating facts. And this is the policy that is , um, most geared to stopping all this. Uh, there's nothing else that will perform that function and better than incentivizing people strongly to vaccinate themselves. So, you know, whatever necessary means, whatever grave means, why isn't this necessary in grave?

Speaker 1:

Oh, don't mean to be dramatic here, but I mean, this is is necessary and there's nothing else that's gonna function better, but can you just, you can just hear the cognitive dissonance just dripping right. Outta her , her head. And I say this with all due respect , but here's what's going on. She just said, right. We're almost at a million people and more and more people are dying every day. More and more people are a hospitalized every day . She just said that. And then in the same sentence said that nothing else that we're doing is gonna perform any better or something, but she, she just acknowledged it's getting worse. So she wants to keep doing more of the same thing. Okay. All right . So that's, it's an argument. Here's how Scott responds

Speaker 2:

Because justice Kagan the standard for what would be necessary for this extraordinary use of emergency power is not what is the best way of a company .

Speaker 4:

It's an extraordinary use of emergency power occurring in an extraordinary circumstance? Mm uh , a circumstance that this country has never before

Speaker 2:

What OSHA needed to do here though. And we do not contest that COVID is a grave danger, but when a power for it to be necessary, for instance, the third circuit said in wielding what is supposed to be a delicately exercise, extraordinary power the agency has to consider and explain alternatives. The agency here complain that it's non-mandatory guidance wasn't being followed. And then instead of saying that maybe some of those mandatory guide , some of those guidances could have been made mandatory. It jumped immediately to a vaccine or testing mandate

Speaker 1:

Vaccine or testing mandate. Right? So saying that they're not exploring any other alternative options and that they just jumped right into it. And so you can see, look, it's kind of, you're , you're seeing people that are just interpreting it, you know, Kagan is, this is judge Kagan, by the way , who was the somebody was asking, I probably should have labeled them. Judge Kagan is making the argument extraordinary times call from for extraordinary measures. In other words. And she's saying, you know, all of these different permutations of necessary and grave danger, I mean, she's, you know, sort of going from a high level approach and saying that all of this stuff is bad, obviously it's true. Obviously the whole world has been wrecked by this thing. That's true. Right? Nobody's arguing that that's not the case, but what Scott is saying is that this little obscure provision that they're using in order to open Pandora's bots box to open the floodgate in order to do this, that's not the proper mechanism. You're not allowed to do that. And we live in a nation of laws, but people like Kagan. They don't care about that. They just say, well, look, it's a problem. It's a big problem . It's extraordinary. And we're doing extraordinary things. And you're asking us to stop this from going into effect on Monday. And you know, it's extraordinary out there. Have you seen the hospitals? I mean, things have gotten dramatically worse in the , in the last year. Wonder why that is weird, strange how that's going on. So, and Scott responds to her and says, okay, look, but judge, you know, we live in a constitutional order here where you don't just get to go out there as the federal government and just start gobbling up constitutional power. It's not how that works. It's supposed to be the least minimal. The least restrictive means necessary in order to achieve the, the compelling government interest. Okay. There's a standard out there called strict scrutiny. And this type of conduct is not the, the , the most narrowly tailored in order to achieve that objective. They didn't even attempt to come up with anything that was narrowly tailored in order to achieve the objective. They just set ups , mandate time, get 'em because Joe Biden got elected and he just decided that that's what he had the power to do, but that's not how this constitutional order works. It's supposed to follow a framework, but these other judges just say, it's extraordinary. It's extraordinary been hearing that for two stinking years. Now, here she is again, moreover

Speaker 4:

OSHA, typically, Mr. Carter , I , I guess I , I just don't see this. I as a situation, you know, a typical arbitrary capricious situation where we say, oh, you didn't consider an alternative carefully enough. We all know what the best

Speaker 1:

Policy. All right . So let me pause on that for a quick moment. So that was Kareem , uh , Kareem , we're gonna get right back to that in a minute. Let me pause on that. Did you hear what she said? Arbitrary and capricious arbitrary and capricious is the idea that it's a, it's a , it's an irrelevant law . Okay . Back to that standard that we're talking about, that's not what they're arguing here. They're not saying that this is an arbitrary, a completely arbitrary and capricious. It's a whole separate, you know, standard, essentially that she's saying she's sort of implying that that's what they're arguing. It's not what they're arguing. And then she goes on and says, this is all part of the best policy. We all know what the best policy is. She just said it was getting worse. Did she just say that you had just heard her say that it was just getting worse and worse and worse. Kareem says even if a similar thing had been had once been mandated, it would not be okay to do it again. I don't bind into the whole , there was a precedent for it . Narrative. Yeah . Well , yeah. I don't know that there is a precedent for it. I , I , I think that's the argument that they're making here is that there isn't. Yes .

Speaker 4:

I mean, by this 0.2 years later, we know that the best way to prevent spread is for people to get vaccinated and to prevent dangerous illness and death is for people to get vaccinated. That is by far the best, the second best is to wear masks. So this is a policy that basically says we are still confronting thousands of people dying. Uh, every time we look around. And so we're going to put into place the policy that we know works best, which is to strongly incentivize vaccination. And to insist that unvaccinated people will wear masks.

Speaker 1:

There you go. So it's basically the same, you know, talking points that you've heard out of the administration, right? Uh, vaccines are free, available, and effective and masks her , get 'em everywhere and wrap your head with cellophane for the next four years. So it's the same arguments, right? And she, and she goes on and she's sort of conflating the issues. And there's not much legal analysis there. I mean, to be perfectly candid other than the fact that she's sort of reciting a lot of the same, you know, COVID hysteria that we've been hearing for a long time now, and then saying that because it's bad that that justifies the little provision to be exploited. She's missing the argument entirely. It's just like, okay. I , I , I know it's really bad, but if it making it worse, doesn't change the outcome. They're not correlated. All right . So she carries on here is judge Kagan. We have one more clip from her. I believe this is a good one. I think. And

Speaker 4:

Test . I mean, that's just like , uh , why isn't that necessary? What else should be done? It's it's obviously the policy that's that , uh, geared to preventing most sickness and death and the agency has done everything, but stand on its head to show quite clearly that no other policy will prevent sickness and death to anywhere. Uh, like the degree, this one will

Speaker 2:

Just is Kagan . First of all, states could have policies like this. Private businesses could have policies like this <laugh> and even OSHA and its June healthcare COVID ETS. And that was only for healthcare workers did not mandate vaccines. Instead what it did there, similarly to how OSHA proceeds in many contexts is it says, employers give us a plan. And then if there are heightened needs in particular workplaces, then additional measures can be put into place. But this is covering

Speaker 1:

Every industry everywhere throughout America is what he says. And so she said, right, you know , uh , they're standing on their head. There's nothing else that they can do. This is necessary. And so we just have to do it, you know, I guess, whatever anybody at OSHA says or whatever, you know, chief justice decides is necessary. If some stinky bureaucrat somewhere just decides this is necessary, this is a global whatever they decide it is, they just get to do whatever they want, no limiting principles to any of this. And, and then she just gets out and says, well, you know, I mean , it's, we all know, no , no, we don't know. As we're talking about, the numbers are off the charts, but she wants to do more of it. Cuz I guess doing more of the same thing is going to make it better, I guess. All right . So here is , uh , judge Roberts. He finally steps in here puts an end of this. All right . Enough of that CA Kagan <laugh> here is Roberts says, let me get clear about this. He , he talks about, this is a very good question. And this is a question he asks of Scott Keller. And we're only gonna listen to Scott Keller today because Scott Keller is sort of receiving the most of it. But Scott Keller then gets asked this question from chief justice. Roberts Roberts now is asking him, let's talk about the scope of this problem here. This is a good question, right? We talk a lot about scope on this channel. It's a very useful tool. We can see how defense attorneys often will want to shrink the scope or expand the scope to suit their arguments. Prosecutors do the same thing. Roberts is asking about that specifically saying, you know, what , what are you saying here? Are you saying that this is not relevant? In other words, OSHA is not applicable because this is not a workplace issue. This is a global issue. And OSHA only has jurisdiction workplace. And because COVID is not a, just a workplace, it is a global issue. OSHA doesn't have the ability to extend their jurisdiction to global entities to global affairs. Robert says, is that what you're talking about? Here's how that goes. Economy-wide

Speaker 2:

All industries. Well , that's your main that that's one of your main objections that this is not a workplace issue. It's it's a out in the world issue. Is that right? That's right. Mr. Chief justice. Well, how focused on the workplace , uh , does something have to be before? Uh , uh, you will say that OSHA , uh , can regulate it. I

Speaker 1:

Think, for example. So let's break that up for a minute. So how focused does it have to be? So he, so the argument from Keller is that look, OSHA can regulate workplace things. This is way beyond that. And he says, okay, well, how do you distinguish between the two? Because obviously OSHA and workplaces are a subset of the real world. So now Scott Keller is gonna be asked to define that obviously the , the pandemic doesn't stop at your employer's front door. So here's how Scott answers that. Now it's a good question.

Speaker 2:

Example of , uh , an assembly line , uh, you know, workers sitting next to each other for , uh , a significant length of time , uh , working together in close, close contact , uh , that presents a different kind of risk than is typical in the outside world. So could OSHA say that for businesses with assembly lines, the , uh , workers must be vaccinated? Uh , no, not vaccinated. Nope . OSHA though. Could potentially go

Speaker 1:

On . Okay. So OSHA could potentially go on and do research and investigate a bunch of stuff, but they can't go in there and just make sure that you're mandated. That's not, that's not how this works. So Robert sort of , uh , got in there, broke up that Kagan line of questioning and asked question . Now he answered it appropriately. I think Keller said, yep , exactly. Right. And he did a good job of this, of holding that line, right? He didn't , he didn't really give much in terms of saying, well, some incidents would be okay to vaccinate. He's saying that this OSHA rule is pretty through and through pretty bad. Here's how he's responding to Roberts about that scene question. I

Speaker 2:

No, not vaccinated OSHA though. Could potentially going by industry by industry or workplace by workplace have measures such as what some of their guidance have suggested, like, you know, potentially barriers. But I think all of this would be well, but those are sort of discussed as Kagan has been been discussing. Those are sort of, you know , uh , not as good. And , and why wouldn't OSHA have the authority to do , uh, the best , uh , approach possible , uh , to address what I guess you agree is a special workplace problem.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. Special workplace problem. So he goes in there and he, you know, he , he carries on, so we're not gonna spend much time on the favorable judges. Okay . Roberts goes in, they're not real hard questions from him. We get a couple questions from Gorsuch. We get one question from Amy, Coney Barrett at the very end, but there's, there's , there's not much there. Right? You heard from Roberts, he's just having him sort of explore these issues about the differences, the distinguish between what they can do and when they can do it. And this is all, you know, this is all sort of theoretical, really, right? It's all sort of academic is the word, but we're gonna listen in now to two, other of the liberal judges on the court, we have justice Breyer and justice Soto. Meor left and justice Breyer , not once again, not much legal analysis going on here, but just listen to how he approached this argument.

Speaker 2:

And, and, you know, it was brought up. I mean, there , there are three quarters of

Speaker 5:

A million new cases yesterday. Yeah. New cases, nearly three quarters of 700 and some odd thousand. Okay. Better keep doing the same thing. That's 10 times, as many as when OSHA put this ruling, the hospitals are today, yesterday full almost to the point of the maximum they've ever in this disease. Yeah. Good leadership. And you heard references studies. I mean , uh , they , they vary, but uh , uh , some of them say that , uh , the hospitalization is 90% or maybe 60% or maybe 80%, but a big percent filled up yes . Today or the day before <affirmative> uh, with people who are not vaccinated. Okay. So , uh, that's, we're talking about now. Okay. And think of the state requirement, it's both the balance of harms. It's also public interest. Can you ask us, or is that what you're doing now to say it's in the public interest in this situ to stop this vaccination rule with nearly a million people? Let me not exaggerate nearly three quarters of a million people, new cases every day . I mean, to me, I would find that unbelievable

Speaker 2:

Justice, Bri , we are asking for a stay before enforcement takes to infect Monday. And the reason for that is this is an unprecedented agent .

Speaker 5:

Yeah . I know you have all good arguments that it isn't good. They have arguments that it , do you believe this? Okay. I'm asking you a different question. And the question is how can it conceivably be in the public interest? Wow . With three quarters of a million people yesterday, goodness knows how many today. I don't wanna repeat myself, but you have the hop house figures growing by factors of, of 10, 10 times what it was. Uh , you have hospitalization at the record. That's a record record . You have, you have you understand the thing he's so I repeat my question to me. It's unbelievable, but I want to hear what you say. How can it be in the public interest, which is a requirement. How can it be a balance of harms in this case? Assuming the arguments aren't off the wall on the government side and I'm believe me, they're not,

Speaker 1:

I mean, that was just a rant. I mean, you even heard him say earlier when, when Keller was responding to his question , Jen , he said , uh, yes, your honor. Yes, justice. Breer we are asking for a stay. He said , are you outta your mind? Are you seriously gonna ask us to put a stay on this mandate? When people are dropping dead, like flies all over the place, whoa is what he said multiple times. And then Keller said, your honor, we are asking for a stay. I am yes. Without saying, yes, I am asking for that. And he didn't even let him answer. He goes off again. I mean, hospitalizations are at their records and the public harm and the public harm and the public harm. But what he is presupposing is that any of these requirements are going to solve the problem that they're correlated, that they're related. And then you can hear, or even in his own argument, he says, the hospital numbers are coming back. It's it's 90% or, you know, it could be 80 or could be, you know, 50 or , or even 60% are UN vaccinated. And so his numbers just keep going down . And so it's just a big, gigantic emotional argument. There's not really even anything legal , uh , really going on there other than saying, how is it in the public interest? And he didn't give him much of an opportunity to answer that he is gonna answer that later down the road. He's gonna say, well, one to 3% of workers are going to be to , to quit or leave. We already have catastrophic problems throughout our supply chains. Economy doesn't look so good stock markets in the toilet. What else do you wanna talk about there? Judge? Can I answer the question? There's all sorts of different factors out there that I could easily check off for you to gimme an opportunity. And so after that, here he goes, Scott responds says, everybody else can do this, not OSHA.

Speaker 2:

Okay. That's what I want to hear. The answer to justice for states can act private businesses have acted on historic levels. This is going to cause an massive economic shift in the country. Billions, upon billions of nonrecoverable costs, testing also is not frequently available. This is in our appendix at page 3 74, among those employers who have attempted to do so only 28% are able to find adequate providers to ensure that weekly testing is available for the employees. If Congress intended to give an occupational health agency, the power to mandate vaccines across the country and needed to do so clearly states can do it. Businesses have done it and are able to do it. The question is not, what is this country going to do about COVID it's who gets to decide that? Yeah , I'm a maybe it's point we can

Speaker 1:

Do it . All right . So it's a good answer. Good answer. Yeah. There's all sorts of problems by having this. Okay . COVID is not the only problem that exists in America. And so even though several of you have been already seen on record today, hyperventilating about it. There are other things that we have to think about, okay . OSHA is a regulation organization for business COVID is not related to business. Business is a subset of COVID just like everything is because life is, but that doesn't give some one entity silo of the federal government authority to extend beyond that and be basically impact almost everything of everybody's life, including what you can put into your body that is mandated by the government it's nuts, but they don't care necessarily about the law. They just say, well, it's, it's look at the numbers. They're bad numbers. And he responds back. So now it's so do my yours turn. Uh , all right , here she is same arguments, less effective though. Here she says. And, and you

Speaker 5:

Know, it was brought up. I mean, there , there are three quarters of a million

Speaker 1:

New cases that's not Somi. Or this one is

Speaker 2:

Even OSHA has said that one to 3% of employees will quit. That is significant. Our declarations appendix 3 0 8 3 16

Speaker 6:

Council . Yes, that may be true. But we are now having deaths at an unprecedented amount catching COVID , keeps people out of the workplace for extraordinary periods of time. And there have been proof in certain industries like the medical industry that when , um , vaccines are mandated and there's no mandate here for a vaccine, there is a masking mandate, no different than there is. Um, when we tell people that if there are sparks flying in the workplace where you have workers have to be provide , have to wear a mask. So that's no different in my mind than this. So this is not a vaccine mandate. There are costs and deaths and other things countervailing to the fact that there might be one to 3% of workers who leave

Speaker 1:

Other things. So, so she's just viewing it differently, right? There's a , there's a different cost. One to 3% of workers are gonna leave. So what only thing that matters to her is the COVID numbers, cuz that's what they are, are , you know, hysterical over. So you can see that was so to my , your , I had another clip from her that I think didn't make it into the PowerPoint slide. So let me see if I can pull that up here briefly because she, I think she had a clip prior to that. That was uh , certainly into , so let's see. Do, did she say that there? Uh , all right . Let's carry on here is another one from Kagan. I'm sorry. This is soda Meor

Speaker 2:

Well , and here vaccines have been made available. I also think there's a textual clue within the OSHA 29, USC

Speaker 6:

6 55 . I , you re forget that there are certain states now that are , um, stopping employers from requiring vaccines. There are certain states , uh , stopping employers from requiring mass . Why shouldn't the federal government, which it has already decided in OSHA to give Congress a , has decided to give OSHA the power to regulate workplace safety have a national rule that will protect workers.

Speaker 2:

Congress would have to clearly state in a statute. If it wanted to give an occupational health agency, the power to require employees to get certain medical treatment. It's one

Speaker 6:

Thing to say, there's no requirement here. It's not a vaccine mandate. Listen, it's something totally different. And I don't know how much clearer than 6 51 Cong Congress could have been. It charges OSHA with developing innovative methods, techniques, and approaches to dealing with occupational safety, occupational safety and health issues. I don't know how much clearer you can be. If your con to tell an agency in an emergency do what's necessary,

Speaker 1:

Do what's necessary. She, I don't know how clear Congress could be when they told an agency to do what's necessary. When you're in an emergency, you just have a free for all , just do whatever you want to. And that's mean that's literally like what her philosophy is. The government needs that power to go out there and do whatever they want. OSHA is an executive branch entity. They were empowered through the legislative branch. That's good enough for Soto may they can just do whatever they want because it's so dang hard out there for everybody. And I'm not trying to belitle or , or diminish COVID at all, but that's her argument. It , it it's, it's inversely related. The more worse it is, the less constitutional protections and rights you have. That's how it goes . That's the argument, which is not a good one. Right? The , the better argument is that power exists because it's granted not because some sort of a threshold has been crossed. Ridiculous. Now here's her final quote . And , um, before we get here, I just wanna thank all of you. People who are here watching the show, I would never call you machines , uh , spewing viruses or anything of the nature, but Supreme court justice might here . She is clearly.

Speaker 6:

So what's the difference between this and telling employers where sparks are flying in the workplace. Your workers have to be wear a mask

Speaker 2:

When sparks are flying in the workplace. That's presumable because there's a machine that's unique to that workplace. That

Speaker 6:

Is the why is the human being not like a machine. If it's spewing, <affirmative> a virus, bloodborne viruses <laugh> are you questioning Congress' power or desire that OSHA do this? If already in 1991 told OSHA to issue regulations with respect to Hep C and B justice.

Speaker 2:

So I think that exactly proves our point that Congress knows how to enact a statute when it wants to

Speaker 6:

Give O it didn't enact in statute OSHA proposed regulations. It didn't act fast enough and Congress told it. So it wasn't Congress who proposed it, it wasn't Congress who devised it. Congress gave OSHA the responsibility to do these things. And Congress was saying, get to it,

Speaker 2:

Get to it. And what Congress said in there was not, you now have statutory authority to regulate all communicable diseases. It was bloodborne pathogens and E even that rule did not mandate vaccines or widespread testing.

Speaker 1:

All right . So, well, my fellow brethren, brothers and sisters out there spewing viruses all over the place. You disgusting, machinelike creatures. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm ashamed of myself. <laugh> . And so , uh , because of the, at nature, I guess that the standard that we're talking about not necessary anymore, right ? Not necessary, or the least restrictive means, you know, we're not talking about constitutional provisions or anything like that. We're talking about sort of just being grossed out by your fellow man, as long as they continue to be virus spewing, Ms . Sheen like creatures, government can regulate it . And Congress has already delegated that power over to the executive branch out of OSHA. We've got one more clip of the day to wrap this up. This was Amy Coney Barrett. I forgot to get a picture of her, but , uh , this is what she said, wrapping up. This was the last question of the day to Mr. Keller and a FA

Speaker 7:

Would you be here making these same arguments if this were just a masking and testing requirement and not the vaccine portion of it?

Speaker 2:

Yes. I think that mandatory testing is still a mandatory medical procedure. OSHA has never, even in a regular rule, done a blanket, widespread testing regime over 84 million Americans. What if it was just

Speaker 7:

Masking?

Speaker 2:

I think we , I , I don't think OSHA has the ability to set by emergency rule nationwide COVID policy. You know, the more that we back out of this and the more we say, well, if it's not an emergency rule, or if it's targeted to a particular workplace, you know, I think there can be debates about that. But as long as they're trying to set a blanket wide economy-wide policy by an emergency rule, OSHA does not have that power. Thank you. Thank you, counsel .

Speaker 1:

All right . So that was the end of it. Now, here's why I didn't spend much time on the rest of the hearings today. It was about three and a half hours of full, you know, back and forth. There were really two cases. They brought out the solicitor general, who was arguing on behalf of the government, but what we're looking remember now, this, this line of questioning was the line of questioning that had the most exposure that had the most, I think, to show us about how these judges were leaning and whether the conservative judges more specifically were going to find that there was a legitimate justification or a rational basis, or some, some reason why this current OSHA implementation meets the standard. And I didn't hear anything out of that from any of the judges during this line of questioning, if they found a place to puncture him and this argument, I think we would've heard about it. And I just didn't see that. I think that they're trending towards finding that this thing is, you know, much, much over broad , vastly over broad , that it's gobbling up way too much power, and they don't find any legitimacy in there. And the reason why, you know, the , the other arguments from the other people of course are good and relevant. And I will very likely's to them . I just didn't have time today because it's three and a half hours, but it is going to be much the same. Okay , it's gonna be the same format. So the conservative judges are going to be, you know, attempting to poke holes in the government's case, as they're presenting it , trying to justify these mandates, but we already know that they have a majority, so we're not gonna really gain anything from there because we know that they're probably already inclined to find that this thing is unconstitutional. And so there's almost nothing I would expect that they're gonna say that would flip two or three conservative judges over to the left. So at , on, on that sort of analysis, I think that if this case were going to be broke , if there was gonna be something that cracked this thing open, we would've seen it during that direct line of questioning, but I didn't hear anything. Right. I didn't hear any of the conservative judges say, well, look, you know, there , I mean, there really are massive problems with this, that justify anything like that. Alito didn't say anything like that. Gorsuch had a technical question. We heard Clarence Thomas was just asking him to buttres up that necessary portion of the analysis. Amy Coney Barrett had a question about distinguishing between the different types of mandates. So it's masks versus testing mandates versus the actual jab mandates all these different permutations. And she was testing him. She was probing him to say, well, because what if he came back? And what if his answer to Amy Coney Barrett was , uh , well, yeah, OSHA can do testing and masks, but they can't do the mandate. Oh, well, that's interesting then. So you're saying that OSHA does have some power aren't you, but he didn't say that . And he didn't divide it in amongst any of those things. He just said, no, they don't have any power at all. They can't do this period. And that is the line that he held. Amy Coney Barrett, probed him. She tried to tease that out a little bit and he held the line. Nope, no masks. Nope, no testing, no mandates. No . They should have been able to, if they wanted to do this, Congress could have done it. They've had two years to do this. Now. They haven't done it. Joe Biden put this in. Whenever he put it in and Congress hasn't come to support him cuz they know this would be a gigantic problem. And this is not something that the American people want. I would guess. Let's see what you have to say about this over from our friends, at watching the watchers.locals.com and let's see what kind of questions we got here on this lovely Friday. Google is loading up as is usual know they have the fastest servers in the world. I don't know. What's taken so long. Okay. So here we go. We're getting cued up and the SCOTUS arguments are here. First one in the house is from news. Now Wyoming says most of the questions from the Supremes were exactly how I expected them to be. Robert seemed more against them. Thomas's comments were really surprising. Sounds like he's leaning more towards more power to the feds, whether or not it is allowed. Did you think that yeah, I , you know, I couldn't really glean anything from Thomas. I thought Thomas' questions were kind of , um, pretty generic, really just kind of a standard question. Uh, Shindo says Biden very recently stated regarding the fight against the vid says, look, there is no federal solution. This , this gets solved at the state level in light of this. How is the mandate now at all? Justifiable because they are still using it. I mean, he can say multiple things, but they can still pass the law. So it's kinda like one thing is , has got nothing to do with the other, you know, you can make, you can , you can support a law and make a public statement that is not directly in alignment. I get your point from a public relations level, but this is different. Sergeant Bob says, thank God. Garland is not a Supreme court justice. Bad enough where he is. I mean, I think he'd be amongst good company up there. They're all about the same caliber on that outside. Kincaid says good evening, Rob . I won't hang around. Thought of the following from yesterday. When is the last time we heard any majority politicians say, sorry, we could have done better or Hey, that's a good idea. Let's incorporate it their way. Leaders should be fine. Examples of humility, conviction, compassion, creed, elites of traded in humanity for something calculating and sinister trickles down all this. Cause I was lamenting a rewrite of a joke, Biden Harris and the rest have much more important things to reflect on a man woman or something in between gots to know their limit limitations. That's from Kincaid. Thanks , Kincaid. Uh , VI antique says this is just personal taste, but the one thing I didn't hear enough in these arguments was where we draw the line. I heard the question asked here and there, but not a whole lot of what I would call answers. Um, so I think, I think the answer that we heard was that they don't have the power just in general, right? That , that the answer is they can't make any medical regulation through that provision. If they wanna do that, they've gotta do it through the, the <affirmative> Congress, not through executive Fiat, NY renal MD says, so the history of pandemics, I will mention the epidemic of the 1770s. We got smallpox , yellow fever, plague, DC, that this was the, during the formation of the constitution. Why wouldn't the founders put in these powers to mandate justice, Kagan needs to study the history of pandemics? I , I think that's probably true. I think that they would say, well, they didn't have, you know, mass vaccine medical programs back then they would distinguish it. But it's a good point. Monster one says, P people need to stop using the constitution. As an argument, these people don't care about constitutionality. The constitution has been dead for a long time. People were to , uh , were too asleep to see it. We learned that last night with Tim pool. The fourth amendment is irrelevant. If the cops can just enter your property on a whim, I made a video about that. Check that out. The Democrats are openly admitting. They know are going to lose the midterm and they plan to disqualify popular Republicans. Authoritarian is here. Folks, people were too busy watching Spiderman to care about their own rights. I think there's a lot of truth to that. Thunder seven says Kagan stated no facts. Even the CDC has finally admitted a bunch of stuff. Everyone was classified as hap you know , dying from something, something, you know, on your face can be a functional. Sometimes it's not functional. Judge Kagan is a disgrace says , uh , thunder seven NY renal says , uh , you know, is talking more about , um , you know why you might get the jab saying, look, judge Kagan, stick to the law plea . Okay . You're not a medical doctor news now says I do love how all the Democrats and Kagan just flat out argue that vaccines are the only thing that's gonna stop this. And so there's a lot of things that, you know, could also be impacting the spread. Sergeant. Bob says like, I'd hear now. And then in the police bureau, someone ought to do some thing, no logic at all. Just like, yeah , just like, look, you're doing something. Yeah, that's all that was just panic. Woo . What else are we gonna do? I , I don't know. But you just said it's getting worse. So you wanna just keep doing what you're currently doing. You're on the Supreme court. All right . Okay. I guess that's one way to do it. Uh , Mike FCON says, I understand that some people are skeptical of this jab. I understand the lack of trust, but let's pretend that people were willing to trust science and they got the jab, but we know that 200,000 people have died. Who refuse . The reason it's getting worse is because as people are refusing for the sake of argument, just for the sake of argument, let's say this is true. Doesn't it not make sense? The bottom line is that people will refuse it. For whatever reason, this will prolong the solving of the problem. It will get worse and that is going to hurt the economy. And it's a threat to national security. Also corporate America is demanding their employees to get vaccinated. Well , they were not sure if they any more there. It's an interesting take there, Mike. I think people would make the opposite argument. I think they'd say that , uh , leaky jabs don't solve anything. They exacerbate the problem in many ways, grouchy old cat lady says, do you think if SCOTUS upholds the ocean mandate Biden will try to expand mandates to all people? Absolutely. Or keep chipping away at businesses organization. Well, first big businesses, small business nonprofits, et cetera . I think it'll go down to, to people. I mean, maybe not soon, but yeah. I mean, it'll just be part of the, the, the onboarding of life in America. Sergeant Bob says big government cannot fix everything. People need to be trusted to do what is best for them in their own mind, trying to compel people backfires. And can these figures be trusted? Statistics can be presented to justify any point. Yeah, it's true. Those are legal scholars in there. Monster one says, can Mr. Breyer bottom , explain to me how many of those 750,000 new cases are already Jed? Not sure. He knows. Not sure he cares. So liking is here , says the ignorance of history and the obvious lack of understanding of science is on full on display with many of these justices, grandstanding sickening when approaching the urgent constitutional issues of a law . It's talking about the effects as justification for the Paul it's backwards. You have to, that's a fine way to deduce how to take action on something, but you don't back your way into your civil liberties. Okay? You don't back your way into what we allow. Those are natural God-given rights that you don't get to just aside don't matter anymore because it's very dangerous and scary outside. That's nuts. Even if it's dramatically worse, you're still a free person. No government can take that away from you. it gro . All right . So moving on, here we go. We have a anti kiss says Bri active . Like the only way people can transmit is through work. I guess <laugh>, that's a good point, VI cuz . Gosh. All right . Let's see what else we have VI CAEs soda . Meor said that COVID keeps people from showing up to work. Tell that to all the Jabed who have it and have to show up to work. <laugh> thunder seven says these lunatic left justices have no reason, no common sense, no factual information. Can the lawyer ask why 2 million illegals who wandered over the border? Don't have to wear masks, why they're not tested and they don't have to be faxed. If this was a real pan DEIC the borders would be closed tight, like a drum. Nobody believes the D the corrupt DS anymore anymore . Thunder seven. It's a good question. If it's such an urgent complicated problem, why not? I'm not gas as with judges like this who even needs to make arguments. They already made up their mind. Yeah , they're not. We already know how this is going. We've already talked about it on the channel. I mean, I think, I think judge Breyer actually put in a chart of the deaths into a Supreme court case. <laugh> man, the next generation, when they look back on some of this here, if Liberty wins and it will, because Liberty always wins. People wanna be free. People have this natural inclination to be free for 2 million years. The human body has been, you know, iterating towards freedom in every society you look around they always wanna be free. Sometimes it gets really bad before there's a , a collapse there, but man, it's these authoritarian regimes. They don't stick around long, but here they're not even when , when we fast forward and we have to look back on this and we take a look at these judges and these opinions, we're just gonna go, oh my gosh. They were willing to throw everything that America stood for away over a stupid virus. It's not stupid. I mean, it's consequential. It matters. But we, as a society should be rounding, circling the wagons around each other, not deciding what liberties we should throw and flush down the toilet. All right , carrying on. Sergeant Bob says, so do my , in other words , uh , government can do whatever the hell they want. That's exactly what she said. If the consequences justify it, whatever it's necessary, they say it's it's necessary because the government said, so is that the world you wanna live in? Sergeant Bob says also to my , your needs is a cackle. Put her up there with , uh , Kala . She should go hang out with her. She'll get some good experience there. C rose says, Rob, you hear that a worker is just like a machine spewing flames. When the worker is spewing virus all over the place. Now Sonya sounds a little outta touch. What'd you think about chief justice Roberts today? Disappointed. Which way do you think he swings? I got him against the feds on this one. I , I think I'm with you that zeroes I'm with you on that. I don't think that he's gonna go in favor of upholding these things. It's too much. Even for him. I would hope so. I think it goes the way that, well , we want it to go. I , I wouldn't say I was disappointed in him. I mean, I , I think that he didn't ask. So listen , so to be fair, I did not listen to the whole thing. I was clipping for the show. We did a live stream on locals and we had the Arbery sentencing today. So that sort of, I forgot about that. And that kind of took up a big chunk of my day. So I didn't get to listen to the full SCOTUS debrief, but it was , um, from what I heard about Roberts, I didn't think it was anything really, even to remark upon. So if there announced that you heard maybe key me in on that and I'll, I'll take a listen monster. One says, does she really not know the difference between wearing a mask while welding and a vaccine mandate? Listen, you disgusting virus spewing, creatin monster one. She is highly educated. Okay . I'm not neither. Well, maybe you are. I don't know, but not as smart as her. Okay . She went to an Ivy league school. Okay . Nobody who listens to this show went to an Ivy league school. <laugh> we're all so dumb that we need to be told how to think. Where's Jake Sullivan. Jake Sullivan usually comes here and educates us cuz he went to Oxford. Mike FCON says occupational safety and health administration, OSHA go to any manufacturing facility in the country. And as soon as you enter, you are required to wear safety glasses. It's a pain <affirmative> but blame Nixon, I guess. But do you have to, do you also have to show your vaccine card at places you like, does that <laugh> is that where we're going? I will blame Nixon for that. Yeah . I will blame him for that. If we have to, you know, show, you know, scan our bio card everywhere we go, gonna have, I'm gonna blame Nixon. I'll do it. Ticus prime says the solicitor general pointed to section of something. Uh, you pasted the entire text of it says OSHA to mandate. What she left out is that the , it caveats the requirement to providing safety to others. Her argument fails because the people who've gotten the jab , uh , check my math . So we the hit a video about this V cuz I can't, I can't, I can't distinguish what's going on in this giant block of text right here, but it says, yeah. So I see, I , I see what you're saying here except where it is necessary for the protection of health of the safety of others. Nothing in this shall be deemed to authorize or require medical examination. 6 69 85 . Uh , okay. So yeah. Thanks for the, I we've covered this. We went through the actual language that they're using and it's not relevant. It's not appropriate what they're doing here. Um, no name says all nine Supreme court justices have been vaccinated just saying I have no, I have never once encouraged people to get Jabed. I've said always consistently on this show, talk to your doctor, follow the advice of your doctor. Doctor's probably gonna tell you to get it. Use your best judgment that's between you and your doctor. And I would guess that the doctors would tell the Supreme court judges, you should get vaccinated, cuz you're all old. And if you die of this thing, the country's gonna kill each other over it. So you're getting Jabed and they should all be in bubbles anyways. So look, I , I , I don't want to be, you know, seen as advocating against people, making their own independent medical decisions, right? Said consistently talk to your doctors about this. I'm not a doctor. This is not a medical doc show. So do my yours, not a doctor either. She's a judge. Who's supposed to be interpreting the constitution and applying the facts of the bill of rights in our constitution, to the law, right ? To preserve the Liberty, not modify it because of what's going on in the world. Outside of her, that's for Congress to do Congress can pass a law and decide that they want to change COVID policy because they're the alleged legislative branch, the judicial branch doesn't get to do that. They get to say what the law is. That's what they're arguing about right here. And they're saying that they're reading the law as being big enough to drive a stink and train through so that the government can do whatever they want whenever they want. I don't read the law that way because it's a had way to read the law because there's no limiting principle. You can see what they've done with the commerce clause or with the tax clause. You now have healthcare mandated from the feds, sort of it's been watered down. Thank you Trump. But you get the point here tax and spend power becomes federal healthcare . OSHA requirement becomes vaccine mandates, no limiting principle. When they open it up, you never close it down. We just talked about this in the Federalist series. Oh, all right . Somebody says drain the swamp creatures from SCOTUS. Uh , Shindo says the vaccine is unique and that it remains with one beyond the realm of the workplace. OSHA follows you home and doesn't leave. So now you're now within their jurisdiction. That's a good , that's a good point. G Giam says, how on God's earth does a government or a business owner get to take the role of my doctor and tell me to take a jab without knowing my medical situation. <affirmative> do I still live in America? Uh, technically, I mean, it's a different country than it was before 2020 , but it is still technically America. And you still, you know, kind of have the SIM similar rights, I would say than you did two years ago, but they're diminishing rapidly and Supreme court might be a part of that. We'll see of the board says I do not follow a lot of Supreme court cases. So I'm curious, isn't there a job to determine if something is constitutional or not? Yeah. They say what the law is. If it's not isn't everything else irrelevant. Even if everyone were dropping dead and not the , you know, whatever percentage is, or it was crushing the economy that does not mean you can violate people's constitutional rights. Right. It would seem that all the fear mongering and the statistics are beside the point. That's exactly correct chairman. And that's much more articulate than however I was bumbling through trying to phrase it. That's exactly right. The consequences don't you know, the ends don't justify the means in these when they're violating your constitutional natural God given inherent rights. But Rob it's COVID though, and it's a new variant and it's Aron . Okay. I don't care what variant it is. No, the answer is no because they're natural. God-given rights and no stinking. Bureaucrat can take those away from you. All right . Let's move on. <laugh> get so mad . All right . All right . Davis parks is here. Calm down. Our founders would be so ashamed of these progressive justices. They have no respect for federalism separation of powers or individual Liberty. Jefferson Madison Monroe would never even have dreamed of Congress. Delegating powers to bureaucrats for the purposes of regulating businesses. We're so caught up on the ETS that were overlooking the, that the original law itself should be unconstitutional. It's a violation of nontraditional of traditional non delegation and commerce principles. <laugh> I'm with you on this one Davis parks I'm for rolling back the entire stinking agency. Conservatives have no problem with ocean mandating hardhats or wearing gloves, but why, how is that relevant to state commerce? How does an executive agency have that power without legislative backing? How is occupational health and safety at all? A federal issue? We need to stand up to the administration. We need to, we needed to stand up to the administrative say 50 years ago, we didn't and now were 10 steps past the line of no return. That is such an out. That is from Davis parks. Outstanding comment, such a good comment. Well done. 100% accurate here And is exactly what I said earlier. Every time there's an opening, they drive a tri a stinking truck through this and it never ever stops there. Hard hats. Now it's mandating jabs in people's bodies, or you lose your job. This is why I keep screaming about the January 6th stuff too . If they can bring this new war on domestic terrorists here, it's gonna be this same low death by a thousand cuts. It's red alert time on this stuff. Monster one says <laugh>, I'm not gonna read this. We have to be nice on this show. Everybody. If dinner table manners, okay. Dinner table manners on this show. Um, somebody says, read the New York time conservatives win. Okay. So their take on this is that it's , uh , looks like the conservatives are gonna be going on this. Yeah, here's what the New York times is saying while we're, while we're on the , on the topic. See this here, conservative majority on the Supreme court appears skeptical of Biden's virus. Plan members seems skeptic that they have the legal power to mandate the nation's largest employers to be required. Yeah . And so we talked most about it and Kagan spreading misinformation. Yeah. The best way to prevent the spread is that , is that real true there? They're uh , judge Kagan. So sure about that one, but uh , I'm not the CDC check your official sources. Moving on. We've got K Stu says, just wanted to say thank you. I needed this breakdown. Well, thank you. K Stu . Thanks for being here. Glad you enjoyed it. It's Friday, Sergeant Bob says, great job defending our constitution and rights. You are a star. Well thank you Sergeant Bob. <laugh> . I just feel, I just feel like I'm I just get so fired up. I know many of you do too. Viti kiss says I'm gonna push back a little bit on the distaste towards a human being, being a machine. In reality, we are biological machines. If you think about what a machine is, even if don't think that way, I would argue that making such a ju juxtaposition does have value. I get what you're saying here, the Antica, but we're not talking about it in , um , in those sort of nice terms, right? You know, Scott Adams has the , the , uh , sort of the moist robot, the moist robot hypothesis is what he calls it. And you have a lot of these P people who are sort of deterministic, right? The , the determinists the determinists the people who think that everything can be determined, right? Outcomes are determinable and that's is way largely. I think our government has failed up . If you, if you do this, then this is gonna happen. And if you, if you Fauci every stinking day, he's there on the news saying, if you do X, Y, and Z, oh, this should be done by spring. Oh, this should be done by summer. Oh, this should be done by fall. Oh, we're gonna be through this by winter for two years now, he makes a deterministic statement. He says that if you do this, if you do X, Y will happen, which is part of the problem that we're in. Now. Nobody trusts anything that they have to say, because they don't know what, what they're doing because they're incompetent. And because these things are also just not knowable. You know, there are things that you're competent at. There are things that you are not competent at, and you know that you're not competent at them. And then there are things that you are not competent at, and you don't even know out your incompetence about those things, right? There are different categories of this and all of our dumb Congress, people and medical professionals. I'm sorry, not the people who are , I think, doing the good work, the people who are setting policy, who are getting in between doctors and patients. And I've talked to many doctors, several from I, I involved in different networking groups. Every time I talk to a doctor, I ask them, I say, Hey, sorry about this question. Can you , uh, what's going on with, COVID give me your thoughts on COVID. I ask every doctor and they, and most of them I'll tell you, this are excited as hell to talk about it. Very excited. And they've all got, you know, very interesting opinions. And these are not just, you know, these , these are highly qualified people and they all say the same thing that the policy makers have been wrecking this entire response, cuz they've been doing it for political purposes, not for healthcare . But back to your point there V antique kiss determinism, I think is a very, very interesting concept. I'm not sure that I agree with it. I don't think that human beings are just , uh , deterministic robots, but I think there is some utility in the thought monster. One says, Hey, Rob, I went to Penn. Penn is an Ivy league school. Well , I lived in Philadelphia. I used to walk through campus all the time to get to work. Well, there you go. See, I , I <laugh> . There you go. Monster one actually did go to an I league school. Uh , monster one. I'm so glad that you're here because the IQ of this program has Ivy gone up . You're you're helping me. You're helping me. I appreciate that. Kenny . One B says some of your viewers may have gone to an Ivy league school. I have three degrees from three universities, a PhD in engineering and a global leader in my specific field. <laugh> I didn't mean to insult you. I did not mean to insult everybody. Okay. I meant to insult myself. <laugh> I have no doubt. There are incredibly intelligent people who watch this show. I was just mocking myself, VI V . Somebody who is so smart and sophisticated, like Jake Sullivan, the NSA director who went to Oxford. I don't care if you went to 35 different Ivy league schools. Okay. You're not Jake Sullivan. Smart. Let's just get real here. Okay. Nobody is . And have you heard Pete Buttigieg speak before? There you go. Point made game over . <laugh> so I just, I just alienated all my most intelligent viewers on the show. Sorry about that. Everybody. Soul Viking says the top tennis player in the world. Novac is still waiting to see if he's gonna be deported from Australia. After having arrived with a medical exemption, with faulty supporting documentation, his Australian visa was revoked pending his hearing on Monday, he's in a quote COVID hotel with possible deportation. Looming Australia has gone off the deep end. Yeah. They went off , uh , a long time ago for sure. Long time ago. I don't know what's going on down there in Australia. Shout out to Greg over there. Monster one says when you knocked, I thought you were getting swatted. Like Tim, I wasn't watching only listening. I was like, here we go again. <laugh> that'll be a good one, man. It's not gonna go down. Like Tim's went down. Uh , I'll tell you that so, well, maybe it will. I don't know. I , the that's look, I don't wanna , I don't wanna , uh <laugh> I don't wanna , I don't wanna joke about that scenario. I mean, that is a really serious thing. I shouldn't even play around with that. What , what happened to that? What happened with Tim was totally not appropriate and it's a scary thought, man. You know, you could sort of see it in his face. You know, this, this is not okay. It , when police come into your house without a warrant, it's an not okay. It's not a joking matter. I shouldn't even joked about it, but I did make a video about it. Uh, uh , I , I talked about the consequences. I talked about this potentially being a , an international, I'm sorry, an interstate phone call. And if so, the feds can get involved. They've got all types of technology to go and investigate these things. They've got stingray devices and different, different devices that will just triangulate where the call came from. I mean, they'll, they're gonna dig into this. And it was , uh , you know, my, my thoughts go out to them. I'm I'm sure they're having to figure out what happened there. I'm sure it's back to normal, but you know, it's a scary thing. Uh, no name here says, Hey Rob, happy Friday, last summer I was hospitalized with severe headaches, turned out. It was migraines. No big deal gets treated with meds, but the hospital coded the billing as COVID to the insurance company, which denied the claim. Go figure. Now the hospital wants me to pay. I said, no way, submit the bill correctly. And you will get paid. So , uh, speak of that . Yeah , this happens all the time. So speaking of those doctors that I was talking to you about talked to several of them and I've asked, you know , I've said, Hey, what's the deal with the , uh , the COVID billing and the patient sort of , uh , categorization. I ask specifically somebody who knows because they work in this space that interfaces between hospitals and insurance, per writers . That is an interface that is very, very important. And I asked them specifically, cuz I'm interested in these things. I said, what is, if you had to guess, what is the percentage of fraud that is taking place under the guise of COVID ? I said, is it , is there any actually, is there any of it? Like, do you think it's like yet or not? And he said, every single medical hospital in this country is committing black fraud, not gray fraud, not like it's questionable out and out fraud is what he said. I said, oh, sounds good. And those are the numbers that are being that the government's taking what's being reported and build . Yes. Okay. There you go. So , uh , enough there, Kareem says the CDC cha and by the way, this doctor super in support of the vaccine. Okay. Super in support of it. Most doctors have been right. Um , that I've talked to. So let me just say that. Okay. But also extremely skeptical. And now he made a very good point. You , you know , you can disconnect the two. Okay. Just you , you really can. And , and smart man , anyways, Kareem says the CDC changed their definition of the word vaccine so they could satisfy the definition. Gotta be careful with some of these questions. Eon test says 100%. I am pounding my desk too . Thank are pointing it out. The whole premise that the government thinks they know for sure what is best. That is the whole point of the constitution. If there was a way to determine 100% what is true, then we don't need any rights, just a benevolent dictator. Yet those lines are, are imutable. They don't move around. You don't just get to change those Willy nilly . That's why we call them because they are natural inalienable God given rights. And the external factors of the world don't change those because it happens to be psychotic bill in the Supreme court we've got, Snookums says soldiers, even the chaos of battles, still keep in mind the rules like the Geneva conventions. Chaos is not a justification to circumvent established rules. News now says I work for the state. We have a lot of teleworkers because we can, our governor says no to the mandate. However, it will be interesting if this survives, if the vaccine is required for people like me, who work at home, the rules really don't say I've heard that they want that included. I mean, I've heard companies, you know, your company, your , your , your government obviously is not doing that for you news now, which is great. But I I've heard of companies saying that, right. We've had people in the locals community saying that I work from home. They're saying I have to be vaccinated. Having to find a new job. Speech unleashed says I have zero faith in SCOTUS to adhere to the constitution. They are so worried. The DS are gonna pack the court that they're afraid to go against this administration. Barrett already ruled in favor of a hospital where it was requiring the vaccine for employees without any consideration for religious exemptions. So I have no faith in SCOTUS on this at all. Yeah. But I'm not sure it's a , it's a great point speech. And I, and I, and I think there's, there's , uh , a lot of truth to that, but I'm also, I'm also , let's , let's also think let's play with this a minute. So the Supreme court, I agree with you that they're ultra concerned about their legitimacy, right? This is what chief justice Roberts, his entire operation has been based on this. My argument has always been that that's why he allowed Obamacare to be passed is cuz he didn't wanna wreck the legitimacy of the court. So he categorized it as a text to symbol on it and it got passed. And so I agree with you, right? That when we have a , and that's a historical example that supports your point where you have a political hot button issue, that's in front of the court and you've got a politically charged administration out there and the court's gonna balance these two things . But how do we distinguish that situation? Like the Roberts court, which is also still the Roberts court with the Obamacare thing, Obama was extremely popular. Okay. He had just got elected. The whole country was like, whoa, historic and hope and change. And George Bush is gone and oh my gosh, everything's gonna change. Turns out enough than really did, but you know how it was back then. And that's different than it is now. Okay. That sense of elation that political power's not there anymore. They couldn't even get built back better past . You think they're gonna get a bill passed before 2022 , that's gonna change the contingency of the , uh, or the , the makeup of the Supreme court composition of the Supreme court. I'm not so sure that they have the political willpower to do it. And if SCOTUS knows that, then I think maybe they don't actually sacrifice their principles in the sake of, on this one. Maybe they saved that for a bigger issue because I think even the public is kind of not okay with the whole mandate thing. So the Supreme court would actually be effectuating. Something that is more in line with the public policy. I would think Sergeant Bob is here, says president Trump rally next weekend . And in Florence, guess who's going, Sergeant Bob is I'm guessing. And miss lucky , I'm gonna be guessing is that of course in tow, which is awesome. You guys are gonna have fun, be safe out there. Eon te says, man, versus machine, we could be considered bio machines, but the difference is humans have rights. Yeah. But have you seen, I robot that robot was very sad when he was not treated as a, you know, living, breathing, feeling machine the argument before SCOTUS was a state to determine what is correct and accurate rights need to be respected. And you can't run rough shot over them. Very good point there from eon test human rights, human rights are fundamental. Yeah. But not, not to. So do my , or I guess VCA says on your thoughts about determinism. One thing I sometimes tell people is that if you study enough law, you learn that all adversarial parties can be justified. If you study enough math, you learn that not everything is provable. And if you study enough science, you learn that everything boils down to chance. Yeah. So I , so I understand your point. So it's sort of like, you know, if you gave a , a 10,000 monkeys, you know, 10 billion years and 10,000 type writers and all that stuff, could they produce, Shakespeares play with infinite time and infinite possibility and infinite, right. I mean really infinite. Like you can't extrapolate how big that is, but I guess, yeah. I mean, if there's infinite universes and possibilities, then yeah. Grouchy old cat lady wall street journal from Washington says a majority of Supreme court justices expressed skepticism Friday of the Biden administrations. COVID 19 vaccine or testing plan for large employers. But it's somewhat less concerned about a vaccination mandate for healthcare workers in a special session that examined the scope during a fast moving pandemic. Yeah. So I didn't get to the healthcare workers portion of the arguments today, but I will be curious to see if it changes, right. Because again, they're gonna do the same thing. They're gonna try to tease this out. Figure out where the flaws in the large logic are, but haven't seen anything really that feels like it shatters it 5 0 3 unlimited says the problem is safety culture. People aren't risk averse at all. And it shows the meek will definitely inherit the earth. Thanks to the liberal logic. Yeah. I think the has a lot of truth to that. It is, it , it does feel like that. It does feel like there's sort of , um, I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is, but I think you're right. Van kiss says that's okay, Rob. I dropped outta college twice. There you go. So , uh, I think, I think we're evening things out there. Thanks kiss . But <laugh>, I don't mean to be that, that , that to be pejorative. Okay. I have VI Kiss's book right back there, right there. I think I just put it right up there and it's a massive book on electrical every day . Everything it's extremely impressive. So I'm not Ticus is no dumb dumb monster. One says, Rob, this was a joke. I said, I walked through Penn to get through work Thursday. I went there as in being on campus, not enrolled. Oh <laugh> oh, oh, you walked through it. You didn't go to it. Oh, well monster one. You're still an Ivy league in my heart. Thanks for being here. We have another one from eon says , Tim, what V let us in on what's going on? Yeah. Tim pool got , uh , uh , eon test it's right there in the local stream. Uh, right on the side. Right under where you're watching this. I just posted it right. Uh , right about one o'clock today, Arizona time. So yeah, Tim pool got swatted and we covered , uh , exigent circumstances and all that stuff in the video. So take a look at that one. We have, let's see here, a Truman HW says kind of a free will topic and determinism and fatalism are at least 60% wrong. Granted, we inherit our brains and even our work ethic, we think thoughts that just emerge in our brains without knowing where they come from. None of us are quote free to have the intellect of V Newman or Newton. But what if not choice making machines are our brains and what better defines us than the choices we make? Truman HW, good stuff. Woo . It's very , uh , existential stuff right there. And it , it is. It's a good question, right? I think a lot of people play around with these issues. A lot to think about, you know, if everyth is, do we have free will or not? What's the purpose of life. If we don't have free will, if everything's predetermined, then should you worry about anything? I don't know . But a lot to think about there on this Friday, speech unleashed says the only reason they didn't get bill back better pass because of mansion. If that's a good point, if mansion hadn't blocked, it, it would've passed. It's a good point speech you're right. That was a razor thin margin. And so maybe there's enough political willpower to flip that thing over. Did they do it by a simple majority though? I don't know about that. I don't know the rule on that one. So while the power of this admin administration might be fading, the fear that they are creating in the public about COVID is still alive and well, and they have power enough when it comes to COVID and stirring people up. You're right about that speech. You know, you are right about that. And all we need is just another variant, right? Comes through. There's a French, whatever they bring that out there. Oh, here we go again. And maybe people, you know, they catch a wave of political ult that boost them across the finish line. See the veil says, Hey, Rob, I'm looking forward to see you work with the Federalist papers, three girlies . And I had a great discussion about it. So we talked about this a little bit earlier on the local's livestream says if the locals chat kept our discussion after the show , please read through it regarding, okay. I , I will see the VE and I think the , the , the comment was about incorporating some current events into those discussions, into the Federalist discussion. And so I , I I'm thinking about doing it, but not in a way that well, I'll , we'll , we'll talk about it regarding SCOTUS . How is it that not all the facts or correct claims or not being presented to the Supreme court? I caught a glimpse of one judges saying that the injection does something and on what was presented to her yet, I've never heard or read any information about it doing what they are claiming it does. How is the type of presentation allowed at such a high level of justice? Well, look what you're seeing there is sort of judges , uh, bringing in, I, I, what , what I , what I perceived to be external facts. Okay. So I didn't hear like for today's oral arguments, we didn't, it started off with a presentation of Scott Keller. The one I listened to started off with a presentation by Scott Keller, he made his facts. And so that line of questioning that we heard was what I believed to be external information. The judges were bringing in, right? They were , they were reaching out of the courtroom and bringing in external information. You heard , uh , judge Breer well , a million people or 750,000. I wanna be reasonable. And so these are, these are his interpretations, right? He's going out there and bringing these in and picking the stuff that he thinks is useful for his art argument. Now, I'm sure he's been briefed on this, right? The government is submitting all these briefs and all of that. So he could just be pulling from that data, but it's all gonna be governmental data. And so if he wants to believe it, he's gonna believe it. He's not gonna question it. Same reason, a prosecutor doesn't ever question what the law enforcement officers say, cuz they're on the same team. So they're people and they're predisposed to already want that to be true. Right. They want it to be true, cuz it supports their argument. So it's and it's the Supreme court, right? So, and you're not gonna get Scott Keller ever. Right. Be what he, what , what he, what he did is one of the most honorable, amazing, incredible things that a lawyer can do. It's like going to the super bowl , like no joke. It's incredible. Right? The honor of being in that room, I dunno if you've ever been to the Supreme court, I've been to the Supreme court, it's, it's a tremendous building. And if you get to go in and peer inside that courtroom, I mean, it's an, a inspiring place and there's a tremendous amount of history. And there's something about buildings where I think they capture a little bit of the energy of what happened as time has done its work on the building. There's an energy there. And so he's in there right in front of the most powerful judges in the world in one of the most sacred buildings in the world. And he's not gonna turn around to judge Kagan and say , uh , judge, it's actually been shown that it doesn't really support stopping transmission. You know? And it's, it's not gonna say that he's not gonna turn around. When judge Breyer sells says to him, are you really asking us to do this? He's not gonna say you bet your. I am there, judge. <laugh>. He's not gonna do that. He's gonna say, your honor, I am still gonna be asking that you stay the entry of this order on Monday. Right? It's very, very formulaic. And so if a judge wants to have their fact incorrect, they're gonna have 'em incorrect. There's nothing you can say about it. Monster one says packing, the Supreme court is coming. If the Democrats get Republicans disqualified in Democrat controlled states, those seats get filled by the governor of the state who works to fill the seat with the Democrat. We'll see. Yeah. We'll see. <laugh> you and they're working overtime . They've got, they've got a lot of , they they've gotta like hit a trifecta. Right? They've got a , they've gotta disqualify a bunch of Republicans, get a new variant and have the Supreme court do something stupid. And then they'll just get a trifecta. They'll get the Supreme court packed. I don't know. Bong says who, why doesn't the pro vaccine choice attorney directly call out the liberal justices. Lack of interest in what's constitutional seems like it would , that would embarrass them and force the conversation. So yeah. That's exactly . So he's not going to try to embarrass them. That's you answered your own question there being bang . He's not, it , it , it's not, it's not a good thing. Like you're , you're very deferential to judges anyways. Okay . In general and sort of the higher up the scale you go, the more differential you are and he's at the top. I mean, it's like going in front of the king in the game of Thrones going in front of , uh, what's his name? I don't know what any of the names are on the show. There's too many of 'em , but you get the point. The Antica says personally, I often call the human psyche, the operating system of the biological machine. I view human psychology as algorithmic physics, analyzing personality and character traits through machine coding as an attempt to identify predictive behavior patterns. It's very interesting. That's very interesting cuz I love that stuff actually. That's pretty cool. The human, the human body, the human mind is pretty, is a pretty neat thing. You know, I I've spoken about it before on the show, but that book called the happiness hypothesis by height . Jonathan height is an interesting book. You know, the idea being that our, our minds are sort of like an elephant and a writer on the elephant. The co the conscious part of our brains is like the writer , but the rest of our mind is like the elephant. And there's only so much you can do to control an elephant, as we know. So there's different techniques and tools that you can use to make sure that you keep that elephant happy as the writer , but the elephant does have a mind of its own. Just like your mind does once you recognize that what you can step off that animal step down and observe that and say, there's my conscious mind. Let's see how that's working. There's my unconscious mind. Let's see how that's working. And you can watch this interface between the two. Then I think you can use things like algorithms or life hacks or whatever to create an environment. So the elephant is not so ornery and things are a little bit more efficient. Kareem says the problem is that there is a grain of truth behind the load of lies that we're being told, right? Which is what makes it so complicated. It's hard to distinguish between exactly what's going on when there is a grain of truth, because you can't just call it an out and out lie then anymore. Cuz there's truth to it. Taggar with Ify says 50 votes for court packing fill can interfere should even be deciding mandates. You only need 50 votes to change. That is that right? That's amazing. 50 votes for court packing . You got , you got 51, right? Well cuz I , I guess what you're saying is cuz Kamala is the tiebreaker, so they just need mansion and cinema and then KA is the tiebreaker. So filibuster could interfere, but can you get, can you modify the Supreme court with the simple majority? I don't know the answer to that news now says I really wish they videoed the Supreme court hearing in my mind, I picture 9 25 foot pedestals in Thrones for the justices and a small podium for the speakers. Yes. I've seen the picks, but my reality seems more fun while listening to the arguments. Yeah. It's sort of like JRE from game of Thrones. He's up there. He's like, yeah, let's see here. Make your arguments. Let's see what happens here. Better be good. Hmm . So it's sort of like that news now . It's not far off from that. Teer with Ify . Filibusters can interfere you . Yeah, it's a good one. So I'm not sure what the official rules are, but uh , certainly we'll see. See what the Supreme court does. If they roll over and just bend over backwards for the Biden administration, then won't have to pack anything at all. Will they? But we'll continue to follow it along. And so it looks like that. My friends is it for the show for the day, all the questions I had a great time talking with you all today. Thanks so much for being here. I wanna welcome some new supporters who joined us over at our locals. Community welcomes to Le we've got Piper, Todd hub , suspicious chicks here. Ozzie lawyer, green Tuka S baker . Gotcha goods here Jim, 2008. FCON us New York. Join us for the year. Yeah. Well is re not R w N Y C . We've got uh , no not RWC Chuck. David is here mark on w Shindo nosy , Texas Rosie . TA's mom is here along with cookie monster too. And that my friends is it for us for the day. I've got a Ted Cruz video coming out right now. Ted Cruz was on Tucker Carlson yesterday. It was , it was a good interview. It was interesting one. So we're gonna break that down because I'm not real happy with Ted Cruz , not particularly , uh , please the language that he's using. And so I will go ahead and uh, plug, turn that video live right now, but that my friends is it for us for the day. I will see you right back here on Monday. Same time, same place, 4:00 PM. Arizona, 5:00 PM in Texas, 6:00 PM on the east coast for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous E sleep. Very well. See you right back here on the next one. Byebye , my friends .