Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Show, Getty Armstrong and
Speaker 1: Getty and Key Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 2: If there is no deal to reopen the government, the
Speaker 2: FAA's mandating airlines reduced flights by up to ten percent
Speaker 2: at forty of the country's busiest airports.
Speaker 1: Multiple airline officials.
Speaker 2: Now tell me the Trump administration will start this off
Speaker 2: at about a four percent cut, then ramp this up
Speaker 2: to ten percent through next week.
Speaker 3: So, yeah, it's four percent today, a couple hundred flights.
Speaker 3: If the shutdown continues, it'll go up up. By next Friday,
Speaker 3: it'll be forty five hundred flights. And so it started today,
Speaker 3: and we'll keep our eye on that and have more
Speaker 3: on that later.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 3: I'm strong Eyetty store is open for Christmas season. I
Speaker 3: get uncomfortable talking about this.
Speaker 1: I don't know why.
Speaker 3: Something about having my name on thing you buy for
Speaker 3: Christmas makes me uncomfortable, even though I know a lot
Speaker 3: of you want it, and you get people are fans
Speaker 3: of the show and they would like it. But we
Speaker 3: now have Armstrong in Getty pickleball paddles, among things wait
Speaker 3: a minute, all the things in our story. A minute,
Speaker 3: you go to Armstrong and getdy dot.
Speaker 1: Com on one of those coffee mugs, water bottles. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you the Fioliican party t shirts.
Speaker 3: I want a hoodie that says starve the Lazy, That's
Speaker 3: what I yes. So it's Friday. I don't know if
Speaker 3: that means you're more likely to date or wish you
Speaker 3: had a date. Probably, but it seems like a good
Speaker 3: time to check in on hot dating trends with Katie Green.
Speaker 1: Katie Jeez. I set it up like a cable news segment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was great.
Speaker 4: This is from the USA Today talking about dating trends
Speaker 4: have reached new lows this year. One of the new
Speaker 4: ones that we haven't talked about is called throning.
Speaker 3: Well, let's let's start with shreking, the one we have
Speaker 3: talked about, just to get it out of the way.
Speaker 3: That is, you intentionally date. It's usually women dating guys.
Speaker 3: Intentionally dated guy you don't find attractive, like he's a
Speaker 3: Shrek looking character, because you think he'll treat you better, right,
Speaker 3: which is one of the worst things I've ever heard
Speaker 3: in my life. Because he's so he's feels like he's
Speaker 3: so lucky to have you, he will treat.
Speaker 1: You to hang on to you. Yes, yes, that's a
Speaker 1: great basis for a healthy relationship. Yes, that'll go great.
Speaker 3: So the fact that you are god every bit of
Speaker 3: every phrase that comes to mind. I'm horrified by the
Speaker 3: fact that you are lowering your standards because you think
Speaker 3: he'll be feel so lucky to have you that he
Speaker 3: treats you better than someone else. Is about as disgusting
Speaker 3: a philosophy as I can imagine. But that's shreking. Okay,
Speaker 3: So now what the hell is throwning?
Speaker 4: So throning is when you date someone to raise your
Speaker 4: own social status. So the goal is to land a
Speaker 4: partner with clout so that your own image gets a boost.
Speaker 1: I think that's all. Every celebrity in the world knows
Speaker 1: what that's about, right.
Speaker 3: That's probably well, it's depends on how much if that's
Speaker 3: your main motivation. Obviously that's an odd way to go
Speaker 3: about getting relationships. But I think in general people want
Speaker 3: to be in a relationship with somebody that is, you know,
Speaker 3: a good a good example of society, right, I mean,
Speaker 3: isn't that just in general you're hoping you date somebody
Speaker 3: that if your friends or family met them, they think, well,
Speaker 3: they are very they're very you know, contributing member of society.
Speaker 3: Where it's more calculating than that, where that crosses into throning,
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I take this.
Speaker 4: This came from some TikToker who talks about dating says
Speaker 4: if a person seems overly focused on your status or
Speaker 4: your social circle and changes their behaviors towards you, depending
Speaker 4: upon what whether you're in public or private, this can
Speaker 4: indicate throning.
Speaker 3: Yeah, many years ago, I was driving a really nice
Speaker 3: car at the time, and I had a girl in
Speaker 3: like the second date or whatever, says something to me.
Speaker 3: I picked her up in a different vehicle than my
Speaker 3: really nice car, and she said, I'd kind of prefer
Speaker 3: to be seen in your.
Speaker 1: Other car when you pick me up.
Speaker 3: And I thought, Oki, whoa, this isn't a good idea.
Speaker 4: The next one they have here is bank seeing, which
Speaker 4: derives its name from the elusive street artist Banksy. Like
Speaker 4: a baffling Banksy art piece. Bank seeing in a relationship
Speaker 4: involves slowly withdrawing emotionally from your partner without telling them
Speaker 4: what you're doing.
Speaker 3: All right, this is for Dack why are you doing this?
Speaker 3: Is this to make them want you more? Or are
Speaker 3: you just trying to get out of the relationship.
Speaker 4: This seems like a really elusive way to get out
Speaker 4: of a relationship.
Speaker 1: This is what they're calling bank seeing now only withdrawing
Speaker 1: because the fire is gone. That's called a relationship ending.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna speak for our listeners. This is ridiculous. Everything
Speaker 1: doesn't need a name. Everything isn't a trend. Slowly deciding
Speaker 1: this isn't for me is not a trend. It's been
Speaker 1: a trend since we crawled from the primordial ooze. I'll
Speaker 1: not have this foolishness.
Speaker 3: What Joe is doing is called rage talking right popular
Speaker 3: thing now, it's a trend on middle.
Speaker 1: Age right cold warrior? Do you mean nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the Cold War?
Speaker 3: When middle aged men get fed up with modern trends,
Speaker 3: they do something called rage talking tread.
Speaker 1: Tread. When someone branded people inhaling, they're exhaling what they're
Speaker 1: done inhaling its.
Speaker 4: Tread only our listeners to see how red you're getting.
Speaker 4: This is incredible. Yes, just a time for the Christmas
Speaker 4: was supposed to be fun. Yeah, right, you're supposed to
Speaker 4: lighten things up here, when someone employs the bank sying technique,
Speaker 4: it says they start destroying the relation and ship before
Speaker 4: the other person even sees it coming, because banksy selfish.
Speaker 1: Again, you know, I'm sorry this this is dumb. Yeah right,
Speaker 1: I had great promise, Like so many of my schemes
Speaker 1: in life, it had great promise at the beginning. I think,
Speaker 1: I think, I hope. Shreking is not a very popular thing, but.
Speaker 4: It's the only one that's stuck around for a while,
Speaker 4: the shreking. I haven't heard any of these until this
Speaker 4: stupid article.
Speaker 1: You are such can we just awful? These things under
Speaker 1: the heading here's what shallow stupid people do? You know what?
Speaker 1: We're too tolerant as a society. You've got to be
Speaker 1: less tolerant. That's ugly, it's stupid, it's shallow. I weep
Speaker 1: for you that you didn't have a healthy relationship that
Speaker 1: you can use to model what your relationships are going
Speaker 1: to be like. If you're any of those things. Stop
Speaker 1: being it. Michael just stopped calling it a trend. Michael
Speaker 1: or Jack?
Speaker 4: Are you guys both getting joy out of the fact
Speaker 4: that all of this is happening While Joe is wearing
Speaker 4: his cut the crap T shirt because that is yeah, precisely.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, So.
Speaker 3: Everything being online in social media and people communicating with
Speaker 3: each other. I suppose, I suppose it would make sense.
Speaker 3: I hadn't thought about this before. This is just off
Speaker 3: the top of my head. But if our politics has
Speaker 3: gotten dominated by the worst among us, why wouldn't relationship
Speaker 3: trends get dominated by the worst among us for exactly
Speaker 3: the same reasons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the worst or dopiest or shallowest among us.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so there are there are two more on this list,
Speaker 4: but I don't want Joe to explode.
Speaker 1: So I'm just gonna.
Speaker 3: Take one edge of blood pressure pill and then Katie
Speaker 3: will finish this off.
Speaker 1: The go ahead quickly. They're dumb, like a medical procedure.
Speaker 1: The sooner we started, the sooner. It's over ZIP coding,
Speaker 1: all right, I can't even take it. Yeah, I see
Speaker 1: the reef version of.
Speaker 4: That, where people on dating apps will either stick only
Speaker 4: to their ZIP codes or stick only outside.
Speaker 1: Of their zip codes. What the hell?
Speaker 3: Well, I can say see sticking two years zip code
Speaker 3: just because you want somebody near those.
Speaker 4: But there are other people that though, Yeah, but there
Speaker 4: are other people that look specifically away from their own
Speaker 4: zip code, which I would make more sense.
Speaker 3: To me, might fit in with the that might fit
Speaker 3: in with the stat we had a while back of
Speaker 3: the percentage of people, particularly men on online dating sites,
Speaker 3: who are freaking married.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 3: I was told by a woman the other day, she said,
Speaker 3: you would not believe how many married men are on
Speaker 3: the dating.
Speaker 1: Website she's on.
Speaker 3: She meets them and they talk and they're we're gonna
Speaker 3: meet forgotty or whatever it is. And she does a
Speaker 3: little research on them and turns out they they're married,
Speaker 3: or she comes across husbands.
Speaker 1: Of her friends, Oh gosh, and has to go tell
Speaker 1: their friends.
Speaker 3: Hey, you know, I hate to tell you this, but
Speaker 3: your husband's on match dot Com looking for dates claiming
Speaker 3: is single.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is so crazy.
Speaker 4: There is an entire dating service dedicated to as Oh yeah,
Speaker 4: sure this, I mean it came this came out years ago.
Speaker 4: But Ashley Madison, Yeah, but the well, the idea is
Speaker 4: just gross. You know, life is short have an affair
Speaker 4: as their tagline.
Speaker 3: Practically the oldest thing in the world is the idea
Speaker 3: of an affair. But the idea that you're going on
Speaker 3: to a dating website with your picture and everything while
Speaker 3: you're married, claiman your single How do you think that's
Speaker 3: going to end you?
Speaker 1: Moron?
Speaker 3: Not to mention the fact that it's an awful thing
Speaker 3: to do. Yeah, embarrass your spouse horribly publicly.
Speaker 1: I just I can't even believe that. I mean, so,
Speaker 1: if that's true, and like I said, I know somebody
Speaker 1: who's had this specific experience multiple times.
Speaker 3: If that's going on, well maybe these other stupid things
Speaker 3: are happening too, zeppelining or whatever we were talking about.
Speaker 4: Here's the last one, Jodey deep breath. Okay, monkey barring.
Speaker 4: It alludes to how in dating, people move from one
Speaker 4: partner to the next partner, only letting go of the
Speaker 4: previous once they've once they've sealed the deal.
Speaker 1: With their next one.
Speaker 3: I think that's a common emotional technique. Yeah, unfortunate, unfortunate also,
Speaker 3: but it's called monkey barring. Now that's the trend. Not
Speaker 3: a good idea according to any therapist. But monkey barring. Yes,
Speaker 3: not everything needs name. It's not a trend.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I promise an hour job until you got another
Speaker 1: one lined up.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, okay, well job's okay. I don't know
Speaker 3: about the relationships that now, if you know you're done.
Speaker 3: You gotta tell them you got it. That's true, you
Speaker 3: got it. That's not cool. Yeah, I promise an hour
Speaker 3: three to get to this New York Times article about
Speaker 3: people that are in relationships at their AI chatbots. This
Speaker 3: is a serious piece of journalism. It's highly troubling, and
Speaker 3: I think it's going to be a huge topic for
Speaker 3: the next several decades, as long as mankind can survive it.
Speaker 3: And that might be just like ten years fifteen, so
Speaker 3: we got about fifteen years. Maybe you're online a lot,
Speaker 3: looking up moronic trends that don't exist, and you'll be
Speaker 3: attacked to buy scammers, and that's why we recommend Webroot
Speaker 3: Total Protection. It's lightning fast, anivirus I did any protection,
Speaker 3: dark web monitoring, secure VPN, and unlimited cloud backup, all
Speaker 3: those things in one.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: This doesn't have a clever name. They're just called a thief.
Speaker 3: They want to steal from you, and you can avoid
Speaker 3: that with Webroot Total Protection. Protect your whole family, which
Speaker 3: is really cool, even the kids and seniors. It's easy
Speaker 3: to install a no annoying pop ups, and it scans
Speaker 3: six times faster than the competition.
Speaker 1: And Wowser's listen to this deal. Get CyberSecure with sixty
Speaker 1: percent off webroot total protection not only at webroot dot
Speaker 1: com slash armstrong. That's sixty percent off, but only through
Speaker 1: our magical link. Don't wait. Live a better digital life
Speaker 1: at webroot. Go to webroot dot com slash armstrong right now.
Speaker 1: That's webroot dot com slash armstrong. Offer ends soon webroot
Speaker 1: dot com slash Armstrong.
Speaker 3: The Secretary of War announced another boat got blowed up
Speaker 3: down near by Venezuela. I think that's number fifteen or
Speaker 3: something like that over the last several weeks.
Speaker 1: Yikes, they're serious about it. I got a few details
Speaker 1: on that, A lot of other stuff on the way.
Speaker 1: Stay here. Some more news from Washington today.
Speaker 2: Nancy Pelosi announced that she won't seek reelection and plans
Speaker 2: on retiring in two years at the age of eighty six,
Speaker 2: or as it's known in congressional terms your tweens.
Speaker 1: And no kidding, eighty six. Damn near ninety. That's wild.
Speaker 1: I wasn't paying attention wild Nancy Pelosi. She'll be eighty
Speaker 1: six when she's doing eighty six. Yeah. Yeah, So, speaking
Speaker 1: of elections and that sort of thing, I've been reading
Speaker 1: about redistricting lately and how difficult it can be even
Speaker 1: if people are of good conscience, and they're not Gavinusum,
Speaker 1: it's you know, shameless partisan jerrymandering. And I've been reading
Speaker 1: about this mathematician whose the gig is her field, is
Speaker 1: trying to figure out how heck to do redistricting in
Speaker 1: a fair and logical way, and she mentioned something that
Speaker 1: I found really intriguing. There are rules that vary by state,
Speaker 1: but they have what they refer to as the Big
Speaker 1: six population balance, compactness, contiguity, meaning your neighbors more or less,
Speaker 1: respect for existing civic boundaries like counties, cities, towns, respect
Speaker 1: for communities of interest, racial fairness, et cetera. So there
Speaker 1: are a lot of layers to this. And obviously do
Speaker 1: any of those things in most states, No, we certainly
Speaker 1: don't do them honestly or in a good way. And
Speaker 1: I thought this was really intriguing. I'm not sure it'll happen.
Speaker 1: I think it would take a constitutional amendment. But they're
Speaker 1: studying what they call proportional ranked ranked choice voting. Proportional
Speaker 1: ranked choice voting also known as single transferable vote method
Speaker 1: or STV in this scenario, you have multi member districts
Speaker 1: using ranked choice. For example, because we talked earlier about California,
Speaker 1: it's sixty forty Democrat Republican. Well, if every district is
Speaker 1: sixty forty Democrat to Republican, Republicans will have zero representatives
Speaker 1: in the House, and that's a problem. So this STV,
Speaker 1: for example, not to be confused with STDs, something completely different,
Speaker 1: but rather than one representative per each of nine districts
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts, reduced the number of districts to three and
Speaker 1: have each elect three representatives by a ranking method. That way,
Speaker 1: Massachusetts would probably get two or three rather than zero
Speaker 1: Republicans in Washington, it's not common. The biggest American city
Speaker 1: that uses STV is Portland, Oregon. It was a great
Speaker 1: success in last November city council election. I'm told all
Speaker 1: kinds of groups were able to elect their preferred candidates
Speaker 1: in proportion the voting numbers, even though in a single
Speaker 1: neighborhood they might be outnumbered. I thought that was intriguing.
Speaker 3: Well, if you yeah, but you start here, we've had
Speaker 3: four hundred and thirty five members of the House since
Speaker 3: nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 1: That makes no sense. What was the population in the
Speaker 1: United States, then I don't know. Yeah, I remember, I've
Speaker 1: seen those numbers that each representative went from representing, you know,
Speaker 1: twenty five hundred people to now four hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand or whatever it is. Those numbers are not right,
Speaker 1: but you get the idea. Yeah, it's it's a completely
Speaker 1: different situation.
Speaker 3: So in nineteen thirteen, the population of the country was
Speaker 3: ninety seven million people, right, and now it's three hundred
Speaker 3: and forty So that.
Speaker 1: Makes no sense.
Speaker 3: What you start there, right, we need if we wanted
Speaker 3: to do it, if we thought that proportion was correct before,
Speaker 3: we need to have And somebody figured this out.
Speaker 1: I heard it the other day.
Speaker 3: It might be this person you're quoting right here, because
Speaker 3: there's a book out about it. But we should have
Speaker 3: something like five hundred and ninety House members, right, yeah,
Speaker 3: and we're not even close, And so that I think
Speaker 3: that's the place to start. Every member would have a
Speaker 3: much smaller population, and it'd be a lot easier to
Speaker 3: be fair.
Speaker 1: Have to have Donald Trump blow out of all of
Speaker 1: the capitol and expand it, though, I mean, because you're
Speaker 1: not going to fit all those people. Let's paying all
Speaker 1: those damned salaries, although you know, as a fraction of
Speaker 1: the federal government that's placed nothing.
Speaker 3: But well, the original intent or the way it would
Speaker 3: have been one hundred years ago, you could have easily
Speaker 3: gotten a hold of your house member, had some sort
Speaker 3: of relationship with them if you wanted to.
Speaker 1: Get actual politics. That's impossible now. Yeah, getting back to
Speaker 1: the STV thing, I really like the idea because the
Speaker 1: two states I'm most familiar with politically would be Illinois,
Speaker 1: my home state, in California, where the show is based
Speaker 1: and has been for decades now. And in both of
Speaker 1: those cases, you have populous cities that so dominate the
Speaker 1: state politics they can do more or less whatever they want.
Speaker 1: And you've got these enormous swaths of conservatism in both
Speaker 1: states that go more or less unrepresentative unrepresented, And I
Speaker 1: think if you add a just a well, you'd have
Speaker 1: to draw those districts too, and that would probably become
Speaker 1: every bit as corrupt and disgusting. But I like the
Speaker 1: idea anyway, Coming up, our friends from the Pacific Legal
Speaker 1: Foundation on the Big Week at the Supreme Court. That's
Speaker 1: next segment. Stay tuned if you can't grab the podcast.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty on demand later on.
Speaker 3: It's almost exactly ten times since we first had four
Speaker 3: hundred and thirty five House members back in nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 3: Back then, each House member represented about fifty five thousand people.
Speaker 3: Now each House member represents about five hundred and fifty
Speaker 3: thousand people. Wow, that's a completely different structure, right, That's
Speaker 3: the first place to go to fix it, as far
Speaker 3: as I'm concerned. Yeah, Yeah, got a lot of work
Speaker 3: to do. Supreme Court heard some important arguments this week.
Speaker 3: We talked about it a lot with the whole tariff thing.
Speaker 3: Is the president got the power to do that or not?
Speaker 3: If it turns out he doesn't, well that's going to
Speaker 3: be a big change.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, big doings at the Scotis. We'll talk about it.
Speaker 5: X stay with us, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1: I think she's an evil woman. I'm glad she's retiring.
Speaker 6: I think she did the country a great service player recheer.
Speaker 6: I think she was a tremendous liability for the country,
Speaker 6: And I think she was an evil woman who did
Speaker 6: a poor job to costs the country a lot in
Speaker 6: damages and in reputation. I thought she was terrible.
Speaker 3: So that's not the way our politics used to be
Speaker 3: when Elder's graciousness as a leader retires.
Speaker 1: I love to hear that.
Speaker 3: When Elders Statesman used to step down on the other side,
Speaker 3: you would, you know, the dedication to public service, blah
Speaker 3: blah blah, you'd sail this stuff even if you hated him.
Speaker 3: But we don't do that anymore, for better or worse.
Speaker 3: And I go back back and forth on whether it's
Speaker 3: better or worse.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Maybe we're just saying the quiet power up part out
Speaker 3: loud now, but everybody was always thinking. She called him
Speaker 3: the other day vile and the worst thing on Earth.
Speaker 3: So right, there you go, that's where we are. That
Speaker 3: pretty much sums up where we are this week he
Speaker 3: had from Nancy and Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Oh he's vile.
Speaker 3: He's the worst thing on planet Earth, the worst thing
Speaker 3: on planet Earth, he said, she's even when corrupt.
Speaker 1: There you go, fair enough. So we're trying to connect
Speaker 1: with Anastasia Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation to talk
Speaker 1: about the Supreme Court this week, and we'll track her
Speaker 1: down quickly. But I saw this and was just amused
Speaker 1: by it on a couple of different levels. On election night,
Speaker 1: all right, I guess it was late Monday night, Greg Abbott,
Speaker 1: the governor of Texas, tweeted when it was starting to
Speaker 1: look like Mum Donnie was indeed gonna win the election
Speaker 1: from mayor of New York, Abbot tweeted he would impose
Speaker 1: a one hundred percent tariff on New Yorker's moving to
Speaker 1: Texas the polls close tomorrow night, I will impose one
Speaker 1: hundred percent tariff on anyone moving to Texas from New
Speaker 1: York City, which Jack, you're you're smiling. Obviously it's a joke.
Speaker 1: It's it's funny. But here's why it matters. According to
Speaker 1: one publication, tariffs are taxes on goods, not people, and
Speaker 1: US states are not permitted to impose tariffs on imports
Speaker 1: from other states, let alone people who. Further More, of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right to travel,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. And then they go into a
Speaker 1: bunch of people breathlessly angry online both you know your
Speaker 1: your unwashed masses and New York Governor Kathy hokel her
Speaker 1: press office. Well, that's actually kind of a funny response,
Speaker 1: political commentator Ed Krasenstein. This is illegal. MAGA has become
Speaker 1: the party of violating the constitution.
Speaker 3: Boy, So there weren't a ton of people just reacted
Speaker 3: with you can't put a tariff on a person, so
Speaker 3: let's not offend it.
Speaker 1: Right, it was. It was a joke anyway, oh man,
Speaker 1: speaking of tai rage real and manufactured. Yes, speaking of tariffs.
Speaker 3: The oral arguments were this week before the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: to whether or not the President has the right to
Speaker 3: by himself up end the world economy the way it is.
Speaker 3: And now we're going to get an expert view on
Speaker 3: how that went based on an emergency measure for executive power.
Speaker 1: S and d on a stage. Boden is a civil
Speaker 1: rights attorney at the Fabulous Pacific Legal Foundation, where she
Speaker 1: focuses on economic opportunity and equality before the law. On
Speaker 1: a stage. Great to talk to you again. How are
Speaker 1: you likewise?
Speaker 5: I'm doing well? Life from DC.
Speaker 1: Oh excellent, terrific. Don't let them steal your soul while
Speaker 1: you're there. So the oral arguments before the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: lengthy and really interesting on the tariff case. What was
Speaker 1: your takeaway?
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, it's hard to get a red on the justices.
Speaker 5: They had really hard questions for Solicitor General John Sower
Speaker 5: and his position on Trump's tariffs. Trump, of course contends
Speaker 5: that he can pass these wide reaching tariffs that have
Speaker 5: been crippling American businesses under the International Emergency Economics Powers Act.
Speaker 5: The challengers say, there's no emergency, because what's going on
Speaker 5: here is Trump has cited the long standing trade deficit,
Speaker 5: which has of course been in effect for years and
Speaker 5: economically is relevant anyway. And he's also cited the OPIIG crisis,
Speaker 5: which again long standing for years. So it's not some
Speaker 5: new emergency to say that he can now pass these tariffs.
Speaker 5: So the challengers say, hey, no emergency. In any way,
Speaker 5: this statute does not give you that broad of authority
Speaker 5: you can do. You can pass it in regulations, but
Speaker 5: you can't slap tariffs on which tariffs are usually Congress's job.
Speaker 5: And so it was just really surprising that a lot
Speaker 5: of the justices had very tough questions for John Sower.
Speaker 5: And it looks like, you know, I think there's three
Speaker 5: justices comfortably with the government, three justices comfortably with the challengers,
Speaker 5: and then three who are toss ups at the moment.
Speaker 1: Well, to me, and I just read this yesterday, to me.
Speaker 3: The slam dunk was getting the lawyer arguing for Trump's
Speaker 3: side to admit that the way he's looking at it,
Speaker 3: a democratic president could declare a climate emergency and put
Speaker 3: all kinds of penalties on all kinds of things in
Speaker 3: the same way if you're going to buy his reasoning,
Speaker 3: and nobody, no conservative should want that.
Speaker 5: That's exactly right. That was a mic drop moment, and
Speaker 5: questions came both from Justice Sodomar and from Justice Gorsich.
Speaker 5: So Justice Gorsich, you know, who was a right appointed justice,
Speaker 5: had the same question, like, Hey, didn't we just hear
Speaker 5: a case a couple terms ago where Biden declared a
Speaker 5: national emergency and then tried to alleviate magically with his
Speaker 5: pen student loan debt, and didn't we say that's too much?
Speaker 5: And now basically a president could do the exact same
Speaker 5: thing under your theory.
Speaker 1: Of the case.
Speaker 5: And so I think that's going to give many justices
Speaker 5: a tough time ruling for the president when that's now
Speaker 5: the consequence.
Speaker 1: And we also heard Ilina ca in tag teaming with
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett on a different topic, I mean trade,
Speaker 1: do you think there are three justices that are comfortably
Speaker 1: with the government at this point? Who are they.
Speaker 5: I think it's Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Cavanaugh.
Speaker 5: You know, they are traditionally in favor of broad executive
Speaker 5: power and deference to the executive even when there's declared
Speaker 5: emergencies that might not really be emergencies, but you kind
Speaker 5: of have to defer to the president's assessment that there's
Speaker 5: an emergency.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 5: And they had the easiest questions, I think for for
Speaker 5: the government.
Speaker 1: Well, if you're right, I mean I generally, I generally
Speaker 1: agree with those guys.
Speaker 3: But that'd be the end of the country if you
Speaker 3: could just declare practically.
Speaker 1: Anything an emergency and start in levy taxes.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, right, And that's you know, that is a
Speaker 5: difficult thing. I mean, what's what's to stop a present
Speaker 5: from going even further? And especially because you know, this
Speaker 5: was one of the things the challenger said was, Hey,
Speaker 5: Paris raise revenue, So what the difference between even tariffs
Speaker 5: and taxes at this point? Can the government just raise revenue?
Speaker 5: Can the president, I mean just raise revenue? And the
Speaker 5: attorney for the government said, no, raising revenue is different.
Speaker 5: This actually isn't intended to raise revenue. It's intended to
Speaker 5: stimulate the economy. We don't care about revenue coming in.
Speaker 5: We care about stopping trade, so our purpose is different.
Speaker 5: And usually justices don't want to get in the business
Speaker 5: of making, you know, drawing that type of line. They're
Speaker 5: never going to come in and say, well, this one's different.
Speaker 5: This time you're not actually raising revenue, or this time
Speaker 5: you didn't mean to raise revenue. So it would effectively
Speaker 5: be a blate check to the president. And yet I
Speaker 5: think it's I think it's true those justices would rule
Speaker 5: for the president at this point. And then you have
Speaker 5: Justice Jackson, Justice Kagan, Justice Soda mayor comfortably against the government,
Speaker 5: and the other three are tossups.
Speaker 3: I can come up with so many horrible examples of
Speaker 3: the way this could be used. Big school shooting gets
Speaker 3: lots of national attention. The Democratic president declares school shootings
Speaker 3: an emergency and puts a five hundred percent tariff for
Speaker 3: tax or whatever on guns, for instance.
Speaker 1: Right right, I you know, I just I believe Americans
Speaker 1: of good conscience should hear the term emergency powers and
Speaker 1: react as if their child had proposed getting a pet chimpanzee.
Speaker 1: It's an automatic no unless the case is made with
Speaker 1: brilliant clarity and and and bitter necessity, if you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, just the phrase emergency powers should send
Speaker 1: every American to grab their gads and flag and wave
Speaker 1: it around anyway. Anastasia, Yeah, right, oh my god. Yeah,
Speaker 1: executive overreach. It doesn't matter if it's your guy or
Speaker 1: the other guy. Resistant nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: All the things that got passed in the Patriot Act
Speaker 3: after that that we didn't even know about. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 3: emergency powers are scary.
Speaker 1: Anastasia boden is with a pacific legal foundation. Hey, one
Speaker 1: question that's been asked a lot about this case, and Anastasia,
Speaker 1: if you have no idea, feel free to stay so
Speaker 1: is if the court rules against those tariffs, what happens
Speaker 1: to all the money that was collected?
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that you know, that is a thing that
Speaker 5: the statute says it should be repaid. And that's something
Speaker 5: that the challengers are really worried about, right because because
Speaker 5: that is going to weigh on the justice's mind. Are
Speaker 5: we really going to put the government on the hook
Speaker 5: for you know, millions, if not billions of dollars in
Speaker 5: taxes that now have to be Well.
Speaker 3: That's the pay that's one problem. The amount is one problem.
Speaker 3: Who gets it the guy who bought the truck that
Speaker 3: costs one thousand dollars more or the Ford dealer. Who
Speaker 3: I mean, I can't even imagine how you would unwind that.
Speaker 1: Well, given the fact that we just discussed this Atastasia,
Speaker 1: then I'll get out of your way. But we just
Speaker 1: discussed this the other day, that the tariffs, the cost
Speaker 1: of the tariffs are being picked up by a variety
Speaker 1: of actors in a variety of levels, depending on what
Speaker 1: product you're talking about. So it's unbelievably complicated.
Speaker 5: It's a logistical nightmare. But the answer from the government
Speaker 5: or from the challenger at oral argument was, hey, Congress
Speaker 5: can fix this later. Kick the can like Congress kind
Speaker 5: of you know, sweep that up later. We can all
Speaker 5: fix that. That should not be a reason trule against this,
Speaker 5: and of course it shouldn't. If the law says that
Speaker 5: Trump couldn't do this, it doesn't matter what the consequences are.
Speaker 5: You got gotta invalidate the act.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I keep forgetting we have a Congress. They don't
Speaker 1: do much, so you don't notice them on a Stasia,
Speaker 1: a Boden anything else. Of note. At the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: this week, this case kind of grabbed all the spotlights.
Speaker 5: That absolutely overshadowed everything. It was. It was anything, it
Speaker 5: was everything anybody was watching. I couldn't even get in.
Speaker 5: People had lined up the day before for oral arguments.
Speaker 5: But as you said, you know, these emergency powers, they're
Speaker 5: on everybody's mind. It's one of the most famous statements
Speaker 5: from constitutional law, from a Supreme Court opinion that emergency
Speaker 5: powers beget emergencies. You know, the more that you get
Speaker 5: you hand this power over, it will be used not
Speaker 5: just during the administration you favor, but the next administration.
Speaker 5: So it kind of dominated the headlines this week.
Speaker 1: Well, you know that's great, and I think one of
Speaker 1: the justices actually said that during the oral arguments that
Speaker 1: emergency powers beget emergencies. You gotta hammer. You start looking
Speaker 1: for something a hammer. It's just human nature on a station.
Speaker 1: Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation, Hey, thanks for the analysis.
Speaker 1: We really appreciate it and save travels.
Speaker 5: Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Of course, love the Pacific Legal Foundation. They do great work.
Speaker 1: It is a problem.
Speaker 3: So in my mind it's absolutely one hundred percent clear
Speaker 3: we can't be giving in these emergency powers to Donald
Speaker 3: Trump because it'll come back Oh my god, if you're
Speaker 3: if you're the biggest Trump fan in the world, this
Speaker 3: will come back to haunt you in so many different ways. Yes,
Speaker 3: with the next Democratic president, you could so see a
Speaker 3: Joe Biden or a Barack Obama, especially when climate change
Speaker 3: was a lot hotter than if you'll pardon the expression,
Speaker 3: than it is now of like the prevailing wisdom. Oh
Speaker 3: my god, the taxes and tariffs and penalties you could
Speaker 3: have levied across the country with that as an emergency to.
Speaker 1: Reward your cronies in the fake green energy world. I mean,
Speaker 1: not that all of green energy is fake, it's certainly not,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I mean it could be just, oh my god,
Speaker 1: less power, less power, not more. But I'm a little
Speaker 1: disturbed to hear the KAVO make go that way.
Speaker 3: But we'll say, but the other side of it being well,
Speaker 3: then you got to unwind this to the tune of
Speaker 3: billions of dollars. And there's no fair way you can
Speaker 3: do that, because how about businesses who decided, well, I
Speaker 3: just ate it. You know, I just made less profits
Speaker 3: because I thought I needed to be more competitive with
Speaker 3: my prices than my opponent who raised the prices.
Speaker 1: So what do I get back right right, And in
Speaker 1: most of these supply chains there are two to five
Speaker 1: different entities that absorbed some or all of the cost
Speaker 1: from the exporter and the fur and land to the
Speaker 1: domestic consumer. So anyway, So on the other hand, that's
Speaker 1: just that, what are you going to do? What a
Speaker 1: tangled web we weave when first we decided to apply
Speaker 1: illegal terrfs. In my opinion, well.
Speaker 3: I think I still don't quite have the answer in this.
Speaker 3: Why didn't Supreme Court jump on this, like the day
Speaker 3: after Liberation Day?
Speaker 1: We should ask Anastasia she didn't know Tim would know.
Speaker 1: You gotta you gotta go through the motions. You gotta
Speaker 1: get standing and have a lawsuit filed, and oh you
Speaker 1: need multiple couple of briefs, two or three briefs at
Speaker 1: the list. Everybody knows that. Okay, people are falling in
Speaker 1: love with their chatbots. They actually The New York Times
Speaker 1: had a serious article about that. I can't wait to
Speaker 1: get into that. How ur three, What a weird story.
Speaker 3: Among all the things on the way.
Speaker 7: This one is the first one, and it is a
Speaker 7: big deal because battleship has been around for a long time.
Speaker 7: This was actually originally played with paper and pencil back
Speaker 7: for a long time ago, and.
Speaker 1: Then slowly came along. This came along, sold one.
Speaker 7: Hundred million of these, so very very popular, and became
Speaker 7: one of the first electronic games.
Speaker 1: Here's another one inducted this year. Slime. No, this is
Speaker 1: a post time. Slime is made by a lot of people.
Speaker 7: So this is a general toy that got in taper
Speaker 7: household growing up right there.
Speaker 1: Pursue.
Speaker 3: So the three toys going into the Toy Hall of Fame,
Speaker 3: and I'm surprised the ones that haven't already made it
Speaker 3: in there. But Battleship, you suck my Battleship, Trivial Pursuit
Speaker 3: and Slime. God did I love Slime when it came out. Oh,
Speaker 3: we had so much fun with that in our house.
Speaker 3: What a great toy. Did they still make that or
Speaker 3: did they? That's probably why I got them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, h that toy is childish. That toy that kid
Speaker 1: is playing with us childish. I don't think they should
Speaker 1: sell Battleship because it teaches militarism to children. Say, we
Speaker 1: got to use suck colonial oppressor ideology. We had we
Speaker 1: got a joke I want to get to but we
Speaker 1: got to use suck text that I want to address,
Speaker 1: and we get. We get lots of them, so I
Speaker 1: can't get to them all. But you guys suck.
Speaker 3: Trump is building our economy and returning businesses to America
Speaker 3: through tariffs. That is the other example that forgot to mention.
Speaker 3: That's one of the biggest problems. What if you're a
Speaker 3: company that has already you know, bought the land or
Speaker 3: broken ground or dedicated forty million dollars to building a
Speaker 3: plant because you just decided, well, the only way I'm
Speaker 3: going to be able to compete is bring the plant
Speaker 3: here back to the United States, here in Indiana instead
Speaker 3: of in Mexico or whatever.
Speaker 1: But the new terrorists blah blah.
Speaker 3: Blah like like was the point of the tariffs for Trump,
Speaker 3: and then they become it turns out they're illegal, and.
Speaker 1: Your competitor didn't do that. Oh that I would. I
Speaker 1: would say, friend, that we're not the ones that suck.
Speaker 1: Certainly at making arguments. You just excused a democratic far
Speaker 1: left president from doing anything they want, exceeding their constitutional
Speaker 1: powers if their goal is noble. That's not the way
Speaker 1: it works. Brother or sister or neither or both. So
Speaker 1: the thing these days.
Speaker 3: Got a joke to play for you from Greg Guttfeld
Speaker 3: last night. This is a pretty damned edgy joke I did.
Speaker 3: I guess it took a quarter of a century before
Speaker 3: you can make this sort of joke. You'll get it
Speaker 3: when you go ahead through.
Speaker 8: Since Zo ran one, there have already been a few
Speaker 8: minor changes to the city. And get this, and get this,
Speaker 8: LaGuardia Airport will now be offering direct flights into the
Speaker 8: Freedom Tower.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's a joke. It's a joke. That's an edgy joke.
Speaker 1: That's an edgy joke in New York. I got Ramba. Yeah,
Speaker 1: isn't it something?
Speaker 3: Though, it's like other than that, how did you like
Speaker 3: to play missus Lincoln? I mean, after a certain amount
Speaker 3: of time, a gruesome tragedy becomes something you can joke about.
Speaker 3: But it takes a certain amount of time. I'd say
Speaker 3: with nine eleven it took like two decades. Yeah, that's
Speaker 3: a joke, but not a funny one. It's a surprising
Speaker 3: one and a shocking one. It's making a statement that
Speaker 3: that joke was a statement that many of us are
Speaker 3: highly concerned that someone who appears to be an out
Speaker 3: and out Islamist is sympathetic to the people who did
Speaker 3: what they did on nine to eleven. Right, almost impossible
Speaker 3: to believe that he wasn't happy about that.
Speaker 1: What nine to eleven? Yeah, it was a tiny child.
Speaker 1: He would at his house he felt like, said, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: if he felt like he was safe, he would explain
Speaker 1: to you how the colonial oppressor US got would it deserved? Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: So he'd mentioned this during the week.
Speaker 3: Tesla's shareholders did approve that record setting pay package for
Speaker 3: Elon Musk, granting him one trillion dollars an additional stock
Speaker 3: if he hit certain milestone, the biggest package anybody's ever
Speaker 3: had out there as a bonus package. And I heard
Speaker 3: a bunch of communists yesterday arguing about then. And yet
Speaker 3: people are hungry in the streets.
Speaker 1: You know that. Shut up commies. I think that, honestly,
Speaker 1: that amazing amount of money obscures the more significant development,
Speaker 1: which is they have embraced Elon turning Tesla into a
Speaker 1: robotics company an AI shut Com, Armstrong and Getty