Speaker 1: And Hello, welcome one and all to the Big Podcast
on this Thursday. Today is the twenty fifth day of June,
year of Our Lord two thousand and twenty six Money,
Miss Tom Sullivan and man Alive. We've got we've got
a lot to go over, so we better jump into it.
I mean, I'm looking at the list of Supreme Court
came out with some decisions today. We've got still the
repercussions of the Democrat Socialist election wins. We have ran
misbehaving again, earthquakes popping up all over the place. So
let's where let's start. Let's start with the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court had there's still some of the biggies like
birthright and some of those How how long after an
election day can they can they still count ballots and
things like that. But they came out with a couple
of things today. One of them is about the Second Amendment.
This was a case out of Hawaii Wolford v. Lopez,
and the Court ruled to six to three to strike
down a Hawaii law that banned carrying firearms on private
property open to the public without the owner's explicit consent.
The court says this is a violation of the Second Amendment.
There are similar laws in California, Maryland, New Jersey, and
New York. So let's start with Elie Honig, former federal prosecutor,
on his reaction to this gun rights case.
Speaker 2: So this relates to a state law in Hawaii, and
there are about twelve or thirteen states that have similar
laws that say, if a person is going to carry
a firearm in a privately owned place that's open to
the public, so for example, a mall or a restaurant
or a store, that person has to get explicit permission
from the owner of that property, from the owner of
that restaurant or mall or movie theater or what have you.
And the Supreme Court has now struck down those laws.
The Supreme Court is ruled that those laws violate the
Second Amendment right to carry arms. This was a six
to three opinion, not surprisingly that often happens in these
firearms cases, the six conservatives in the majority, the three
liberal justices dissenting. So those laws in Hawaii and elsewhere
that restrict when a person can concealed carry in public,
those have now been ruled un constitutional. No, you could
see this one coming, and you know the question that
kept getting asked at The oral argument from the conservative
justice is, well, aren't you treating the Second Amendment as
a sort of inferior amendment? For example, you wouldn't treat
the First Amendment this way. The hypothetical that was given
an oral argument as well. If a person wants to
wear a pin endorsing a certain political candidate and exercise
of a First Amendment right in let's say a shopping mall,
that person certainly would not need to go get permission
from the owner of that shopping mall. So why are
you the conservative justices asked, why are you asking us
to treat the Second Amendment as a lesser right? And
I think that is essentially the theory that underlies this case.
The conservative justices say, the Second Amendment is entitled to
the same protections as the First Amendment or any of
the other amendments that establish rights for individuals. So no,
not at all surprising to see this six to three
split knocking down this Hawaii law.
Speaker 1: Oh hooray for gun rights to the Second Amendment. I
thought it was interesting what Ellie was talking about that
if you aren't going to bask the courts have been
treating the Second Amendment as an inferior amendment. But it's
just as important as all the others that are out
there are, especially the Bill of Rights. Then the other
case that was adjudicated by the Supreme Court today was
an immigration case, and it was really about asylum. And
this is another six to three decision that allows the
government to end temporary protected status for immigrants from Haiti
and Syria. And in a related case, the Justice socided
with the government in a dispute involving processing measures for
asylum seekers at the southern border. So yes, this was
a temporary is the key word here, protective status for
Haitians who happened to be given some charitable outreach when
they had a massive earthquake in Hawaii, which earthquakes are
back in the news again today, but in Hawaii and
also with the war in Syria. So they said, all right, well,
you can come here and live in America on a
temporary protected status that was twenty ten. So it would
be like Cousin Eddie has some sort of emergency and
Cousin Eddie says, can I move into your house?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 1: Please come in, Cousin Eddie. You can stay here temporarily
till you get back on your feet and cousin Eddie
sixteen years later is still living in your house. That's
what this is. And the court wasn't making a decision
about whether this is temporary protected status is good or bad.
It's simply what the what the status was supposed to
be temporary. In the court, you're saying long past temporary.
In addition, the case also involved asylum, and this goes
back to different administrations have taken on this idea about
asylum different ways, but apparently with the court was talking
about in this asylum is that if you want to
apply for asylum, you do so before you get to
this country. And then the question came down to the
processing of literally before you enter our country, you must
do it before and then apparently the border patrol would
put officers like a foot inside of Mexico and say
you haven't arrived in the United States, so you can't
apply what it does, and there's back and forth on this,
but one of the things that it will do, according
to the critics of this decision, is that people that
are trying to get into our country, if they haven't
applied for asylum, then they will not come through legally.
They will try to come through over back fences and
farmyards and things like that to get into our country.
And once they're in our country they can say I
want asylum. Let me turn this over to the lawyers,
both Elie Honig and Elliott Williams, both former federal prosecutor.
Speaker 2: This is an opinion that has to do with asylum
and when and how people can apply for asylum here
in the United States. Now, the law says that a
person can apply for asylum if they're either present in
the United States or when they arrive in the United States.
And that word arrive is the subject of the question
here because under the Trump administration and previously at times,
they have adopted a policy where we're going to place
our border patrol agents just on the border or just
on the other side of a border to intercept people
really just moments or fees before they actually quote unquote
arrive in the United States. Therefore they've not arrived. Therefore
they cannot apply for asylum. Now, the Court has ruled
today and again a six to three ruling, six conservatives
in the majority, three liberals in the descent, that a
person does not arrive in the United States when they're
almost there when they're just about to get there, when
they're attempting to enter the United States. So, in other words,
the Supreme Court is said, in that situation where a
border patrol agent intercepts a person just inches or feet
before they get to the line, to the borderline, that
person cannot apply for asylum. So this is going to
seriously restrict the ability of people to apply for asylum.
If they do, in fact get intercepted before that international
boundary line, then they cannot presumptively apply for asylum. That's
going to have an impact on untold numbers of people
who might otherwise seek asylum in the United States.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's accurate.
Speaker 4: Now, it's interesting. One of the lines from Justice Leader's opinion,
and this is what I was talking about sort of
when we talked about it at the top of the hour.
One of the lines is, in ordinary speech, no one
would say that a person arrives in a place before
a person enters that place. And so ultimately administration the
justices are hinging on this idea of landing in the
United States. Stepping foot in the United States is a
prerequisite to applying for asylum. Now, the interesting thing, and
this came up at oral argument a problem that Justice
Tangi Brown Jackson had pointed out, and she I believe
we'll talk about in her descent a little bit. At
the end of this is this idea that it incentivizes
people sneaking into the United States. Right, that someone who
either jumps the fence or overstays a visa and then
applies for asylum has more of an entitlement to apply
for asylum than someone who lawfully tried to come to
a point of entry or a party lawfully claim asylum
at a point of entry or at the border, who
would immediately be turned away by someone who stationed at
the border. Creates an odd sort of incongruence in the
law in terms of how different people will have an
ability to apply for asylum. And I'm certain, and Ellie
touched on this a little bit at the end of
his answer, I'm certain that this is going to cause
certainly more lawsuits from different classes of individuals, either folks
who try to come to the border you can't apply,
versus folks who were already here who still do try
to apply.
Speaker 1: So this adds more legal to it, but it depends
upon the administration. Again, Joe Biden. People were told just
say the word asylum when you get to the border
and they will usher you right in, and asylum cases
were backed up for years. I think they still are.
So this is an interesting ruling from the Supreme Court.
But I still think that each administration is going to
apply this depending upon their own feelings of what to
do about immigrants to our country. What more from the
Supreme Court today, the Court ruled for Bear. They're the
ones who bought round Up weed killer, and they have
been involved in cases where people have said that Roundup
cause cancer. The problem with that is that the EPA
and several international authorities maintain that the product is not
likely to be carcinogenic. However, the World Health Organization they
said it probably is carcinogenic. So it's been back and
forth and huge amounts of money involved in all of this. Well,
the Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Roundup and
the manufacturers of Roundup. The Court ruled that the weed
killer the dispute regarding cancer warnings on labels, they ruled
for the manufacturer, and basically what that does is limit
future lawsuits against the manufacture of Roundup. I remember discovering
Roundup when I bought my first home and there was
some weeds in the garden and I was out there
with my little round Up spraining around. It's not the homeowner,
it's the farmers agricultural industry where they used it in
thousands of acres, hundreds of acres, had it sprayed from airplanes.
That was where the dispute came in. But in this
case the company Bear which owns round Up, their stock
went way up on this news that future lawsuits are very,
very limited. So that's the Supreme Court today. Meantime, the
repercussions of the Democrats Socialist wins in elections, especially here
in New York on Tuesday night, the repercussions are still
flying Senator John Kennedy. Kennedy was asked about that today.
Speaker 5: I mean, the Bolsheviks are in charge of his party
and their stone cold crazy. They're living proof that evolution
is a slow process. Listening to them just lowers my
IQ is one of your guests at earlier. It's like
something out of a grad school coffee shop. And I'm
sorry for America, but it'll be the best thing that
happened to my party. I mean, because most Americans are
going to listen to these pencil necks and say, well,
you know, Republicans aren't perfect, but the other side's crazy
and it's but it's up to Senator Schumer and the
other reasonably mature adults and their party to push back.
Speaker 1: Well, a lot of people are talking about that today,
that this is a benefit for the Republicans because the
Democrat Socialist Party socialism in its very own word, is
not popular. People in this country may have concerns about
or not like capitalism or parts of it or how
it's working, but socialism, that's that's a bridge too far
for a lot of people. Harry Inton went through some
of the surveys that he's done on that exact word
and the Democrat socialism.
Speaker 6: You know, I will tell you there is a reason
why Republicans nationwide are licking their chops and whether at
least some Democrats who are a little bit worried because
what is true in New York City and a Democratic
primary ain't necessarily true nationwide with the general electorate. I mean,
just take a look here net favorable rating of Democrats socialists.
If you look at Democrats nation why look at this
Democratic socialists on the positive side of the ledger at
plus seventeen points. This includes Democratic leading independents, but look
at all voters, a completely different world. Twenty seven points underwater.
Democratic Socialists of America are in the net favorble rating.
So what are we talking about? A forty four point
difference here in the wrong direction when we come to democrats,
Socialists of America jumping from being pretty popular among democrats
to being not popular at all among all voters. Okay,
so you know, one of the trends that we have
seen is among democrats socialism has become more popular of
the last decade and a half. But what about the
rest of the electorate, And this, I think gives the
game away right here. Okay, positive view of socialism among democrats,
look at this up considerably from where we were in
twenty ten to fifty percent to now sixty six percent.
Now that's a jump of sixteen points in decad and
a half.
Speaker 3: But look at all others.
Speaker 6: The number is the same. It was twenty nine percent
back in twenty ten, it's thirty percent. Now socialism has
become increasingly popular among democrats, but it is a.
Speaker 3: Much tougher cell in the rest of the electorate.
Speaker 6: It's a much tougher sell among independents. And this is
why Republicans actually think that there could be some electoral
opportunities because of these Democrats socialist winning primaries and why
there are a number of mainstream Democrats who are going
I'm not quite sure about that.
Speaker 1: Okay, So Harry talks about the fact that socialism as
a word is getting it's more popular than it was,
but that the heavy majority of this country are still
going no, thank you. Now as far as the socialist
a one here in New York, we're finding out now
you know what the turnout was for the vote for
the primary, seven percent turnout. It's the same exact story
that got AOC elected. I think she had nine percent turnout.
Is so on a very low turnout basis where a
lot of people don't bother to go vote, That is
how you can sneak a Democrat socialist into the winning column.
But I mean there are people out there on the
left the Democrat party that are very upset about all
those Let's start with James Carville.
Speaker 7: It's time for Democrats to talk to s word excise them.
Speaker 3: I really did.
Speaker 7: Everybody's always said no, no, we were coalition. We're a
big tent, and there's it's just some that I can't
be in the same temp with. I don't want to
be in a political party that denies the right of
the state of Israel to exist.
Speaker 3: It's just not I just can't do that. I'm sorry,
it's just not doable.
Speaker 1: He's not alone, but he's also a senior citizen, and
the older you are, the more you're in favor of Israel.
Robert Wolf who is a big you see him on
Fox from time to time. He's a Democrat, big Democrat,
very high up in the Democrat Party, advises people and
lots of different things. He used to run a UBS
securities bus, so it was a Wall Street guy. And
he's also saying the same thing, going, this isn't who
I voted for. So there's a lot of Democrats that
are very concerned about what happened. Here is Byron York,
who is a conservative writer. Let's see what he says.
Speaker 8: Well, I think you're right to bring up twenty twenty
four because when a party loses a big election, and
the Democrats lost the White House, the House, and the Senate,
a lot of times they enter a period of introspection.
And you'll remember there were Democrats who said, you know,
we've gone too far to the left. We need to
move back toward the center. And then there are others
that said, no, no, no, we haven't gone far enough
to the left. And those are the people who have
just won. And as far as Hakeem Jeffries is concerned,
this problem is already happening. It's going to happen those Democrats,
those Democratic Socialists who were elected in New York, they're
going to get elected to the House. Those districts aren't
going to elect a Republican, so they're coming to the House.
The only question is will they be a thorn in
the side of Speaker Hakim Jeffries or of Minority Leader
Hakiem Jefferies. But they're going to make trouble for the party.
Speaker 1: Current Member of Congress Jared Moskowitz from Florida, he's already
saying that not only are they of a different stripe,
but there are also a lot of anti Semitism comes
with them.
Speaker 9: Is they can have different positions, right, and the voters
get to make the voters get to make those choices.
But for me, what's going on is the movement has
embraced a lot of anti Semites, and some of the
people coming here history of anti Semitism having nothing to
do with Isram.
Speaker 1: Back to Byron York, Well, they're probably pretty worried.
Speaker 8: I mean, when you look at the background of the
mayor of New York, who's now the kingmaker in all this,
or in Mandami, and when you look in the background
of someone like dary Liza a Viala Chevalier, one of
the new primary winners, a lot of their background is
in Free Palestine. It's in Palestinian issues. They in college
and after that they've been activists, and that's clearly an
issue that animates them. It's one of the most important
issues to them. And the question for Democrats is where
does opposition to some of Israel's policies, the war and
Gaza and things like that, Where does that cross into
anti Semitism? And I think with some of these lifetime
activists who are now getting elected to Congress, there's plenty
of reason to worry that.
Speaker 1: That line has been crossed. Well, let's look at one
of the backgrounds. This is Aria Eliza Avila Chevalier. She
won one of the districts here in New York City.
Her background is that she has been in college for
the last twelve years. Yes, that is her background. Now,
she didn't come from a job. She came from being
a student. She got a bachelor's degree in Middle Eastern
Studies from Columbia University, and then she also went on
to City College of New York. Remember all the protests
at both City College in New York and also at Columbia.
She was part of that. She is a radical anti
Israel group. She took part in a lot of the
campus takeover movements. She's radical on anything that has to
do with Israel. Her long tenure as a student, she says,
has deeply shaped her platform, providing the foundation for her
doctoral research. So looking at her research, she has a
doctorate in sociology examining the intersection of US immigration system,
criminal justice, and race. So she wants to abolish ice.
She is studying the connection between the domestic criminal legal
system and federal deportations. Part of her deportation her doctoral work.
Her dissertation examined how anti blackness and securitization act as
undergirding ideological projects within US immigration policy. So she began
her political organizing during her undergrad years. Her activism is
anti apartheid and investment campaigns. She joined the Students for
Justice in Palestine. She co founded Columbia University Apartheid Divest.
She organized initiatives aimed at campus sexual violence, supporting black
students through Black student organizations, and resisting mass incarceration. Years
after graduating from undergrad she returned to campus to organize
the Gaza Solidarity Encampment in twenty twenty four. She was
among the alumni and students who physically blocked the entrance
to Hamilton Hall during occupation. So that's who she is.
Then there's another one, Claire Valdez. She wants to abolish ice,
she wants to abolish TSA, and she would like she
really believes that she wants to nationalize, have the government
take over the airline because they're too expensive and so
she and the seats aren't all that comfortable. Seriously, that
is what she is saying. She wants the medicare for all.
The thing's going broke already. I don't know how we
can take on more. But these are some of the
positions of some of the winners that are going to
be going to Washington, probably after November, because in New York,
if you're a Democrat and you're the Democrat nominee, you're
going to win in November. I read about these candidates
and their backgrounds, and I think they make AOC and
Talib and all the other squad members seem rather tame.
These people are much more radical than what's already in
the squad. So back to things regarding Iran. If you
thought things were going well, well, they were, I guess
going well. But now this afternoon Iran has attacked a
cargo ship. They fired a drone added that attacked the
cargo ship. And this Admiral harward At chimes in saying,
all this is going to do. If the President doesn't
respond to this, he's going to be negotiating, or the
negotiators for us will be negotiating from a position of weakness.
Here's the admiral, And.
Speaker 3: That's if you think of the President's strategy. And I'm
assuming their first intent into agreeing is to allow all
those ships in personnel who have been trapped in the
Gulf to get out. And so if they haven't taken
the opportunity and aren't as this ship is, they were
still being trapped because this could go to hell in
a handbasket very quickly, as this incident indicated, and Ron's
willing to pull the string to reinforce their positions, So
at some point someone's going to have to hold them
accountable for this. And if they were able to get
those shifts out that the oil, they could quickly go
back to the blockade and continue that financial stanulation. But
obviously that may be enough. And President has that card
in his hand. He can return to combat operations as
he wants. And if he doesn't respond to this incident,
in some regard, it's going to continue to weaken the
negotiation and strength of Jered Krishner and Steve Whitcoff. So
they're bargainers. They may continue, they will operate from a
position and strength, and all these actions continue to weaken
their position and the negotiations.
Speaker 1: So the Admiral's been around and by the way, he's
highly regarded to admiral, but he his point is right,
he says, if we if the President doesn't respond, the
only thing the Iranians know is strength and power, and
words don't mean a thing to them. They've always lied
and everything else. But this brings up the question of well,
will it weaken our position? Admiral Harward say, yes, what
about the insurance companies, because the insurance companies were starting
to talk about lowering their insurance rates for the ships
that are going through the strait. And yesterday the President
was bragging about last night, he was bragging about how
many barrels of oil got through the Strait of our moves.
And now a ship trying to get through the strait
gets attacked by Iran with one of their drones. And
I know the President keeps saying that they don't have
an army, they don't have an air force, they don't
have anything. Well, they have drones and they have tons
of ballistic missiles, so they still have firepower. Seth. Jones
was a longtime aid to the former Defense secretary. Let's
see what he says.
Speaker 10: I think the reality is that as part of where
the negotiations are at right now is Iran is getting
money that it will likely use for its missile program
and its drone program and its industrial base that reduces
those weapons systems. And the reality is, if you look
at the last several decades, Iran has a track record
using bombs explosively formed penetrators and missiles and drones to
target US forces, US bases, and US embassies in the region.
And so there are a range of reasons why I
think people, including Republican members of both the Senate and
the House, should be concerned about giving Iran money that
can be used for exactly the same things Iran has
been doing for decades.
Speaker 1: Alex Plitsas was a former NSA official. Let's see what
his observations are.
Speaker 11: So I'm hearing that the discussions that were that took
place in the Vice President when he was in Switzerland
were productive. It was actually he was described as the
adult in the room, kind of setting the tone for
four tracks. One would be nuclear to try to work
out some of the nuclear issues on the highly enriched uranium,
the bands on Enrichmond and things of that nature. There'll
be one on the regional secure and then that will
be led by the GCC partners who'll deal with that.
And then separately one on the straight of horn moves,
which have been told there has been agreements bond closed doors.
There won't be tolls or fees of sort of associated
with that. And the last is the economic one, which
is tied to the previous three being successful in terms
of having some sort of forward movement. That hasn't been
a clear definition that.
Speaker 1: Was before this incident this afternoon where Iron has attacked
a cargo ship going through the street. The ship that
was attacked is a Singapore flag cargo ship, the Ever Lovely,
And they're obviously testing to see what the United States
is going to do, what Donald Trump is going to do.
They're testing him. I think they have his number and
they don't think he will respond militarily, but you don't
know with him. So the attack damaged the ship's bridge,
no casualties. It took place near the coast of Oman
on that side where we've been trying to work some
ships through, but apparently people Our Navy has warned ships
not to use that particular route. Regime has not sanctioned it,
but the International Maritime Association told schippers it was coordinating
an evacuation route for the hundreds of ships still stuck
in the Persian Gulf. So the sixty day deal, I've
lost track. How many days are we into the sixty
fifty five days something like that. That's why I say,
I don't think this thing's going to last sixty days,
they were making pretty good progress. Kipler said that seventy
vessels had crossed the strait, more than double the number
of the day before, and an indication that shippers and
insurance companies were regaining confidence to go back and to
get out of the strait of horror moves. And again
now all those bets are off well. Instead of man
causing problems, nature causing problems. Have you seen all the
earthquakes that have been taking place? To Big one, the
Big two? We're out of Caracas, Venezuela last night a
seven point two and then forty minutes, I'm sorry, forty
seconds later a seven point five. Those are huge buildings
have collapsed. People are trapped. They already they have a
death toll of one hundred and ninety something. You know
that number is going to go way up, and that
about one thousand people are injured the main airport in Venezuela,
as the main airport itself has collapsed. There was an
earthquake yesterday in Hanshu, Japan. Another one in Mendocino, Ukaya, California,
which is not too far north of San Francisco. They
had damage there. Another one off of Camchuk to Russia.
Another one off of Aidak, Alaska. There's one after or another,
and there was one the one that took place just
north of San Francisco. Actually, here's air traffic control from
San Francisco International Airport telling people that were flying in
the airlines that were flying in not to land.
Speaker 12: That was thirty two to fifty one approach sarant is cancelled,
maintained four thousand is able.
Speaker 1: We taged four thousand push clues, canceled to thirty two pitulents.
Speaker 12: That was thirty two fifty one. And we just had
it first quake, I guess at the Air Force, so
turn weft heading A two five zero, maintained four thousands,
that's heaty two pout zero. We take four thousand, thirty
two pituents. Hey, ninety five seventy one. You're gonna just
see a vector around for now. We got an earthquake apparently,
and they said probably ten minutes as of now.
Speaker 1: Okay, I don't know if it took ten minutes for
them to figure it out. They had they had to
run airport vehicles down the runways to make sure they
weren't cracked, but they so it caused us some problems
at San Francisco yesterday afternoon. Thankfully no earthquakes on Wall Street. Today,
we did see a mixed market. The Dow continues to
go up another seventy one points today, closed at fifty
one nine twenty now, the SMP down just less than
a point and then as that continuing its decline down
one hundred and eighteen. The price of gold bouncing around
today it was up thirty five dollars to four forty three.
And the price of oil because of what is going
on with the fact that Ron took an attack on
that ship from Singapore, oil went back up. Not terrible,
but it's up a buck forty seven, just under seventy
two dollars now for one barrel of oil. That's it
for today. Thank you for coming by. Oh and may
I remind you, uh, tomorrow is Friday. I would love
to get your financial questions for my new Financial Friday podcast.
The name if you're searching for just look for Tom
Sullivan Financial Friday, or you can go to my website
which is tomsullivan dot com and you can you can
see the links to this podcast and you can see
the links to the Financial Friday podcast and most importantly,
I would love for you to call with any kind
of money questions, comments, observations that you might have phone
numbers on my website Tom Sullivan dot com. The phone
number is eight five five two nine five sixty six hundred.
Eight five five two nine five sixty six hundred, and
we will have financial We've got a lot of economic
news out to day, which inflation is still showing a
little bit of an increase, so inflation's not going. We'll
dig into the economy, the job market, the labor market,
the people spending, people's inflation, the growth of the economy,
all of that, and most importantly is to take your
calls on money questions that you have again eight five
point five two nine five sixty six hundred or my
website which is Tom Sullivan dot com. Thanks for coming
by today. We will be back tomorrow and I hope
to see you that