The United States Supreme Court issued two new opinions addressing President Biden’s vaccine mandates we review the opinions. The Biden Administration has been having a rough week and Jen Psaki addresses the media during a press briefing.
🔹 Supreme Court Opinion Review in NFIB v. OSHA and Biden v. Missouri
🔹 How did the Justices rule? 6-3 against OSHA mandates, 5-4 in favor of Healthcare Mandates
🔹 What is a per curium opinion?
🔹 Justice Gorsuch concurs and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissent.
🔹 Jen Psaki addresses the Supreme Court ruling and responds.
🔹 Joe Biden responded to the ruling, urging people to get vaccinated and asking the social media companies to censor information.
🔹 Doocey asks Psaki about Biden’s string of bad luck.
🔹 Meanwhile, Joe is still pushing voting reform.
🔹 Your questions and comments!
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
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
The United States Supreme Court issued two new opinions addressing President Biden’s vaccine mandates we review the opinions. The Biden Administration has been having a rough week and Jen Psaki addresses the media during a press briefing.
🔹 Supreme Court Opinion Review in NFIB v. OSHA and Biden v. Missouri
🔹 How did the Justices rule? 6-3 against OSHA mandates, 5-4 in favor of Healthcare Mandates
🔹 What is a per curium opinion?
🔹 Justice Gorsuch concurs and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissent.
🔹 Jen Psaki addresses the Supreme Court ruling and responds.
🔹 Joe Biden responded to the ruling, urging people to get vaccinated and asking the social media companies to censor information.
🔹 Doocey asks Psaki about Biden’s string of bad luck.
🔹 Meanwhile, Joe is still pushing voting reform.
🔹 Your questions and comments!
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
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
Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Govea. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona. And today we're talking about the Joe Biden mandate blowout bad day for Joe Biden. A great day for America as the Supreme court comes down and says that his OSHA mandate is not constitutional, what they were trying to do through this executive power by gobbling up all sorts of, uh, ability to force people, to do certain things was not allowed. And so we're gonna break down the actual opinion that came down out of the Supreme court. We've got two cases we're really gonna spend most of our time. On the OSHA case, there was another case talking about Medicare and about healthcare workers. We're gonna break that down a little bit, but the big message, the takeaway here is we're sort of defining the scope. The Supreme court is gonna have a lot of, uh, variation about what they think, the scope, what, what type of scope is appropriate. And so we're gonna go through the opinion. We're gonna take a lot at what the pure Curium opinion is. This is the opinion of the court, and then we're gonna break it down by a couple different judges. Judge Gorsuch wrote his own separate opinion. Judge Thomas Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent on the healthcare case. And then we have a dissent from the liberal judges who we poked a lot of fun at here on the channel, Breyer, Kagan and soda Maor they wrote a dis sent on the OSHA case. And so we kind of have a lot of people who are, you know, like really happy about it. And some people who are really upset about it. And then you have some people probably like me who are kind of in the middle that sort of are glad that it came down this way, but are a little bit underwhelmed, a little bit, you know, kind of wanted to see a little bit something, uh, more forceful from the Supreme court. Like how do you even suggest such an unconstitutional thing, but we didn't get anything quite like that, but we did get something that was in the right direction saying that, look, you know, these powers have to be defined the pandemic. Doesn't get you total authority to just go do whatever the heck you want. So we've got to go through all of the court opinions first, before we take a look at the white house response, I've got a lot of clips here today. Some, you know, some people are gonna enjoy some of these clips. Other people are just gonna have to probably put the earmuffs in or stuff, some, uh, wax in your ear canals. So you don't hear the cackling, but we've got clips from Joe Biden. We've got Jen Soki, we've got Ducey over from Fox news. And then we've got somebody who is, I think, from some sort of emergency management service. Who's gonna be talking about some of their efforts, but we've got Kamala Harris. We've got a lot of different people here, all sort of responding to the Supreme court reaction. And so we've got a, a lot to, to, to talk about if you wanna be a part of the show, the place to do that is over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. They're chatting away over there. Shout outs to black cat Meow jumping. Jeff be spec is in the house, tweak, shout out John Allen as well. We've got on YouTube. We also have people chatting away over there. We've got resting level is futile. Resisting level is futile, which is, I think is a star Trek thing, right? Wasn't the, that the Borg resistance is futile. They were one of my favorite species in the star Trek universe. I thought that they were very cool, actually. So that's a, that's what's happening also at locals. We've got our form. If you want to ask a question, if you're a member over there, you can use that form. We'll do our very best to get through all the questions. A and so without any further ado, let's talk about it. The Joe Biden mandates blown out by the Supreme court. Let's take a look at the case. You can see here, six to three on the left side, we've got the judges in the majority. This is the OSHA case. You can see the occupational safety and health administration and they consolidated a bunch of these cases is, but the conservative judges said this was just way too far. And so we're gonna spend some time breaking this down. You can see the liberal judges are over here on the right. I have these reversed for some reason, but they're over there on the right. And so you can see Kagan soda Maor and Breer who are all in the, the dissent as this case unfolded before us. But a couple things I wanna put point out before we dive into the meat and potatoes of this first and foremost, this is a slip opinion, as you can see, which means it's kind of the first version of this opinion. And so they give us a big note right here. It says, notice this opinion is for subject to formal revision before publication. And you know, the, the reason I wanted to point this out, obviously this is a big, big deal in America. You know, they got this opinion done. They heard oral arguments pretty quickly. And so they got this, the result out, they got the order out, they got the ruling delivered to the American people so fast that it's not even the final version of the print document. Okay. They say, Hey, if you see something to us, uh, send us an email. If you see, if you catch a type of graphical or other formal errors, send that over to us. And so January 13th, 2022, this is what they say. Now you'll also notice it's, it's a pure Curium opinion. And so we don't see any particular judge who's authoring this opinion. We're gonna see some of the dissents have an author, and we're gonna see that the author of, uh, sort of a concurring opinion from Gorsuch is gonna have a title, but opinion does not. It's pure Curium. And so a big question often is what does that mean? Well, it means it's sort of an opinion of the court. It's, they're not identifying any specific judge who have, may have actually written the opinion. So there was actually something that I didn't know about this, that Bush versus gore was a slip opinion, or maybe I didn't know that, but it was a short, you know, it's a shorter and it's in the name of the court rather than the specific judges. And so sometimes they're not controversial. Sometimes they are controversial, they say, and, uh, here, this is obviously a controversial one, Bush versus gore was a controversial one back in 2000, we've got this one, which of, of course is certainly controversial. And so you can see it's pure Curium. And so obviously the people who are not, uh, in the majority, people like Brier and soda may and Kagan, I, I was almost gonna X them out, but I thought somebody was gonna say, I was, uh, you know, part of a, a militia or something like that, but they're in the dissent. So here's what they say. The pure Curium the secretary of labor acting through the occupational safety and health administration. We're gonna go through this quickly, recently enacted a mandate, got it. Covered 84 million workers. We've got that. The only exception is for workers to obtain a medical test each week at their own expense. So that really is kind of actually not an exception, right? It's sort of an exclusion, but you gotta go wear your mask every day and then you've gotta go pay for your own test. So you're basically coerced into doing it, but he says, OSHA has never, before imposed a mandate, nor has Congress. Indeed. Although Congress has enacted a lot of COVID legislation to address COVID it actually declined to affect any measure, similar to what OSHA has promulgated here. So the court's saying, all right, it's been two years of this thing. We've been sitting here, you know, uh, battling about the COVID issues for two full years. Congress has done a lot of things to address the COVID problem. They have, uh, specifically printed trillions of dollars to help alleviate this in any of those bills that work their way through Congress, the, the legislature, the, the branch that's coequal, that's supposed to be doing these things, not the executive branch. Did they ever, Hmm. Did they ever say that they were gonna pass a, a mandate? No, they didn't actually, they didn't at all. They had, they passed a lot of other stuff, but not that, in fact, it declined to act that many states, businesses and nonprofits, they challenged OSHA's rule. They say, this is an unconstitutional authoritarian power grab from the executive branch. And so they went on and they tell us, this is what their ruling is. They do a little bit of analysis here. And what's fun about this is that they're really gonna pay a lot of attention to this word. I occupational, which is the first word in OSHA. Congress enacted the occupational safety and health act in 1970. It's part of the department of labor under the supervision of its secretary. And the court says as its name suggests, OSHA is tasked with, with ensuring occupational safety and occupational here is inal like, hello, occupational safety, not walking around the street. Safety, not sitting at home, watching Netflix safety, not, you know, anything outside of the workplace. It's occupational safety. It's in the name that is quote, safe and helpful working conditions. It does. So by, in four saying the OSHA standards and some of those standards will allow them to create necessary and reasonable, appropriate regulations to make safe working environments. We've already spent a lot of time talking about this. Now, prior to the emergence of COVID secretary has used this power just nine times. And so to reiterate what's happening here, right? OSHA has a rule in the OSHA rules that say, you can go and promulgate rules to create safe workplaces. That's why you see, you know, don't step on the top step of this ladder or, you know, safety goggles on, or put your hard hat on. These are regulations to encourage safe working environments. They just said, well kind of like a hard hat or like a face mask. If you're a welder is, uh, shoving a needle in your arm. Okay? And so they said that this was part of the necessary workplace conditions that were appropriate. And they used this power through the emergency temporary authorization. And this is what we get. They used it nine times, but never to issue a rule as broad as this, one of those nine emergency rules, six were challenged in court and only one of those was upheld in full. So every time they've tried it, it was smaller than what they're trying here. And eight of the nine times that they went through only one was actually upheld. And that one was way smaller than what we're talking about here. So not a lot of precedent for this being something that is allowable, but here it continues. It says on September 9th, president Biden announced a new plan to require more Americans to be vaed. And it, so was an aggressive one. They're gonna issue emergency rules under that same standard employees, employers that have at least 100 employees now must ensure their workforce are fully vaed or show a negative test at least once a week. All businesses across America, vaccine requirements, Biden and co are very happy about this saying it's gonna impact 100 million Americans, two thirds of all workers, September 9th comes, but then two months roll around and those standards have never been released. We've talked a lot about this here. Says there are narrow exemptions for employees to work remotely 100% of the time, but those exemptions are largely illustrator. Secretary is estimated, and this goes on and on. So the court boils this down, right? We get a lot of procedural history. We see a lot of this details, a lot of the specifics, what did Biden do, said you have to go do this thing. Didn't give us rules until a lot later in time, the rules that did actually have exemptions were just sort of, you know, token exemptions, not really exemptions. And so the court goes through all the history and says, look, the question then is this, whether the act plainly authorizes these secretaries mandate, whether the OSHA authority gives the department of labor secretary, the ability to just go in there unilaterally and say, you are now mandated court said it does not, does not plainly authorize them to do that. In fact, it says the act empowers the secretary to set workplace safety standards in Itals workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures because it's occupational saying, take a look at us. Code 6 55 B directing the secretary to set occupational safety and health standards. No provision of the act addresses public health more generally. And that falls outside of OSHA's sphere. It's not within their power. They tried to make it within their power. Sort of like the CDC tried to go take property over. It is telling that OSHA, they say the court very telling, very curious in its half century of existence, that OSHA has never before adopted a broad public health regulation, something like this, addressing a threat that is untethered in any causal sense from the workplace court says this lack of historical precedent, coupled with a breadth of the authority that the secretary now claims is a quote, telling indication, citing other case law that the mandate extends beyond the agency's legitimate reach, right? It's beyond it's too power. It's too much. They've never tried it before. It's not even remote Oly connected to the workplace. There's no nexus and now it's unconstitutional. And so they say, look right now, it's not our role to weigh the trade offs in our system of government. That is the responsibility of those people in the legislature. Although Congress has indisputably, he says, or she says, given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it is not given that agency power to regulate public health more broadly requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees falls into the latter category. Now the problem with this, of course, this opinion was good news it's okay. So they can't make mandate that it's outside of the scope, right? They don't have the power to do that. That's great. But what if Congress just decides, oh, well we are gonna give us ourselves that power. And they just say, well, we're not gonna form the occupational safety hazard. We're gonna just, uh, roll this thing out under a new bill. That's called the, uh, public health safety act. And now you've gotta mask up everywhere you go. And now you've gotta get vacs everywhere you go. And you gotta have a passport or card or something like that. Right? The Supreme court didn't draw a line in the sand on any of that. They just said the case before us, as it currently sits, OSHA doesn't have the authority to do that. But if Congress says that they do and they come right back in front of the Supreme court, sounds to me like the Supreme court is gonna say, well, you got the power to do it. We'll see, but we're not there yet. Right? We're not at that threshold question. So judge Gorsuch comes out here and he writes a concurring opinion. So he's agreeing, but for kind of a little bit of a similar, but maybe different reason he wants to expand on this. Let's take a look at this. Go. One of my more, uh, preferred judges on the bench, I'd say, I like to read his work, says I start with this court's precedence. There is no question that state and local authorities possess considerable power to regulate public health. They enjoy the general power of governing, which includes all sovereign powers and vision by the constitution. And not specifically vested in the feds. Okay. He's saying, okay, this is somebody who supports sort of state's rights, right? There's no question. State and local authorities have the power to regulate health. He's making a big distinction here between the feds and the locals. Why do the states have the power to do that? Well it's because they have powers that are not specifically vested in the government comes from a 2012 case and the 10th amendment he writes. And in fact, states have pursued a variety of measures to deal with this because they have the power to do it. The federal government's power, he says, however, are not general, but they're limited and divided comes from a case in 18, 19 called McCullough versus Maryland. He says, not only must the federal government properly invoke a constitutionally enumerated source of authority to regulate in this area or any other, but it must also act consistently with the constitution separation of powers. So if you're gonna go pass a mandate like this, you gotta go find out where in the, in the law, it tells you, you have the authority to do that. And if you find it, it's also gotta be consistent with the separation of powers, checks and balances of the federal system. He says, when it comes to that obligation, this court has established at least one firm rule. We expect Congress to speak clearly. If it wishes to assign one of the executive agency decisions to somebody else, there's a whole series of cases that you read about in law school about delegating power from one branch to the other. Okay. Think about this. What if Congress just delegated all of the decision making about spending and, and let's say taxing to the executive branch. What if they just said, I, you know what, uh, Joe, Biden's much smarter than we are. And so Congress, we had got control of the house and the Senate. You know, what, what we do is we, we do all of these things that are sort of delegated to us under the constitution, but we just don't wanna do those things anymore. And we're gonna just delegate all of that over to the Biden team. So, uh, Biden and co they can just write the new budget and they can just, uh, vote on it. And we're just gonna follow, right? That's delegating some of their constitutional duties to somebody else. And we've got hard checks and balances. And the way this is supposed to work is that each independent branch of the government is supposed to elbow itself for power and push back against each other. And because there's three of them, you're gonna have this nice little gamified triangle where all sides are gonna be triangulating for power. And, and they're gonna check each other and push each other back in line. And you're supposed to have this beautiful sink in harmony. But what happens now, if you have an executive branch like the Bidens, who just say, well, you know, Congress, isn't gonna pass these things because they're very largely politically unpopular and we're just gonna do this stuff by executive Fiat. We're just going to go and just reinterpret the rules to mean something. We're gonna go be the FBI and the department of justice, even though there's no statute for, uh, domestic terrorism, they're gonna take a look at a definition and they're gonna reinterpret it to mean they want it to mean here. They're gonna reinterpret this old OSHA standard. That's never been used in any shape matter or form that resembles what they're trying to do here. And they're gonna reinterpret it to suit their ends. It's not appropriate. They are not supposed to be delegating those authorities. They're not supposed to be allowing that these, these branches are not supposed to be allowing these, these gobbles of power to be happening. Congress should be mad as hell that the executive branch is doing this stuff, right? Every single democratic person should be. This is outrageous. He has no power to do that. That's our power. We're the Congress, but they don't because it's politically in accordance with what they want to get done. So Gorsuch continues. He says, OSHA's mandate fails that doctrine's test. The agency claims the power to force 84 million Americans to undergo the test or get the jab by any measure. That is a claim of power to resolve a question of vast national significance. Yet Congress, nowhere clearly assigned so much power to OSHA. You gotta point to where you have this power. Otherwise, if it's not clearly enumerated, it goes to the states. That's the 10th amendment folks he says here, Congress has never told us where OSHA has this power and that's their job. Approximately two years have best. Since this pandemic began, vaccine's been available for more than a year. Over that span. Congress has adopted several major pieces of legislation aimed at combating the VI we have, for example, the American rescue plan act. He cite directly to it. He says, but Congress has chosen not to afford OSHA or any federal agency, the authority to issue a mandate. It says, indeed, a majority of Senate even voted to disapprove OSHA's regulation. And he cite that. So just because Joe Biden wants it done, doesn't mean he has the power to get it done. It's gotta go through Congress to do it. Gorsuch finishes it. He says, why does this matter? It ensures that a national government's power to make the laws that govern us remain where article one of the constitution says it belongs with the people's elected representatives. If administrative agencies seek to regulate the daily lives and liberties of millions of Americans, the doctrine, as they must at least be able to trace that power back to a clear grant of authority from Congress. Okay. This is the type of language that I wanted to see in the majority opinion, but we don't, of course, in this respect, the major questions doctrine is closely related to what is sometimes called the non delegation doctrine. Indeed for decades, courts have cited. Non delegation doctrine is a reason to apply the major questions. Doctrine, both are designed to protect the separation of powers and to ensure that any new laws governing the lives of Americans are subject to robust democratic processes. You don't want any single branch to just be able to do whatever it wants, even if it's on your side court, finally, you know, is, is coming to that. But it's in a concurring opinion. And so we'll see if that makes its way up. Once this issue comes back down the pike, I'm sure that it will, at some point, let's take of the look at the dissent. Now we're staying with the OSHA case and we can see here on the right, we've got the liberal judges, we've got Kagan soda Meor and Breyer. They're all dissenting. And they're going to go back to the same arguments that we've already been hearing from them. And remember how we talked about this. It's sort of the ends justified the means the consequences matter, the mechanisms for dealing with the problem, kind of don't. We heard a lot about that. So to mys had a hundred thousand kids we're on ventilators and hospitals, nearly dead Briar doesn't even care about constitutional arguments. And Kagan still thinks that, you know, I'm not sure what she thinks, but they write justice. Breyer's the one who's authoring this opinion. And he was prob I'm not sure where I'd put him on the hysterical scale of everybody we heard about, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Good question. Every day, COVID 19 poses, grave, dangers to the citizens of this country. They say first line. And in particularly to its workers, the disease is now killed almost 1 million Americans and hospitalized almost 4 million spreads person to person. And in those environments, more than any others, individual, I gotta be careful here because we know that the CR the, we, we know historically that these Supreme court justices have spewed like viral spewing, replicating machines, this information out there in court. So we gotta be sure that it's not actually in the court document, cuz I don't wanna be thrown off YouTube. Let's see. It says it spreads by person to person con it's not the CDC. So we're gonna skip over this. And in those environments, um, individuals have little capacity to mitigate risk. Hmm. Okay. So here they say COVID in short is a menace in the work settings. Okay. I, I, I don't think that's oppositional to any official guidance. Let's see the proof is all around us. They say since the disease is onset, most Americans have seen in their workplaces transformed. That's all true. So the administrative agency charged with ensuring health and safety and places did what Congress commanded it to. It took action to address COVID 19 continuing threat. In those spaces, the OSHA act issued its emergency temporary authorization requiring and hear they're hanging their hat on this. Either the jab or masking and testing to protect workers. And so there you go, right? That's sort of it, it's not forcing them to do anything. He says this standard falls directly within the agency's core meetings to protect employees from grave danger. He says, obviously COVID is a grave danger. He says OSHA estimates. And there is no ground for disputing this, which is hysterical. Right? Anybody, anytime anybody writes this, there's probably a lot of ground for disputing, right? Anybody of time anybody says, there's no doubt about it. Probably a lot of doubt. There's no ground for disputing this. Okay. Probably a lot of it. But they say that the standard, their mandate is gonna save their claims 6,500 lives and prevent 250,000 hospitalizations in six months time. Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. So, so you know, a lot of those sort of, um, claims have kind of been proven, uh, pretty, pretty erroneous, right? Haven't they, over the course of the pandemic, every time somebody comes out and says, uh, oh, it's just 14 days to slow the spread. And then everything's gonna be back to normal. Did that work out every time they come out and say Fauci, how many times has he said, well, as long as everybody gets the jab, we're gonna of this thing by March, by may, by June. And it goes on and on and on. So here does anybody give a, a rip about what OSHA's estimates are? I certainly don't. So Breyer says the virus also poses a grave danger to millions of employees. As of the time OSHA promulgated its rules. Almost three quarters of a million have died since then. The disease continued to work. Its tragic toll in the last week alone it's caused 11,000 new deaths, right? So consequences, consequences, consequences. Do you see how Gorsuch was talking about the, the, the 10th amendment and the authority and where they would trace this back to in the constitution? He's talking about consequences. Gorsuch is about the origin of the authority and the preservation of Liberty and the separation of powers, liberal judges talking about the number of deaths and the tragic toll and 11 to thousand new deaths and doing whatever they can to stop it. They say that this standard is necessary in order to address this, it limits the threat agency showed they say in metic, this detail, that close contact and so on has consequences. And they say in short, OSHA showed that no lesser policy would prevent as much death and injury as the standard would. Do you see how that works? Your, your sort of constitutional protections and how the, and how the, the, the laws work are relative to the harm? Liberty is only this much because the death is this much. But if the death is this much, then you get more Liberty, I guess, I guess that's how they say, let's see what else they finish up. They say, we accordingly conclude the secretary. No, no, no. That's from the different case that slides out of order. Yes. That slides out of order. Let's go into the second case. We're not gonna spend a ton of time on this one because it's very similar. This is the second case. This is Joe Biden versus Missouri, and also Basser versus Louisiana. Now this is the case where it's actually going in. Biden's favor. So here you can see, we've got a five to four opinion. Now in the majority, we've got the libs. So do Meor Kagan and Briar joined by Roberts, who is, you know, typically over here a lot anyways, but this fellow right here is a little bit of a surprise. Who's this guy. Oh, Kavanaugh. Very interesting. Very curious. And so this is, you know, something I'm not real pleased about, but I understand it. Let's break this down. If you read through this entire opinion, reframe this out just a little bit more. The conversations that we're having are about sort of the scope, right? If, if you think about it in terms of ven diagrams, you know, the circles that are overlapping in different things, and you sort of, will you expand the circle or contract the circle to cover the domain of the information or the conversation here? We're talking about people getting J what is the scope of that? How, how many people are in that bucket? Joe Biden wanted to make it a gigantic bucket under the OSHA standards. Anybody who had a hundred plus employees you're in that bucket, we've got power and regulat over you. Supreme court came out and said no way, that bucket's way too big. It's occupational, OSHA, occupational workplace. That encompasses way too much protected stuff. And they don't have the power to do that anyways. So we're not gonna let you do that. But then we change gears a little bit. We say, well, what if we shrink that bucket up? Joe Biden wanted this big bucket with everybody in it. But what if we just say, all right, now, now it's just gonna be healthcare workers. And now it's only gonna be people who are getting money from the government, because remember the government has the power of the purse, right? They can't, they can't tell you in your states what speed limit to put the speed limit at. But if you want that government transportation money and you're getting tax and you're paying for it, if you want that back in the form of a government grant, well, you're gonna set your speed limits, you know, more or less within the federal standards, right? You're gonna comply with the federal standards. If you want that government money. And you gotta pay into the piggy bank, regardless of whether you get that little slice back or not. So here it's that same conversation. There's a different rule that it, they, they are allowed to say, if you're gonna be getting these Medicare services or Medicaid, if you're gonna be getting that government cheese, if you want that government cheese, you gotta play ball. And a lot of people do. And that has a lot of precedent in this country has said that for a long time, no, you can't go in there and mandate that the drinking age is 21, but if they want that federal money, they'll raise it to 21, stuff like that. So that's, what's happening here. And the, there, there is precedent for that, right? There's, there's a, there's a series of cases that say that, that, that type of stuff is okay. The government is allowed to do that. And so what I did is I went through this opinion and I kind of teased out the, the main sentence that I think matters here. That you're sort of seeing what everybody is fighting about here. This is in the second case, but you can see the majority on the top is writing. They say the challenges posed by the global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. Okay. Just because there's a, a pandemic doesn't mean that a government that has some power can go out and exercise more power, unless Congress gave him the power, they can't use it. But he says at the same time, the opposite of that is true. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has already had. Okay. So just like in the prior case, just like OSHA, because it's a pandemic, can't say, oh my God, it's a pandemic. And we're gonna freak out, go gather, gather, you know, gobble up all this power. You can't at the same time say, well, it's a pandemic and we're gonna take that same power that you already had away from you because it's a new issue. And so the majority here is saying, yeah, it's, this is a new issue. And they already have that, that power to do that. And so we're not gonna limit the power, the size of the authority that the agency has long been recognized to have. Now, the, the, of course the dissenting judges are gonna disagree with that. They're gonna say they, what are you talking about long recognized to have in what world has, uh, government funding been connected to putting a, a jab into your body? In what, in what, what, uh, you know, context has that happened? Now, the majority's gonna say, well, it's, you know, it's new, it's novel. The, the situation is dire and bleak and everything that can be done must be done. Constitution, be damned. Whereas the people underneath say, hold on a minute, we gotta break this down. Judge Clarence Thomas pins, the dissent here, he's joined by Amy Coney Barrett, judge Gors and judge Alito. As you can see here on the right they're writing, uh, Thomas Wrights, two months ago, Biden government, they passed this omnibus rule requiring vaccines for CMS people. That's Medicaid services covered employees must fire non-compliant workers, a risk fines, and termination. As a result, the government has mandated the VA acts for 10 million healthcare workers, just as a consequence of the decision. And so he summarizes this for us and he says, listen, these cases are not about the efficiency, the efficacy, or the importance of the vaccines and nothing to do with that. They are only about whether the Medicaid here CMS has the statutory authority to force healthcare workers by coercing their employers to undergo a medical procedure. They do not want and cannot undo because the government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave CMS that broad authority. I would deny the stays and I respectfully dissent. Okay. So they're, they're arguing about the scope, but in a different version, they're not, they're not saying that CMS doesn't have the power to regulate healthcare providers or, uh, attach strings to it's Medicare funding, Medicaid funding, but it is saying that it, they can fund it, but Congress doesn't have the authority to force them to use that funding to go and actually get the jab. So it's sort of a measure of degrees. They have authority, they do have the power nobody's taking that away from them. They can attach strings to their funding proposals, but they've never historically been able to do that on a medical procedure that nobody can undo. So they're drying lines in different parts of the chain, okay. Supreme court, anyway, you slice it and not a good thing for the Joe Biden administration. This was sort of the crux of his domestic policy in many ways that he's gonna shut down the virus, not the economy. We've heard that from him. We heard that from, uh, from many of his subordinates for a long time now, and this was a big part of that. And they said that we're just gonna roll this thing out. They started implementing it. We saw all these different, uh, basically spineless CEOs all over the country, just folding dropping, like weak little flies everywhere you turn. And now the whole thing is unconstitutional. What's Jen Saki have to say about that. Let's find out
Speaker 2:Is going to take going forward with respect to the vaccine mandate. And have you found that it was a success and then one more done yesterday? Are you guys still making calls this weekend on voting rights? It seems that mansion and cinema, even after coming to the white house, there's no hint that they're going to change their position. So, I mean, what did the next few days look like before that vote?
Speaker 3:Well, I would say that, um, the president's view as you heard him say yesterday, is that we're gonna continue to press to get this done moving forward. Uh, and that means continuing to engage with a range of officials, uh, who are supportive, some who have questions and some who are skeptical. He obviously met with, uh, Senator cinema yesterday afternoon, even after she, uh, made a public speech, uh, about, um, about her opposition to the filibuster. I think that's evidence of his continued commitment to keep engaging, uh, as it relates to the vaccine requirements. And, and what's next, uh, as the president said yesterday, the Supreme court has chosen to block common sense life saving requirements for employees. Common sense. Uh we're of course, immensely disappointed by that decision. It's now up to the states and individual employers to put in vet place vaccination requirements. Here are some pieces of good news, and this is a little up it from yesterday, uh, businesses and other employers have already taken these steps. Nearly 40% of fortune 100 companies have vaccine requirements. Uh, in October prior to the OSHA rule, even coming out a quarter of workers in the country were already subject to requirement from their employer. By January, that number had risen to nearly 60% of employee of employers requiring or planning to require vaccines. And since the administration began implementing requirements in July, we've gotten from 90 million to 30 million Americans UN vaccinated more to be done, no question. It was good news that the CMS requirement for healthcare workers was kept in place that will impact 10 to 11 million. And there are a number of companies across the country that are good models. We're gonna continue to echo those. Okay. I don't want you to be late. Go ahead. Just real quick.
Speaker 1:All right. So sort of a, a, a win, even when you're losing strategy, you know, we have a lot of big victories that came out of this and that's what a lot of people were speculating. I think we may have even talked about it here on the show. When the mandate came out in the first place, the idea being that they knew it was gonna be unconstitutional, right? Every single person who was a lawyer was going, uh, oh, what really? This really are you serious? And, you know, it's kind of surprising that, you know, it, it, it kind of took this long because if you just read the statute, it's obvious that it, you know, that it is very broad. And so many of us were speculating thinking, was this intentional, you know, were they trying to just sort of get this thing through so that this would be something that companies and people would adopt on their own voluntarily? They don't actually have to mandate it, but then that is just like, kind of, you know, not, not good politics, right? Cuz they have a big loss now after saying that it was constitutional and that this was something that was gonna save everybody and that this was gonna stop the case cases from going up and that things were gonna get better, but they're not getting better. That's why they brought out this woman to talk about their efforts, to deal with this continuing emergency. And Ducey had a question for her. The white house is now coming out and saying, well, we're gonna mask everybody. Now. Cases are almost at a million a day. And so we're gonna come out here and mask everybody. That's gonna solve the problem. And Ducey says, what masks are you talking about? I thank you
Speaker 4:For the question. So what's the point of now sending 10 95 or can 95 masks out to Americans? If a lot of those masks are just single daily use, like somebody wears it once. Then what,
Speaker 5:Uh, masks save lives. Um, I think is the important thing here. And we wanna make sure that everybody has the tools and resources that they need in order to protect themselves and their families.
Speaker 1:Okay. So the question was like, why are you sending masks to everybody? If they're single use, like, are you gonna send'em like a year supply of masks and then ask'em to wear masks all the time? Or are you just like just sending one or what are you doing? Says, uh, excuse me, sir, masks save lives. All right, what do you wanna kill people? So Joe Biden also got asked about this yesterday and here he is just struggling through something saying that a new wave of medical teams are now going to six states to help hospitals combat COVID thought he was gonna shut the virus down. Hasn't done such a good job of that, but he finds out about this news and uh, then he starts to beg the social media companies to start censoring you even harder. Now,
Speaker 6:Unfortunately, while a military stepping up, as they always do, there are others sitting on the sidelines and standing in the way, if you haven't gotten vaccinated, do it. Personal choice impacts us all our hospitals, our countries. I make a special appeal to social media companies and media outlets. Please deal with the misinformation and disinformation that's on your shows. It has to stop. COVID 19 is one of the most formal enemies America has ever faced. We've gotta work together, not against each other.
Speaker 1:Isn't it a little bit strange. I mean, there's, there's even his demeanor. Like, are you noticing this? We're gonna put, put a pause in this. Cause I've got another clip from him when he's giving a speech out in, uh, wherever he was Georgia the other day ago, we're gonna get to that in a minute. But we just heard from him. I mean, he sounds like he's, he's like in the, in the death throws of COVID himself, what is he talking about? He's sitting here just basically marginally functional, begging the social media companies to now censor you and your misinformation and your disinformation for talking about all of his failed policies. What do you, what, okay, so yeah. Okay. So we've talked a lot about that too. Now he was very happy that all of the businesses were running forward with his draconian measures. Anyways, even though the Supreme court previously had not found any of it to be constitutional, he was urging them to go ahead and do it regardless. Uh, uh, yes. I might be encouraging you to violate the constitution, but do it anyways because of a virus. Okay. So now that the Supreme court has come out and thrown that back in Joe's face, you can see that GE suspends, the COVID vaccine and their testing rules, they suspended the implementation of it. And the testing rules for its employees switch number to 174,000 at the end of 2020 folks, this type of garbage, I can't even tell you how catastrophic this stuff is to businesses and small businesses, right? Telling an organization like GE that they've got, you know, implement all these new policies, they roll it out. That's a multimillion pivot for an organization like that. Millions in order to pivot and do that, not to mention who they may have lost, right? One to 3% of workers, even if it is as low as that, right? It's catastrophic. And so you have this stupid administration who is jerking everybody around every which way, because they have no idea what they're doing. This is gonna have ripple effects and long term consequences that ripple through the economy for a long time. And it's the same thing with small businesses when they, when they jerk regulations from one way to the other, and everybody's getting yanked around by the leash on their neck, it is not good. All of these aberrations and, and bubbles and problems that we're seeing throughout the community, throughout our society, as a result of these things. And this is just as a result of incompetent leadership. No consistency shouldn't have done it because there are consequences. So Joe Biden obviously has no idea what he's doing. Many P people turn to a second in command and they say, oh gosh, is there anybody competent in this white house? Can we please just set somebody down and, and can they utter out a sentence? Can they just sputter out some syllables in a coherent manner? Somebody says, well, I don't know, but bring Kamala out here. And they go, no, no, no, no, no anyone else okay. Bring her out. So they troll her out now in front of the fireplace and they say, Hey, Kamala, what are you guys doing about these, uh, test problems? Here's what she says. Ugh, put the earmuffs on boo
Speaker 7:Years into this. Mm-hmm<affirmative> what, why didn't the administration just go out and, and secure more at-home tests after the Delta search in the fall? Why are we at a point now where folks still can't get tests,
Speaker 8:But we just ordered a, a, a, I don't have the number in front of me, but millions of tests, we have 20,000 sites where people can and go and I urge people to, you can Google it or go onto any search engine and find out where free testing and the free testing side is available. Look mad, a
Speaker 7:Vice president, the fact that we're still telling people to Google, where you can get a test and
Speaker 8:You, but, but, oh, look, come on now. I mean, really, if you, if you wanna figure out how to get across town to some restaurant you heard is great. Usually do Google to figure out where it is. So that's simply about giving people, right. A mechanism by which they can locate something that they need. Something that can help them.
Speaker 1:You gotta do the Google, my friends, you just gotta get on there and just do it and Google yourself all over the place. And so, okay. So yeah, you know, it's been a year and there's no tests anywhere and they're gonna shut the virus down and she's, you know, having a rough time at it, but just get on the Google and go find the test. Now, the problem is once you do that, as many people have found out, there are no tests. So you can do the Google, go to your Walgreens and try to buy a test. But they're not there. I played earlier this week, a number of tweets from people all around America, sitting in their cars, three and a half hours here, no tests over here, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting people, standing in the cold. It's all over the place. They've had a year and it's not working so you can search for tests. But if there aren't any tests, the search is meaning, but, uh, apparently it's Google's fault. So anyways, they ask her another question, something about, um, changing course, you know, a current strategy is not working for you. We're in the first quarter of the game and you're down by 70 points. You've got three quarters left. You wanna change the team you wanna put in another string. Quarterback is like dropping the ball all the time. What are you gonna do about this Kamala
Speaker 7:Six former administration phase last week wrote that open letter, urging the administration to change course to change strategy. Is it time?
Speaker 8:It is time for us to do what we have been doing. And that time is every day, every day, it is time for us to agree.
Speaker 1:What did she say? Six full
Speaker 7:Former administration officials last week wrote that open letter, urging the administration to change course to change strategy. Is it time?
Speaker 8:It is time for us to do what we have been doing. And that time is every day. Oh my gosh. Every day it is time for us to agree.
Speaker 1:Oh my God. Gosh. Yeah. It's, it's really rough. Now. Listen, we've all flubbed up on, you know, talking from time to time. I've, I've been there. I'm not the vice president of the country, but I have, uh, lost my train of thought from time to time, even here on this show, you've seen it several times, but it is time to continue do what we're doing today. And you better believe that today. It's gonna be time. If you have any questions about it. Well, it's still today.<laugh> so, so a lot of, lot of problems with the Biden administration and here she is now sake is catching it from another guy during the press briefing today, this guy's asking her what, uh, is
Speaker 9:The president planning, any sort of staff shake up or changes at the white house, given recent setbacks, including inflation at a 40 year high, the Supreme court blocking the vaccine mandate and the collapse of voting rights legislation?
Speaker 3:Well, I would say the other way to look at, uh, the last year is that, uh, to 200 million Americans are now vaccinated. Uh, more than 80% of Americans have received at least one dose. If you look back to a year ago, only about 35% of people were willing to do that. The presidents through the president's action and leadership, we have made vaccines available across the country. Boosters. We have provided more supply to the global community, 400 million doses than any other in the world. We've had record economic growth in this country. We have record low unemployment rates in this country and we are getting out of a pandemic and the, the, uh, economic downturn tied to it at a rate that is faster than anyone thought would've happened. We have confirmed more judges that look like America that are diverse, like this country than almost any other administration in. And I get the truth is an agenda doesn't wrap up in one year, we are con continue to fight for every component of his leg, of his agenda, uh, and his, um, and his, uh, his plans for his presidency that he outlined when he was running for president.
Speaker 1:Okay. So she just goes off. Right? She's good at that. She's pretty good at that. I gotta hand it to her. She's got the whole list of talking points and she just ran right through'em one after the other. Now they're all bunch of garbage, right? I mean, all of that is ridiculous. Lowest unemployment, you know, the guy and the question from him, Hey, uh, quick question. 40 years, unemployment, uh, international policy failures with people falling out of airplanes and he just goes down the whole list and she just kind of adjusts and pivots. Now we've got one more from sake. Peter Ducey also asks her a question. Let's see what she says.
Speaker 3:Oh, I got it. Okay, Peter, go ahead. Last one. Thank you.
Speaker 4:Jen. Present Biden promised to bring decades of DC experience to the oval office, but bill back better has not passed voting rights, apparently not gonna pass and vaccine requirements that he likes are apparently illegal. What happened?
Speaker 3:Uh, well, first Peter, I would say if you look back at last year and what we were able to accomplish that include getting the American rescue plan passed, uh, a package that has, uh, has contributed to cutting childhood poverty by 40 10 has helped ensure we are moving at a faster pace toward economic growth toward a record, low unemployment rate much. Yeah. Helped ensure schools more than 95% are open across the entry. He also pressed despite skeptics, uh, to get a bipartisan infrastructure. Bill passed already cancer. One that we have just, we're just announcing today. The fact that 15,000 bridges are going to be repaired. No, that was despite many skeptics. And because of his efforts, 200 million Americans are now vaccinated. The work of an administration continues after one year and it will, he will continue to press forward on all of those priorities
Speaker 4:About a year ago, and working with Republicans. Now, he is talking about Republicans that don't agree with voting rights. Uh, he's describing them as George Wallace, bull Connor and Jefferson Davis. What happened to the guy who, when he was elected said to make progress, we must stop treating our are opponents as our enemy.
Speaker 3:I think everybody listening to that speech, who's speaking on the level as my mother would say, would note that, uh, he was not comparing them as humans. He was comparing the choice, uh, to those figures in history and where they're going to position themselves. If they, as they, as they determine whether they're gonna support the fundamental right to vote. Oh, or not one last thing, the bangles are playing tomorrow. I'm just giving it a shout out so that my husband will be excited at home. They haven't wanna playoff game in 31 years. Okay. We've gotta wrap it up.
Speaker 1:What's the Bengal who cares about the bangles. So she's talking about, she goes through that whole big first litany and it's buzzer. Jen, you already gave that answer to the other guy. You can't use this same answer twice. What do you think this is? You gotta come up with a new answer. It's a different question. You don't get to use the same talking points. And so they're, they're not responding to some of these. I mean, you can see why I wanted to play this because you can see that they are just not answering, right. That's that's, that's the strategy here. We're just gonna, uh, par the assault and move on to the next issue. What Peter Ducey was asking about though on that second clip was from this speech earlier. Also this week, there was so much news this week. It was ridiculous. Joe Biden was out there trying to pass this new voting rights bill to basical federalized elections so that, uh, you know, they can do whatever they want with them. And he's very, very angry about this. And so, uh, earlier on the show, we talked about Joe Biden, Joe Biden back then was sort of, uh, you know, kind of, I, I, I think way past his nap time or whatever he needs, but he was basically falling asleep there talking with his hands about encouraging media companies to censor you into oblivion. But then we get this, this next, this next event, he's in Georgia. Now he's got some pep in his step. I don't know what kind of cattle pro they give him on a regular basis. But you know, he, he's kind of energized up and Ducey was asking sake about this because he made some very, very colorful language, very strong language here. That was not okay. Because what he's trying to do here is imply that anybody who is oppositional to his political efforts is now somebody who is like George Wallace, Bullon, or Jefferson Davis. And we're gonna learn about who those people are. Let's take a listen to who this is,
Speaker 6:Defend the right to vote our democracy against all enemies foreign and yes, domestic consequential moments in history. They present a choice. Do you want to be the side on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you wanna be on the side of John Lewis or bull Connor? Do you wanna be the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis? This is the moment to decide, to defend our elections, to defend our democracy.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, yeah. I mean, it's just, you know, it's implying that your political enemies are your, uh, a race, this segregationist really Joe mansion, Kirsten cinema, anybody who opposes this latest democratic effort is just the same as Jefferson Davis y'all know who he is. Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, 1861 to 1865 Democrat. Typical, you can see that the other people that they referenced bull Connor, American politician, who served as the commissioner of public safety, strongly opposed to civil rights movement, administrative oversight of the Birmingham police department, white supremacist bull Connor enforced legal racial segregation and denied civil rights. Okay. So this is the same conversation or Joe Biden is implying that the people who are not on his team are these people, right? How is that for nice, polite political discourse in America? He says that you're just like that. Or, or, or I, I would guess Kirsten cinema from his own parties, just like that. George Wallace, same type of fell segregation. Now segregation tomorrow segregation forever is what he said, serve us Marine Corps, let's see industrial development. He said that he adopted a hard line segregation as stance after losing the 1950 nomination. And so Joe Biden is saying that you're exactly like this now. Very interesting, uh, comparison, but Joe, Biden's just kind of doing everything he can to get this bill passed. He's very enthusiastic about it. In fact, yesterday, he was just wandering. I'm talking to people about it. Here's what that looked like
Speaker 10:Supposed to is the plan, get this done.
Speaker 6:First of all, y'all ask questions about complicated subjects. Like, can you get this done? I hope we can get this done. The honest to God answer is, I don't know whether we can get this done. Is this Mike con I guess anyway. And, uh, and I'm not sure either, anyway, I hope we can get this done, but I'm not sure, but one thing for certain, one thing for certain, like every other major civil rights bill that came along, if we it's the first time we can come back and try it a second time. We miss this time. We miss this time and the state legislative bodies continue to change the law, not as to who can vote, but who gets to count the vote? Count the vote, count the vote. It's about election subversion. Not just whether or not people get to vote, who counts the vote. That's what this about. That's what makes this so different than anything else we've ever done? I don't know that we get it done, but I know one thing, as long as I have a breath in me, as long as I, the white house, as long as I'm engaged at all, I'm gonna be fighting to change the way these legislatures have moving. Thank you.
Speaker 1:Okay. I guess that's, that's the president. That's Joe Biden out there. I, I think he thinks he's leading a civil rights movement. Did anybody else get that opinion? I, I think that's what he thinks he's doing, but I'm not sure if there's one of those happening right now. I don't know. Uh, but anyways, he says, he's not sure that he can get it done. He's not gonna get it done. Here's Kirsten cinema from Arizona. Shout out here she is. Yes,
Speaker 11:But they do not fully address the disease itself. And while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country. The debate over the Senate, 60 vote threshold shines a light on our broader challenges. There's no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60 vote threshold to pass legislation. Ooh, there's no need for me to restate its role, protecting our country from wild river and federal policy. It is a view I've held during my years, serving in both the us house and the Senate. And it is the view I continue to hold. It is the belief that I have shared many times in public settings and in private settings, senators of both parties have offered ideas, including some that would earn my support to make this body more productive, more deliberative, more responsive to Americans' needs, and a place of genuine debate about our country's pressing issues.
Speaker 1:All right. Kirsten, cinema, shout out Democrats, certainly, but Hey, you know what, when a politician does the right thing and they stand up for the right stuff, give'em some love. And so Kirsten cinema shout out from Arizona, Senator making sure that Joe Biden is, uh, not gonna be moving forward with smashing that filibuster. So that's all good news. Lot of good news for America, bad news for Joe Biden. Let's see what you have to say about it over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And I saw some super chats come in. Uh, I ITO the, the C C CTO thing says that's the hottest I've ever seen. Rob, remember your stoicism? That's true. Gotta stay centered, stay focused, emotionally unflappable. I'll do my best. I don't even know what I was talking about, but, uh, probably was, uh, not applicable says this woman's voice makes me want to drink and I don't drink. I can feel you on that one. I can relate to that one a lot. Not applicable stinky cash says according to Black's law dictionary, a mandate can only be issued by the judicial branch is not lawful unless it is gratuitous. Meaning all mandates are voluntary. Legalese strikes once a. And so that's funny. So blacks law dictionary is sort of a legal dictionary and you know, you can, you can find a lot of interesting definitions in there, but what we're, what we're sort of talking about here would be, you know, blacks law dictionary sort of pulling from common law and all sorts of different treatises. And it's a, it's a very, very useful tool, but here they're talking about statutes, right? OSHA statute and things like that. So, uh, good stuff. And so thank you for those over at that was over from YouTube. Let's see what's going on@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. We've got VI cuz prime says for whatever good any treatment does given the nature that things mutate, anything that is a real vaccine will always be not the new BS definition will always be a permanent solution to a temporary problem from que kiss prime. Let's see. Another great point he wants to make is something about why people will take the G a says, if I'm getting attacked by someone that wants to kill me, can the government order me to defend myself sort of an analogizing between the game theory about why people might take the vaccine and other powers the government might have over you? John Dolar says there are Americans who are forced to work, even though they have COVID, people can still be fired for not showing up with work, even though they are sick. So people just go to work and they spread the virus. I know some of these people, why doesn't Biden try to hold businesses responsible for that. Do you mean by like a tort law? You know, something like enabling people to Sue each other or asking Joe Biden to, to, to regulate that. You know, I think that I, you know, I think COVID is, is ultimately gonna become just like anything else, right? Like the flu, or like, can you Sue somebody at your office? If you get the flu monster, one says, did you see they had an arraignment for the parade SUV? Yeah, I did that red car got like 70 C 77 felony charges. It was weird seeing an SUV in the courtroom. How do you think they, it there, I mean, it's probably four wheel drive. I'd guess I I'm, I just am glad they have parking boots on it. So it couldn't run over the judge. It's true. Yeah. You wanna make sure that they're seated? Keep'em in, in boots. You know, it's a good point. Monster one, Sergeant Bob says it's a great day for America and the constitution. I agree with you, Sergeant Bob good S stuff. Good stuff. Indeed. Thunder seven says it's great to see SCOTUS working properly again with conservatives upholding the constitution and the liberals trashing it as usual says, thank God Trump appointed the last couple of conservatives or we'd all be living under the Marxist rule right now thankful that Alito and Thomas are proving that they're the bedrock of Americans' future. And they're exposing the libs inability to stand up for individual rights. No wonder the libs fought so hard to keep Thomas off the court, including Biden, karma. So beautiful. That is true. That is true. There's a, there's a couple good clips of Joe Biden and Clarence Thomas going at it during the Senate judiciary confirmation hearings.<affirmative> Kareem is here. Kareem says serious question. How is someone who is UN maxed obtained their vaccine passport once they demand the third shot, the a shot? Well, you need to take eight shots all at once. Am I the only one wondering, no, I think you're right. I mean, this is like a real thing that's happening. You know, you're sort of deemed to be green, green dot until they say you're not green dot anymore. Two used to be a green dot, not anymore three in some places green dot presumably gonna be four. Okay. And then we hear, you know, Moderna and Pfizer CEOs talking about, well, it's probably gonna be a yearly thing. So it's a great question. People who don't don't keep up with their shots. Are they now going to be not considered fully, you know, wherever you are in different, in different locations, different states might have different rules. The Supreme court says that they can continue to regulate that. So we'll see where it goes. Monster one says, do you think they split the baby on this maybe Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the libs in order to take some heat off very, very well could be that right. I've said that before about Roberts. I think he's more honestly, I think he's more interested in the legitimate see of the court than he is preserving any tradition of the constitution, candidly. Right. And that's his legacy. He's the chief judge. He's free to do that. The law is such that I think you can thread the needle a number of different ways. You know, I think he's trying to do that in a way that sort of comports with some of his ideology. But I honestly, I think his ideology is taken a backseat to his is, uh, efforts to keep the court legitimate, which is not without precedent. There's been other, there have been other judges who've also sort of governed under that philosophy. All right, we've got CS says, Hey, Rob NFB versus OSHA should know the public, how much power the liberal judges wanna give the federal government. Instead, I've read countless articles about how the conservative judges are the right wing anti max lunatics. Not that OSHA's mandate was unconstitutional and unprecedented. What are your thoughts on how the I media shapes the public's negative opinion about SCOTUS? So I think it's a great, I think it's a great concept. I mean, I think that, you know, I, I think that if more people heard, you know, what the arguments were that were coming out of the left out of the courts, like, I, I don't know, you know, I see rose, I don't know, man. You know, I, when I compare and contrast the two, when we put them here on the show and you can see Gorsuch, who's arguing about finding authority in the constitution, tracing the authority of power back to an emanating source and, and reserving power to the local states and all of those things that makes logical sense to me. But to other people that probably is like a foreign language. Like, what are you talking about? What do you mean? Like, why do you need power? Why do you need to go and dig into the co constitution and identify the source? Because they're not thinking about all of those consequences, what happens if we just have a system where people can just gobble up power and do whatever they want. Right. They, they, I, I think that they're less, less cognizant of what some of those unintended consequences might be. And so they're just much more in that other camp. They just look at the number, oh, COVID is a, a problem. We have to do something. But when I take a look at the logic of, of the liberal judges versus the logic of the conservative judges, it's like an it's like, I just can't even wrap my head around it because to me they're not, they're not basing their opinion in really solid, constitutional underpinnings. They're starting on the external, on the consequences and working their way backwards. And I don't get it at all. I don't know how you can run a country like that. I don't know how you can run your life like that. If, if you're just responding to all the externalities and you have central compass, if you have no central principles or values, and you're just sort of responding to everything that's happening out in the world and then working backwards and coming up with Liberty in the reverse that doesn't work. I, I don't know how people do that, but the media, I think if they were being more truthful about the arguments that people, but we're actually making, I think that maybe the, the opinion of SCOTUS would be better. I think that many people sort of see them as a pseudo legislative body and they are not that at all, right. They're not a second Congress. They are not supposed to be legislating Roe versus Wade for, for us. It's not how it's supposed to work, but for some, and you know, this sort of conflation has happened largely because bad judges at the Supreme court have allow, have politicized it, right. They deviated from what I think the proper role of the court is, which is to say what the law is, take the law that was passed democratically through the legislative branch and say what it is, don't make it there. It's not the appropriate place to do that. It's supposed to be made over in Congress. Good question. Zero. Sergeant Bob says, do not like government blackmail. Good. You cited drinking age 21. When I was a teen, we solved that by fake IDs and shoulder taps to get beer. I did that stuff too. I mean, uh, I know somebody who did then we Rodee around all night. Well over the limit speed and blood alcohol level, would've been better off in a bar, not behind a wheel. I put a car around a black Walnut tree at 80 miles per hour, as a result of not only my own stupidity, but having to drive around at 20 years old, British Columbia age is 19 few problems. Lots of education on designated drivers and stick strict enforcement. My point federal government should stay out of the black male game. I like that. I've never heard it phrase like that. Sergeant Bob, I like that a lot. Is that in your book? We have another one from Kincaid says Scott's decision seems unstable. There are appeals. Well, not for SCOTUS. And fear. Mongering is still seemingly convincing enough to fool the courts. Don't judges have people to gather unbiased Intel for them a more to the point procedure or not. It should not be allowed to let any official be that crazy. Well, that's the country we live in. There's a lot of crazies everywhere. Isaac bowls says I'm one week into the COOF oh, rest up there. Isaac. Have a fever of 1 0 4 work at the moment. I'll quit my EEO career 15 years before getting poked, just outta principle, have a fever of 1 0 4. And you're at work at the moment. I'll quit myo career 15 years before. Oh my goodness. Well, I've seen headlines about this. Isaac. I've seen that, that they're asking people, even, you know, healthcare workers and emergency service professionals and other people in EO at, you know, uh, nurses, firefighters, everybody to stay. Even if you're sick, please stay. Cuz we have nobody else to help there. They're mobilizing military units throughout the country. Do you think there are consequences for, for mandates? You think there are consequences for lockdowns there we're facing them. We have another one from Ray EPS. Oh, Ray's here. Ray. We've been talking a lot about you buddy. Where you been? Well, I'm glad he is here. Let's see what he says. He says, Hey Rob. Remember me? We met a few years ago at the FBI. 4th of July barbecue. Oh, when was that? Yeah, that, yeah, that I remember that one probably back during my drinking day. It says, you told me about your plans to set up a YouTube channel to lure unsuspecting anti-government types. Oh, I told him that when I was drinking, how did that go? Did you succeed? Not to make you jealous, but did you see my work at the capital? Anyway, I'm in Arizona. I wanna grab lunch. You can tell me that thing. If YouTube ever worked out, I can tell you my next plan to those Trump supporters. Ray ups. Yo sure. Ray. Yeah. Gimme a call.<laugh> it's working well. YouTube's going great.<laugh> Ray. This is a live show dummy. You're not supposed to submit those types of questions live on the air. Everybody saw it. Your covers lone brother. You might as well just go to the DOJ and just confess. Matter of fact, why don't we get you on the show to come and do an interview? I got a couple questions for you. Come on by REApps silly guy. You know, he's such a knucklehead out there. We've got king. Kate says payers to a false God might be hollow, but a fist full of coins. Phil is the void. Nicely disciple a Fauci<laugh> uh, okay. We've got Vika says masks. Should I get started on my rant about people's knowledge of filtration, media and principles V kiss. Did you write a book about that? If you don't tell me you wrote a book about that. I've got your electrical engineering book. It's like this big have a book on materials. VCA says you don't have to read this if you don't want to wait GEs still in business.<laugh> oh no, I'll read this. I was so glad when I left that place. What an idiotic business model they had it even made the basics of my job so much harder. Well, it's a gigantic bureaucracy. I think there's a lot of problems with things. Get that big. John Hagin says there are no tests. I'm supposed to test twice weekly executive order by dummy Pritzker. Can't do it anymore. Not trying anymore. Well, no tests there. What can you do? What can you do if they pass a law that you can comply with? What do you do? It's a real question. As John is, is demonstrating for us. The Supreme court liberals in that dissent said specifically, VAX or test, remember? And they said any of these anti-vaxer wines out there have another option. All they gotta do is just go test and mask. Right? We read it an hour ago. John said, yeah, I'll, I'll take that option. No tests can't comply. So what happens if you're tyrannical government then starts tightening that, that new up a little bit passing more and more laws that you can't go apply with. What if it's now for the, the first two jabs, but what if they say, well, you gotta get the third and the fourth and the fifth. And now you're just on the, the subscription booster program. The Amazon drone will just fly it right into your neck. Otherwise you had no access to the grocery stores or the gas stations. How's that sound, the only way that you can comply is to do what they want you to do, right? They're they give you an alternative, but it's not a reasonable alternative. Thanks for that comment, John Sergeant Bob says she has done so well living, uh, uh, talking about Kala says she's done so well on solving the border crisis. This virus thing should be a cinch. She'll get that done in note time. No problem. At all. Midnight lime says any chance of a CMS mandate appeal. No, no. I mean, there's nowhere to appeal it. That's the Supreme court. That's it. Now there may be other issues that come down and you know, there may be some, some reformulations of this. So like for example, right? What if Congress comes and passes something that should changes the rules a little bit because they didn't, they didn't iron out or, or entrench a hard, a hard line in the sand about, you know, vaccines and government authority. Like we didn't get a clear guide guide or map of how this works. They just said under this current form, under this current iteration that the, the implementation of this mandate not okay. But if it comes back up in a different form, we'll see what they say. John Dolar says, Kamala has to be the worst politician ever. All she does is flub up. She's horrible. She's like horrible. I don't know. I think she's getting worse, right? People are supposed to sort of improve as they, you know, oh, wow. They're very seasoned politician. People say not her VI kiss says, speaking in that KA LA LA LA LA LA voice. There was a thing that we did when we do things because we should do things. It's how you get things done. You just gotta do'em. Now I'm gonna go do something to be done with whatever I need to do. That sounds very, very complicated. Ticus it sounds like Kamala. Maybe she's doing a lot of stuff and we're just too dumb to understand the, the intelligence Sergeant Bob says, Hey Jen, you forgot inflation in route to the moon. Yeah. They're all starting to panic about that. You noticing that tree Menes says, uh, someone needs to ask Kamala about all the people she told us about in rural areas who don't have access to a copier to make a copy of a driver's license for voting. Does she really think they have access to the Google, to the finding a testing site to great question. Tremendous, tremendous has been around for quite some time and tremendous remembers back when Kala and Joe said that, unfortunately, there are a lot of people, many of whom just can't find fax machine in rural areas. And I think she said many of them happen to be of a certain demographic, but I don't wanna put words in her mouth, but I think she was talking about a certain demographic. Yeah. And uh, I thought that was just offensive as hell, but that's what they do. Three girly says good Lord. Kamala makes Dan Quill look like a founding member of Menza she's bad, really bad. Jen sake says, uh, can you gimme some credit? At least Rob I've been lying nonstop for over a year now covering Bidens behind during the border crisis, Afghan Biden inflation build back better loss, voting rights. Bill lost more death than 2020 crime of the century took place. November 3rd, 2020. I've learned to tap dance, spin the truth. Circle back better than anyone else in this position. Give me credit. We credits do it's true, Jen. I mean, you you're, you do it with a straight face every day. It's really impressive. Like how you do that. I don't know how you do that. Three girly says, uh,<laugh> P sucky is spinning so fast. She's making herself dizzy a last, I think that's the same for Biden and Harris as well. My head hurts every time I hear this woman talk, sorry about that. Three girls. I didn't intend to wreck your Friday, but we have, we had to go. I had to go through it. I appreciate you going through it with me. We're in it together. God bless America. Persevere monster one says, Kamala must use the same teleprompter that Biden does.<laugh> it's like, can they get,'em a new one? That one has like cracks in it or it's not working. OB if they're reading from it, it's not working or they can't read. I don't know what the problem is, but somebody needs to look into it. It's a good point. Midnight lime says sake was painful to watch. Where is the traditional infrastructure bill? As in the west? Seattle, just still down talking about roads and potholes. I think they have a new bridge built that they're rolling out right now. So that's, that's what Joe was talking about today. Monster one says I got a great solution to the testing problem. Uh, stop taking<laugh>. When in history have people gotten tests when they don't have symptoms, if you walked into a doctor's emergency room and said, I don't symptoms, but I want a flu test. They would've sent you home. It's a good point. It's a good point. Monster one<laugh> monster. One says, thanks sake. I was going to root for the bangles. Not now. Hope they get crushed.<laugh> in fact, maybe we'll go place a wager against them. How about that? A sweet PO Tato says, ah, Frick states can do what they want. I'm so screwed in Washington. They'll definitely mandate the boosters. Well, that was Gorsuch's concurring opinion, right? So the Supreme court didn't come out here and explicitly authorize it. But if the states tried to do it, I think Gorsuch would be on the side that allowed them to do it. Sugar bris says, why is it that no one can come up with the same statistics on what percentage is fully Veed. It seems that the number is constantly moving up and down. And also what happened to 75% for herd immunity. Yeah, it can. This is a great point. Sugar bridges. I think this is large. This is a big reason why everything is so screwed up. Why? Uh, there are so many problems with our response to this thing is because the data is bad, right? The informational supply chains are broken. They are subject to politicization and weaponization. And we saw that happen. We saw that people had a means and E motive to take data that they had and, and rearrange it or, or re it's still happening to this date. Right? Look at this Joe Rogan versus this other doctor thing. People have different stories showing different data. So, you know, a, I think a lot of it, you just have to sort of understand is, is probably, I would just say, look at the source, right? Look at the source. Draw your own conclusions from there. But I think you're right. Sugar, bris, no name says wouldn't an employer be responsible for, for the consequences. If they require the jab, don't know, they're gonna say no, they're gonna say, Nope. I was mandated to do this by the feds. I'm immune Sergeant. Bob says, no worries, Rob. We know you are a double agent in our court. Sergeant Bob has the right idea. It, it, it's a, it's a triple cross, double, triple cross. One of those is that how that works. I'm not a fed. All right, we've got sugar. Brits says, I read today that the CDC just came out and said, fabric masks are in, okay. Only N 95 should be better. So I guess all of the mask mandates over the last few years was a, an exercise in futility and stupidity, which is absolutely, uh, my opinion on that Robinette says, isn't it just mind boggling that almost every single thing the left complained about with Trump, like he's a lunatic. He isn't all there in the head. He's a puppet. He's a temper, like calling him a fascist, comparing him to Hitler, et cetera. It's like the most clear cut textbook definition of confession through projection that you will ever see. I'm willing to bet that a huge majority of people that still support this dude could be diagnosed with some mental disorder because you have to be lagged way behind not to see it from Rob Annette. Well, I'll tell you this, you know, I know a lot of people who are not super into politics, but were not fans of Trump. They are, um, regretting their decisions. Kincaid says you were right. Rob our freedoms at the core. I think both sides want more unification. I think to move forward with more prosperity for so many, any, it will need to happen in one form or another. We had some over on YouTube. Kareem says, I thought the whole point of the booster was that the two shots one took months ago are no longer. So why demand three shots today? Should it not be just two inconsistency number 84 32? Well, a again, I'm not a medical doctor. And so I can't answer any of the justifications for why they're making the changes that they're making, but, but you're right. There are inconsistencies. Okay. We've noted these a lot, even CDC, their own data has sort of, they flip flop on these things multiple times. So, you know, one of the clearest examples that still irks me was they said, don't mask then mask. No, I think it was mask. Then don't mask, then mask. Remember that. And, and that sort of lie was all about, uh, supplies for the people who really needed it and all that stuff. And so I just, I, I feel like been, they've been flip flopping for a long time and people are getting tired of it. Dan Chapman says, how can the Supreme court uphold a mandate of an experimental? Well, so they're saying that it's, it's fully authorized now. Right? It it's fully authorized. Seems the same would hold as the block of the mandate of the military. So yeah, the, honestly the Supreme court didn't go in into any of that. Like they didn't talk really. We talked about this, but they didn't get into the, the details of the vaccine, right. There was nothing in there about that. It was all about the power to require the actual jab, you know, do they have the authority to do it? I suppose they could have, they could have gone into that and talked about it, but they, they skip that. Right. We saw a lot of arguments that they didn't touch on. That's why a lot of people, you know, may, may be very happy about this, but it's a very short opinion. This is a good thing, right? It's not, it is a good thing, certainly, but there's a lot of room here for the feds to come out and do something that just sort of takes this away from the courts.<affirmative> right. They didn't draw a hard line on any of this stuff. They just said, as it's currently constituted, it's not enough. So they didn't consider, you know, any of that stuff right now. If there's, if there's a, let's say that they came out and Congress passed a Congress, not, not the, the executive branch, they passed a national executive, uh, I'm sorry. A, a national legislative of mandates. Every person in America has to go get it. Okay. That's a whole separate conversation. Now. Now we're talking about the role of government and the power. And does the, does the federal government have the power to do that? But now we're talking about it being in the right place. We're asking the right person. They did have that power. They're the person to talk to. If this existed in our government, it'd be in the con con con uh, the, the legislative branch. And so I'm not, you know, I'm not real confident that the current Supreme court, once that question, if it does come up in the legislative branch is just going to say that's unconstitutional because we still a five, four decision going the other way. Good question, Dan. But yeah, you're right. They, they really didn't get into it. Monster one says V anti kiss is right. We all know Kamala does things after all. She did things all the way to vice president. Usually she did things in a problematic position. Jay Saki says, Rob, appreciate the shout out. I know your viewers love me. I hear they say, then the basement is damp. The roof will Russ go bangles? I, I don't know what that means. Kiss says monster one's point before is why I say the past two years have been full of hype. Kadria I like it. Sergeant Bob says nurse Jill's new book, book cooking with Joe and Jill. Is that a real book? Uh, sweet. Poto says, did you buy some Tesla merch with your crypto today? Pitch crypto channel. You still doing stuff over there? Have a nice weekend. I haven't done much on crypto, but I've been researching a lot of it. I've got some different projects that I'm interested in and, uh, I think I'm gonna, I actually started a mind map about my crypto stuff. So I do want to get back into, into crypto cause I'm super passionate about it. I think it solves a lot of these problems that we're talking about. Genuinely the kiss says fully authorization stuff about Pfizer and community. And so do to research on that from Viti kiss. And I think that my friends is it for us for the day on this lovely Friday. And I wanna thank everybody for being a part of the program. Great questions over from two but one final question over from locals. We've got Sergeant Bob saying time for Kamala to do some photo shoots at bakeries. It's out of the white house. I'm down for that. And so that my friends is it for us for the day. I wanna thank you for being a part of the program quick. If you're not subscribed to this channel, go ahead and subscribe. I'd love to see you back here. Again, I was looking at my analytics and something like 50% of the people who watch the content are just not subscribed. And I think that's kind of interesting cuz how do you find people if you're, if you're not subscribed to people, right? You're sort of a, a, a mesh mess in YouTube. So I'd love it. If you are not subscribed to subscribe, you know, you have to log in and make an account and all that stuff, but you probably already have one for Google and it'd be cool if you did that. I'd like to see if we can boost those numbers up a little bit. But uh, if, if not, that's okay too. I'd like to still see you here back next time anyways. And so everybody have a tremendous evening sleep. Very well, have lovely weekend unplugged from politics. Spend some time with friends and family recharge those energy batteries because we're gonna do it all again next week. And I hope to see you there have a tremendous weekend. My friends and bye bye.