Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm tell you Basy
Speaker 1: Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2: Thank you Al Griffin. As we head into the ten
Speaker 2: o'clock hour, we have a couple of hours left and
Speaker 2: just want to thank everyone who took the time to
Speaker 2: call in last night. That was a fun hour. We
Speaker 2: were talking about this article in the Boston Globe today
Speaker 2: by a writer who was not thrilled with the Cape traffic.
Speaker 2: The name is Billy Baker. We invited Bill to be
Speaker 2: on the show tonight, but again, sometimes people have other
Speaker 2: plans and we certainly understand that. And I wasn't being
Speaker 2: critical of him at all. It just used his thoughts
Speaker 2: and his comments as a pretty good hour of conversation.
Speaker 2: We have two hours left at eleven o'clock. I will
Speaker 2: ask you during the eleven o'clock hour or two, perhaps
Speaker 2: tell me a story of something good that happened to
Speaker 2: you this week. I had something good happened to me
Speaker 2: on Sunday night and it was with someone actually helped me.
Speaker 2: And I hope that some of you will share some
Speaker 2: stories and maybe you did something that helps someone this week.
Speaker 2: So that's that's the eleven this hour. Donald Trump's on
Speaker 2: a roll. Donald Trump during the campaign used to say
Speaker 2: that you'll get so tired of winning. Well, today, President
Speaker 2: Trump had a win from the United States Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: a six to three decision basically told judges the nine
Speaker 2: the nine Supreme Court justices told federal judges that they
Speaker 2: have to limit this legal tact that federal judges had
Speaker 2: been using. And in fairness, this is not so much
Speaker 2: a fight of Donald Trump against federal judges. This is
Speaker 2: a fight of the presidents of the United States, not
Speaker 2: only Donald Trump, Joe Biden, President Obama and others before them.
Speaker 2: There came a point in time where federal judges uh
Speaker 2: basically decided to issue injunctions against executive orders. Now, President
Speaker 2: Biden had a lot of executive orders. President Trump had
Speaker 2: a flurry of executive orders. The case that was decided
Speaker 2: today did not decide the substantive issue of birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2: That case will be decided in the United States Supreme
Speaker 2: Court in the next next term, which begins next October. First,
Speaker 2: the US Supreme the USA Supreme Court basically is in session.
Speaker 2: They're in session year round in theory because you can
Speaker 2: always get to a justice if you if you have to. Okay,
Speaker 2: lawyers know how to do that. However, the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: basically begins to meet the first week in October and
Speaker 2: they wrap it up generally by June thirtieth, but they
Speaker 2: wrapped it up this year days earlier. There are no
Speaker 2: more decisions coming out and the case that basically got
Speaker 2: its way to the court on procedural issues. Now, birthright
Speaker 2: citizenship is still an open question. Birthright citizenship, as I'm
Speaker 2: sure most of my listeners know, is a part of
Speaker 2: the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed right
Speaker 2: after the Civil War. It was the thirteenth, fourteenth and
Speaker 2: fifteenth Amendment that codified the abolition of slavery and also
Speaker 2: a variety of rights, including citizenship for anyone born in
Speaker 2: the United States of America and under the jurisdiction of
Speaker 2: Now this birthright citizenship had has been on the books
Speaker 2: birthright citizenship as it's known for pretty close to one
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty years, and this is probably the most
Speaker 2: serious challenge. I don't think the Court's going to agree
Speaker 2: with President Trump in my opinion. That's again, let me
Speaker 2: just read to you Fourteenth Amendment, Section one all persons
Speaker 2: born or naturalized in the United States, and this is
Speaker 2: the phrase that the Trump administration wants to challenge and
Speaker 2: subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United
Speaker 2: States and the state wherein they reside. I don't think
Speaker 2: he will find five votes on the Court to agree
Speaker 2: with his interpretation. However, however, that case is what allowed
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court that challenge is what allowed the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court to look at the idea that a single federal
Speaker 2: judge sitting anywhere in America Alaska, from Alaska to Florida,
Speaker 2: from Maine to Hawaii, that the individual judges, federal judges,
Speaker 2: and they are about six hundred and fifty of them
Speaker 2: at any given time, can basically issue what was considered
Speaker 2: to be a nationwide injunction. And now this of course
Speaker 2: would stop executive orders that any president, every president wants
Speaker 2: more power. So Donald Trump has won that procedural issue
Speaker 2: today six to three vote. It's interesting one of the judges, Justices,
Speaker 2: Elena Kagan, when she was Solicitor General, she argued against
Speaker 2: the very point at this very point, so she did
Speaker 2: not write the minority opinion was written by Sonya Soda Majora.
Speaker 2: But anyway, the bottom line is that's a win for
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. We talked earlier this week about what occurred
Speaker 2: last Saturday night. I mean, it seemed just six nights ago.
Speaker 2: Six nights ago, we were sitting at this point listening
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump claim a great achievement in Iran by
Speaker 2: taking out these three nuclear installations facilities in Iran. And
Speaker 2: it's been six days. And as you know, initially there
Speaker 2: was a elked initial assessment whether it was leaked in
Speaker 2: its entirety or a portion of it, which seemed to
Speaker 2: suggest that maybe the raids were not as successful as
Speaker 2: President Trump had expressed. But I think subsequent to that,
Speaker 2: certainly the presentation that General Dan Kane made l yesterday,
Speaker 2: we played a lot of that last night, was pretty impressive.
Speaker 2: And as you know, there is now been an acknowledgment
Speaker 2: from Iran that their facilities have been hit and hurt.
Speaker 2: The President today on the birthright citizen case, made his
Speaker 2: argument as to what it means, and he sees the
Speaker 2: timing of the fourteenth Amendment coming as it did shortly
Speaker 2: after the end of the Civil War. He sees the
Speaker 2: ratification of the fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
Speaker 2: which actually I believe it's let me get the date here,
Speaker 2: just to be sure we have the right date. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's eighteen sixty eight, July ninth, eighteen sixty eight. He
Speaker 2: sees it as lenked very much to the Civil War.
Speaker 2: So Rob, if you would be so kind, let's play.
Speaker 2: This is the president today claiming victory as well, he
Speaker 2: should cut twenty one.
Speaker 3: And thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file
Speaker 3: to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined
Speaker 3: on a nationwide basis. And some of the cases we're
Speaker 3: talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes
Speaker 3: to the fore that was meant for the babies of slaves.
Speaker 3: It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system
Speaker 3: and come into the country on a vacation. This was,
Speaker 3: in fact, it was the same date, the exact same date,
Speaker 3: the end of the Civil war.
Speaker 2: It was meant for the babies of slaves. And it
Speaker 2: is so clean and so obvious.
Speaker 3: But this lets us go there and finally win that
Speaker 3: case because hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into
Speaker 3: our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for
Speaker 3: that reason. It was meant for the babies of slaves.
Speaker 3: So thanks to this decision, we can now properly file
Speaker 3: to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have
Speaker 3: been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not certain he's going to win on birthright
Speaker 2: citizenship on the substantive case, there are other cases that,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, this opens the door. And he lists
Speaker 2: some of those rob cut twenty two, please.
Speaker 3: Ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding,
Speaker 3: stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous
Speaker 3: other priorities of the American people.
Speaker 2: We have so many of them. I have a whole list.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to bore you, and I'm going to
Speaker 3: have pamped up and say a few words, but there's
Speaker 3: really as you can talk as long as she wants,
Speaker 3: because it's a very important decision. This is a decision
Speaker 3: that covers a tremendous amount of territory. But I want
Speaker 3: to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling.
Speaker 2: It's a giant.
Speaker 3: It's a giant, and they should be very proud, and
Speaker 3: our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today.
Speaker 2: And the Attorney General and Bondi did put it in
Speaker 2: some perspective. Now again, I don't think that this means
Speaker 2: birthright citizenship is out the door. I don't think there
Speaker 2: are five votes in the court for that. If you disagree,
Speaker 2: feel free. This is the Attorney General Pam Bondi cut
Speaker 2: number twenty three. Please rob twenty three.
Speaker 4: Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer
Speaker 4: while we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies
Speaker 4: across the entire nation. No longer today. In the six
Speaker 4: to three opinion, Justice Barrett correctly holds that the District
Speaker 4: Court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal injunctions. These
Speaker 4: lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world instead
Speaker 4: of the parties before the court, as the Supreme Court
Speaker 4: held today, they turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.
Speaker 4: Active liberal justices. Judges have used these injunctions to block
Speaker 4: virtually all of President Trump's policies.
Speaker 2: Ironically, when there is a democratic president, and there will
Speaker 2: be someday a democratic president, those democratic president, that democratic
Speaker 2: president will be very happy with this decision because it
Speaker 2: will impede the efforts that some judges might be Republican
Speaker 2: judges would have used to enjoin democratic initiatives. So again,
Speaker 2: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Speaker 2: I think everybody understands that concept. And all this says
Speaker 2: is that if you're a judge in the district of Massachusetts,
Speaker 2: your decision affects the parties in front of you and
Speaker 2: theoretically can't affect the rest of the district while that
Speaker 2: case is being brought up on appeal. But this is,
Speaker 2: without question, it minimizes the role. It's one way try
Speaker 2: to explain it to Youmi is the role, the expanded
Speaker 2: role that federal judges were exercising, and uh, there, this
Speaker 2: is a victory for the White House, but it's nollly
Speaker 2: victory for the Trump white House. It's a victory for
Speaker 2: successor white houses. And when the dynamics of the White
Speaker 2: House change, there will be democratic presidents and Republicans will
Speaker 2: have their hands tied because there were Republican judges who
Speaker 2: did the same in terms of enjoying initiatives by Democratic presidents.
Speaker 2: So I think it's the right ruling. I'd love to
Speaker 2: hear from you. There's also a couple of other important
Speaker 2: rulings today. Six one seven more than a couple of
Speaker 2: others actually six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty
Speaker 2: six months, seven nine, three, one, ten thirty. Let's get
Speaker 2: at it. Coming back right after this.
Speaker 1: You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Speaker 1: Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Back to the well, we're going to get right to
Speaker 2: the phones. There are some other decisions that we can
Speaker 2: talk about as well. And again, I don't want to
Speaker 2: get too wonky on this, and I don't want to
Speaker 2: try to run a law school class here. I'm just
Speaker 2: trying to put it in language that most people will understand.
Speaker 2: And yeah, it's a victory for the current president, but
Speaker 2: it's a victory for presidents going forward. Franklin Roosevelt fought
Speaker 2: with the Supreme Courts. As Supreme courts, effect he tried
Speaker 2: to basically change the number of justices in the Supreme Courts.
Speaker 2: So this is a long battle that exists. It's forever
Speaker 2: between the executive branch and the judicial branch. And this
Speaker 2: is one that rightfully, I think was decided today. I
Speaker 2: thought that some of the hyperbolic language in the descents
Speaker 2: served no purpose. Will on Long Island, Hey will welcome back.
Speaker 2: How are you hey?
Speaker 1: Dan? I think you know how I feel about this.
Speaker 1: I am elated. I couldn't even be more happy, because
Speaker 1: as an originalist, okay, I'm not a big fan of
Speaker 1: star decisive and precedent and all of this nonsense and
Speaker 1: twisting and manipulating the Constitution until it becomes what you
Speaker 1: want it to be, which is completely subverting the process
Speaker 1: of making amendments and changing it if you need to
Speaker 1: change it. Okay, this brings back the power that belongs
Speaker 1: to the executive branch that was intended by our founding
Speaker 1: fathers period, not just mostly obviously in the area of
Speaker 1: one of hundreds of federal judges just being able to say, eh,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to allow this because I'm a part
Speaker 1: of the hack, so I'm going to throw my gamble down.
Speaker 2: I think that the decision today was the right decision
Speaker 2: in terms of Starry deciusis and precedent and all of that.
Speaker 2: I think that they're important factors. There were cases in
Speaker 2: this country that needed to be overturned. Plus versus Ferguson
Speaker 2: basically said, suffer, but the Eagle was constitutional, no right,
Speaker 2: I mean assigned that. I don't know how well you
Speaker 2: felt about plus versus Ferguson.
Speaker 1: But I agree with that, and obviously, but I also
Speaker 1: do you agree with and.
Speaker 2: You're not telling me you agreed with plus versus Ferguson.
Speaker 1: I assume no, I agree with overturning it. I understand that.
Speaker 2: Sure, okay, bra versus Board of Education. So yeah, there
Speaker 2: there were mistakes. The dread Scott decision had to be overturned.
Speaker 2: I mean, I get that. I think that it's going
Speaker 2: to be a tougher fight for the Trump administration to
Speaker 2: basically change the practice in which the fourteenth Amendment because
Speaker 2: of the language.
Speaker 1: Because of the language, right, the language makes it pretty
Speaker 1: clear that it's almost like an anchor baby is a thing.
Speaker 1: But I definitely understand Trump uh pointing out the invention
Speaker 1: of the amendment because that's exactly what it was for.
Speaker 1: And now what we've turned the anchor baby into is
Speaker 1: anchor baby. Change my great, that's what we turned into.
Speaker 1: Run over here, pop out a baby. Now we have
Speaker 1: to say, oh, well, the baby can't just be here,
Speaker 1: and we have to allow the mom and the dad
Speaker 1: and now wait, grandma and grandpa could fight.
Speaker 2: The fight next term will be over the phrase and
Speaker 2: subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So, in other words, diplomats
Speaker 2: who are here in the United States, they are not
Speaker 2: subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Now the
Speaker 2: question is going to be if diplomats are not subject
Speaker 2: to the jurisdiction of the United States, and if a
Speaker 2: diplomat was here and she and her husband or he
Speaker 2: and his wife had a child, that child would not
Speaker 2: be automatically a United States citizen.
Speaker 1: Right, that makes sense and that small narrow window of
Speaker 1: a possibility of what could happen. But that's obviously not
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration is interested in. Trying to, you know,
Speaker 1: serve convent its way around the anchor baby.
Speaker 2: They're going to try to use that. They're going to
Speaker 2: try to use that phrase and say that when someone
Speaker 2: comes here, particularly the people who now actually come here
Speaker 2: with a specific purpose. I mean, there's an entire travel
Speaker 2: industry with women coming from China to California. Uh, the
Speaker 2: purpose is not to live here, not to be here,
Speaker 2: but to gain citizenship for the child when they have
Speaker 2: the child here. That's this, There's there's some possibility here.
Speaker 2: I don't think Trump will prove the White House will
Speaker 2: prevail on this, but they haven't.
Speaker 1: I gotta be honest, I'm not really a I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not really interested in his battle with the fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 1: to tell you the truth, I'm not looking to turn
Speaker 1: that over in any way really. And if that's you know, hey,
Speaker 1: you got a wait with one, it's kind of how
Speaker 1: I look at that on the fourteenth Amendment. So but
Speaker 1: as far.
Speaker 5: As it got away with, right whoever, whoever, whoever came
Speaker 5: across the border and had a baby on our soil
Speaker 5: and then all of a sudden became a citizen, that's
Speaker 5: kind of how I look at it that you you
Speaker 5: you got one past us.
Speaker 1: You literally landed here on vacation and uh and had
Speaker 1: a baby, you know, on purpose because you knew of
Speaker 1: our our our amendment and you knew that it would
Speaker 1: make them a citizen. That's you know, I kind of
Speaker 1: have to chalk that one up to it's the way
Speaker 1: they wrote it, and I have to deal with that.
Speaker 1: Like like I said, I'm into original interpretation.
Speaker 2: You've got to go to the legislative history and you
Speaker 2: got to see what the argument was. That's where you
Speaker 2: get into legislative history. Uh, and subject to the jurisdiction
Speaker 2: thereof that's I don't think Trump will win, but it's
Speaker 2: not as certainty he will he will lose. That's what
Speaker 2: in front of fraid, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, like you said, you can make the argument.
Speaker 1: There's lots of arguments you can make. They made the
Speaker 1: argument for abortion on pretty uh un you know, really
Speaker 1: not a very strong foundation for making uh you know,
Speaker 1: the Roe v. Wade decision, Okay, and that's why subsequently
Speaker 1: it was overturned because it was a shaky found fundation. Right,
Speaker 1: So you could make an argument here. Anybody can make
Speaker 1: an argument for anything. I've seen all types of people
Speaker 1: make arguments over crazy things. I don't think that one stands.
Speaker 1: But this one, this one was huge because this one,
Speaker 1: I can't believe we ever allowed one of six hundred
Speaker 1: or so federal judges to just be able to bang
Speaker 1: his gavel and decide to just absolutely stop or have
Speaker 1: an injunction that stops, you know, executive powers across the
Speaker 1: entire nation that the people voted for by millions and millions.
Speaker 1: Eighty million people voted for what we're doing here, and
Speaker 1: a lot of these things that they try to stop
Speaker 1: fit within the laws that already exist under the executive branch.
Speaker 1: And they find some way to try to stop it,
Speaker 1: and now you know those powers have been severely limited.
Speaker 2: Thanks ren Real, Thank you much. Talk to you soon.
Speaker 2: Have a great weekend. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
Speaker 2: ten thirty, six one, seven, nine, ten thirty. We will
Speaker 2: get to some of the other decisions as well. The
Speaker 2: others are interesting. They're all interesting. Back on Nightside after
Speaker 2: this Night Side.
Speaker 1: Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Wow, Wow, that's such a sad story. IL appreciate it
Speaker 2: in terms of some of the other decisions that came
Speaker 2: down today that perhaps were not as technical as the
Speaker 2: decision dealing with the federal judges and the extent of
Speaker 2: their authority their power. Okay, I think that that was
Speaker 2: the correct decision. There is a decision in which the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court sided with parents, essentially saying that parents who
Speaker 2: want to withdraw the elementary school children with an emphasis
Speaker 2: on elementary from class with storybooks with LGBTQ plus characters
Speaker 2: are being read a six to three decision again, same
Speaker 2: division that divided along ideological lines. The court, reading here
Speaker 2: from a piece out of USA today, said a Maryland
Speaker 2: public school district refusal to allow opt outs likely burdens
Speaker 2: parents First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They
Speaker 2: said the school must allow opt outs while the legal
Speaker 2: challenge continues. Justice Sonya Soda Majora disagree with the ruling,
Speaker 2: saying children of all faiths and backgrounds deserve an education
Speaker 2: and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society.
Speaker 2: So what that shows is how you phrase the issue.
Speaker 2: If you phrase the issue in the context of religious liberty,
Speaker 2: the parents win. If you phrase the issue in the
Speaker 2: context of us being a multicultural society and we all
Speaker 2: must understand one another, then the minority would win. Here,
Speaker 2: the Justice has blocked a challenge from the Conservatives to
Speaker 2: end a eight billion dollar phone and internet subsidy program.
Speaker 2: In addition to that, let me see what else. What
Speaker 2: are the ones that are probably the most Yeah, there's
Speaker 2: one here that upheld a Texas law which said that
Speaker 2: individuals in the state of Texas, if they want to
Speaker 2: access pornography on their computers, they have to be eighteen
Speaker 2: years of age. Again, I don't know how that will
Speaker 2: be enforced, but that's what the court said. So some
Speaker 2: interesting decisions from the Supreme Court today, If you'd like
Speaker 2: to comment on any of them, including the one in
Speaker 2: which the power of individual federal judges are limited. You
Speaker 2: were more than welcome. We have a couple of lines
Speaker 2: at six, one, seven, nine, three, ten thirty. Let's go
Speaker 2: to joe An and Waltham. Joeanne, you are next on nightside. Welcome.
Speaker 6: Hi Dan, How you doing.
Speaker 2: I'm doing fine here for a Friday night. Yeah, a
Speaker 2: couple hours left. Nice to hear your voice. What which decision?
Speaker 6: I wanted to call you during the week, but it
Speaker 6: was too done.
Speaker 2: Hot. Yeah, it's been a hot week, that's for sure.
Speaker 6: And I couldn't think straight.
Speaker 2: That's okay. It's going to warm up next week too,
Speaker 2: So I'm glad you got through tonight. What's yeah, you
Speaker 2: want to talk about these decisions?
Speaker 6: Tickled? I am so happy they finally put a stop
Speaker 6: to these Pattison judges. It's wonderful. Yeah, it just it's
Speaker 6: the correct decision, and finally they did it.
Speaker 2: I think it is, but but realized that the next
Speaker 2: time there's a democratic president.
Speaker 6: And it'll be the same.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well the roles will be reversed. So again, it's
Speaker 2: there have been strong Every president, Democrat or Republican, has
Speaker 2: tried to exert their authority, either through executive orders or
Speaker 2: or in any of a number of ways. And if
Speaker 2: they clip the wings, if there are Republican judges or
Speaker 2: conservative judges, they will be limited in how much they
Speaker 2: can clip the wings of a Biden presidency or a
Speaker 2: Barack Obama presidency or whoever the next Democratic president will be,
Speaker 2: and there will be a next Democratic president at some point.
Speaker 6: Except how many times did Republicans try to do injunctions
Speaker 6: on fewer Obama or Biden? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, no question is in terms of quantity, no question,
Speaker 2: the activist groups on the left outnumbered the activist groups
Speaker 2: on the right.
Speaker 6: The quest Yeah, yeah, yeah, but yeah, I think it's wonderful. Okay,
Speaker 6: well at least well, at least now he can do
Speaker 6: what the people wanted.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean the US can still try to
Speaker 2: join him in the district in which they sid and
Speaker 2: if the I guess there's there's there's some other procedural
Speaker 2: activities a little bit more difficult, class action suits. The
Speaker 2: Democrats will figure out a way and the Republicans will
Speaker 2: figure out a way. There's always going to have that
Speaker 2: that tension and that competition between the executive and the judicial.
Speaker 2: Obviously there's three equal branches of government, but presidents think
Speaker 2: they're they're the top dog. The A lot of judges
Speaker 2: think the judicials the top dog, and of course everyone
Speaker 2: in Congress thinks they're the top dog.
Speaker 6: That Yeah, I understand in some countries the judicial took
Speaker 6: over and it was like the downfall of the head
Speaker 6: of state whatever it was.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know what I mean, It depends upon
Speaker 2: if you have some rogue dictator a pressing people. I
Speaker 2: suspect that we would we would cheer on the uh,
Speaker 2: the judicial activists.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so you got to.
Speaker 2: Think about that. There's some judges that took down ed.
Speaker 2: I mean, good for them. Joeyn, thank you much as always.
Speaker 2: You have a great weekend.
Speaker 6: Okay, talk to you you too. They take care.
Speaker 2: Good night. Let me go next, go next to WILLI
Speaker 2: is in Quincy. Will are you next on nightside? Your
Speaker 2: thoughts on any of these cases? Will you go right ahead?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 7: Just a question on the not what information on the
Speaker 7: birth right citizenship? Yes, something that's to your heart the
Speaker 7: country of Ireland. Yes, I'm not sure sure if you
Speaker 7: know what the birth rights the citizenship that was changed
Speaker 7: in two thousand and five.
Speaker 2: There, I'm not familiar with that. I happen to be
Speaker 2: a dual citizen. I have my citizenship in Ireland, which
Speaker 2: I was able to get through the legacy of my
Speaker 2: my paternal grandfather. What what what? What was? How was
Speaker 2: rule changed in Ireland?
Speaker 7: Really he went to a referendum for the people and
Speaker 7: after two thousand and four, if we were born, if
Speaker 7: a child was born to parents who were not citizens,
Speaker 7: they would not be allowed in the country. There was
Speaker 7: a certain stipulations. If you google it, it's pretty like
Speaker 7: a case study. It would help people understand because before
Speaker 7: you know, you know, in Ireland, it was unusual to
Speaker 7: immigrants to Ireland, but it became a prosperous country and
Speaker 7: the economy is pretty good there now.
Speaker 2: So oh yeah, absolutely. Look, Ireland historically was flat on
Speaker 2: its back economically in the early to mid nineteen eighties
Speaker 2: and then the Celtic Tiger occurred and a lot of
Speaker 2: American companies invested in Ireland and Ireland did really well
Speaker 2: in the nineteen nineties. Immigration is up there, you're absolutely true.
Speaker 2: And of course now you're saying in two thousand and
Speaker 2: they said, okay, we've had it with the immigration and
Speaker 2: we're going to end. So you had a form of
Speaker 2: birthright citizenship in Ireland which was ended, was that ended
Speaker 2: in the courts or through some sort of a referendum.
Speaker 7: Or if the referendum to the people went to which
Speaker 7: is different from here. But you know, as I say,
Speaker 7: the people spoke. But back it goes back to the
Speaker 7: old way of as you were saying, people come on
Speaker 7: vacation or coming as students and having kids and then
Speaker 7: trying to stay through the berths of the kid.
Speaker 2: You know. Yeah, Well, the one of the arguments would
Speaker 2: have been and again, obviously Trump's going to make the
Speaker 2: argument that the fourteenth Amendment was intended for the children
Speaker 2: of the newly emancipated slave population, which is a pretty
Speaker 2: good argument. No one who was alive and in the
Speaker 2: US Senate when the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth amendments were passed
Speaker 2: could have anticipated the ease at which people from other
Speaker 2: continents could fly here, because airplanes were beyond their imagination
Speaker 2: at this point. You know. So, I don't know, it's
Speaker 2: going to be interesting to see what the legislative history.
Speaker 2: And that's sometimes.
Speaker 7: Terminology is a modern you know, modern terminology, not like
Speaker 7: the you know, for as I said, it was the
Speaker 7: whole new case.
Speaker 2: Well, you had the ability if if there was a
Speaker 2: referendum in this country. Because it's in the constitution, it
Speaker 2: can't be overturned by a simple referendum. It would have
Speaker 2: to be either changed by a constitutional amendment or the
Speaker 2: US Supreme Court, through case law, would have to decide
Speaker 2: that that that it is that it is that the
Speaker 2: practice of birthright citizen needs to change. Obviously, it's not
Speaker 2: going to affect American citizens who live here and were
Speaker 2: born here and are having children here. It might effect
Speaker 2: there actually is a tourist trade where we're walking people
Speaker 2: from China fly to California, UH, and they're put up
Speaker 2: in very nice hotels and it's a and and then
Speaker 2: when the time comes they have the child, and the
Speaker 2: child then UH is a citizen. And at some point
Speaker 2: down the line, those children might return with their parents
Speaker 2: and the parents might argue, our child's as it is,
Speaker 2: and we should be a citizen.
Speaker 7: Yes, yeah, yeah, all right, yeah. I just think if
Speaker 7: you're googled it, you know, if someone googled it, it
Speaker 7: just is a modern day terminology, you know.
Speaker 2: Okay, really I appreciate it. Have I spoken with you before?
Speaker 7: No, no, first time.
Speaker 2: I have to give I wish your first time callers,
Speaker 2: would you would announce yourselves, because we don't want someone
Speaker 2: to be a first time caller and not be welcome
Speaker 2: here at night side. Really, what county did you come
Speaker 2: here from?
Speaker 7: I'm from them, can be here over thirty five years.
Speaker 2: And oh yeah, I took my father to Ireland and
Speaker 2: we went to Limerick in nineteen eighty four, so that
Speaker 2: would have been before when you were born. And I
Speaker 2: remember some beautiful tennis courts in Limerick. Limerick is an
Speaker 2: old estra an industrial city, but I think it's made
Speaker 2: a bit of a comeback as well.
Speaker 7: It's high tech yea and pharmaceutical and a great university
Speaker 7: as well.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, well, Willie, glad to have you with us, and
Speaker 2: you got your citizenship and we're the same, we're both
Speaker 2: dual citizens. Thanks Willy, congratulation, thank you, thank you, good night. Okay,
Speaker 2: I got wide open lines here. I'd love to hear
Speaker 2: from any of you if you'd like to talk about
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court decisions today, the birthright citizenship decision, which
Speaker 2: was a procedural decision in which the Trump administration utilized
Speaker 2: that decision to basically cut back the power and the
Speaker 2: influence of individual federal judges they have been using a
Speaker 2: device which is called a nationwide injunction, which would enjoin
Speaker 2: the the orders presidential orders that President Trump was signing
Speaker 2: furiously in the fierce free weeks first few weeks of
Speaker 2: his administration. He still signs them periodically as he comes along.
Speaker 2: And then there would at least two others that I
Speaker 2: think are of real interest, and one of them is
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, by again the same six to three split,
Speaker 2: decided to support parents, a group of parents who wanted
Speaker 2: to withdraw their kids from this again elementary school, not
Speaker 2: talking junior high school, not talking high school, elementary school
Speaker 2: when story books with LGBTQ plus characters were being read.
Speaker 2: The justices also upheld a Texas porn age verification law.
Speaker 2: How this will be endorsed, I don't know. They also
Speaker 2: held the same six to three majority that the laws
Speaker 2: survived because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.
Speaker 2: If you're not an adult is supposedly in Texas, cant
Speaker 2: a few pornography on the internet will well. I don't
Speaker 2: know how they enforced that. Maybe someone smarter than me
Speaker 2: can explain that. But once you've got a computer, access
Speaker 2: to a computer, I guess you pretty much can do
Speaker 2: what you want. We'll be right back on Nightside. Got
Speaker 2: a couple of lines at six one, seven, two, five, four,
Speaker 2: ten thirty, and got one line in six one, seven, nine, three, one,
Speaker 2: ten thirty Maria from Plymouth. She's not a first time caller.
Speaker 2: We'll be back at the at the other side of
Speaker 2: the break, we'll have Maria from Plymouth coming back on
Speaker 2: Nightside on a Friday night. A little cooler tonight than
Speaker 2: it was earlier this week, so we're kind of slowing
Speaker 2: it down here. It will be in the twentieth hour
Speaker 2: in a few minutes, coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1: It's Nightside with Dan Ray, Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2: Back to the Phones is go to Maria in Plymouth. Maria,
Speaker 2: welcome back. How are you welcome to Nightside?
Speaker 8: Hi?
Speaker 9: Dan, how's going.
Speaker 2: I'm going great? Thanks so much for calling in your
Speaker 2: thoughts on any of all of the Supreme Court decisions today.
Speaker 9: Okay, a couple of things, the one about the kids
Speaker 9: wanting to have the l g V T Q X
Speaker 9: y Z in the schools. The I'm just curious that
Speaker 9: those same people would be like, Okay, hey, they can
Speaker 9: have kids can have Bible stories in there.
Speaker 2: You know, well no, yeah, no, no, that they would
Speaker 2: they would not they would not allow Bible stories because
Speaker 2: that would be religious religious based. I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I mean, uh, I'm and they.
Speaker 9: Haven't been allowing them, so I don't see how they're
Speaker 9: you know, it's allow this.
Speaker 2: And well it's it's it's it's parental it's parental rights.
Speaker 2: I agree with you, it's parental rights. If you your
Speaker 2: kid is in elementary school and he's said he or
Speaker 2: she's six or seven years old, just because you're sending
Speaker 2: now again, the argument was, well, if you don't like
Speaker 2: the public school curriculum, said your kid to a private school.
Speaker 2: That's not fair, that's not fair. And so I think
Speaker 2: that decision was the right decision today. No, junior high
Speaker 2: school is different, not fair different. You know, there's a
Speaker 2: point when they get to sixth, seventh, eighth grade, they're
Speaker 2: going to know about most of that stuff anyway, and
Speaker 2: if they choose, if and.
Speaker 9: They're going to read what they choose, if they've actually
Speaker 9: been taught to read.
Speaker 2: Well that's another problem. Which when they get to that point,
Speaker 2: that's a separate problem. Whether they can't read.
Speaker 9: Yeah, you know, and the second part I had was
Speaker 9: about the dissenting opinion the Son of Year. There she
Speaker 9: had said that it was being an open invitation for
Speaker 9: the government to bypass the constitution. So that's a government,
Speaker 9: she meaning just the executive branch or she's talking about
Speaker 9: the legislative branch or.
Speaker 2: The I think that would be. I haven't read her descent,
Speaker 2: but I'm sure she was talking about the president. And
Speaker 2: yet if it was the president that she agreed with,
Speaker 2: that's the problem. It's so difficult to separate the politics
Speaker 2: from the law. I think legally that's a sound decision today.
Speaker 2: But in order to be consistent when there's a democratic
Speaker 2: president who wants to put through some you know, executive
Speaker 2: order that I'm not happy about, I kind turn around
Speaker 2: and say, well, let's get some judge to issue a
Speaker 2: nationwide injunction. That's what we're talking about the extent. So
Speaker 2: I think the principal should apply either way.
Speaker 9: Well, let's say they If they do that, I don't
Speaker 9: understand how it's possible because the president, I don't know,
Speaker 9: senators and representatives also, But I mean he swears to
Speaker 9: uphold the Constitution of the United States, whatever that is.
Speaker 2: Well, well, I.
Speaker 9: Would at some point they would have to change the
Speaker 9: constitution if they want, if that's the way they want
Speaker 9: to go about it.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, I think you're overthinking. If there
Speaker 2: was a piece of legislation that Congress passed and a
Speaker 2: president signed, unless it was inherently unconstitutional. If they if
Speaker 2: let us say, Congress passed the law and the president
Speaker 2: signed it that said black people have lost the right
Speaker 2: to vote, that's patently unconstitutional. Uh, the judicial, the judiciary
Speaker 2: would take precedents and that would be ruled unconstitutional. I
Speaker 2: don't want to get too deep into the weeds here,
Speaker 2: but just I think it was the right decision today.
Speaker 2: Irrespective of whether it's liberal judges curtailing a Republican president
Speaker 2: or conservative judges curtailing a democratic president, they should have
Speaker 2: a right to exercise their their authority.
Speaker 9: I want to get one morement. It's like the Karen
Speaker 9: Reid thing is like, you know, would you keep I'm
Speaker 9: back and forth to the court. It's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Good decisions.
Speaker 2: Again, I'm not going to mix Karen reading with this.
Speaker 2: I got to get one more in. Thanks, Thanks, Maria,
Speaker 2: thank you very much. Julia in reading You're a little late,
Speaker 2: but I've got I got some time for you, Julia, go.
Speaker 8: Right ahead, Oh, thank you. Hi. So I wanted to
Speaker 8: just comment on the decisions today. So sure, you know,
Speaker 8: I think that you're absolutely right that what's going to
Speaker 8: happen is we are going to have a democratic president. Oh,
Speaker 8: we're going to have a socialist president one of these days.
Speaker 2: I hope not. I hope not.
Speaker 8: Go ahead, you hope not. I I am not in
Speaker 8: of that same mind. So we're going to have a
Speaker 8: democratic president, let's ray, and he's going to decide that
Speaker 8: LGBT is absolutely fine, and he's going to make some
Speaker 8: decisions and people are going to hate it, and and
Speaker 8: all the Republicans are going to hate it, right, and
Speaker 8: they're going to want to do the same exact thing
Speaker 8: to a judge that is politically swayed towards the Republicans. Yes,
Speaker 8: and so I think what we're gonna do is play whackabab.
Speaker 8: You know, this country is gonna play whack a ball.
Speaker 8: It depends on right.
Speaker 2: But I think I think that. But Julia, Julia, I
Speaker 2: think what this does is it says to future presidents,
Speaker 2: you're gonna you're gonna have some you can you know,
Speaker 2: do your executive orders. Uh, and you'll be able. You
Speaker 2: you'll have less harassment from judges who are who are
Speaker 2: ideologically opposed to you. So I think this this gives
Speaker 2: the president, whoever the president is a little more political
Speaker 2: level room, and I think that's a good thing. And
Speaker 2: there may be something that some president does that I'm
Speaker 2: going to disagree with them. However, I think from a
Speaker 2: purely procedural point of view, we cannot tie the hands
Speaker 2: of presidents. If presidents do things that are patently unconstitutional,
Speaker 2: then they they will be create tied. Julia, I hate
Speaker 2: to tell you, but I'm flat out of time. Have
Speaker 2: you called my show before? Is this your first time?
Speaker 8: It's time?
Speaker 2: Well, we want to give you out of applause, but
Speaker 2: I also want to encourage you to please call back
Speaker 2: and call a little earlier. I think we're going to
Speaker 2: have some great conversations. We might agree or disagree, but
Speaker 2: I think there'll be great conversations. Thank you so much,
Speaker 2: were welcome.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Talk to you soon. Have a great weekend. All right,
Speaker 2: we are done with this hour. We're coming back on
Speaker 2: the other side, and I want stories of something good
Speaker 2: that happened to you this week. Maybe a story of
Speaker 2: someone who helped you or someone assisted you. I will
Speaker 2: explain what I mean right after the eleven o'clock News