Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom is so bored of being the governor of
Speaker 1: California he cannot wait for January of twenty twenty seven
Speaker 1: to roll along, when finally he can get out of
Speaker 1: the nightmare of this job that he only really wants
Speaker 1: to have so that he can become president. Newsom could
Speaker 1: not possibly be more bored. He's now discovered the perfect
Speaker 1: medium for his yappiness, which is podcasting, because all of
Speaker 1: a sudden he's got like multiple different podcasts. Belatedly, he
Speaker 1: had a podcast with, of all people, Marshawn Lynch, the
Speaker 1: Seattle Seahawks, Buffalo Bills, Oakland Raider really was legendary only
Speaker 1: with the Seahawks, but former running back with all those
Speaker 1: teams won a Super Bowl with the Seahawks. Yes, he
Speaker 1: had with that Marshawn Lynch. He had a podcast with him,
Speaker 1: of all people. And now he's decided I'm launching the
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom podcast because apparently he doesn't have enough to
Speaker 1: do as governor of California. So his first guest on
Speaker 1: this newly launched Gavin news podcasts, he has Charlie Kirk. On.
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk who's kind of conservative activist guy. He runs
Speaker 1: all the various turning point organizations to promote conservative stuff
Speaker 1: on college campuses. Kirk has sort of the line in
Speaker 1: with President Trump and he's gained more prominence, especially over
Speaker 1: the last election cycle. So he's got Charlie Kirk on
Speaker 1: his little podcast and Newsom winds up talking with him
Speaker 1: about women's sports and has this news making break with
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party where Newsom comes out and says that
Speaker 1: he thinks it's unfair for biological men to play women's sports.
Speaker 1: And clearly that was the point of this interview, was
Speaker 1: Newsome to sort of set himself up to declare his
Speaker 1: opposition to transgender biological men claiming to be women playing
Speaker 1: women's sports, claiming transgender identity playing women's sports. All right, now,
Speaker 1: we all know that Gavin Newsom is a weather vein.
Speaker 1: I don't know that he has very many really sincerely
Speaker 1: held beliefs at all. I think the classic example of
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom being just a total, totally ungrounded, no principles
Speaker 1: politically whatsoever. The greatest example of this was when he
Speaker 1: was running for governor and ran on a platform that
Speaker 1: he was going to enact single payer universal health care
Speaker 1: in California, and he literally during the campaign, he has
Speaker 1: quotes where he says, I I'm tired of these politicians
Speaker 1: who say they're gonna push for single payer, and then
Speaker 1: when the time comes, they say it's too expensive or
Speaker 1: not right now, or it can't be done. I'm tired
Speaker 1: of these politicians kicking the can down the road. That's
Speaker 1: what he was saying as lieutenant governor when he was
Speaker 1: running on this idea in twenty eighteen. Then he becomes
Speaker 1: governor and that's immediately the position he adopts is it's
Speaker 1: too expensive, it's not the right time, and maybe there
Speaker 1: are other ways to do this. So even on this
Speaker 1: massive campaign pledge to pursue single payer healthcare, he completely
Speaker 1: flip flopped on it completely like like, could not have
Speaker 1: been more blatant in his flip flop. So this is
Speaker 1: not a principled man. It recalls to me the Groucho
Speaker 1: Marx quote. Those are my principles, and if you don't
Speaker 1: like them, well I have others. That's Gavin Newsom. Those
Speaker 1: are his principles and if you don't like them, he
Speaker 1: has others. So I think most knowing this about Newsom,
Speaker 1: I think across the commentariat people are focusing on Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom is clearly trying to run for president in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight, and he is tacking hard to the center.
Speaker 1: He sees that, I mean everyone one of the big
Speaker 1: takeaways from the twenty twenty four election is the transgender
Speaker 1: the pro transgender viewpoint, especially men playing women's sports, is
Speaker 1: not popular. It does not have popular support. The vast
Speaker 1: majority of Americans don't like it, don't agree with it,
Speaker 1: don't support it. And so Newsom, I think Newsom is
Speaker 1: trying to attack to the center to where the country is.
Speaker 1: And some people around the commentarator saying, well, maybe this
Speaker 1: is smart of Newsom. You know, he's trying to track
Speaker 1: sort of a different way forward for the Democrats, and
Speaker 1: it is significant. I mean, Newsom is the most at
Speaker 1: this point. Who else is the leader of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party nationally? Who else other than him, who's a more
Speaker 1: prominent elected official than Gavin Newsom? Right now? He's the
Speaker 1: governor of the biggest state in the Union. Democrats don't
Speaker 1: have a president, they don't have a vice president, they
Speaker 1: don't have excuse me, they don't have a majority leader
Speaker 1: in Congress, and they're in the minority in both House
Speaker 1: and Senate, who is a more prominent figure than Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 1: I don't know. He's probably the most prominent elected official
Speaker 1: the Democrats have right now, So this is a significant change.
Speaker 1: I don't think, though, Conservatives should sort of sit back
Speaker 1: and sort of say, well, you know, it's a good
Speaker 1: thing that Democrats are embracing reason on this issue, and
Speaker 1: you know, maybe we should be magnanimous and welcome him
Speaker 1: into the fold. Okay, if John Fetterman wants to do that.
Speaker 1: Maybe if other Democrats in the House and the Senate,
Speaker 1: who maybe don't have a long record on this issue,
Speaker 1: if they want to tack to the center on this, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's fine. Gavin Newsom shouldn't be allowed to do this.
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom should not be allowed to get away with this.
Speaker 1: I think he's going to try to act like I'm
Speaker 1: the moderate on this issue. I've tacked to the center.
Speaker 1: I am different and distinct from whoever else he's going
Speaker 1: to run against in the Democratic primary, and I think
Speaker 1: he's got a good shot of winning the Democratic primary
Speaker 1: the nominee in twenty twenty eight. I don't think we
Speaker 1: should let him get away with some kind of label
Speaker 1: as the moderate because he is moderate on the issue
Speaker 1: of transgenderism. He is not. Why do I say that.
Speaker 1: I say this because Gavin Newsom has signed laws. He
Speaker 1: has signed laws plural in California that have enacted far
Speaker 1: more extreme legal regimes enforcing transgender norms on California, things
Speaker 1: that I think are far worse than boys playing girls' sports,
Speaker 1: biological men playing women's sports. Newsom's trying to act as
Speaker 1: though he's picking the low hanging fruit, that the most
Speaker 1: obvious thing within the realm of the transgender You know,
Speaker 1: he's he's going to position himself as I'm in favor
Speaker 1: of trans people, their rights should be protected, their right
Speaker 1: to get the surgeries, blah blah, blah blah blah. But
Speaker 1: you know, I understand that it's not fair for biological
Speaker 1: men to play women's sports. So he's trying to pick
Speaker 1: what he deems to be the low hanging fruit, ignoring
Speaker 1: laws he passed for far worse things. So let me
Speaker 1: talk about exhibit A example number one of far worse
Speaker 1: things that Gavin Newsom has signed into law that are
Speaker 1: far worse than biological men playing women's sports, biological men
Speaker 1: being housed in women's correctional facilities, jails and prisons in California.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about that. Now. This is not me saying
Speaker 1: that biological men playing women's sports is not important or
Speaker 1: not unfair. It is important. It's very unfair, and in
Speaker 1: certain cases, as President Trump highlighted at his speech earlier
Speaker 1: this week, it can even be dangerous. It can be
Speaker 1: physically dangerous for biological men to compete with biological women. Okay,
Speaker 1: biological men are bigger, stronger, faster, and they can because
Speaker 1: they're so much bigger, stronger, faster, they can do stuff
Speaker 1: that actually, depending on the sport, actually physically harms women.
Speaker 1: So I'm not saying it's good. I'm not saying it's fair.
Speaker 1: It's bad, it's unfair. We should oppose it. But I
Speaker 1: kind of think it's nuts that the issue of men
Speaker 1: playing women's sports gets so much more press and so
Speaker 1: much more ink than the issue of biological men claiming
Speaker 1: to be transgender being housed in women's prisons in jails.
Speaker 1: Worst case scenario when a man plays a woman sport
Speaker 1: is that he steals a spot or a championship, a
Speaker 1: metal whatever from a deserving woman, and or that someone
Speaker 1: gets injured, and you know the injury that was highlighted
Speaker 1: during President Trump's spech was a very serious injury. You
Speaker 1: know what's the worst case when a biological man is
Speaker 1: housed in a woman's prison, rape murder. We don't talk
Speaker 1: about it very much, but I think out of all
Speaker 1: of the policies that are the logical conclusion of the
Speaker 1: transgender ideology, letting biological men who simply claim a transgender identity,
Speaker 1: and that's the other thing, it's just claiming a transgender identity.
Speaker 1: Part and parcel of this whole ideology is no, no
Speaker 1: psychological examination is required. You just take it at the
Speaker 1: person's word. And it's almost that it's offensive to ask
Speaker 1: for a more in depth psychological evaluation because it's not
Speaker 1: a psychological illness to be transgender. If someone trust trans kids,
Speaker 1: that's the motto, trust trans kids, trust trans people, you don't.
Speaker 1: It's actually deemed to be offensive to actually inquire into
Speaker 1: the ideation, to ask if the ideation, if this identity
Speaker 1: that someone is adapting for themselves is authentic or legitimate
Speaker 1: or just a phase, or if it's flat out pretending
Speaker 1: in order for you, as a biological male convicted felon
Speaker 1: so that you can be housed with women so you
Speaker 1: can rape them. And before you think this is a
Speaker 1: theoretical concern, Sally Moreno, the District Attorney of Madera is
Speaker 1: right now in the process of prosecuting exactly someone like this,
Speaker 1: So right now, this is the story I talked about.
Speaker 1: I interviewed Sally Moreno again, the District attorney of Madera County.
Speaker 1: I interviewed her on the show a couple months ago.
Speaker 1: This is a story from December. This was a story
Speaker 1: from ABC thirty. Pronoun use at center of rape case
Speaker 1: involving former Chouchilla prisoner. A convicted criminal who served time
Speaker 1: at the women's prison in Chowchilla is charged with raping
Speaker 1: fellow inmates. A Madera County judge ruled this week that
Speaker 1: fifteen to two year old state prisoner Tremaine Carol Tremaine,
Speaker 1: that's a boy's name, must be referred to with she
Speaker 1: her pronouns because Carol identifies as a woman. But the
Speaker 1: district attorney believes the defendant is abusing the system. This
Speaker 1: is a person who is not a woman in any
Speaker 1: sense of the word, says Madera County District Attorney Sally Moreno.
Speaker 1: In March, DA Sally Moreno charged Carol for rape allegedly
Speaker 1: committed while incarcerated at the Central California Women's Facility in
Speaker 1: Chauchilla's This is a California State prisons located in Chouchilla.
Speaker 1: After his first cellmate became pregnant and was moved to
Speaker 1: Los Angeles. Two other cellmates of his had complained that
Speaker 1: he raped them, so we have filed rape charges against
Speaker 1: this inmate, said Moreno. Moreno says the ruling regarding pronouns
Speaker 1: impacts her ability to prosecute the case. This is a
Speaker 1: particular issue in this case because it's confusing to the jury.
Speaker 1: In California, rape is a crime that has to be
Speaker 1: accomplished by a man, said Moreno. Supervising Deputy District Attorney
Speaker 1: Eric du Temple says it's also unfair to the victim.
Speaker 1: It's just absolutely insane. He says that a victim would
Speaker 1: have to get on the stand and police their pronoun
Speaker 1: usage when trying to recite one of the scariest times
Speaker 1: of their lives. Now the judge throwing a hissy fit
Speaker 1: here about using the right pronouns when the whole theory
Speaker 1: of this case, By the way, I know this is radio.
Speaker 1: You can't see it. I've got the mugshot for this,
Speaker 1: for this allegedly transgender person. He's got a goatee. He
Speaker 1: just looks like a dude. He's not even trying. The
Speaker 1: whole theory of the case against this guy is that
Speaker 1: he's not even really whatever reality there is to a
Speaker 1: transgender identity. He doesn't even think of himself as transgender.
Speaker 1: He's pretending. He's saying that he's transgender because he wants
Speaker 1: to rape women, and now he's apparently raped three of them.
Speaker 1: Why was he able to do that? Why does California
Speaker 1: allow someone just claiming a transgender identity to be housed
Speaker 1: with female inmates. The story continues, Carol was allowed to
Speaker 1: serve time in a woman's prison despite being a biological male,
Speaker 1: because of Senate Bill one thirty two, the Transgender Respect,
Speaker 1: Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in twenty twenty one. Yes,
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, COVID dictator Newsom took time away from
Speaker 1: his busy schedule of ruining county economies color coding you
Speaker 1: in order to determine whether you had a First Amendment
Speaker 1: right to free exercise of religion. Or not he took
Speaker 1: time out of his busy schedule doing all of that
Speaker 1: to sign SB one two to mandate biological men be
Speaker 1: housed with female prisoners just on the basis of gender
Speaker 1: ideation of acclaimed gender identity, No follow up, no check.
Speaker 1: As Sally Moreno says, there's no psychological evaluation that needs
Speaker 1: to be done. This person does not need to be
Speaker 1: on cross gender hormones. They don't need to be signed
Speaker 1: up for transgender surgery, they don't need to be a
Speaker 1: they don't need to be a psychological evaluation regarding gender confusion.
Speaker 1: The mere statement is enough, said Moreno, So I guess
Speaker 1: I applaud Gavin Newsom for saying it's unfair that biological
Speaker 1: men play women's sports. Listen that, folks, it's the sound
Speaker 1: of the world's tiniest applause. You know what's really unfair.
Speaker 1: It's being sentenced to two years in a California state
Speaker 1: prison and instead your sentence winds up being two years
Speaker 1: and being raped by a man. You know, it's really unfair.
Speaker 1: It's you know, it's a real instance of gender discrimination.
Speaker 1: It's being a woman and being expected to be housed
Speaker 1: with a dangerous, convicted criminal. In prison. Newsom's trying to
Speaker 1: act like the lowest hanging fruit. The most obvious thing
Speaker 1: is changing his position on biological men playing women's sports. No,
Speaker 1: the actual thing that's the lowest hanging fruit, the actual
Speaker 1: most insane gender policy out there, is not actually women's sports.
Speaker 1: It's bad that men play women's sports. It's unfair that
Speaker 1: men play women's sports. I concur I'm not in favor
Speaker 1: of it, But biological men being housed in a woman's
Speaker 1: prison is I think a twenty times worse problem because again,
Speaker 1: nine percent of the time, if a man's playing women's sports,
Speaker 1: it's the end result is unfairness, opportunities being taken from women.
Speaker 1: That's bad, that's not good. You know what happens when
Speaker 1: you have a male convicted criminal housed with a bunch
Speaker 1: of female convicted criminals. Rape, That's what's gonna happen. It's
Speaker 1: precisely what happened in Madera County. So, Gavin Newsom, you
Speaker 1: are not some tacking to the middle moderate unless you
Speaker 1: because guess what, he signed that into law and he's
Speaker 1: not going to refute that. So let's not let him
Speaker 1: get away with that. When we return, we'll talk a
Speaker 1: little bit more about think, why are certain things? You know,
Speaker 1: why is the sports thing front and center but not
Speaker 1: the prisoner's thing that's next on the John Already show
Speaker 1: went a little long last segment, so this will be
Speaker 1: a short one, but just it's I understand why men
Speaker 1: playing women's sports gets more press and attention than biological
Speaker 1: men being housed in women's prisons. As Gavin Newsom is
Speaker 1: trying to do this little press to her, acting like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm a moderate on transgender issues because now I don't
Speaker 1: think it's good for men to play women's sports. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: he signed our state law letting biological men be housed
Speaker 1: in women's prison in women's prisons based on gender identity
Speaker 1: acclaimed gender identity, which I think, by any metric, is
Speaker 1: more dangerous, more harmful, more unjust, more unfair, like by
Speaker 1: any metric, that's got to be a lower hanging fruit
Speaker 1: to change your positions on than biological men playing women's sports.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, come on the bad outcome of biological
Speaker 1: men playing women's sports. Yes, there are some instances where
Speaker 1: someone could get very seriously injured. You put a biological
Speaker 1: man in a women's prison, someone's gonna get raped. And
Speaker 1: it astonishes me the naivete of the California state legislature
Speaker 1: to think, well, people wouldn't lie about their trendsgender identity
Speaker 1: just so that they could rape women. These are convicted criminals,
Speaker 1: of course they will. I mean, anyone who's worked in corrections,
Speaker 1: anyone who's worked as a correctional officer for a jail
Speaker 1: or prison, or works for the sheriff's department, understands these
Speaker 1: guys have nothing but time to think up ways to
Speaker 1: do bad things they are constantly doing. You give them
Speaker 1: an inch, they will take a mile. You give them
Speaker 1: an opportunity. You give these guys who've been surrounded by
Speaker 1: nothing but dudes, an opportunity to be in a cell
Speaker 1: with a woman. You don't well think that these these
Speaker 1: bad people, these convicted people, are gonna take that chance,
Speaker 1: or that at least one of them is gonna take
Speaker 1: that change. Of course, they're gonna take that chance, They're
Speaker 1: gonna take that opportunity. I mean, what an utter naivete
Speaker 1: about corrections to not understand that these are bad dudes,
Speaker 1: and of course they'll abuse that system and falsely claim
Speaker 1: to be transgender, in so far as such a thing
Speaker 1: can be falsified or falsifiable anyway. I think it's just
Speaker 1: a thing of you know, sports is something that all
Speaker 1: of us engage with. Most Americans are watching sports, grew
Speaker 1: up playing some sport, have their kids playing sports. It's
Speaker 1: something that's obviously readily reachable, tangible part of everyday life
Speaker 1: in a way that you know, inmates being housed in prisons,
Speaker 1: in jails isn't. So we don't think about it, we
Speaker 1: don't hear about it. You know, there are about twenty
Speaker 1: more stories about the what is it, the dude swimmer,
Speaker 1: the biological male who became a Leah Thomas whatever the
Speaker 1: I forget what his actual original name was, you know,
Speaker 1: the biological male who all of a sudden becomes a
Speaker 1: women's swimmer and then he starts kicking everyone's butt. The
Speaker 1: eighty more stories about that. That's like a national news thing,
Speaker 1: as opposed to, again, this horrible story out of Mandera
Speaker 1: County about three women in the Chowchilla Women's Correctional Facility
Speaker 1: being raped by a dude. A dude who didn't even
Speaker 1: bother to change his name to a more female name,
Speaker 1: didn't bother to shave his goateee. Is not on cross
Speaker 1: gender hormones, isn't signed up for any kind of surgery.
Speaker 1: Who's clearly, I think, very arguably is purely claiming transgender
Speaker 1: ideation so that a transgender identity, so that he can
Speaker 1: rape women. It's why that isn't like front and center,
Speaker 1: National News. It's sort of I sort of understand it again.
Speaker 1: You know, being involved with kids, your kids' sports is
Speaker 1: a far more commonplace, common American experience than going to jail.
Speaker 1: But it's obviously like a far worse instance of injustice
Speaker 1: to house women in a situation like that than it
Speaker 1: is to have them, you know, play in a track
Speaker 1: and field meet against a dude. Obviously that's also unfair.
Speaker 1: But holy cow, being women being housed with a convicted
Speaker 1: other convicted women, I guess being housed of the convicted
Speaker 1: male felon is so much more dangerous, so much more unjust. Anyway,
Speaker 1: we shouldn't like avenusom get away with his alleged turned
Speaker 1: moderation on transgenderism. Yeah, he's saying, oh, it's okay, it's
Speaker 1: not good for biological men to play women's sports. It's
Speaker 1: far worse for biological men to be housed in prison
Speaker 1: with women. And he was the one who made it
Speaker 1: happen in California. He signed that bill into law. So
Speaker 1: don't let him get away with some pretend moderate identity.
Speaker 1: When we return, we'll talk about some disappointing Supreme Court
Speaker 1: rulings next on the John Girardi Show. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of conservative tongue wagging about Amy Coney Barrett after a
Speaker 1: recent Supreme Court ruling that was blocking Trump's effort delaying
Speaker 1: I should say, because it's not really a finalized block,
Speaker 1: it's a delay some various Supreme Court rulings delaying Trump
Speaker 1: administration efforts to fire various federal employees and to cut
Speaker 1: off certain forms of USAID funding. The problem is, you've
Speaker 1: got this Federal District Court judge, Judge Emir Ali, who
Speaker 1: was trying to act as though he's halting a Trump
Speaker 1: move of stopping certain federal funding, and he's doing it
Speaker 1: through what's called a TRO a temporary restraining order. Now,
Speaker 1: a TRO is only granted under certain kinds of conditions,
Speaker 1: but the idea of a TRO is it's there in
Speaker 1: the name. It's a temporary restraining order. It's hold it
Speaker 1: before some action happens. Don't do that action, because we
Speaker 1: need to assess this to see if it is legal
Speaker 1: or not. So I was involved with this with a
Speaker 1: federal lawsuit that I filed my organization Right to Life
Speaker 1: Central California. We were faced with this thorny problem. California
Speaker 1: had passed a law banning protest within a certain number
Speaker 1: of feet of any quote vaccine sight. Planned Parenthood in
Speaker 1: Fresno offers HPV vaccines. We had Right to Life. We
Speaker 1: have our forty Days for Life campaign, which by the way,
Speaker 1: is going on right now. And as part of our
Speaker 1: work on the sidewalk talking to women and couples considering abortion,
Speaker 1: we're standing on the sidewalk within one hundred feet of
Speaker 1: the door of Planned Parenthood, and so the law would
Speaker 1: have rendered our conduct basically illegal. So as soon as
Speaker 1: the law came into effect. Basically it was an urgency measure,
Speaker 1: So as soon as Gavin Newsom signed it, it came
Speaker 1: into effect. It didn't you know, it wasn't a thing
Speaker 1: where I think he signed it in October of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one. It wasn't a thing where you waited until
Speaker 1: January first of twenty twenty two. It came into effect
Speaker 1: as soon as he signed it, as soon as Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom signed it, we filed a lawsuit against the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of California, and we submitted a request for a
Speaker 1: t R a temporary restraining order to say, hey, well,
Speaker 1: wha wha wha wha whah woa, before the State of
Speaker 1: California starts enforcing this law against us, we want to
Speaker 1: temporarily restrain them from enforcing this law because we think
Speaker 1: there are really serious violations of our constitutional rights that
Speaker 1: are at play here, particularly our First Amendment rights to
Speaker 1: freedom of speech. And the judge granted us that tro
Speaker 1: and in granting us the tro it's the judge was
Speaker 1: preventing the government from doing something affirmative, saying, don't affirmatively
Speaker 1: enforce this law. Stay at the status quo what this
Speaker 1: federal District Court judge Amir Ali did. And just for
Speaker 1: background on Amir Ali, he is a federal district court
Speaker 1: judge for the d C District, and these judges in
Speaker 1: the d C District. The federal court system is basically
Speaker 1: broken up into regions. So we in Fresno happen to
Speaker 1: live in the Eastern District of California, and for every
Speaker 1: regional sort of federal court district you have a single
Speaker 1: US attorney who is the federal law enforcement person for
Speaker 1: that region, kind of like a district kind of like
Speaker 1: a district attorney. So so you know at Lisa Smith
Speaker 1: Camp is the DA for Fresno County. There's a US
Speaker 1: attorney who prosecutes all the federal crimes within the Eastern
Speaker 1: District of California. And every state has at least one
Speaker 1: federal district. So a small state that doesn't have a
Speaker 1: large population just has the district of the federal you know,
Speaker 1: district of say Wyoming, Okay. So federal court systems, the
Speaker 1: federal the structure of the federal courts is basically three levels.
Speaker 1: You have Federal district court judges, which here the first
Speaker 1: level trial level cases. Federal district court judge judges as well,
Speaker 1: but where there they oversee trials, where they're just where
Speaker 1: they're you know, sorting through factual disputes and also analyzing
Speaker 1: at the first level legal questions. Is this consistent with
Speaker 1: the Constitution? Is this consistent with a provision of federal law?
Speaker 1: Is the government or are somebody violating this person's federal rights?
Speaker 1: So you have the federal district courts at the lowest level.
Speaker 1: Then you have the federal circuit courts like the First Circuit,
Speaker 1: the Second Circuit, the Third Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, and
Speaker 1: the d C Circuit that you know, we in California
Speaker 1: live in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears
Speaker 1: all the appeals from all the individual federal district courts
Speaker 1: within a number of states in the Western United States.
Speaker 1: So there is a DC District Court which has a
Speaker 1: number of judges who are all federal judges for the
Speaker 1: DC District and they hear a lot of these big
Speaker 1: legal disputes involving federal government spending because the federal government
Speaker 1: is located in the District of Columbia, and a lot
Speaker 1: of these guys, guys and gals are super liberal. A
Speaker 1: lot of them are Obama appointees and Biden appointees. Amir
Speaker 1: Ali is a Biden appointee. So Amir Ali saw federal
Speaker 1: lawsuit was filed by these various nngos who were supposed
Speaker 1: to get USAID money something like two billion dollars. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration was cutting that money off. Ali gets a
Speaker 1: temporary restraining They sue. They ask Ali for a temporary
Speaker 1: restraining order. But this is the difference. This is a
Speaker 1: temporary restraining order, not demanding that no affirmative act take place,
Speaker 1: not demanding that we just hold things at the status quo,
Speaker 1: which the irreversible act here would be the money going
Speaker 1: out to the NGO. Ali issues what he calls a
Speaker 1: temporary restraining order to say that the money must be
Speaker 1: affirmatively paid out. That's not a temporary thing at all.
Speaker 1: The horse is out of the barn by that point.
Speaker 1: Once the money's spent, it's spent, it's gone. You can't
Speaker 1: get it back. Rich Larry National Review has a little
Speaker 1: piece about it. Judge Amir Ali. He says, it's good
Speaker 1: to be king or a district judge. Judge Amir Ali
Speaker 1: has no power to appropriate money or spend it. Neither
Speaker 1: does he have any authority over the condo to US
Speaker 1: foreign policy if he wanted to have any of these things.
Speaker 1: He's in the wrong line of work as a federal
Speaker 1: district judge. Ali is not letting that stop him in
Speaker 1: his escalating conflict with the Trump administration over USAID spending.
Speaker 1: Though the judge won a modified victory in the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: which opted not to stop him from trying to force
Speaker 1: the Trump administration to spend money that it has currently paused.
Speaker 1: In a dissent expressing shock and dismay that the Court
Speaker 1: is letting Ali proceed on his current course, Justice Samuel
Speaker 1: Alito described the crux of the matter as the question,
Speaker 1: does a single district court judge, who likely lacks jurisdiction,
Speaker 1: have the unchecked power to compel the government of the
Speaker 1: United States to pay out and probably lose forever two
Speaker 1: billion taxpayer dollars. The Supreme Court said yes, or, in effect,
Speaker 1: don't bother us with this now, although we realize the
Speaker 1: matter may come back up to us soon enough. Now
Speaker 1: why did that happen. It's because Chief Justice Roberts and
Speaker 1: Justice Barrett joined the three liberals, and this has led
Speaker 1: to a lot of people starting to raise the question,
Speaker 1: is Amy Cony Barrett much more liberal than we thought?
Speaker 1: Now I have a little bit of insight into Justice Barrett.
Speaker 1: I'm not claiming I was her, you know, a dear friend,
Speaker 1: or even that we were very close or anything, but
Speaker 1: she was one of my professors at Notre Dame Law School,
Speaker 1: and I have maybe a little bit of insight into
Speaker 1: this that maybe other people don't. So let me start
Speaker 1: by saying this first, Justice Barrett is fundamentally a little
Speaker 1: bit of a different career track trajectory than other justices
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court. Fundamentally, she was in academia for
Speaker 1: her whole For most of her legal career, she was
Speaker 1: a professor at Notre Dame Law School. I think early
Speaker 1: in her career before she got to Notre Dame, she
Speaker 1: worked in some private practice stuff, She did federal clerkships,
Speaker 1: but her career was ninety nine percent academic and scholarly.
Speaker 1: For about two years before she was nominated to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, she served on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Speaker 1: But she's fundamentally an academic. So I think this sort
Speaker 1: of reflects itself a little bit in her open expressed
Speaker 1: avowed distaste for what's called the emergency docket. The Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has different kinds of cases. It hears the chief
Speaker 1: normative way that the Supreme Court. Here's a case, is
Speaker 1: someone files a lawsuit. That lawsuit is resolved decided one
Speaker 1: way or another at the district court level. Then it's
Speaker 1: appealed to a circuit court, and that's decided one way
Speaker 1: or another at the circuit court level. It's appealed up
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court reviews the petition for
Speaker 1: asserts yourri which is basically the petition saying, hey, Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: will you hear this case. They look at it, they
Speaker 1: think about it, they say, okay, we'll take it now
Speaker 1: over the course of the year, from October through June.
Speaker 1: We want you to submit your full written briefs and
Speaker 1: legal arguments, and we'll have oral argument and we'll have
Speaker 1: the full thing and everything done in normal order. Justice
Speaker 1: Barrett really prefers that. And the problem is that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's emergency docket has been growing and growing and
Speaker 1: growing and growing over the course of the last ten years,
Speaker 1: where a lot more cases are being bumped up to
Speaker 1: them because of individual federal District Court judges issuing rulings
Speaker 1: on executive policies from either a Republican or a Democrat
Speaker 1: presidentialistration issuing nationwide binding You'll get one federal District Court
Speaker 1: judge in one district issuing a ruling that is binding
Speaker 1: on the whole country, like a tro like this to
Speaker 1: demand the two billion dollars of USA money be spent,
Speaker 1: and then it immediately gets kicked up to the d C.
Speaker 1: Circuit immediately gets kicked up to the Supreme Court, and
Speaker 1: Justice Barrett hates that. She doesn't like it. She doesn't
Speaker 1: like the Supreme Court being involved in really high political
Speaker 1: profile cases without full time for briefing and appeals, and
Speaker 1: she doesn't want to participate in it. And I think
Speaker 1: from her perspective, she thinks, which is true, eventually a case,
Speaker 1: a case is going to come up, maybe even this
Speaker 1: case or something like this, is going to come up
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court in full order, with normal with
Speaker 1: the normal process of appeals to the Supreme Court doesn't
Speaker 1: have to intervene in every single case in controversy, and
Speaker 1: she doesn't want to intervene right now. I think that's
Speaker 1: her perspective on this. She doesn't like this use of
Speaker 1: the emergency docket. Whether you think that's right or wrong,
Speaker 1: that's how she views it. I think when we return,
Speaker 1: these issues will come to the Supreme Court and they
Speaker 1: will decide them soon. That's next on the John Gerardy Show,
Speaker 1: Justice Barrett has joined with John Roberts to sort of
Speaker 1: kick the can down the road when it comes to
Speaker 1: the trum Trump administration's ability to cut off various kinds
Speaker 1: of foreign aid funding. Seems like she's kicking the can
Speaker 1: a little bit down the road on the question of
Speaker 1: whether and to what extent the Trump administration can fire
Speaker 1: federal employees. This is leading a bunch of conservatives to
Speaker 1: say Amy Cony Barrett's a liberal. Amy Commy Barrett, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's the case. I think her objections to
Speaker 1: it are a lot more procedural than substantive. These cases
Speaker 1: are going to come before the Supreme Court over the
Speaker 1: next few years, and when that happens, I think you'll
Speaker 1: probably get very correct rulings from Justice Barrett on these things.
Speaker 1: And again, let's all just remember this could have been
Speaker 1: Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a Democrat replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Speaker 1: You know, before we start talking about Amy Commi Barrett,
Speaker 1: let's remember that. That'll do it. John Gerardy Show, See
Speaker 1: you next time on Power Talk.