Erick Erickson HR 1 7/1/26

Greetings America. It is Eric Erikson here across the United States from the Hotel Chelsea and New York City. The full number 8779373-725. Okay, everybody calm down and take a deep breath. I'm going to walk you through the immigration decision. If you've seen some of the hysteria online about the immigration decision, did you realize, did you know that the Supreme Court decision yesterday? was 8 to 1 and possibly 9-0 on the issue of illegal immigrants' children could be American citizens. Did you know that? Because I bet you didn't based on the hysteria. I was up until after 2 o'clock this morning reading the full decision. Thomas's dissent is like 90, 92 pages long, 91 pages long. The hysteria from people on the right over this, I just, I got to read you. One of the posts from one of the guys of vegetables, who I know I've always liked considering him a friend. It just seems a little unhinged. And I can't believe he's serious on all of the hysteria from what he said. And it's as relevant, I think, to everything else is reading some of the just really, I think, bizarre hysteria from the right. Let me read you this. Several ways forward here, given the choice of John Roberts Amy Coney Barrett to nullify the 14th Amendment and extra constitutionally replace it. Number one, nullification, states issue birth certificates, and they can just stop issuing them to non-citizens. Two, pack the court. Exactly what the progressives on the left want to do. If Robert wants to be a politician who writes laws instead of a judge, he can fight with 10 more unelected legislators. Three, Deny entry to all pregnant foreigners. Four, deny entry to all female foreigners. Five, require sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry. Six, dissolution of the union. A nation which can't even restrict who gets to be a citizen is in a nation. Seven, amend the Constitution. This is pointless because once a judge decides he can rewrite the Constitution at will, the actual text is meaningless. But this is what most GOP politicians gravitate towards because they're useless. I need you to take a deep breath here, all of you, as I put this case in perspective. And again, I've read it. Take a deep breath. I'm going to tell you something that is the God's honest truth. All the Supreme Court decided yesterday is to affirm 140 years of precedent. If you've listened to my program, For the last number of years, you knew that the decision was going to be this way. And by the way, it was not a five to four decision. It was a six to three decision. It was John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Jackson, Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. And if you read the dissents of Samuel Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, All three of them say there are classes of children of illegal aliens who would be American citizens. Samuel Alito's was more nebulous, but both Thomas and Gorsuch, in their dissents, acknowledge that illegal alien children...

would be citizens of the United States in most cases, and Gorsuch would have been in the majority, except for the birth tourism issue. Neil Gorsuch's dissent makes very clear. He would have been in the majority on the issue of citizens or children of illegal aliens. All the Supreme Court did was affirm 140 years of precedent. We have for 140 years, 120, if we really want to be precise, 120, 140 years. For 120 to 140 years, this nation has recognized that children born in this country, with the exception of foreign diplomats, the military invasion and things like that, that they are citizens. Many of you cite the statement of one of the authors of the 14th Amendment, and both the dissent and the majority opinion point out, you've all taken him out of context. The author of the 14th Amendment was Senator Jacob Howard, and this is his statement. Every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtue of natural law and national law citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors. or foreign ministers are credited to the government of the United States, but we'll include every other class of person. The way it's written is who are foreigners, aliens, comma, who belong to the families of ambassadors. The problem is everyone exerts that. They take an excerpt of that. As the Supreme Court pointed out, if you actually read the full paragraph in context and understand the Oxford comma wasn't a thing back then, there's an errant comma in the phrase. because he is using nouns, foreigners, aliens, and then it's who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. What the court says, and what the long-prevailing interpretation outside the hardcore anti-immigration is, is what it actually is saying is that this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers are credited to the government. Why? Because each of his phrases starts with a noun, except for who belong to the families of ambassadors. The only way to understand that one, who belong to ambassadors, is... The comma after aliens was misplaced. And there is no Oxford comma back in the 1800s when he said this. So this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States. Now, if you take the entire statement...

of Jacob Howard, it makes it very clear that he is talking about aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors. He never contemplates illegal aliens who come to this country and give birth. But regardless of that, for the last 120 years minimum, that's how we've interpreted the law. And that's the Supreme Court decision, is we're going to keep doing what we've been doing. This wasn't an issue 10 years ago. This has only become an issue because Joe Biden allowed the border to be flooded with illegal aliens. What I disagree with with the majority opinion, where I think John Roberts got it wrong is he was too broad. John Roberts went too far as a reaction to Trump. And some of you aren't going to like to hear this, but the president deserves some blame. The president and his team went for broke on this. They took a maximalist position. And in taking a maximalist position, the Supreme Court responded in kind. Had the president issued his executive order on birthright citizenship and focused on birth tourism, he probably could have gotten minimum five-four decision. You had Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Thomas in the minority. Thomas, by the way, again, Thomas is dissent 91 pages long, and it's far better written than the majority opinion, which spends most of its time responding to Clarence Thomas and his clear dictation of history. The Thomas decision is very good, but even Clarence Thomas in his decision acknowledges that many children of illegal aliens born in this country would be American citizens. The question was, were the parents coming here and leaving or did they intend to stay? And if the parents intended to stay in the country, their children would, by virtue of that, be American citizens. Everybody's missing. Everybody's dancing around it. Everybody wants to lay off Thomas. Amy Coney Barrett is being attacked as a woman with adopted children from Haiti. You can't trust her because she's got black kids from Haiti. That's literally a prevailing argument of the right online today that Amy Coney Barrett is a traitor to the country. She's a closet liberal. I gave you Amy Coney Barrett the other day. Let me give you Amy Coney Barrett's record. For those of you who are, I mean, there's an entire pattern and practice here of eviscerating Amy Coney Barrett. She voted to get rid of Roe v. Wade. She voted to get rid of Chevron. She voted to give President Trump immunity from prosecution. She blocked states from removing Donald Trump from the ballot. She ended affirmative action. She ended temporary status for Haitians when she has Haitian adopted kids. She allowed states to prohibit transitions of minor. She banned boys from girls' sports. She empowered the president to fire commissioners of independent agencies. She got rid of the old lemon law and expanded religious liberty. She expanded gun rights. She ended majority minority districts. But oh my God, she sided with the majority on this, and she's got black kids from Haiti. She must be a traitor to the country. Brett Kavanaugh sided with the majority too. Now Brett Kavanaugh decided on statutory grounds.

Amy Coney Barrett did not add a concurrence. She sided with the majority. But my suspicion is, and it is just, it's a suspicion, that if Congress passed a law and said that we will restrict birthright citizenship. Amy Coney Barrett would go along with it. She's a proceduralist and a textualist. And Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says Congress can pass laws to enforce it. And I think if Congress passed a law that clarified Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, Amy Coney Barrett would go along with it. That gives you five votes. This is not a disaster of a case. I think John Roberts went too far. I think John Roberts went far further than what he should have gone. And I think that... Amy Coney Barrett would side more. The person that Amy Coney Barrett sides with the most on the court is Brett Kavanaugh. And Brett Kavanaugh sided with the majority, but he claimed that the power comes from statute. It doesn't come from the text of the 14th Amendment. It just reiterates the text of the 14th Amendment, but Congress has latitude. And I suspect strongly that Brett Kavanaugh, if Congress passed a law, would side with Congress, particularly on birth tourism, but also. There are things that can be done. I'm seeing the hysteria here of conservative pundits and activists of the grifter class. And this, friends, is the thing that I got to point out to you, is that the case maintains the status quo. And the only reason people are exercised about it is because of the mass flow of illegal immigration in this country over the last four years with Joe Biden. And many of those people have now been deported by the President of the United States, rounded up and deported from the country. But this decision is not some massive, like, destruction of the country. And in fact, I got to tell you again, and it's very important that you understand this. that it was clearly eight people on the Supreme Court acknowledged that children of illegal aliens born in this country could become citizens. It was a matter of degree. It was not a matter of absolutes. Neil Gorsuch would have been with the majority except for the issue of birth tourism. Clarence Thomas acknowledged in his dissent that there were classes of children of illegal aliens born in the country who would be American citizens.

Samuel Alito was more nebulous. But even Samuel Alito acknowledged that there was clearly a particular class of illegal alien who would be a citizen. And that is if two parents were born in this country from illegal aliens and then they had a child in this country, that child would be an American citizen. The illegal aliens born in this country would not necessarily be, but their product, their child. A child descended from two illegal aliens would be a citizen in this country. I'm not going to dwell on I've been telling you for months this is the way the case was going to go. But before I go to commercial break, I got to emphasize one more thing. If you are furious about this case, you should spare some of your wrath for Donald Trump's team who advised him to go for broke because had he been far more restrained and focused on birth tourism. He would have won this case, but he wanted to take the maximalist position and the Supreme Court maximally pushed back. And if you can't acknowledge that, you're being intellectually dishonest. Have something to say? Hello. 1-877-9-7-E-Ring. That's 1-877-97-9-3-7-425. You can be live on Eric's show by calling 877-97-97-9-7-Earic. That's 877-97-9-3-44-25. Welcome back. It's Eric Erickson here. I am coming to you from the Hotel Chelsea in New York. Unfortunately, we're going to have to do phone calls tomorrow because my setup here, I have limited bandwidth in order to broadcast the show to you and can't also run the call screening at the same time. So we knew this was going to happen. We tried to get out. It was just too expensive to get special lines run into this hotel room. So I am in this building. Y'all, this is the coolest thing. I am actually in Mark Twain's room. So Mark Twain had an apartment. They've subdivided into multiple hotel rooms, and I happen to be in Mark Twain's room. And down the hall is where Arthur C. Clark wrote many of his science fiction, including 2001 of Space Odyssey. Bob Dylan lived upstairs. Janice Chaplin lived upstairs. It is Ironhorn murdered that woman, you know, the founder of Earth. They murdered that woman and kept her in the trunk of this hotel. The Allman Brothers used to live in here. George O'Keefe used to live. I had no idea the history of this place. It is so freaking cool. And it is the quietest. Now, I'm not facing the street. If I was facing the street, maybe I'm facing a courtyard in the back. The hotel is super quiet. And they're pushing us. We got to get out of the hotel room here. As soon as the show is over, they let us do late checkout. I'll be on a plane this evening coming back to Atlanta. Couldn't stay tomorrow because the rumor is that a certain bride and her NFL husband are getting married this weekend and the bridesmaids are staying in the hotel. This is Taylor Swift's favorite hotel in New York City. She's written several songs referencing the hotel until she got her apartment here in New York was known to stay here. So it's kind of a wild thing to...

to be hanging out in the hotel. It's just, it's a neat place. It's in the Chelsea neighborhood. And I got to tell you, though, I mean, I mean, Pride Month is over. Every corporation in America has gone back to being straight again. But yeah, the, the lot of rainbow flags hanging up in this neighborhood. In any of it, it's cool. Now, listen, there are other Supreme Court cases. I want to get to those cases. In fact, I suspect one of those cases is a more important case than this case because all this case does is preserve the status quo. And I want to talk about those cases. But before I talk about those cases, when we come back, I also want to calm you down and provide you some solutions for how to deal with the Supreme Court. You don't have to amend the Constitution. In fact, the way I read the case, I'm pretty sure there would be a 5-4 vote in favor of Congress passing new laws without having to amend the Constitution. But there are other things that can be done. And those other things are easier to do. And many of those things can be done by the president himself without an act of Congress. to upend the Supreme Court decision. And there are things I think the president is already plotting. I know a number of people who have advised him on some of these issues, and we'll get to those when we come back. So stick around. There are some easy solutions to implement, which is why this is not a here on fire matter. I want to tell you first about vision computers. If you're buying a computer, building a computer, vision computers, they're the people for you. You call them at 404 computer. Go to visioncomcom and let vision computers. build you a brand new computer or upgrade your existing computer. If you get a new computer with them, they give you the world-class tech support. So we've got a lot of new listeners down in Southern California. Let me tell you, you can call Vision Computers as well. And if you're a small business in Southern California and you can't afford an in-house IT guy, you can use Vision Computers as your managed IT solution. And literally your employees get a phone number where they get to call an actual human being and that actual human being, not an AI chatbot. There's no phone tree hell where press one for this, no habla, Spanish. whatever. You get an actual human being on the phone in 15 seconds or less, and they can get you back up and running so your employees can be great at their jobs and vision can be great as your computers. They can even remote in and help you. Call them at 404 compute. 404 compute or visioncomputers.com. Tell them Eric sent you.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. It's Eric Erickson here across the United States live from New York today. Happy to be here. Listen, now that we're a little bit into the show, I... Thanks to Drew Steele for filling in yesterday, but I got to tell you, I felt terrible not being with you here yesterday. I couldn't be with you. I am at a radio conference. It's a who's who of bosses and the like around the country and programmers. And I was asked to moderate a panel that fell at 1.30 yesterday afternoon Eastern time. There was no way I could do my show. And I kept telling them, y'all, I'm afraid that we could have Supreme Court decisions. But the conference was set and I was committed. I couldn't be here yesterday. And I did. I want you to know, I openly complained on stage that I was there when I should have been with my audience. So I am here today. I do apologize. And I'm not set up to take your phone call stay from this hotel. So tomorrow I can spend a lot of time navigating these decisions with you. But let me, if you're just tuning in, give you basic summation. What the Supreme Court ruled on the immigration case yesterday was that the last 100 plus years of interpretation of the 14th Amendment are going to govern. We're just not going to change it. Eight very clear statements from Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas, that some children of illegal aliens born in this country would be citizens. That for Clarence Thomas, it was a domicile issue. Where did they intend to reside? So, for example, if an illegal alien came through the United States intending to move to Canada, came back to the United States and gave birth, that child, the child would not be an American citizen. But if an illegal alien came into the United States and intended to remain in the United States and gave birth to a child, that child would be an American citizen. John Roberts's position is that would be extremely complicated to litigate someone's intent of domicile because we already... have situations in the country where that's got to be determined, and it is a very difficult thing to try to determine domicile issues. But nonetheless, I just, I want you to understand that eight members of the court were very clear that there is a class of illegal alien child born in this country who would be an American citizen. It was not 5'4. It was not. And people are really freaking out about this over the immigration issue. And it just shows you how much Joe Biden's policies... flooding the border with illegal aliens has overwhelmed the psyche of so many people in the right. So what do we do about it?

There are a number of issues that can be done very quickly. One of these is the big issue. And Neil Gorsuch, I got to point this out to you, Neil Gorsuch would have been in the majority. It would have been a 7-2 decision instead of a 6-3 decision. By the way, it was a 6-3 decision. It was 5 on the issue of the Constitution. Brett Kavanaugh agreed, but based his decision on statute, Neil Gorsuch would have been with the majority except for the issue of birth tourism. There are Chinese communists, for example, who go into American territories, Guam, the northern Marianas Islands, and the like give birth so that their kids become American citizens. And Neil Gorsuch is very concerned with that. And I think you could get a 5-4 decision on a law passed by Congress that says birth tourism is you can't become a citizen that way. But also... It is already existing Supreme Court doctrine that the 14th Amendment does not automatically apply to the territories of the United States. Did you know that? The 14th Amendment applies to the states, but does not automatically, except by statute, apply to the territories of the United States. Marco Rubio could today issue an opinion from the State Department prohibiting birth tourism and saying the 14th Amendment citizenship provision does not apply to people born in those territories unless their citizens are domiciled in those territories already. You could do that. The President of the United States could issue an executive order. saying that birth tourism is prohibited within the territories of the United States, that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply, it doesn't take an act of Congress, the president could actually do that. He could, and I think based on what J.D. Van said last night, he probably will. The second thing that can be done without even an act of Congress is Marco Rubio, a secretary of state, could issue visa restrictions on women coming into the territories of the United States if pregnant. He could do that. And we could pressure our other nations who want access to this country to enforce visa requirements on that. He could do that without an act of Congress. The other thing that can be done and is being done is the president of the United States could 100% crack down on the border, which this president has done. Nobody is doing stories about an influx of illegal aliens into the United States right now because the border is secure. So the big existential terror... is fixed. The second big existential terror is what to do about the illegal aliens already here. Deportations. And the president of the United States can deport those illegal aliens. See, I'm telling you, there are solutions and Donald Trump is implementing many of them already. This is not a set-your-hair-on-fire moment.

We have had over the years on this program a number of people who have called in very argumentative with me that they knew the 14th Amendment did not apply. Now, I will tell you, I think John Roberts went too broad. I think John Roberts' decision went too far, particularly on birth tourism. But I think you could get 5'4 in favor of banning birth tourism. But also all John Roberts did was exactly what I've been telling you guys he was going to do. He was going to uphold the traditional understanding of the 14th Amendment. And you can say that's not the traditional understanding, but for the last 120 years minimum, that's how we've interpreted the 14th Amendment. And the people who have interpreted otherwise have had to take out of context the author of the 14th Amendment. They haven't been honest with how they interpreted him. They pulled a sleight of hand based on commas, not context. Regardless of your opinion, There are immediate ways that you can crack down on the situation. There are immediate ways that you can solve the situation. There are immediate ways to fix the problem that you are fretting about that would be completely constitutional and upheld by the United States Supreme Court. It's absolutely bizarre to me the level of hysteria from conservative pundits and activists today. And I just, I want to tell you again, my job is not on a daily basis to whip you into terrors to keep you coming back. My job is not to lie to you. My job is to keep you entertained. It's to keep you tuning in on a daily basis and to keep you engaged, to add some humor. to make you laugh, to share life with you, to live life with you. But I'm not going to lie to you to do it. I'm not going to lie to you and tell you the lies you want to hear. And I'm not going to echo what other people tell you. And to the extent that you want to email me and say, everyone else is saying the opposite, Erickson, you must be wrong. I'm telling you, there are a lot of people who are invested in keeping you terrified. There are a lot of people who are invested in lying to you. There are a lot of people who are invested in making you angry. They don't care about the truth, and I care about the truth, and I care about the truth, because I will be held accountable to God Almighty one day. And if Jesus is the way the truth in the life, then the truth is ascertainable. And the truth is what the Supreme Court did was say, we're just going to keep interpreting the 14th Amendment, as we've always done. And there were explicitly eight members of the Supreme Court who recognized that some children of illegal aliens would become citizens of the United States. Five of them said all children of illegal aliens. Eight of them said at least some children of illegal aliens. And people on the right are particularly targeting Amy Coney Barrett. And I don't understand why you're targeting Amy Coney Barrett and not Brett Kavanaugh, who was in the majority. It was a 6-3 decision. Justice Cavanaugh and John Roberts were in the majority. And I would note that overwhelmingly many of the people attacking Amy Coney Barrett are pointing out she has children born from Haiti. She adopted children who were black from Haiti, who lost their family in a devastating earthquake in Haiti.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the people attacking Amy Coney Barrett for having black kids from Haiti are people who are segregationist, racist, white supremacists, or believe that Netter, no enemies to the right of me. We can't attack any people the right of me who are racist and Nazis and white supremacists, but they'll attack Amy Coney Barrett. who has given conservatives overwhelmingly what they wanted, and in the cases she hasn't, it's all been procedural arguments that if conservatives just follow the process, she would have given them what they want. And in this case, For all of you who are angry with the six members of the Supreme Court, you should spare some of your anger for the president who took a maximalist position on the 14th Amendment and defiance of the last 120 years of operation. And the president is the one who brought this on the court. It is the president and Stephen Miller who pushed the president for a maximalist position. Had the president shown any restraint and targeted birthright citizenship through tourism, the president would have won. The president would have won this case had he focused on birth tourism. He would have gotten Samuel Alito. He would have gotten Cavanaugh. He would have gotten Gorsuch. He would have gotten Thomas and he would have gotten Amy Coney Barrett. He would have gotten five. He might have gotten John Roberts. He would have gotten five at least had he only limited to birth tourism. But he decided to go for broke and the Supreme Court broke him on the decision. Don't be mad at me for telling you the truth. But it is the truth. It is the truth. And the truth is also that there are easy ways to fix this, easy ways that don't even involve an act of Congress. But Congress could act. Congress could. There seems to be bipartisan support for banning birth tourism. There appear to be a number of Democrats who themselves support banning birth tourism. They see it as an organized pattern of communist China to do. There appears to be support for doing it. I suspect that you could get it, and Congress should try to do it. Congress should absolutely try. But there are executive orders the president could right now do. There are actions the president is already taking, like securing the border, that mitigate the issue. And so I don't want you to be hysterical. I don't want you to think the country is coming to an end or should come to an end. I don't want you to be like friends of mine who have lost their minds and declared this an end to the country that now we should sterilize women coming into the country. We should ban pregnant women from coming to the country with some exceptions that we should, but not all of them. It's just absolutely insane to me. To watch people lose their minds because the Supreme Court said, we're going to keep doing what we've been doing. If you're angry, again, be a little angry with the president for taking the maximalist position.

Don't think that I'm endorsing what John Roberts said. I'm not. I'm saying that he's just doing what we've been doing for 120 years. I think his opinion was way too broad. Clarence Thomas's 91-page dissent is a master class of walking you through the history of citizenship, but that also allows Clarence Thomas to concede that some kids of illegal aliens born in this country would be American citizens. So all I can tell you, friends, is calm down. We'll get through it. Push the president on executive orders. Keep the border sealed. Get Marco Rubio to crack down on birth tourism through the visa process. And get a bipartisan piece of legislation on birth tourism. That would absolutely get five votes from the United States Supreme Court. to ban birth tourism in this country and say it doesn't apply under the 14th Amendment because Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, Congress gets to enforce the 14th Amendment. And if Congress says no birth tourism in this country, Congress has the ability. And again, Brett Kavanaugh, entire reason for signing with the majority is statute, not constitution. There are things that can be done to minimize this. And in the meantime, we're just going to keep on with the status quo. That's not the end of the world. That's just keeping on, keeping on. And if you think that's going to run us off the cliff, well, guess what? There are things that can be done today to mitigate the decision by executive order without even passing a law in Congress. Honest. Putting your trust in me to tell you what's going on. Transparent. I need you to know this from the bottom of my heart. Giving you the information without the noise. My job is to tell you what you want to hear. It's to tell you the truth. It's the Eric Erickson Show.

Welcome back. It's Eric Herrickson here across the United States. This is our of the program brought to by Van Allen Golf, A-L-L-E-N. Go to Van Allen Golf.com or text golf to 3377- I'll send you a link. You can check them on Instagram as well. Great, great company. My goodness. It's such a fantastic putter. I love it. I'm ready to play golf. Now, when we come back, there are actually two other major decisions at the Supreme Court. And believe it or not, despite the social media hysteria, over the immigration decision, the biggest case yesterday from the Supreme Court with the greatest lasting issues of impact is the NRSC versus FEC. That case is actually way bigger than the immigration case, and the implications of that case are far more widespread and wide reaching than the immigration case that just preserves the status quo. So we will get to that when we get back. But first, I got to tell you, I'm in New York City, and there aren't as many homeless people that I, as I expected, where I have been, now there have been some. The whole place, the just reeks of marijuana. The entirety of every, I'm in Manhattan, I haven't gone out to Queens or Brocks or anywhere else. I've been in Chelsea, the West Village, the upper west side, the Upper East Side, the Midtown area, and every single place you go just reeks of weed. It is so gross. It just stinks. So it's like skunks everywhere. Skunks in a pine forest everywhere. There are homeless. I haven't ventured into the subway. But in Manhattan, at least you wouldn't know a lot of the problems. Now, I haven't been out at 2 o'clock of the morning. I have been reasonable and responsible. But, I mean, this place, it is the white wokes of this place. It is the white progressives of this place who keep sustaining the socialism and the progressivism. So every Uber driver that I have had here and every driver of every car service I've had here has been non-white. Some of them Muslim, some of them Hispanic. Every single one of them conservative. And even the Muslim Uber driver, not a fan of Zohran Mamdani, not a fan of him. All of the working class people here in New York are far more conservative than the well-off whites who continue to advance socialism. And by the way, the socialism in this country, it's on the rise, some big wins. We will get into the socialist advance with the Democratic Party. The commies are taking over the Democratic Party. They are advancing, and the Democratic Party is going to fall over and acquiesce to it. You mark my words. They absolutely are. There is no resistance. within the Denver headboard, they're incompetent and incapable of doing it, which again is why the NRC decision of the Supreme Court yesterday is actually of more monumental far-reaching importance than the immigration case. And everybody's missed it. There's always a sleeper case in the Supreme Court with much bigger impact. And I want to talk about that impact, get into it when we come back. And also the transports case, another huge win.

From Amy Coney Barrett and the Supreme Court, as she's getting vilified by people in the right, I will break all those cases down when we come back and then get into the socialist surge in America and what the heck is actually going on. Eric, Eric, Eric, Senator, don't forget to text Eric, E, R-I-C-K to 33777. Now, I got to tell you about Old Glory Bank, my bank. They could be your bank, old glorybank.com slash Eric. Right now, they are doing deals on mortgages. And here's the thing, which I did not realize because I haven't gotten a mortgage through Old Glory Bank. But if you go to Old Glory Bank and you get a mortgage, You have one person that you deal with, and that person is your Sherpa at Old Glory Bank, and they usher you through at Old Glory Bank to make sure your mortgage is done. They have great rates as well. But you don't have to deal with a bunch of people in an office and unnamed people. You are assigned a mortgage officer, and that person guides you through the process. They are good people. They are a great bank. They believe in your freedom to bank. They support you. They support this country. And you should give them a chance. You should. Oldglorybank.com slash Eric. Oldglorybank.com slash ERICK. Equal housing lender. Terms and conditions apply. Member FDIC.