Hour 2 of NMN, SCOTUS + Hans Von Spakovsky

President Trump taking his from the Supreme Court yesterday, we're going to get into this. Hans von Spakovsky is going to join us coming up at 635 to talk about some of these. I don't know, Joan. I hope that Hans, who is a really, really, really smart guy. Yeah. Who has written so many books on the Supreme Court and illegal immigration and so forth. I'm hoping that he can explain to me how it is that Donald Trump lost this case regarding E. Jean Carroll. I don't get it. I don't get it either. Because when you look at the losses that the president took yesterday, the most personal and the most stinging has got to be the one regarding E. Jean Carroll, who he now has to write a check for $5 million. Now, I don't know if he has the... ability or if he is able to like pay her in pennies. But that's what I would do. I would pay E. Jean Carroll in pennies. Now, remember that she accused the president of sexually abusing her in the mid-90s, in his denials. He said that she wasn't his type and that this whole thing was a hoax. She accused him of defaming her, demeaning her, and a jury in a civil lawsuit said that he had to pay her millions of dollars. They found that he was civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation. It's amazing. She couldn't name anything except a store. Yeah. She couldn't name what she was wearing. She couldn't name the day that it happened. Nothing. Didn't tell anybody? Didn't tell anybody. In this specific lawsuit, SCOTUS decided not to take up the case, which ultimately means that he does have to pay her the money. I mean, it is brutal. The president responded, see, here's the funny thing. This is the $5 million case. Remember, there's still an $83 million case that is still under review. One of the things that I'm going to ask Hans von Spakovsky is, is this sort of an indication as to where the Supreme Court will go in the $83 million case? But the president responded in a truth social post. Surprisingly, he said, the Supreme Court declined to review. A fake case brought against me by a woman I never met, he says, in parentheses, decades-old celebrity photo line standing with her husband does not count. He says, I will continue to fight against this weaponization and lawfare case against me, including the ridiculous claim of defamation with all of my power and my strength. This case is really, he says, against the United States of America. And all it stands for, he says, should never have been allowed to happen to another president or candidate to be. New York created, a New York state created a law for an instant speck of time, a year, going back many decades in order to wrongfully nab me is what the president said. I'm going to get into that in a second, but, I mean, Joan, is the president risking another lawsuit?

From E. Jean Carroll, where he would have to pay even more money by commenting on this? Because that's what happened before. Yeah. What happened before was there was the initial lawsuit. He continued. So she brought another lawsuit. And now he's commenting again, which means that he could be hit with another lawsuit. Yeah, yeah, maybe. Remember the state of New York created that one year look back window so that adults could sue for past sexual assaults. even if the statute of limitations had passed. They created that in order to file a lawsuit against him. They had E. Jean Carroll waiting in the wings ready to go. She and her lawyer, I don't know if you saw this, Joan, but she and her lawyer appeared on a local New York TV show where they even admitted that she helped to change that law. Listen, this is E. Jean Carroll and her lawyer. This would never, I would never have this window this year. of having the ability to bring a lawsuit for rape. Robbie can explain it better. Well, Eugene actually helped to get that law passed. It passed last year. We filed, it was Thanksgiving Day. It was the first day you could sue. We filed it just after midnight on Thanksgiving. And there are a lot of other women throughout the state and hopefully throughout this country that they will get other laws like this passed in other states. New York women should use this law while it's still around, which is until next Thanksgiving. I mean, she made the accusation in 2019. New York created that look back window in November of 2022. Donald Trump had already been president and people on the left hated him. So they changed that law. And so you look at this, and again, I'm hoping that Hans can maybe explain to me the rationale behind the Supreme Court not taking up this case. Basically, they brought out two women who testified on behalf of Carol and also used some of that infamous Access Hollywood tape showing that behavior, they said, was consistent with her accusations. Now, How do we know that this was political in nature? Because the entire thing was paid for by Reid Hoffman. An avowed Donald Trump hater and billionaire, he funded the lawsuit. He paid for the lawyers. He paid for everything. That fact, by the way, now part of a DOJ investigation because she initially, E. Jean Carroll, initially lied about receiving outside funding.

Another thing that he and his lawyers have often spoken about is the lack of disclosure about a big Democratic donor funding part of this case. Was there a reason it wasn't disclosed? And did you view this as political in any way? No. No. I just completely forgot. I just completely forgot that he even existed. In your deposition? Yes, in my deposition. I got to ask this question. So somehow. She forgot that Reid Hoffman was paying her way through this lawsuit, but she has such a great memory of what happened in that department store in the mid-90s. Not only that. She's a nutball. She's a nut job. I mean... Did... Do you have the video scrolling with Haley? I am Haley Kareenia. I scroll with the homies here in the live chat because there's a lot to scroll through on X, on Instagram, on TikTok. Cutting through the clutter, one hot take at a time. Love seeing you all in the chat before the show. I tried to jump in just a few minutes before to say hello. I love the chat interaction. Thank you for helping. But I do it to get all of the videos and all of the content that you won't find anywhere else. Scrolling with Haley. Just search that up and I will be there. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. You know queued up of her telling Anderson Cooper. Anderson Cooper that rape is sexy or something? She's, yeah. I mean, if you want to cue it up, that's fine. I've played it a number of different times. I think, hey, Sam, can you pull up that E. Jean Carroll odd? Just to, I guess maybe to bring the point home as to how bizarre E. Jean Carroll is. And I guess for a lot of us, you just, you can't hear this enough. But she told Anderson Cooper. very bizarrely, if I remember correctly, do you have that, Sam? It's all over YouTube. He's pulling it up now. The word rape carries so many sexual connotation. This was not sexual. It just, it hurt. It just, you know. I think most people think of rape as a, I mean, it is a violent assault. I think most people think of rape as being sexy. She's insane. Can you keep playing it? Do you have the rest of it where Anderson Cooper quickly goes to break? Yeah, it goes to commercial. We got we got to go. A quick break. If you can stick around, we'll talk more on the other side. That is a befuddled talk show host who has no idea what the hell has just happened on his show. Oh my gosh. She's just strange. Yeah. She's just strange. So now there is that separate lawsuit where the jury awarded her $83 million that is still going through the appeals process. A little bit more on this. As far as your weather for today, I mean, just in a word, it is going to be hot. It's going to be muggy. It's going to be sticky, dare I say moist. And it's going to be. It feels like temperature of 110. Why must you use that word?

So according to the Supreme Court, you are no longer allowed to defend yourself against allegations of sexual assault. That's the only thing that I can think of. Yet, I mean, they didn't, and you can ask, who are you having, Hans von Spakovsky. You can ask Hans about this, but it seems so strange that they just didn't take it up at all. They didn't make a ruling, but they decided to just hands off. So maybe for whatever, and I'm maybe there is a reasoning behind that, like we don't take. cases of this nature, something that would just help me understand this. Maybe they can refile with a different argument, like are they telling them, use a different argument? I don't know. Yeah. So Hansel will tell us about that coming up at 635. You know what's crazy, though, is that you have people trying to allege that this is not political, and of course it is political. If you want more proof, there is a guy that most people have never heard of. His name is Norm Eisen. He is a Democrat. He is a consultant. He is a political operative. And apparently he was doing his podcast when all of this came down. E. Gene is a hero. One more blow of the resistance. And that... So you just heard what he said, right? He said that E. Gene Carroll. And remember, this guy himself is part of the resistance. And he said that E. Gene Carroll. is part of the resistance. E. Gene is a hero. One more blow of the resistance. And that shows you, again, it is a Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hydecourt, because at 10, they may announce some things we don't like so much. And they may announce some things we love. So there you go. Now, we all knew that E. Jean Carroll was part of the resistance. Everybody knew and knows what's going on. By the way, more bad news. SCOTUS also decided to allow late arriving mail-in ballots. Basically, from what I can tell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states have their right to execute their elections the way that they see fit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states may count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day rejecting the Trump administration's challenge to invalidate a state law out of Mississippi. This is not a win for Republicans who were challenging this. Mississippi has a state law, which allows ballots to be counted. Mail and ballots. after election day. If they come in, they're postmarked, and meet the state requirements. But it is a five-four loss for Republicans. And an interesting cobbling together of who wrote on this. Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion. John Roberts joined her along with justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Jackson. So those five stuck together on this. So Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, I think would we all agree? I'd love to do a YouTube Daily Dan poll, but we can't today.

Sam. I would love to do a Daily Dan poll and find out Amy Coney Barrett. Joan, do you think it's official that she's been a swing and a miss? Oh, in a big way. Yes. Swing and a miss. Amy Coney Barrett. Because remember, Donald Trump picked Amy Coney Barrett. And she was confirmed by the Mitch McConnell controlled Senate. She was on the list, though. She was really good. Yeah. Like in that Senate confirmation hearing, she was really, really good. And now she is siding with Ketanji Brown Jackson. And. Sotomayor and the rest of these knuckleheads. And John Roberts, I don't, you know, John Roberts is oftentimes siding with the liberals. But Amy Coney Barrett, it seems like she is becoming more and more of a John Roberts. We'll talk to Hans von Spikovsky about that. The five-four decision upholds a Mississippi law that had permitted the counting of mail-in ballots that were postmarked before election day, but arrived. up to five days afterwards. The dissent comes from Samuel Alito. Thomas Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh join him. And essentially what the majority said is that these federal statutes setting election day don't prescribe or they don't stand in conflict with states that want to say, okay, we have a procedure to count ballots after election day. Samuel Alito writing for the dissent says today's decision is inconsistent with the terms of the election day statutes, contemporary election law principles, two centuries of historical practice and the case law. on the question presented. So if you're a state out there that counts ballots after election day based on your state law, that state law will stand. Yeah, it, I mean, to me, clearly they're just saying states are going to do what states are going to do, including a state like California. Which is bad crap crazy. And they'll be counting ballots for four weeks after an election. The outcome they say could have affected voting deadlines in more than a dozen states that will be pivotal in deciding which party controls Congress after this November's midterm elections. The states that allow late arriving postal ballots are mostly Democratic leaning, although a few Republican-led jurisdictions also allow a grace period. So the bottom line is, yes, again, states like California, who just, it is insane, can take weeks to count ballots. They can continue to do so. Stephen Miller was on with Laura Ingram last night. Just call it like it is. John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett decided to cave to the radical left. Samuel Alito was so clear in his... wording about what election day means. Nobody could read the statute, could read that opinion, could read what Samuel Alito wrote, and come to any other conclusion. It's election day, not election week, not election month, not election months. So this was really a travesty, and it underscores Laura, why we have to keep fighting to pass the Save America Act. 80 million Americans elected a Republican Senate majority, and they elected a Republican Congress to deliver on this fundamental

priority. It must get done. Well, sadly, the SAVE Act is not going to pass. Nobody seems to want to pass. And we covered that extensively yesterday. You know, I was actually Joan kind of impressed with the president where he was asked about this. And he just, he seemed sort of resigned. frustrated, obviously, but resigned. A little bit surprising. It gives people more time to vote illegally, let's say. But the Save Act is even more important, and that's the right. Do you have to be a citizen of our country? Okay, you have to show you're a citizen of our country called citizenship, voter ID by photo, photo voter ID, and no mail-in ballots. Unless you're in the military disabled, you're ill or you're away, or even on a vacation, we're being very open about it. It's pretty easy. And we'll have honest elections. But the ruling, which a lot of people were waiting for, that was a ruling that was, I think it was very detrimental to honest elections. But it is what it is. Basically, they're keeping it a little bit the way it is now. All right. So that is Donald Trump. His reaction to a couple of the losses there at the Supreme Court did talk about his reaction to losing regarding the E. Jean Carroll, $5 million judgment against him. That's number one. And that was on Truth Social. And here, the president responding with the loss at the Supreme Court regarding mail-in ballots. Man, is it going to be hot today? Feels like temperature going to be up towards 110 degrees. When I welcome on into the program, Hans von Spikovsky, Hans, thank you for joining us today. You've been kind of walking us through, as you have been for many years, for years truly, some of these Supreme Court decisions. The one that has me baffled. is the one regarding E. Jean Carroll and the Supreme Court deciding to not take up this case where she accused Donald Trump of defaming her as he was basically defending himself against these accusations of sexual assault. And a jury in a civil lawsuit said that Trump had to pay her millions and it makes its way to the Supreme Court. And they decided not to take up the case. So. Help me understand this. Well, I don't understand it either, other than to tell you that for years now, Clarence Thomas, now Justice Gorsuch, have been pushing the court. Because what they say is that the standard for defamation in this country is the wrong standard. And the Supreme Court needs to take a case so they can fix this. But it's clear that, you know, unfortunately, the majority of the justices didn't want to take this case up. And they're making a mistake.

I mean, that's all I can tell you. I don't think it makes sense. I think they should have taken it up. Obviously, if you are being sued, you should be able to defend yourself in public. And you and I both know that entire case was a travesty, and it was just a New York jury. acting politically to get Donald Trump. Because she, her case was a fantasy creation of herself and her lawyers. The whole thing is bizarre. It is my contention, and you can comment on this or not, but it is my contention that the state of New York, we talked about this in a previous segment, you know, basically changed the laws and they gave folks a one-year window to look back and go back and. you know, sue people who may have assaulted them or raped them or whatever, you know, back when. And so they basically extended the statute of limitations for a year so people could get these lawsuits in. And according to E. Jean Carroll's lawyer, she actually helped to get that law passed in New York. And then lo and behold, E. Jean Carroll has this handy little lawsuit against Donald Trump and these accusations. Right. Look, that's why I would tell anybody, don't live in New York, don't do business there. Go, go to friendly states, go to Texas, go to Florida, go to Tennessee. Do not do business in New York. Why? Because they have changed and are willing to change their justice system. to go after politically unfavored, politically disfavored individuals. And, you know, this is not the only example of it. There are numerous multiple examples of it. And you're just being foolish if you do business in the state of New York. So a couple of things. And then we'll move on to some of these other things. Voter laws in the news as well. But so. The president came out with a comment regarding this, basically saying, I never met this woman, never happened, I'm going to continue to fight. So is the president sort of opening himself up to another lawsuit from E. Jean Carroll? And by the way, the other question I would ask is there's this other $83 million lawsuit. This was only $5 million. There's another one that's $83 million. Is the $5 million judgment where the Supreme Court decided not to take this judgment up so he's going to have to pay the five mill apparently, do you see the same thing happening with the $83 million judgment? Yeah, unfortunately, I think he's going to end up having to pay it. And that's the one where she just imagined. I think she just creatively came up with an incident and used that to convince, I don't think it took much, convincing a New York jury, all of whom were liberal Democrats who hate Donald Trump to give her a judgment. That is horrifying on so many different levels. And so, and there's no other way.

I mean, he's out of options. I'm assuming with this, there's no other way that he can, his lawyers can maneuver some sort of a different argument against this. He literally is going to have to cut her a check. Can he pay her in like pennies or nickels or something? You know, I think if he tried paying her in pennies, he probably couldn't find enough these days to do that. All right, real quick, a couple of other things, because the Supreme Court has decided now that states will be able to execute their elections as they want. So, in other words, if you've got mail-in ballots that arrive after election day, those are to be counted. Were you surprised by that? I was and very disappointed in Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion. This was a split decision, five to four. It was Amy Coney Barrett and Chief John Roberts, who joined the three liberals, Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Jackson, to say, oh, no, this was okay. It's quite a contrast. You read this majority opinion by her saying this is okay. Then you go to the dissent written by Samuel Alito. And it's clear that he knows so much more. about our historical practices when it comes to elections. And he gives reason after reason after reason why Amy Coney Barrett's opinion is wrong. And unfortunately, however, that's kind of the last word on this issue. If states want to count absentee ballots, come in after election day, they could do it. Now, the only saving grace of this decision was that... Amy Coney Barrett very clearly said they were just simply interpreting the federal statutes that set election day. They were not looking at constitutional issues. That means that Congress could change the statute. And as you know, there is a bill pending right now, the U.S. Senate, the SAVE Act that, in fact, would do that and require absentee ballots. to be in by the end of Election Day for federal elections. That's just to give us greater emphasis to why that Save Act ought to be passed. Yeah, Save America Act, I think makes a whole lot of sense. I don't know if you're allowed to give an opinion on that, but one of the other things, one of the many other things that you have spoken about with me over the years, illegal immigration, you've literally written books about election fraud as well. Knowing... The filibuster and the Senate and everything going on within Washington, D.C. right now. And John Thune, of course, I kind of feel like his hands are tied because he's got four of these Rhino Republicans who won't vote to eliminate the filibuster and they won't vote to pass the Save Act. You think that's dead in the water? Do you think there's any possible way that's going to pass?

I think the chances are extremely slim, which is why the alternative of this, which is not as good, but it's a partial remedy, is I've been telling state legislatures, they need to pass their own state version. Hey, I'm Chris Van Fleet. Go behind the scenes and beyond the headlines with the biggest names in pro wrestling and beyond. Mr. Sandman. All I ever wanted to be was a pro wrestler. So I got to live my life. And make people really happy. The heartbreak kid himself, Sean Michaels. Do you think there's anybody better than you were? I think I was great at what I did. And I think other people were great at what they did as well. Greatness is more of mindset, I think, than anything else. Mindset, motivation, insight with Chris Van Fleet. Follow and listen on your favorite place. of the SAVE Act. They could apply it to state elections for various bad reasons they can't apply it to federal elections, but they could at least apply to all their state elections, you know, particularly their statewide elections for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, they ought to do it. Trump versus Slaughter. So the Supreme Court said that the president can remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. Part of this, or at least I think this whole thing, revolves around the power of these agencies, which really Republicans have been talking about and sounding the alarm on these agencies for a long time. Talk about that. Well, in fact, the Supreme Court specifically overruled a 1935 decision. And that decision, it's called Humphrey's Executor, was the decision that for almost 100 years, Congress has been using to set up these independent, supposedly independent federal agencies like, you know, the Securities Exchange Commission, in this case, the Federal Trade Commission, and limiting... the ability of the president to have any authority over it. The FTC, for example, is run by a multi-member commission, and under the law, the president can't remove any of the commissioners that run it unless he's got cause, you know, that they've acted badly, malfeasance in office, something like that. the president fired Rebecca Slaughter saying, well, she's a Biden appointee. She's not going to put in the kind of policies I want. And she sued over and saying, well, you can't do that. You don't have a cause. The Supreme Court basically has said those laws are unconstitutional. Why? Well, because the FTC and all these other agencies have executive branch powers. You know, they can prosecute you. Well, that's... That's the very essence of what the executive branch does, you know, enforce the law. And therefore, any limits Congress has put on the president's power over the heads of those agencies is unconstitutional. This is the biggest, one of the biggest blows to the administrative state that we have seen, like I said, in 100 years. And it's a good thing because.

Those commissioners that had those agencies have been unaccountable to voters. That's exactly right. And back before this election, this previous election, Republicans had been sounding the alarm on these agencies for a long time as sort of an example of the unaccountable nature of American politics and about how these agencies have just ballooned over the years. So definitely good news. Conversely... We also have the Trump versus Cook. The court decided that he cannot fire Fed Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Talk about the importance of that. Well, it doesn't quite go that far. What the court said was, we're not going to dissolve the injunction that was issued by a lower court preventing the president from firing her. That case is different because the Federal Reserve isn't just another federal agency. It's got this weird structure that makes it. kind of a combination of public and private. And he didn't just fire her. He fired her for cause. because of the allegations of mortgage fraud against her. And so what's going on in the lower court is they're litigating whether or not he had sufficient cause. And what the court simply said was, we're not going to dissolve the injunction while that litigation is going on in the lower court. So, you know, in that particular case, in the lower courts, ultimately a judge could decide, well, you did have... sufficient cause uh these these mortgage allegations were sufficient for you to fire Lisa Cook, and Lisa Cook, you're out. So that could still happen. Birthright citizenship coming out today. And based on the decision, and I don't know if you can glean one from another, but birthright citizenship based on what they decided regarding the voting, the mail-in ballots, can you discern from that that birthright citizenship may not be going the president's way or are they both independent of each other? Well, I think they're independent of each other, but I think we've talked before. During oral arguments, the justices gave the government a pretty hard time about this. So I'm pessimistic that the outcome will not go the way it ought to, which is to recognize that we do not have birthright citizenship in this country. But look, that's an important case, but the other really big case that is going to come out today is the one about...

The two laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban biological males from participating in girls and women's sports. And we still haven't gotten that to soon. That's going to affect folks across the country. Yeah, you're right. And it's going to be a very important day to day. And those are all that have they said that's all coming out today? Today is the last day, normally, of the Supreme Court's term, because they usually, after the end of June, they usually go out. Now, save occasionally delayed until July, but there's only five decisions left, and I assume that we'll probably get all of them today. Amy Coney Barrett, swinging amiss? Would you say that she has not been as conservative-minded as some folks may have hoped? Yes, I think she is turning herself into the new Justice Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who all too often, while generally conservative, there are too many times when he would vote with the liberals. And that's certainly what has happened in some of these opinions. Was there any, because I mean, I watch, because I love this stuff. I don't understand all of it. But, you know, I watched the, I watched her hearings or confirmation hearings. I thought she was really good. Was there when all of this was going on, any worry that she would be a little more liberal than, you know, as we had hoped? No. Okay. No. Yeah, there was no indication that this would happen. No, it wasn't. But look, if you look at the history of the court over the last hundred years. There's not a single instance of a liberal appointed by a Democratic president who became more conservative. It's always been the other way. So it's just this weird phenomena at the Supreme Court. All right, Hans von Spikovsky, always great to have you on. Thank you for the clarification on some of these very important issues, and we'll talk again soon. Sure. Thanks for having me. All righty, 652 on Nashville's Morning News on Super Talk, 997. Joan, I know that you were off heating up your food or whatever it is that you were doing, but it sounds like Donald Trump, when it comes to E. Jean Carroll, he's basically just hosed. He's screwed. He's going to have to pay not only the $5 million, but according to Hans, that $82, $83 million judgment, the president is also going to have to pay that. At least according to Hans, that's what he said. It can't be. It just can't be. It can't be. I just, I don't understand that about it. I literally, I literally asked the question, is there anything the president can do? Can he, can he and his lawyers file a different sort of counter lawsuit or whatever utilizing a different argument? And he basically said, this is the end of the road. This is the end of the line. I'm just shy. He used the term. It is a travesty of justice. And it is absolutely a travesty of justice. That's insane. I just, I can't believe that. There's always a way around. Now, we did, now, Joan, we did run out of time. But I was going to ask Hans von Spakovsky this question.

Is there any recourse for an employee at a radio station who puts $8 into a vending machine but doesn't get the product, which is what has happened now to Sam, who tried to get an energy drink for $4. He tried to buy it twice. He is $8 out. He never got his energy drink. And Sam, I can see it now. As the morning goes on without his energy drink, he is slumping further and further and further into his chair. It's detrimental to my health. Of course, you can't see that on YouTube that is also part of the conversation this morning. But I'm here to tell you. I have probably spent about... $15 over the years in that machine before I finally wised up. And I will admit, it takes me time to wise up. But it took me a long time before I wised up. The machine on the second floor is not reliable. Like, you've got to, if you want to get an energy drink, young man, go to the first floor where the sales and the management people are. That one works. That one always works. I'm partially by Mason. Got my hopes up about it. Because Mason told you it'll work. Mason was like, hey, they put... Monster energy drinks and vending machines. And it's so cool. Look at the condensation. So juicy. So nice. Well, and they have a little note that says, if you get ripped off, do this. I've done that. Nothing ever happens. No, I'm just going to dispute it. You know what I'm going to hire a lawyer for my $15. Anyway, $6.54. Eugene Carroll has a really good lawyer. Do you know what we should do? We should have a class action lawsuit of all the people on the second floor who have lost money in the vending machine on our floor. Because I know that for a fact that Ramon Foster, He's also lost money in that machine because he and I have spoken about it before. It'd be like the longest tenured people getting five bucks each. Right. Jim Rome takes on sports. I will always have a complicated relationship with this game. But people evolve. So do sports. Do not make me regret this. Do not make me devolve. Back to that guy that so many clones wish that I still was. And do not embarrass the entire country. Now, I can go back. I can get there fast. Lose tonight. And you got a real problem. Do not blow it. The Jim Rome Show podcast. You've been warned. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.