Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, I'm.
Speaker 2: Strong and gay and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3: The FDA has approved a drug called Foundeo.
Speaker 2: It's made by Eli Lilly.
Speaker 3: It's given as a daily pill, and it works similarly
Speaker 3: to drugs like ozembic, Wagov, and zep bound by mimicking
Speaker 3: a hormone known as GLP one. This one follows another
Speaker 3: pill that was approved in December hit the market earlier
Speaker 3: this year, called the Wagov pill, sold by Novo Nordisk,
Speaker 3: and Eli Lilly says that it's drug represents an advance
Speaker 3: compared with that pill because Foundeo doesn't need to be
Speaker 3: taken at any particular time of day or with any
Speaker 3: restrictions on food and water, whereas the Wagov pill must
Speaker 3: be taken right when you wake up in the morn
Speaker 3: on an empty stomach.
Speaker 2: So they're getting sounds like easier to take these various pills.
Speaker 2: I don't know. If you watch the TNT show on
Speaker 2: about the NBA playoffs are about to get going. In
Speaker 2: the NBA, Charles Barkley is like half his size because
Speaker 2: he's on one of these drugs. He's lost over one
Speaker 2: hundred pounds. He was like three thirty at his heaviest,
Speaker 2: even for a tall guy, that's a lot of weight.
Speaker 2: And he's getting close to his playing weight from back
Speaker 2: when he was a fairly thin NBA player. But he's
Speaker 2: lost over one hundred pounds on this drug. And I
Speaker 2: know somebody that I assume is doing this, quite a
Speaker 2: big woman who's now quite thin and in a short
Speaker 2: amount of time. It's it's kinda feel like the miracle
Speaker 2: drug you've been wanting forever for a lot of people. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I always wonder about the long term thing, just
Speaker 4: as a guy who's lost weight and gained it back
Speaker 4: againlike everybody does. But there's no question that it's even
Speaker 4: if you're lighter for a while, it's pretty good for you.
Speaker 2: If you stay on it, you stay thin, won't you.
Speaker 4: M Yeah, Well, And I talked to my doctor, who's
Speaker 4: just a terrific guy and a terrific doctor, and he said,
Speaker 4: I've had virtually nothing but success with it. People tolerated beautifully,
Speaker 4: had great results on the floe.
Speaker 2: Wow, that's awesome.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because you know how it is if there's a
Speaker 4: news article that says these drugs are tolerated by most
Speaker 4: people and do a nice job.
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm going to think, oh, that's good. I'm
Speaker 2: not going to click on it. If I see horrific.
Speaker 4: Side effects of wig Gobi, will get tongues whacking.
Speaker 2: You know, it's hard not to click right right.
Speaker 4: So you get an outsized idea of the downsides which exist.
Speaker 2: Of course, consult your physician. Speaking of doctors, told the
Speaker 2: story yesterday about how outraged I get when I'm at
Speaker 2: the doctor's office with my kid. This happened the other
Speaker 2: day getting a physical and I'm asked to leave the room,
Speaker 2: and I stupidly did it. I mostly did it because
Speaker 2: I didn't want to embarrass my son. I hadn't talked
Speaker 2: to him about ahead of time. I will never do
Speaker 2: it again now that I have thought it through and
Speaker 2: heard from some of you good people. I mean, if
Speaker 2: i'd have thought it through for a second, what are
Speaker 2: they gonna do? Tell me, I my son.
Speaker 4: Can't get a physical, kick me out on to the ground, exactly,
Speaker 4: Cuff you and take your child away from you.
Speaker 2: And I also I asked the woman and very nice person,
Speaker 2: and I told her. I said, you're just doing your job.
Speaker 2: It's the hospital policy. I said, is this a hospital
Speaker 2: thing or a government thing? You know, it's a combination
Speaker 2: of this and that and blah blah blah. And apparently
Speaker 2: a friend of mine in Tennessee who used to live
Speaker 2: in California and left for Tennessee, like so many people
Speaker 2: have said, they don't do that in Tennessee. They don't
Speaker 2: ask you to leave the room to talk to your
Speaker 2: kid alone. I found it. I find it outrageous, absolutely
Speaker 2: beyond the pale to step in as the we're the authority.
Speaker 2: We know what's good and what's best. That guy, your
Speaker 2: dad does not the what kind of message that's into
Speaker 2: your kid? Oh my god. It's awful on so many
Speaker 2: different levels. But anyway, finding out it's not universal is
Speaker 2: helpful to me, and I hope you all finding out
Speaker 2: that you can just say no now, I'm not going
Speaker 2: to do that. Ask any questions you want in front
Speaker 2: of me. That's the way we're going to do it.
Speaker 1: Here.
Speaker 4: I got a note from a physician friend in California
Speaker 4: who said, hey, I've got a name of a doctor
Speaker 4: for Jack that they don't pull out crap. It's like
Speaker 4: the best guidance of the AMA and stuff like that,
Speaker 4: that you ought to do this, and you're more progressive
Speaker 4: health organizations, especially in your more lefty places.
Speaker 2: They're like, yes, that is a great idea. I'm not
Speaker 2: surprised that in the town that I live in that
Speaker 2: they lean that direction. I love my dosher, but I
Speaker 2: would imagine that the hospital he works at they tell
Speaker 2: them to do that. Yeah. Yeah, boy.
Speaker 4: We got a ton of emails about that. Some of
Speaker 4: them kind of restate what I just said.
Speaker 2: I wonder how.
Speaker 4: Many people completely unbothered by it at all, go along
Speaker 4: with it and think, well, that makes sense that the
Speaker 4: government or some other institution is stepping in as the
Speaker 4: the authority between me and my child.
Speaker 2: So thanks to.
Speaker 4: Everybody who wrote really interesting stuff. But I've picked three
Speaker 4: emails in particular that I think are terrific. First of all,
Speaker 4: Brian and Santa rosa first time a doctor or their
Speaker 4: assistant asked me, I'm trying to have the other have
Speaker 4: you leave the room while I talk to my child.
Speaker 4: I asked them where they went to school, in a
Speaker 4: series of other questions. Then I told them that they
Speaker 4: would have to wait until I researched their background. I
Speaker 4: don't just let anybody talk to my child alone. If
Speaker 4: they graduated from college in the last few years. I
Speaker 4: bring up the statistics of how easy it is to
Speaker 4: get through medical school these days. I ask them what
Speaker 4: their religion is, what their beliefs are, and if they're woke.
Speaker 4: I was the same way when my children were young.
Speaker 4: Now it's my grandson. His dad reluctantly agrees with me.
Speaker 4: Good for you, Brian.
Speaker 2: I love that.
Speaker 4: The terrific JT and livermore rights. I've always hated that concept,
Speaker 4: but I've asking the parent to leave the room. But
Speaker 4: I've never given it much thought as to why now
Speaker 4: I have. For me, it isn't because I feel like
Speaker 4: the state is temporarily temporarily taking over my parenting function,
Speaker 4: or they think they care more about my kids than
Speaker 4: I do. The problem is that it goes against the
Speaker 4: Fourth Amendment Illegal search and seizure, either literally or culturally.
Speaker 4: They are fishing for proof of a crime without the
Speaker 4: slightest provocation that anything is wrong.
Speaker 2: It's one I mean, what else would it be? What
Speaker 2: else would it be?
Speaker 4: Oh, if it's not a presumption of guilt, it's a
Speaker 4: presumption that everyone must be screened.
Speaker 2: And asked to leave the room.
Speaker 4: Now, I know that the doctor or nurse is not
Speaker 4: a representative of the government, but aren't they a proxy
Speaker 4: of a sort, given that doctors and nurses are subject
Speaker 4: to required to report laws. But if a policeman or
Speaker 4: other government representative can't illegally search my child, perhaps in
Speaker 4: even the barest indication of a crime that's been committed,
Speaker 4: then they can't outsource that illegal search via proxy. What
Speaker 4: else can a health professional ask that a cause I
Speaker 4: related to the kid's health? Can they ask my kid
Speaker 4: if I ever smoke crack, or if I share my
Speaker 4: prescription painkills with my brother in law or hurt his back,
Speaker 4: or if I've ever driven them somewhere after having a beer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I gotta say I am highly embarrassed that I
Speaker 2: did step out of the room. My kids have been
Speaker 2: coached up on the gun question. We don't answer that
Speaker 2: question because I got outraged about that many years ago.
Speaker 2: If you were listening, you remember, like, you don't get
Speaker 2: to freaking ask that question. What the hell way me
Speaker 2: take my blood pressure, figure out my cholesterol, and then
Speaker 2: I'll go home? Yeah? Yeah.
Speaker 4: And then finally, this from Brian the cop great note
Speaker 4: on a couple of different topics. Uh, He says, want
Speaker 4: to provide a perspective about how healthcare professionals. Professionals are
Speaker 4: failing at risk children. In law enforcement, we have reasonable suspicion,
Speaker 4: which leads us to begin an investigation into a possible crime.
Speaker 4: When it goes further, we'd begin to develop probable cause
Speaker 4: to continue to investigate and make an arrest. While health
Speaker 4: care workers in California have made separating parents from their
Speaker 4: children in order to discover abuse or neglect through a
Speaker 4: process they put all families through, they stop using their
Speaker 4: training and instincts to look for clues of neglect and abuse.
Speaker 4: They do this believing the process they now use will
Speaker 4: expose the abusers. Now that every parent is a possible subject,
Speaker 4: they stop noticing the reasonable suspicion in the parents. They
Speaker 4: would hopefully notice it in the vast majority of parents
Speaker 4: don't abuse their kids. But now you're blending all parents together,
Speaker 4: and it makes it easier, in my opinion, to hide
Speaker 4: the clues you would have noticed before.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting perspective.
Speaker 4: And then, as a guy who is a certified drug investigator,
Speaker 4: he says, judging by the description of Tiger woods by
Speaker 4: the roadside. He was on a lot more than narcanic
Speaker 4: narcotic analgesics. Really specifically his his wide pupils, his dilated pupils,
Speaker 4: because if he was on what everybody thinks he was on,
Speaker 4: simply they caused contracted pupils.
Speaker 2: He had hydro codone pills in his pocket, so that
Speaker 2: wouldn't make your pupils.
Speaker 4: Dilate, not according to this guy, to get drug crimes. Yeah, uh,
Speaker 4: that's funny.
Speaker 2: And here's another failure of the media. It would take
Speaker 2: one I could do it during the commercials to check
Speaker 2: and see this hydra codone caused your pupils to dilate.
Speaker 2: But because everybody did that, the news as if clearly assigned.
Speaker 2: Well is it? That's what you know?
Speaker 4: One of the epithets I throw at the media during
Speaker 4: my frequent screeds is incurious. Yeah, that's the most amazing thing.
Speaker 4: Jack and I have observed that so many times. This
Speaker 4: is the according to authorities, this is the second highest
Speaker 4: number of this ever.
Speaker 2: I wonder, okay, well, what's everybody wondering what was the highest?
Speaker 2: When was it? How much was it?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 2: I wonder what else Tiger is doing? Then?
Speaker 4: Microdosin aketemy, that's what all the rich hipsters are doing,
Speaker 4: and and the psilocybin, the magic mushroom war.
Speaker 2: What if he's into bimbification? What if it all comes together?
Speaker 2: Not sure how that ties in.
Speaker 4: I don't want to stomp your theory out before it.
Speaker 4: There's a chance to get going.
Speaker 2: We're going to talk to a legal expert coming up
Speaker 2: in a little bit about how the oral arguments went yesterday.
Speaker 2: You say there are some complicated and birthrights case. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: you say there are some complicated reasons that it might
Speaker 2: make sense that we allow any child born in this
Speaker 2: country to be automatically as c.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and or we would have to specifically write laws
Speaker 4: to change the way it currently works.
Speaker 2: Okay, I want to hear about that. So we lots
Speaker 2: on the way. Stay here, Why do you want to
Speaker 2: be here? Why do you love space? Why do you
Speaker 2: love being a part of history? We're going back to
Speaker 2: the fucking moon. That's why an excited little kid who
Speaker 2: watched the Space Lawn with a foul mouth.
Speaker 4: Did I hear it like a re he said freakin'
Speaker 4: in the tape? I saw, yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay, We're going back to the freaking moon.
Speaker 4: I love that. That's right, son, that's right, and you're
Speaker 4: right to be excited. This is a great country and
Speaker 4: we do great things and we better beat China to
Speaker 4: the moon. Stay tuned for hour four. We're gonna go
Speaker 4: big on the space race and how serious it is.
Speaker 2: He emphasized the wrong thing, though he's supposed to emphasize
Speaker 2: that it's the first one legged, half Asian, half Jewish,
Speaker 2: trans woman, or whatever identity politics they always throw at
Speaker 2: us with every space mission.
Speaker 4: I know, I saw that headline in what was the
Speaker 4: USA today or something? Oh, shut up with that. Are
Speaker 4: they a great astronaut?
Speaker 2: Good? They studied hard. Give them credit for their expertise.
Speaker 4: Not the color of their skin or who they like
Speaker 4: to sex up. Oh my god, I hate the left.
Speaker 4: I found this very interesting. Listen to this one you
Speaker 4: speaking of the Artemist's mission.
Speaker 2: The crew of Artemists two now bound for the Moon.
Speaker 6: The Artemists two mission is underway, four astronauts on a
Speaker 6: ten day mission of the Moon and back. The Orion
Speaker 6: spacecraft lifting off powered by that massive three hundred and
Speaker 6: twenty two foot tall, six million pound rocket packed with
Speaker 6: more than seven hundred thousand gallons of liquid oxygen and
Speaker 6: hydrogen passing one minute, approaching maxque before launch teams checking
Speaker 6: those suits then, just as astronauts have done in pass missions,
Speaker 6: a bit of superstition, playing cards until everyone loses a
Speaker 6: hand to leave bad luck behind.
Speaker 2: Wow, like ye, Sharia law loses a hand? Like that
Speaker 2: sort of thing.
Speaker 4: Oh you misunderstand jack a hand of cards. In other words,
Speaker 4: an individual little game within the game. Oh that's an
Speaker 4: interesting superstition though, Now what the heck if that helps
Speaker 4: set your mind at ease as you strap yourself on top.
Speaker 2: Of a bomb and get vaulted in the space. Do
Speaker 2: whatever helps.
Speaker 4: So, speaking of the burning of fuel, I thought it
Speaker 4: was interesting. I was just going through email, and we
Speaker 4: get a heck of a lot of it. And notice
Speaker 4: we have a handful of people all asking the same question.
Speaker 4: In essence, if we don't depend on the straits of
Speaker 4: horror moves, as Donald Trump has said repeatedly, then why
Speaker 4: are our gas prices going so high? And I was
Speaker 4: mildly surprised that some of the people asking that, But
Speaker 4: then you know, everybody studies different things, and those different
Speaker 4: things here's the answer.
Speaker 2: It's fairly simple. Number one, oil is a global commodity.
Speaker 4: And I'm reading now, think of the world's oil supply
Speaker 4: like a single giant bathtub. Even if we're only dipping
Speaker 4: our cup into the North American side of the tub,
Speaker 4: when someone pulls the plug in the Middle East side,
Speaker 4: the water levels drops for everybody. The twenty percent rule,
Speaker 4: roughly twenty percent of the world's total oil supply passed
Speaker 4: through that narrow strait. And you can see how if
Speaker 4: prices skyrocket in Asia, for instance, the prices kind of react.
Speaker 2: All over the world. It's global market.
Speaker 4: There's also a difference in the kinds of oil different
Speaker 4: countries used from different places.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's what why the global market thing
Speaker 2: plays in. Is weird we're doing a different kind of oil,
Speaker 2: because otherwise, couldn't we just go isolated. Couldn't we just
Speaker 2: stay out of the global market, pump our own oil,
Speaker 2: use our own oil, and just stay out of the
Speaker 2: global global market in the same way, typically in the
Speaker 2: same way that I could make my own beer and
Speaker 2: charge myself for whatever I want to charge.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, but that would be a complete restructuring of
Speaker 4: how oil markets have always worked.
Speaker 2: So it would be I think, is enormous, completely independent.
Speaker 4: You're a market tools drill, baby drill, Oh, tariff baby tariff,
Speaker 4: let's see.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: And then there's the way the oil markets work, and
Speaker 4: and gas is, you know, obviously refined oil. The fear
Speaker 4: premium what they call because it's all based on the
Speaker 4: futures market. Gas prices often jumped before a single barrel
Speaker 4: of oil is actually lost traders on the commodities market
Speaker 4: by oil futures contracts for oil to be delivered months
Speaker 4: from now.
Speaker 2: That's how it works.
Speaker 4: When a critical choke point like the straight orform moves
Speaker 4: is threatened closed, traders panic and bid prices higher to
Speaker 4: hedge against a future shortage. That fear premium is passed
Speaker 4: directly to gas stations almost immediately. And I could get
Speaker 4: into some more details, but that's it. The short answer
Speaker 4: is it's a global market and always has been.
Speaker 2: Hired somebody making this point. A lot of the politicians
Speaker 2: that are making the loudest noises about the price of oil,
Speaker 2: slash the price of gas and how awful it is
Speaker 2: are from states where they artificially keep the price of
Speaker 2: gas high to try to drive you into electric cars.
Speaker 2: Oh great, like California. The whole point of our gas
Speaker 2: being so high. A lot of the taxes is hoping
Speaker 2: that you'll stop driving, you'll start car pooling, you get
Speaker 2: an electric car, all that sort of stuff. But when
Speaker 2: Trump launches this war, then you scream and yell about
Speaker 2: the price of gas like you care. You love it
Speaker 2: being high. You want people to stop driving gas barred cars. Oh,
Speaker 2: they're just so utterly dishonest. That's discouraging. God. I was
Speaker 2: driving over the weekend to UH San Francisco and and
Speaker 2: they've expanded the Diamond lane the carpool lane. It used
Speaker 2: to be just a very short portion of light drive.
Speaker 2: Now it's the entire way and it's just empty. There's
Speaker 2: nobody in it. Oh and it's seven days a week.
Speaker 2: That's why I'm so mad about it. It's all day
Speaker 2: Saturday too, So on Saturday you have the carpool lane.
Speaker 2: So you're taking away in some cases twenty five percent
Speaker 2: of the lanes because there's only four lanes that anybody
Speaker 2: can drive on, And so traffic is horrible on a
Speaker 2: Saturday at eleven am because a quarter of the lanes
Speaker 2: you can't use. It accomplishes nothing other than.
Speaker 4: Every responsible study has shown that it either accomplishes nothing
Speaker 4: or makes pollution worse.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what it's like, a superstitious gesture by the
Speaker 4: environmental left. It does nothing well that and it's the
Speaker 4: goal is to make you miserable enough that you'll take
Speaker 4: the train or carpool or some bs that they think
Speaker 4: they're gonna make us do, which we never are. So
Speaker 4: birth tourists, Chinese hollar garchs popping out kids in America
Speaker 4: for the citizenship birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court. The
Speaker 4: oral arguments were yesterday with the President in attendance. We'll
Speaker 4: talk to Joe Lopino Esposito of the Pacific Legal Foundation
Speaker 4: about how those arguments went and how he thinks it
Speaker 4: might turn out.
Speaker 2: Damn, it's the opposite of what I want. I think.
Speaker 2: What do you think? Good? All right, Jo.
Speaker 4: Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5: There are five hundred, five hundred birth tourism companies in
Speaker 5: the People's Republic of China, who's what business is to
Speaker 5: bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.
Speaker 1: Having said all that, you do agree that that has
Speaker 1: no impact on the legal analysis before us.
Speaker 7: I think it's I quote with Justice Clia said in
Speaker 7: his Homdan descent, where they like their interpretation has these
Speaker 7: implications that could not possibly have been approved by the
Speaker 7: nineteenth century framers of this amendment. I think that shows
Speaker 7: that they made a mess and their interpretation has made
Speaker 7: a mess of the provision.
Speaker 2: Hmmm.
Speaker 4: Some of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday,
Speaker 4: with notably the President in attendance way the Fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 4: and birthright citizenship and that sort of thing, it strikes me.
Speaker 4: It's such an interesting topic for a lot of reasons,
Speaker 4: including the utter change in the way the world works
Speaker 4: and immigration works, and you can jet around the world
Speaker 4: in a single day and anyway to examine this question
Speaker 4: and then how the oral arguments went. Who better to
Speaker 4: talk to than Joe Lupino Esposito of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Speaker 4: Joe leads a team dedicated to developing solutions and advocating
Speaker 4: for change in federal law that respects the Constitution and
Speaker 4: isligned with PLF's legal practice. Joe, welcome, How are you, sir?
Speaker 1: I'm doing well.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 4: Do you find the oral arguments pretty interesting yesterday? And
Speaker 4: what'd you make of them?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, they were pretty exciting obviously, Like you mentioned,
Speaker 1: the President being in the room, that's pretty tough for
Speaker 1: your boss looking over your shoulder there. But I think
Speaker 1: John Sower did a very good job with a very
Speaker 1: difficult question and really an uphill battle for the president
Speaker 1: by trying to attack the idea of birthright systemship through
Speaker 1: an execut of order. So really the justices were engaged
Speaker 1: on a whole bunch of different levels here, but primarily
Speaker 1: it seemed to really come down to this issue of
Speaker 1: what was the original intention of the fourteenth Amendment, who
Speaker 1: was it really meant for, what was the context of
Speaker 1: when that was passed? And then further, have there been
Speaker 1: any precedents that have gone forward since that date, like
Speaker 1: in the late eighteen nineties. The one that kept mentioning
Speaker 1: was the Wong Kim arc case, and that was another
Speaker 1: one that they wanted to kind of recabin and sours
Speaker 1: argument essentially was we need to look at it a
Speaker 1: different way and then I think you will find that
Speaker 1: we are on the right side. So that was his take,
Speaker 1: and he got quite a bit of challenge on that.
Speaker 2: Well, wasn't the original intention for children of slaves? And
Speaker 2: unless you're two hundred and some years old, there are
Speaker 2: no children of slaves that apply, So then where does
Speaker 2: this break down?
Speaker 1: Right? Exactly and naturally the essential question, right, And during
Speaker 1: the arguments, I don't recall which justice brought it up,
Speaker 1: might have been Justice Toledo had said something along the
Speaker 1: lines of, you know, are some of these rules of
Speaker 1: the constitution, these pieces of the constitution sort of a
Speaker 1: rule for all time? Or are they very specific? You know,
Speaker 1: so if you have a law that says there's no theft,
Speaker 1: but microwaves didn't exist, but you get your microwaves stolen,
Speaker 1: well it's still a good general rule, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, these are the things.
Speaker 1: They bring up over there, right. I love the analogies
Speaker 1: over there, but yeah, I mean it's true, right, So
Speaker 1: like is that a universal rule? So of course, from
Speaker 1: the other side, they're saying, well, look, in the eighteen
Speaker 1: nineties we were still obviously had some children as slaves
Speaker 1: at that point, but you know, we're looking forward into
Speaker 1: the next century where this won't be And in that case,
Speaker 1: they said, ironically enough for the clip you guys just played,
Speaker 1: it was an issue of somebody who was a Chinese
Speaker 1: national because at the time, under the current laws that
Speaker 1: were in place at that time, Chinese immigrants could not
Speaker 1: become citizens. They were restricted from becoming citizens. So the
Speaker 1: argument was could their child become a citizen, and at
Speaker 1: the time they said yes, the fourteenth Amendment guarantees that.
Speaker 1: But the question there, of course, was well what qualifies
Speaker 1: the parents? And the discussion was around the parents and
Speaker 1: their domicile and their allegiances. And that's what we heard
Speaker 1: a bunch about in the argument yesterday.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: The question of domicile, meaning where do you live? Where
Speaker 4: is your home, is such a different question now than
Speaker 4: it was then. I mean, I could on a whim
Speaker 4: be in London tonight, stay there for a couple of weeks,
Speaker 4: you know, with my pregnant wife, and we could give
Speaker 4: birth in London because I think London's cool, and then
Speaker 4: fly back and so all of this was unimaginable. What
Speaker 4: is So the whole question of what does domicile mean?
Speaker 2: Was pretty key, wasn't it. Oh?
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I got mentioned dozens It's not one hundred
Speaker 1: times yesterday.
Speaker 2: And it was interesting because we.
Speaker 1: Saw even some of the more less leaning judges questioning
Speaker 1: Trump's opposing counsel, you know, at the ACLU, saying, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think they mentioned domicile so often just for fun.
Speaker 1: You know, how are you going to get around this problem?
Speaker 1: More difficult question for them. The way they would turn
Speaker 1: on that, of course, is to say, well, the question
Speaker 1: has never been about the parents. It has always just
Speaker 1: been about following the soil. If you are here and
Speaker 1: you were born here, that's how it goes. Of course,
Speaker 1: on the other side, you know, John Sower and the
Speaker 1: administration would say, well, look, in other cases, we've drawn
Speaker 1: out certain exceptions as if those are just always assumed.
Speaker 1: So things like diplomat's children, or if somebody is born
Speaker 1: on Indian land or of Indian parents of tribal land,
Speaker 1: these are always the exceptions that have been drawn out.
Speaker 1: So why wouldn't we kind of come to the next
Speaker 1: conclusion and say, well, this is yet another example because
Speaker 1: things have changed. But of course that led to probably
Speaker 1: the best line of the oral argument, where John Sower
Speaker 1: said it's a whole new world and John Roberts replied,
Speaker 1: it's a new world, but the same constitution. So that's
Speaker 1: where I think they're gonna have a lot of trouble.
Speaker 2: Okay, Fine, So if we want the result of people
Speaker 2: can't just have babies in the United States and they're
Speaker 2: automatically US citizens, how do you get there?
Speaker 1: Right? So that's kind of what will be interesting to
Speaker 1: see how the court comes down here. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think depending on how they want to break down their opinion,
Speaker 1: I think you'd probably have a nine zero saying well,
Speaker 1: this can't be done by executive order, no matter if
Speaker 1: you like it or not, say well, is the door
Speaker 1: open for legislation to say, look, we can draw some
Speaker 1: exceptions here. It is not a pure guarantee. It is
Speaker 1: not just simply we follow the soil, you are here
Speaker 1: and you're born, because it's obviously not true. Now we
Speaker 1: talk about these situations like diplomat's children, right, So it's
Speaker 1: not universal as it is. But now how much can
Speaker 1: you actually limit that universality or the exceptions that we've
Speaker 1: already found the only ones? Can Congress continue? That probably
Speaker 1: wouldn't be, you know, on point for this case. But
Speaker 1: if somebody wanted to write a concurrence, somebody like in
Speaker 1: Alido that seemed to be leaning towards the president of
Speaker 1: position but maybe not fully, there could always write a
Speaker 1: concurrence saying look, I think the door is open if
Speaker 1: there were some actual law made around this. So that's
Speaker 1: one possibility. Who knows that that could happen, but that
Speaker 1: seems to be the opening that could exist here.
Speaker 4: Joe, why don't you count on Congress and I'll count
Speaker 4: on the Easter buddy, and we'll see who gets satisfied first.
Speaker 4: Uh Jo from the PLF is online Go ahead, Joe
Speaker 4: was gonna say.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is one of the biggest issues. Iff.
Speaker 1: We talk a lot about separation of powers and who
Speaker 1: has the right role of doing these things, and that's
Speaker 1: always the issue. It's like, well, timers could do its job.
Speaker 1: I know that's it's a lot to say that, but
Speaker 1: technically that's the way they have it set up, so
Speaker 1: that that is really the essential problem that keeps coming
Speaker 1: up in a number of issues, not just an immigration.
Speaker 2: I was interested to read that there are quite a
Speaker 2: few countries like the UK that did away with this
Speaker 2: a while back for a variety of reasons. So it's
Speaker 2: not like it's a crazy idea.
Speaker 1: No. I mean again, as a policy matter, I think
Speaker 1: that is definitely an open question do we want to
Speaker 1: do that? And just not knowing off hand, is there
Speaker 1: a constitution or otherwise it had said you know something
Speaker 1: that guaranteed it. Obviously it's a higher three threshold. If
Speaker 1: the court does find that it is in the Constitution,
Speaker 1: then I would have to be a higher threshold of
Speaker 1: actually getting an amendment, which talk about impossible. That's impossible,
Speaker 1: So that would be a much harder slog. But if
Speaker 1: they leave the opening because of the handful of exceptions,
Speaker 1: that's something they can do because I mean politically, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure how popular it is, but it probably would
Speaker 1: be very popular, and it seems to be popular in
Speaker 1: the areas in Europe where this is the case.
Speaker 4: Yeah, at the very least, you could outlaw just outright
Speaker 4: birth tourism, citizenship. But so a more general question, there's
Speaker 4: this ludicrous narrative frequently in a lot of the mainstream
Speaker 4: media saying that, you know, there's this six to three
Speaker 4: conservative deadlock and when so many of the cases are
Speaker 4: in really interesting combinations control of MAGA court, that's.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that's ridiculous.
Speaker 4: How would you describe the six conservative justices and they're
Speaker 4: overlap app of agreement and disagreement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I think most analysis now actually puts
Speaker 1: it more as like a three three three court. Right,
Speaker 1: So obviously you have the three liberal justices, then you
Speaker 1: have Kevanaugh Roberts and Barrett in one camp, and then
Speaker 1: the other three conservatives in the other. But even so,
Speaker 1: you have a number of cases that are perhaps a
Speaker 1: little bit more libertarian leaning where you'll see Gorsach and
Speaker 1: Alito and Thomas that started Gorsich on one side and
Speaker 1: an Alito and Thomas on the other side on a
Speaker 1: number of cases. So that's often how things can split up,
Speaker 1: particularly in like criminal law cases. Alito is almost never
Speaker 1: going to be on the same side as Gorsach, barring
Speaker 1: it being a nine zero decision. So those are just
Speaker 1: kind of those rare examples where you see that pop up.
Speaker 1: But again, even just this week, we've seen where the
Speaker 1: liberal justices are siding with the conservatives. In the case
Speaker 1: in California regarding conversion therapy, you only had one descent
Speaker 1: from Justice Jackson, and frankly kind of a slap down
Speaker 1: from Justice Kagan and her concurrence saying, I don't you know,
Speaker 1: in so many words, I'm not quite sure what she's
Speaker 1: talking about. So it was pretty interesting to see that.
Speaker 2: So this leads me to and I know the answer
Speaker 2: to this question, but I want to hear you say,
Speaker 2: does it drive you nuts? The mainstream media coverage of
Speaker 2: all these cases, because it seems to me like whenever
Speaker 2: I look into a decision, the general headline around it
Speaker 2: isn't even close to the reason they decided it one
Speaker 2: way or the other.
Speaker 1: No, you're exactly right. It's it's very frustrating when we
Speaker 1: see this all the time, and it seems like the
Speaker 1: media often wants to only talk about the cases when
Speaker 1: they are five, four and sixty three. I mean store
Speaker 1: like that makes it more exciting. If it's nine zero,
Speaker 1: I guess the issue wasn't that great. But sometimes those
Speaker 1: opinions where they are eight one or seven to two
Speaker 1: nine zero are really important to look at because those
Speaker 1: are the ones where you should really kind of zoom
Speaker 1: in and say, well, this is the thing where everybody
Speaker 1: can agree, this is where the law is at, Like,
Speaker 1: this thing should not be a controversy. So when it
Speaker 1: comes to like again just using this week's example conversion
Speaker 1: therapy case, there's not a ton of debates here on
Speaker 1: whether or not that was a good idea. Just as Jackson,
Speaker 1: notwithstanding you know you had sort of an idiot and
Speaker 1: coming along on this, I wouldn't say that because we
Speaker 1: have cases in front of the.
Speaker 2: Court so.
Speaker 4: Joe, Well put Joe Lopino Esposito of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Hey, Joe,
Speaker 4: we're kind of up against a break and let's talk again.
Speaker 4: An outstanding job, Love the conversation as usual. Everybody we've
Speaker 4: talked to from the Pacific Legal Foundation is terrific.
Speaker 2: Thanks Joe, and thank you. Oh Hanson, the goldest of
Speaker 2: gold stars for him, Oh Love. He won is wonderful.
Speaker 2: Money rolls with the silliness, which I really appreciate, roll
Speaker 2: with it, idiot, I wouldn't say that because we have
Speaker 2: cases before the court. Now, I cut him off.
Speaker 4: He was about to make clear, and she is a
Speaker 4: learned justice and her credentials are fabulous. Was he about
Speaker 4: to say that, as far as you know, he was, Yes,
Speaker 4: I want to I do not want to damage the
Speaker 4: man's career.
Speaker 2: See, I'm not a lawyer, for your chuckles, I'm not
Speaker 2: a lawyer, and I so this stuff drives me crazy,
Speaker 2: and I understand why it's got to be this way,
Speaker 2: but I just want, you know, just things we all
Speaker 2: agree on for the most part. It shouldn't be able
Speaker 2: to just show up in the United States and have
Speaker 2: a baby and you get all the rights of us citizen.
Speaker 2: So let's just make that happen somehow. But I realize
Speaker 2: you can't run a system that way.
Speaker 4: Well, you can run a congress that way. They can
Speaker 4: write that law. They just don't do anything but fundraise
Speaker 4: and tweet. Oh well, it worked pretty well for two
Speaker 4: hundred and fifty years. It was a decent enough front,
Speaker 4: all right, stick around, much more to come.
Speaker 3: NASA launched his first crude mission to the Moon in
Speaker 3: fifty three years.
Speaker 7: You have the rocket launch from Cape Canaveral, did a
Speaker 7: quick fly by over Kid Rock's house and then headed
Speaker 7: for the Moon.
Speaker 8: The four astronauts on board are Commander Reid Wiseman, pilot
Speaker 8: Victor Glover, mission specialist Christina Cook, and Canadian Space Agency
Speaker 8: Mission specialist Jeremy Hansen. Wait hold, wait, shwait, that's right.
Speaker 2: I don't see Katie Perry in there. Is it really
Speaker 2: a space mission?
Speaker 8: If Jeff Bezos hasn't welded a terrified Gail King into
Speaker 8: a medal.
Speaker 2: Two, why is there a Canadian on our space ship?
Speaker 2: So yesterday I announced breaking fleetwood mac news in that
Speaker 2: a stalker had thrown some sort of liquid substance at
Speaker 2: guitar player Lindsey Graham. It was an old man at
Speaker 2: this point. Lindsey Buckingham, Lindsey Graham, what I did that yesterday?
Speaker 2: I did that too, yeah yesterday. And Lindsay Graham did
Speaker 2: not sing go your own way. Lindsey Buckingham did.
Speaker 4: Lindsey Buckingham is not a probably closeted South Carolina senator.
Speaker 2: He's a very heterosexual, as he got with the young
Speaker 2: Stevie Nicks. Lindsay Buckingham. Anyway, So this happened on the
Speaker 2: Santa Monica Peer Los Angeles and this crazy woman, so
Speaker 2: you want to be famous, do you? She's fifty four
Speaker 2: years old. She's convinced that Lindsay Buckingham is her dad,
Speaker 2: and apparently authorities have gone through it well enough to
Speaker 2: determine she's not, because this has happened over and over again.
Speaker 2: She's been stalking this poor guy for a long long time.
Speaker 4: She throws it if it is your dad, don't be
Speaker 4: thrown mystery substances and liquids on your dad's rude.
Speaker 2: It's a good point. The police are aware of her.
Speaker 2: Lindsey Buckingham is very aware of her. She tossed unknown
Speaker 2: substance admir and ran off the Los Angeles Police Department
Speaker 2: confirmed that the attack did happen. Buckingham has three children
Speaker 2: with his wife, and they go through that whole thing
Speaker 2: here in this article. But this woman, the accused stalker,
Speaker 2: first began interacting with Lindsay Buckingham five years ago when
Speaker 2: she started calling the musician and his wife dozens of times,
Speaker 2: leaving long messages, claiming to be his daughter. Wonder how
Speaker 2: she got his number? That would be you'd start off
Speaker 2: being annoyed and then pretty soon you start to get frightened.
Speaker 2: And she just kept calling, leaving long, rambling messages. Oh
Speaker 2: and if I'd been a touring musician for many years,
Speaker 2: I'd start off thinking, boy, how old here? Let's see
Speaker 2: that was the Tusk tour. During this initial period, she
Speaker 2: also threatened to kill the family, blamed Lindsay Buckingham for
Speaker 2: facial deformities, deformities she suffered as a child, and demanded money.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty two, LAPD officially instructed her to cease
Speaker 2: contact with the family. She stopped messaging them, but secretly
Speaker 2: continued to contact Lindsey. Buckingham's adult son went after him.
Speaker 2: The harassment attendsified in twenty twenty four when she set
Speaker 2: Buckingham a photocollage of their faces, followed by showing up
Speaker 2: at his home. You know, you get a picture of
Speaker 2: here's everybody in your family. You know that what kind
Speaker 2: of threat that is? She swatted the family in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four, making a false nine to one one report
Speaker 2: that led to Lindsey Buckingham being handcuffed and led from
Speaker 2: his home. Oh, until they figured out what was going on.
Speaker 2: Then he got a permanent restraining order against her. I
Speaker 2: didn't know that was a thing. A permanent restraining order.
Speaker 2: She can't come near him for the rest of his life.
Speaker 2: And that's what she was in violation of the other day.
Speaker 2: Apparently she lives in her car somewhere. They haven't found her. Wow,
Speaker 2: what that suck. Oh, there's no reasoning with a crazy first. Now,
Speaker 2: I do assume, because it doesn't say anything in there,
Speaker 2: that with all of these different incidents occurring, they've determined
Speaker 2: that her claim is not real. Oh yeah, I think, yeah,
Speaker 2: you would check that box because, as you said, you're
Speaker 2: a one of the most famous rock stars on planet Earth.
Speaker 2: She'd have been born in the seventies. There has to
Speaker 2: be at least the chance conceivably in a moment of weakness.
Speaker 4: Exactly, you found yourself that you're highly embarrassed about.
Speaker 2: And ashamed of. Oh terrible.
Speaker 4: It was a lapse, yes, but it does happen from
Speaker 4: what I'm told anyway. Yeah, how troubling. Oh, speaking of
Speaker 4: crazy people in La next hour. Maybe you don't get
Speaker 4: Next Hour, you gotta subscribe to the podcast Armstrong and
Speaker 4: Getty on demand. You remember the subterranean sword junkies in La. Well,
Speaker 4: the woman who was featured on that news report, her
Speaker 4: families come out and made a powerful statement.
Speaker 2: What they said will shock you. Okay, stay with us
Speaker 2: or come back, and then you're gonna explain the whole
Speaker 2: China versus US space race. I'm into that. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 2: this is a serious, serious thing and gets no attention
Speaker 2: around the why we're going to the moon. We're not
Speaker 2: a serious country. That's the That's the entire point of
Speaker 2: why we're going to the moon. Yes, is the is
Speaker 2: the military race with China. No, we're not obliterated from
Speaker 2: the moon by China. Yeah, if you missake gets the
Speaker 2: podcast Armstrong and Getty on Demand.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty