Transgender Rights and Biological Sex

The J. Webber podcast is presented by Creative Planning Helping clients simplify their journey to financial wellness, one personalized plan at a time The Jay Webber Podcast is a production of IHart Radio podcasts. Good day and happy Independence Day as we all go off to celebrate our fourourth of July weekend. There's two hundred fifty years of greatness to be celebrated here, and I'd encourage everyone, especially parents to spend some time revisiting the founding of the country, the Revolutionary War, the reasons the colonists felt the need to break away from English tyranny And what the founders really were attempting to do to create as they fought the Revolutionary War and laid out our country's founding documents. It's a wonderful story that needs to be told over and over again to each successive generation of Americans I'm reading David McCullgh's prize winning seventeen seventy six is as my own personal way to reconnect with the founders on this two hundred fiftieth And it's incredible. the odds and the challenges that George Washington and the cololonial arrmy needed to overcome. Heck, first they had to build an army. They were taking on the greatest and most advanced military in the world, and it was led by the most learned and elite members of British society, brilliant, brilliant men who had gone to Eaton as youngsters and had English titles and all the best schooling and equipment Meanwhile, Washington himself and the men he chose to be his closest advisors were self educated And aside from Washington had no real military experience, they'd only read books and work tactics and such The fighting men were, of course, all volunteer farmers and dock workers and blacksmiths and laborers. Some had served in earlier military conflicts. mostost had not A large number of them were boys and old men, whereas the English Amy, they were all men in their twenties and thirties led by career generals and admirals. From the very beginning, Washington's army never had a chance. Aside from the battle at Bunker Hill, the first several engagements with the English Army were just total disasters, with Washington stupidly deciding to try to defend New York, which was indefensible for any military that didn't have a navy We didn't Read the history, Most of the Continental Army's maneuvers were so pathetic that no kidding, a few of Washington's greatest highlights were retreats. Honestly, The war was almost over before it started because our army was penned in when it started on Long Island They're back to the water surrounded on three sides by the enemy If General Howe had chosen to push his troops just a little bit more on a certain day, the war for independence would have been over in a few days. Instead, in the dead of night and with the weather helping the cause, Washington ordered and executed a nine thousand person retreat across the East River, back over to the New York side, took the entire army, cannons, horses, nine thousand men And o, how clever. Oh, what a victory for the colonies that Washington hadn't been wiped out in a day after making several tactical mistakes. That was praised. That was the only sort of praise he was really up for early on The details of the revolution, all of it, the political, the diplomatic, the military, are all fascinating. And without understanding them, I don't think anyone can fully understand or appreciate the greatness of America or what the founders of this country endured From the famous ones right down to the anonymous farmers and fishermen and twelve and sixteen year old boys and old men who fought it Anyway, today's podcast is going to be dedicated to the Supreme Court session that we just wrapped up because I cannot think of anything more fitting than to talk about a Supreme Court whose members are two hundred fifty years later making all sorts of decisions that are meant to restore it to the founding principles of this country But first, a shout out to my sponsor. Have you heard of creative planning They're one of the nation's largest independent wealth management firms offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning, investment management, estate planning, tax strategies, business services, and international wealth management all in house and coordinated through your wealth manager Their fiduciary wealth managers are here to help you navigate every piece of your financial life. Visit creativeplanning. com for your introductory meeting. That's creativeplanning d. com Your team awaits. Paid for by creative plananning an SEC registered investment addvisor, The speaker's statements are not an endorsement of the firm Okay, I know the Supreme Court session ended with a terrible and disappointing decision on birthright citizenship, but most of us expected to lose that case. But it came at the end of yet another session of the best Supreme Court of my lifetime by far The rulings made during the spring session followed a pattern that's similar to the last several sessions. The originalists on this court finally restored all sorts of powers to the executive and to Congress that had been watered down over time or limited or bastardized erroneously This was another one of the most consequential sessions of the last fifty years, and we conserveives won nearly every important case and every important constitutional question the birthright citizenship ruling and the ruling on mail inballots aside. We'll talk about them later. And I think you have to marvel at just how many more wins the conservative justices on this court gave the American people and the conservative side of the aisle Several decisions restored the power to make and enforce immigration rules to the president where it should be Several rulings made it clear that the executive does have the power to hire and fire both the heads of agencies and the rank and file federal worker in general In April, Conservatives got a huge win that finally ended the bogus majority, minority congressional districts. The ruling narrowed the Voting Rights Act and brought us closer to being a colorblind society with more fair representation in Congress Two cases involved the Second Amendment, both won by constitutionalists, including one ruling that said Hawaii can't scheme to enforce de facto bans on concealed carry. There was even a case that was completely lost in the Wash this week that confirmed that law enforcement agencies cannot just go fishing in big pools of data without a warrant as a way to try to find criminals That was the important decision on geofencing. It said police need to be able to justify such a fishing expedition. They need to go to court in order to be allowed to track a specific phone to see if their suspect was at the murder scene at the time, obviously. Well, this decision said police departments just can't cast a wider net and ask Google or the phone companies to identify all phones that might have been in the area at that time without a warrant. at least get a warrant The Supreme said, you need to get a court warrant for that sort of activity. and they reinforced our right to privacy. And yeah, President Trump and those on our side of the aisle lost a few big decisions as well, But all that proves is that this is an independent court Folks, no one on the left is going to want to admit this because they've been trying to cultivate this notion that this is an illegitimate Supreme Court and they just always side with Trump. They must court pack in order to steal control of it is their biggest claim right now. But this was another Supreme Court session that proved that no, this court does not always rule in Trump's favor or the conservative favor If anything, it proves that the members of this court really do try to follow the Constitution and the letter of the law and get their decision right. The birthright citizenship decision was poorly defended by those who wrote it, but it was a clear attempt at getting it right. It was clear that Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh and the others put a lot of time and effort in trying to get it right The other big disappointing decision was the mail and ballot decision, But there again, the majority ruling was defensible. It was a defensible one. Basically, Cony Barrett and the others were right to say states are the ones to determine how they're going to run their elections, not the federal government. And so if Congress wants to put additional and more specific restrictions on federal elections, they would need to do that That's a defensible decision, even if many of us on the right disagree with the logic And then there were the cases that affected President Trump more personally The court refused to take up the bogus sexual assault case from Egene Carroll and slapped down some of his tariffs, et cetera. Donald Trump is not getting everything he wants out of the Supreme Court, nor is the conservative side of the aisle As Mark Tason said afterward, if anyone actually cares to look, they again have shown that the leftft's claim that this is a terribly biased court is bologoney. But in all these areas, they're upholding the Constitution. and sometimes they they rule that the Constitution rules in favor of the president and sometimes they find that it doesn't what he is going to do. What we're seeing, putting aside the specifics of the cases is that the argument for reform or for packing the court that the Democrats are going to make is complete bunk There is no case for it. This is a conservative court, but it is a fair court, and it rules against the president as well as for him Trump's not winning all of them, nor are we ideological conservatives. Remember, these are legal conservatives, They're judicial conservatives hearing the cases and issuing these rulings, not political conservatives, if you will But I am at least seeing well thought out decisions by the dissent and conservative justices in each of these cases, and we conservatives are winning virtually all the most important ones The Supreme Court has been bending us back toward the original intent of the Constitution and laws that were passed by past Congresses. We conservatives and the pro American voters have been on a serious winning streak with this current mix of court members, more so than at any other time in my sixty year lifetime And it's why I refuse to wallow in the crapulence of one or two decisions that didn't go our way Many of us on the right never expected that the president was going to win the birthright citizenship case just based on how that fourteenth ammendment has been viewed and enforced for generations now Still, I was hoping that the justices would make an effort to suggest ways in which Congress and we the people could further clarify or deal with that issue of anchor babies. They didn't Brett Kavanaugh did in his concurrence, but the other justices issued such a strong and categorical dissent that there wasn't much in the way of guidance here for our current president or our current Congress. Listen to Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley on Fox. It is a roaring decision in favor of birthright citizenship as contained within the fourteenth Amendment That is despite the countervailing evidence of some of the draffters of that amendment that they did not want this to be something that would cover birthright citizenship. Now having said that, there are very good arguments on both sides here, good faith arguments. And I'm just reading through the Roberts decision today, but it is a very comprehensive I in good faith argument What is left here is a decision for the country as to whether it wants to examine a constitutional amendment. some countries that have had birthright citizenship got rid of it Because many of us believe it's an incredibly ill considered policy. What happened in a nutshell is that the two conservative justices who sided with the liberals on the court and preserved anchor babies as a thing, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, basically ignored the clear text of the fourteenth Amendment and the larger Constitution, and they declared that any baby who's born on US. soil, regardless of circumstance, if they're just touching US soil When they're born, that person's a U. S. citizen even if it's just happenstance. And that's a ridiculous interpretation of the fourteenth, and it bucks against common sense, as the great Molly Hemingway of the Federalist said afterward. She said, This is an important and devastatingly bad decision for the future of the country This decision that John Roberts authd is bad on the level of Dred Scott or Roe v. Wage. He says it's that bad. Previously, we had a policy of saying that if you have parents who are here illegally and you're born here, you might be considered a citizen. But today is the first day that it's a constitutional right, she said. And she said, it's frankly, pretty absurd The fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says you can't deny citizenship on the basis of race. That's what it was for. There were people who were trying to deny citizenship to children of formerly enslaved people, and that's what the fourteenth Amendment was for. She said it was never saying you don't get to have any say in who's a citizen which is why Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas were both fuming in their dessents Folks, Clarence Thomas is known for brevity when he writes his opinions. He never writes long opinions, but his dissent on this one covers ninety one pages. That's how angry he was with his fellow justices and how badly they botched this Sam Alito was also fuming He wrote, In my judgment, the court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country's future Suppose that a person's only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing and was inoculated with hatred of this country. According to this court now, he said that person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. evenven if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen at least under current precedent That's what these five court members open us up to as well as, I suppose, that person even running for president of the United States. They were basically codifying the ludicrous situation that this country has been in in which any woman from any part of the world can come here on a visa or just sneak in illegally, drop children, and have instant access to our generous welfare programs as well. The Democrats and the proillegal crowd want to insist that illegal aliens don't have access to our welfare programs and our government benefits Yes, they do. And one way they do is through the children, having children who are technically US citizens. They can then apply for all sorts of benefits on that child's behalf and the tax paying citizens of the country get screwed again. Basic common sense says that shouldn't be allowed And by the way, it's the reason that other countries that once had birthright citizenship have now ended theirs. Only America is dumb enough to keep offering this loophole to foreigners As Justice Thomas wrote, the majority is repurposing the fourourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in this text. He said todayoday, the court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens. He said, I'm not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time The citizenship clause added greatly to the dignity and the glory of American citizenship, today's opinion devalues that citizenship Does the decision stand the test of time I don't think so. And way back when President Trump and his team crafted the executive order banning birthright citizenship that was in question here I said, he's probably not going to win it, but I'm glad they're pushing this. Trump and his team knew that very likely the Supreme Court wasn't going to give them a win on birthright citizenship. But as I explained to listeners at the time, this was the best way to raise the issue and try to finally get some action on it. Step one in any process to finally deal with anchor babies and illegal citizenship factories being run by foreign operations was to get a court to define what birthright citizenship is or isn't I assume the Trump and his team figured that a conservative court would at least make it clear that reasonable limits could be put on this amendment as it has ruled with other amendments. But instead, we' got a solidly craptctacular ruling that might make this more difficult Still, the ball is in the air JD Vance was on Laura Ingram's show afterward and said, Yes, this ruling is disappointing But he did have an interesting take. I do actually think there's a really big silver lining here. and that's the simple fact that a lot of legal experts expected this case to go the wrong direction by seven to two or even eight to one. The fact that this case was a five to four decision effectively means that the concept of birthright citizenship, which is an absurdity to the fourteenth Amendment, that concept is hanging by a thread. And so what I take from that is, yes, we've got to fix the immigration system even more. We have to be even more aware of who's coming into our country to make sure that they're not benefiting from this atrocious Supreme Court ruling, but it also means that we have to keep fighting Laura we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision just as we reverse so many bad decisions throughout the generations It's not a bad point by Vance. This wasn't a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. It wasn't even an overwhelming one. It was a split court, a decision that seemingly could have gone either way That certainly leaves room for more challenges. I just hope that these challenges come sooner rather than later. Normally, such a precedent setting decision like this that's also controversial, is a decision that's considered decided All right, we've settled that at least a generation, if not generations. It's why it took fifty years to overturn Roe and Chevron, et cetera. And so the likelihood of having another case challenging birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court, anytim soon, I think, is very small Yet Clarence Thomas was right. I don't think this ruling stands the test of time Thomas said it doesn't, because the majority opinion ignores so much historical fact and so much of the obvious intent of both the founders and the later Civil War era Congress that crafted the fourteenth Amendment The fourourteenth Amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, and it was a direct response to the Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court decision of eighteen fifty seven that held that blacks were not citizens Thomas wrote both the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six and the fourteenth Amendment guaranteee citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States. He said bllacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power and we're subject to no other authority And so quote, The Supreme Court majority in this decision repurposed the fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot be found in the fourteenth Amendment text olks, themigration Policy Institute says birth tourism accounts for up to twenty six thousand babies that are being born annually in the US and then being taken back to their home countries with American citizenship rights. Meanwhile, the Center for immigration stududies and other separate studies of census data show that somewhere between seven and nine percent of all births in any given year in the US are to illegal Immigrants. Not all immigrants, some are legal. seven to nine percent of all US births each year Our anchor babies basically. That's the stat. That's the loophole in U. S. law Plain and simple And now five Supreme Court justices have further codified that as some sort of constitutional right Hey, if any of the eight billion other people living on this planet can slip in here and have a baby, even if they're just vacationing on a long weekend, boom, that child's US. citizen They've gamed the system, and that's their constitutional right If they aren't US. citizens, they don't have constitutional protections. That is the decision that should have been made here because it's the obvious and logical one Instead, we get another instance in which John Roberts appears to have felt the need to give the leftists a win for once. John Roberts is a terrible justice, and sadly, he's chief justice. For his entire time in the court, he's been trying to find ways to only have the court issue narrow rulings, decisions that don't matter, decisions that never answer the big question in front of them. I've criticized him forever on this. Moreover, he spent his time in the court trying to ingratiate himself to the East Coast elites, and you can't tell me that that doesn't impact his decisions. deceisions like his tortured explanation saving Obamacare. This is a man who, if it's up to him, if he's ever deciding the vote, will never show a backbone and do the courageous thing. Roberts will always cower and find a way to give the leftists a win and let a bad president stand. Conseratives are pounding on Amy Coney Barret, I know, but Roberts is the culprit here They're ignoring the part John Roberts played in this. Hey, you know, Amy Cononey Barret is still a very good and very consistent conservative justice overall. Yeah, she disappointed the right side of the aisle in a few decisions, but she's always got a line of reasoning that seems defensible, even if you don't agree with it. That's not the case with John Roberts He has cooked up some ridiculous and tortured thinking as a way to save Obamacare and justify some of his other decisions. Amy Coney Barrett was not a terrible Trump pick, as so many on the right are suggesting in their anger over one or two decisions In fact, Eric Erksson posted a list of things that Barrett has voted for. cases where she was with the conservative majority as they made their decisions. And the list includes, well, she voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, she was in on that one But also she voted to get rid of Chevron, and that was a fight over regulations. She blocked states from removing Donald Trump from the ballot. She voted to end affirmative action, end temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians. She was on the conservative side allowing states to ban transitioning to minors She empowered the president to fire appointed commissioners of independent agencies. She voted to expand religious liberty several times, expand gun rights several times, end majority minority districts, and end affirmative action several times. And she gave Congress the power to end mail and balloting. She voted in the minority on that one ninety five percent of the time, if not more, Amy Coney Barrett is with the Cervatives on this court. She's not some regular swing vote John Roberts is the tool who should be criticized this week If he would have gone the other way, we would have had a five, four decision in favor. I think his motivation was not to have some sort of upsetting decision that would divide the country After the break and another major ruling we should revel in, the courtss conservatives protect the rights of women and girls, and that decision is about more than just girls, sports and locker rooms. NewsTalk eleven thirty WISN He's proud to present the J. Webber Podcast. Jay. Weber draws from his thirty five year career in radio news and commentary to craft an insightful look at the major stories and impactful issues from around Wisconsin, the nation, and the world. And after you've enjoyed the J Webber podcast We invite you to go to your radio or go online and listen to NewsTalk eleven thirty WISN, Wisconsin's Most Listen to radio station ontinuing my emphasis on the many wonderful wins that we've gotten out of this conservative Supreme Court since Donald Trump installed three conservative justices. Let's talk about the decision on transgenders and women's sports because I don't think that the average American or the average left wing activist fully understands what the Supreme Court did here If the lefties in the alphabet crowd are angry that the court said states and locals can ban men and boys from women's sports and women's locker rooms, well Wait until they hear about the true scope of this ruling because my friends, the six three decision that was handed down does more than protect Title nine. It does more than allow governments and organizations to ban transgenders from ruining women's sports if they want to And by the way, the decision does not ban men and boys from women's sports or locker rooms. All it says is that other entities can This is not a federal ban on men and boys in women's sports or locker rooms. Yet again, there seems to be all sorts of confusion over this on the left and in the Lfty media, because they're either too dumb to actually understand the ruling or because they are being lied to by the left wing activists and Democrat lawmakers Let's face it, neearly all of the people on social media and in the media outlets who are reacting to this are reacting to whatever the Democrat leaders and left wing activists are telling them. They're characterizing this as something that it's not Most on the left have been characterizing this as the Supreme Court justustices just banned transgenders from women's sports. No, they didn't actually. What they said is someone else can, states can, organizations can't They ruled that it is not a violation of the Constitution or the individual rights of the athlete to do so, period. That was the decision As the Wall Street Journal editors correctly couch it, the Supreme Court struck a blow for equal rights for women, federalism, and common sense on Tuesday by ruling six three that the states can ban biological males from women's sports teams Two biological males said laws in West Virginia and Idaho that barred them from girls sports violated the fourteenth Amendment's equal Protection Clause. The justices disagreed on the grounds that the state laws don't discriminate against transgender individuals. The laws distinguish between males and females They say Justice Bret Kavagh writes for the majority and says the states may treat all biological males the same and treat all biological females the same, given the inherent physical differences. A sex based distinction is constitutional if it is substantially related to an important government interest He said, and the interests in safety and competitive fairness are important in this case Sona Sota Mayor and the Liberals wanted to argue that you know more fact finding was needed on the biology of transgenderism. Kavanaugh disagreed Kavanaugh said many states and athletic organizations have concluded that biological males still retain a physical advantage after taking puberty blockers and hormones, and he said legislatures and schools are better able to draw the appropriate policy lines And so these Wall Street journal editors conclude the ruling will give states more leeway to handle transgender disputes which aren't going away. The Trump administration has argued that separating sports by biological sex to provide fair competition for girls is actually required by Title nX These legal appeals might be next. Progressives portray transgender issues as another civil rights crusade, but letting biological boys compete against girls arguably makes a mockery of Title IXine And so yes, the court's majority got it right. That's the first glance or the obvious take for anyone who's reading the decision But some legal eagles are already saying the court decided a much broader question here which is whether U S. law can continue to be written based on biological sex A much larger question here that undergirds Title Iine and these court cases is, can Congress and the United States continue to draft laws that recognize biological sex and continue to divide up society that way? I know it sounds basic and silly, but with today's raging leftists and their legal scholars constantly trying to dream up new ways to destroy both gender and societal norms This is an important clarification Not only was Title nine drafted as a law to protect the rights of one biological sex, women, but future laws can be too We have all sorts of laws on the books that reference biological sex. They reinforce the idea that women deserve equal protections and equal opportunities to men opppportunities that wouldn't exist or would be greatly weakened if biological differences were ignored In fact, that's the foundation the Title nine was built on. It just happened to pertain to sports. But suddenly in this era, the activist alphabet crowd is pretending that biological sex can and should be trumped by gender identity, even when it comes to equal protections for women And so as one pundit puts it, if sex based distinctions can be ignored and eliminated in sports, there's really no limit There's no obvious limiting principle on this question of whether the biological differences on sex mean anything, and it would open the door towards stripping away any and all rules and laws meant to even the playing field for women and girls All sex specific legal protections could evaporate. As this Pundit puts it, these legal cases are testing whether biological sex should continue to matter as a legal principle in American law And our Supreme Court just affirmed in a strong manner They do another way, quote, By recognizing that states may preserve women's athletic competitions based on biological sex, the court reaffirmed the principle that equality does not require pretending that men and women are the same The activists on the left are really going to lose their minds when they figure that out that there is a much broader legal implication to this ruling. It makes it harder for them to wage their gender wars by intentionally confusing biological sex with gender identity They are not the same thing And frankly, nine tenths of the alphabet agenda is based on the hope that you don't know that, that most people don't know the difference between sex and gender Oh and this is also going to set off the alphabet activists. It already is among those who've seen it on social media Justice Clarence Thomas also more directly addressed the issue of gender confusion and where those who suffer from it fit in legally, he wrote, men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable biological characteristic. It is binary, and man and woman, boy and girl are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex To use language to obscure reality to show indifference regarding the truth is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens as equals That is a strong statement, and it's not wrong Thomas is correctly suggesting gender dysphoria is a mental health status, not a biological status. You either have male plumbing or female plumbing, and what you in your head think about that does not change the plumbing You're either male or female and know it, or you're male and female with a mental illness that has you gender confused is basically what Thomas is saying And the vast majority of Americans agree with that because it seems to be common sense If you take all of the emotion and angst that the gender confused and the alphabet activists have built up around this issue over the last decade or so Thomas' take is at its core, Common sense And I've said repeatedly, the rest of us can and should have sympathy for the sliver of us that are gender confused and struggling with that sort of stuff, especially our young people But that compassion cannot be used against us to agree to or to adopt or to force us to adopt ridiculous logic. In fact, Justice Kavanaugh went out of his way to note that this was a delicate issue because young people are involved. He wrote most of the biological, female and transgender student athletes who are involved in transgender sports disputes around the country are teenagers and in their early twenties Those student athletes want to play sports, their desire to compete warrants respect. No student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender deserves to be ostracized or vilified I think we all agree with that But what the Tr bullies are trying to do is erase all protections and opportunities for women and girls if There are gender confused boys and men who want to play on their teams or dress in their locker rooms And that is not anything that approaches equal protections for transgenders. Sorry, it's not And so this opinion doesn't automatically kill off or reverse pro trans policies that have been put in place in states like California and Connecticut. The court said the locals get to decide. but what it does say very importantly, is any trans person who is denied access to participation is not having his or her constitutional rights trampled on And so this ruling does not, quote take a ridiculous situation off of the table as President Trump characterized it after the ruling came down He basically said, good, we settle that Now, the fights over these rules and laws are likely to continue And they probably do with the left wingers shifting over to an argument related to quote, defining biological sex. But it's a big win for the country and for common sense, nonetheless. As I say, the court's decision should, should have implications well beyond sports because Kavanaugh and Thomas absolutely destroy the fundamental argument behind this transgender movement and ideology That sex isn't assigned at birth and can be changed and is really just a state of mind rather than hardwired plumbing and hormones It is not The Ct just made that clear. They just said in so many words, sex is biological. You can play word games, but sex is biological. It's not bendable. There's no gray area. You were born either one or the other. and as a society, that's one way we can define you Moreover, given that the trans bullies have been pushing their agenda for years now, we've got a certain amount of state and local laws and ordinances that are based on gender that have been put in place, cowtaing to the trans bully argument. Those could change Over time, it's probable that more court cases will pop up in the wake of this decision challenging those. There are laws out there that say, you know, for our purposes here, sex is determined by what the person in question labels themselves No, wrong. Those ordinances and laws are more likely to crumble now. But at the very least, parents have a strong new tool against any and all of the rules that school districts, communities, and entire state legislatures have put in place when it comes to boys and men in women's spaces You've got to believe a whole new wave of court cases challenging those rules rammed into place by the leftists across the country on school boards, etcetera. those new lawsuits will be brought forward You're listening to the J. Weber podcast, a presentation of News Talk eleven thirty WSN and IHart Radio podcasts. J. Weber draws from his thirty five year career in radio newews and commentary with an irreverent wit that simply can't be matched. Right minded alternative to media outlets that substitute self serfing narratives For candor and truth. Listen to the J. Weber podcast, published every Tuesday and Friday. Be sure to subscribe Another big win for Americans and those among us who want less regulation and less government interference is the ruling related to the so called independent commissions. This is another ruling that I swear to you, I knew would be coming if this issue ever made it to the Supreme Court. Finally, it did This was another straightforward question in my mind. If there are only three branches of government as detailed in the Constitution, and if the executive branch is in charge of the daily operations of the federal agencies, and it is Well, then Congress cannot just invent what is basically a fourth branch of government and claim that certain agencies are, quote, independent of the president or Congress. The claim that the members of this commission can be appointed by the president, but that's it. They can't be replaced or fired by a president. That's always been silly And the Supreme Court finally dealt with it And this is another instance in which both sides of the news media are getting it wrong. They want to portray this as the Supreme Court expanding presidential powers or quote, giving President Trump new powers. No, it's not Most of the high profile decisions of the session were related to restoring a president's powers, restoring powers that the executive branch has always had since the inception of the Constitution but had either been limited or taken away from them unconstitutionally over time Look, if one president created the so called temporary protection status for a group of illegals at some point, it means that a future president can certainly end or alter that status. and that's just constitutional common sense. And yet, thanks to today's America hating activist left, That had to be clarified in court. The president's powers had to be clarified and quote, restored to President Trump. These aren't new powers that he's being given in any of these cases, and the mainstream assumption is wrong. It shouldn't be tolerated Why not? Because it helps the left mischaracterize what's going on here, doesn't it Supreme Court is not, quote, expanding a president's powers because they love Trump. That is bull crap plays into the left's illegitimate court nonsense. We gott to pack the court to restore credibility. No, this Supreme Court is restoring presidential powers that have always been there per the Constitution that this president, Trump is asking to have back. Trump's challenges all relate to him and his team saying, Look, a president has these powers and Trump wants to exercise them Hey, maybe past Cgresses or past courts have stepped in and unconstitutionally or illegally limited them But they can't Trump's going to use them and wants them back. basically what has been at the heart of a lot of these Supreme Court rulings over the last few Supreme Court sessions, certainly this one We'll get to the clarification of powers related to our immigration laws in a minute. It also occurred there. But let's start with the Supreme Court ruling that verified a president can hire and fire any agency or commission head that he wants to because Congress can't create what is basically a fourth branch of government that they want to work outside of the normal system And hey, hey, I already hear some of you saying the court said he can't hire and fire Fed Chairman wrong This is another misinterpretation of the ruling that all sorts of people are getting wrong especially those on the left The Supreme Court did not say that President Trump could not fire and replace Lisa Cook It said that the president has to give her a reason and allow her to object to her firing follow a process. That's all that they ruled. But as for the main ruling related to independent commissions, by a six three margin, the court struck down a federal law that bans presidents from firing members of federal commissions and agencies. The specifics of this case dealt with the Federal Trade Commission It's a lengthy, one hundred and eight page decision and it supports the so called unitary theory of government. That theory is the president can remove any agency head within the executive branch through plenary power, and the legislative branch and judicial branch can't interfere. This is a major win for President Trump and all future presidents. Folks, it took ninety one years for the courts to get this right. ninety one years, but that's how long it took to get a court challenge in front of a constitutionalist court This case, Trump v slaughter restores the proper separation of powers going forward after nearly a century The president has free reign, and the powers are clarified by the Supreme Court He can fire members of agencies under the executive branch, period Rebecca Slaughter was a Biden appointee to the Federal Trade Commission who refused to leave when Trump fired her She claimed no, no, under a nineteen thirty five ruling called Humphrey's executive, she couldn't be fired Justice John Roberts actually wrote the opinion in Sock of shocks, he got this one right. He wrote that the justices got it wrong back in the nineteen thirties. And so he stressed the court's decision merely recognizes what has been clear for a century that those who fall within the president's general administrative control must be removable by the president at will. He said America's founders designed the Constitution to ensure that a president could quote, operate with proper energy and vigor veryery importantly, Humphreries compromised the power of Congress too, because lawmakers increasingly have delegated their rule making authority to these agencies. N Neil Gorsich pointed that out and said Humphreries made independent agencies more tempting repositories for delegated power It made it easy for ninety years worth of Congresses to avoid making laws governing all sorts of things related to our daily lives in America. And in doing so, they got to avoid the blame or the controversy that might come along with that They let anonymous appointees and agency drones handle all the decision making and really write the laws, basically Andider consider how wrong headed this was. They're giving away their own powers, but then also saying this is an independent commission, so the president can't fire anyone Now, come on, who's watching that then who's watching that agency This is setting up a system that encourages regulatory access and runaway government And gee, that's what we got. The result of Humphreries has been ninety one years of runaway government and administrative agencies that write and enforce laws that the American people never asked for and neither a Congress nor president ever voted on This is absolutely contrary to what the founders intended. And right on Q, the three liberal justices on the court flew into a fit and predicted chaos if Humphries was overturned And we actually had more control over these agencies. Good grief You know any move that might relax the left's grip on power or return power to the people is one they just cannot abide. The only hiccup here is that the court split five, four on the question of Rebecca Cook. They said President Trump cannot replace Cook at the Fed without first providing her notice and an opportunity to fight it. Okay the Trump team has already suggested that Cook can be expecting quote notice and we'll be given an opportunity to argue that she should be able to keep that position Rebecca Cook is basically another affirmative action hire by Joe Biden She's not a dimwit, but she also never should have been appointed to the board. The Biden regime just wanted a black woman and her credentials weren't terribly important to them And so Trump wants her gone and he and his team have nearly three years to quote notify her and then listen to her moan about it before Trump fires her again. The justice has made it clear that the Fed has a unique status as an independent agency because of their role governing monetary policy. So they were saying a president should be more careful about these appointments There should be a higher standard when it comes to the president tampering with its personnel. But they didn't say Trump couldn't fire her Anyone who's putting that in a headline is wrong, and too many news outlets are But this ruling is a huge win for those of us who say a president should have complete control over the executive branch as the founders intended It's called the Unitary exxecutive Theory. and under it, a president should be able to hire and fire anyone appointed to or working in those executive agencies O course he should Writing for the majority, John Roberts said, The president must have the assistance of officers he can trust, although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the president would prefer to work his nominations neeither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work sububordinates who exercise the president's power are subject to removal by him Then and only then can they remain accountable to the president and the president to the people very important point that John Roberts makes there Everyone needs to be accountable to voters in this system somehow And this shouldn't surprise anyone. If you're in an appointed position and a new president comes in and wants to replace you, he can, pereriod This again seems to be US Constitution one hundred one, but it took ninety years to bring this challenge and have an originalist court make the right call That's why it's depressing to think that it could take that long to get another case related to birthright citizenship in front of this court in the wake of their bad decision Tuesday But this decision was a good one. If the Cgressman who created the Federal Trade Commission and these other agencies like it decided that the president would appoint members to it, well, then the president can tamper with its members, period. There was a stretch in the nineteen thirties in which Congress kept creating these so called independent agencies to enforce the laws that Congress would only, you know, sort of sketch in And the Democrats love this to this day. This is how they did Obamacare. We'll sort of give you bullet points and a little framework and then you fill the rest in at the agency They insisted these agencies needed to be free of politics and called them independent. Well, sorry, no First, the Constitution doesn't allow for a fourth branch of government that Congress gets to invent. And second, any agency whose members are political appointees is going to be a political board. It's why I've always hated and exposed agencies or committees that the politicians wanted to set up this way. They wanted to pretend they're independent Okay, so we're going to set up an independent board. It's four members. Two of those members will be appointed by the mayor, one by the countounty executive and hold it, stop wrong You're just hiding the politics behind a nonpartisan veneer the mayor, the county execut, the ones doing the appointing are partisans and they'll choose their partisan friends to serve on the board. How stupid do you think we are as citizens? Same thing here. In nineteen eighty five, a well known columnist named M. Stanton Evans explained this silly system that the Congresses of the nineteen thirties set up as a permanent self enclosed system that operates on its own terms toward its own ends acccording to its own law That describes most of modern Washington, DC to A T That's what these Roosevelt era Congresses created back in the thirties as part of their massive expansion of the federal government Call it the administrative state, call it the deep state, call it the swamp. This is what we're talking about. And it is not what the founders envisioned our government being two hundred fifty years ago By the way, this is another instance in which you should say good for Trump and his team. They could have decided to be yet another executive administration that simply put up with the limits that ped Congresses had put on their powers. Instead, they decided to fight it to correct a constitutional error that bullying Congresses back in the thirties made and that everyone else since on both sides of the political aisle simply decided to put up with. And as for Rebecca Cook's firing, the court ruled that Trump didn't give her the opportunity to make her case against her firing. So fine Trump's team in some manner will give her that opportunity, then Trump will fire her again. Then she will run to the courts again, et cetera. But all Roberts said in that decision was Trump needed to give Cook a quote, meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges made against her. quote To be clear, he wrote. The ultimate question of whether the president can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts. In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts. Rather, we have simply addressed the party's arguments about the appropriate legal standards under which the facts may be evaluate Okay, so let her air her grievances and then fire her ass again. Let's get this started. But as we engage in our celebrations related to two hundred and fifty years of American greatness, we also need to revel in the two hundred and fifty years of constitutional greatness and the very solid blueprints that the founders of this nation left us as future generations Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the pathway to the amendment process, none of them are perfect, but they're all ingenious in their own way and they have endured for two hundred fifty years because of that Before we wrap up the podcast, I should also emphasize how great the Supreme Court session really was because most people are only going to wallow in the final birthright citizenship ruling Over the last few weeks, the Supreme Court has verified that President Trump and all future presidents have great powers and great latitude when it comes to creating and enforcing our border and immigration laws as well. These rulings already seem to be forgotten, but they were just handed down a week ago. Trump and his team notched several very important wins when it comes to immigration in the session. All sorts of left wing challenges to Trump's immigration efforts got their final airings and their final decisions this session and won huge win. was verifying that a president can change the rules, the terms or simply end any temporary protective order that a past president dreamt up and put into place. Again, this should be so constitutionally basic, we shouldn't even have to argue over it The inability to by God end some protections after years and years and even decades has become a huge thorn in the sides of those of us who want honest and fair immigration laws that don't screw over the American people temporary protected status that never went away has become simply yet another way that bleeding heart leftists and America hating liberals could pack the country with desperate foreigners for the rest of us to take care of or turn over our rights to The Supreme Court decision on temporary protected status means that Trump can immediately terminate these benefits for about three hundred fifty thousand people from Haiti and about six thousand people from Syria and the Media has been emphasizing that, but the decision also paves the way for him to end the benefits for people of at least eleven other countries And to be clear, these weren't even protections for legal immigrants from those countries who happen to imigrate here and were here on a temporary visa when the war or the natural disaster hit back home. No, no, no. This was a special status for people who shouldn't ever have been in the country in the first place which is infuriating. Also last week you had the appeals court rule that the administration can move forward with a process known as expedited removal, which allows the government to fast trrack deportations without court hearings for any illegal who can't prove that they've lived in the US. for longer than two years And I don't fsee the Supreme Court feeling the need to get involved in that appeals court decision, So that's likely decided Taken together, these courts are verifying that yes, the executive branch has broad powers when it comes to managing the influx and outflux of foreigners in this country In short, they verified that the mass deportation of illegals is legal and reasonable, so long as the executive branch is enforcing the laws that are already on the books passed by Congress, Insof far as that executive isn't creating any executive orders that are unconstitutional themselves unconstitutional due to race or equal protections or whatever