Speaker 1: Corton Channe Nine's can be partly mostly Sunday Today humid,
Speaker 1: I have ninety same thing over nine down to seventy
Speaker 1: one humid Tomorrow, partly cloudy, isolated storms in the afternoon,
Speaker 1: in the evening ninety one, seventy three overnight with maybe
Speaker 1: a chance of a storm. Thursday a mostly sunny day
Speaker 1: with a chance of showers of thunderstorms as well. Ninety
Speaker 1: five is going to be the high end. Right now,
Speaker 1: it's seventy two. Time for traffick update.
Speaker 2: From the UCL Tramphic Center. No matter the injury you
Speaker 2: see health orthophedics, san supports medicine, redefines recovery to get
Speaker 2: you back to doing what you love. Called five one, three, four, seven,
Speaker 2: five eighty six. Ninety crews continue to work with the
Speaker 2: three vehicle wreck. It has the left wing block just
Speaker 2: before you get to seventy five. That traffic is now
Speaker 2: backing up to North Bend for close to a half
Speaker 2: hour delay. South Bend seventy five slows a bit out
Speaker 2: of Lackland and there's a wreck bbomorrow that's on twenty
Speaker 2: two at Stubbs Mill, chuck Ingram on fifty five krs.
Speaker 3: He Talks Station.
Speaker 1: Two fifty have care c DE Talks Station. I've been
Speaker 1: looking forward to this all morning, knowing that Steve Gooden
Speaker 1: was returning to the program at this time to talk
Speaker 1: about Biden's efforts to transform the Supreme Court into some
Speaker 1: sort of I don't know liberal mind meld cord there.
Speaker 1: I'm unhappy with various decisions. They don't believe in originalism.
Speaker 1: They believe in judicial activism only when it benefits them.
Speaker 1: Welcome back from the law firm. Reporter right, Steve Gooden.
Speaker 1: Great to have you on the show today, My friend.
Speaker 3: Good morning. Good to be here. Brian.
Speaker 1: Well, let's just start from the realization that there's no
Speaker 1: way in God's green earth that Biden's proposals to transform
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court are ever going to go through. One
Speaker 1: would require constitutional amendment, which requires well and embraced by
Speaker 1: the vast majority of states, which many would not do.
Speaker 1: Second would require congressional action, which, of course in a
Speaker 1: divide of Congress where the Republicans at least control the House.
Speaker 1: It's not going anywhere, but this is going to be
Speaker 1: a springboard for advocacy by the Kamala Harris campaign and
Speaker 1: hopefully not administration correct.
Speaker 3: I think that's one hundred percent correct. This is politics,
Speaker 3: pure and simple. I mean, I think it's as simple
Speaker 3: as this. The Supreme Court's approval rating right now with
Speaker 3: about thirty six percent. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v.
Speaker 3: Away was very very unpopular among younger voters. So really
Speaker 3: this allows Harris Biden and whoever congressional candidates whatever to
Speaker 3: talk about the Court in a way that will really
Speaker 3: potentially appeal to those voters, that lets them talk about
Speaker 3: abortion without directly talking about abortion, and sort of the
Speaker 3: idea here is, look, we're unhappy with Dobbs, so we're
Speaker 3: going to change the court. It's very very similar to
Speaker 3: what FDR did back in nineteen thirty seven when the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court refused to approve some of the new aspects
Speaker 3: of the New Deal Plan, which were politically popular. So
Speaker 3: we tried to quote unquote pack the court. He tried
Speaker 3: to take it from nine members to fifteen. He was
Speaker 3: ultimately unsuccessful, but it was a real political hot potato
Speaker 3: back then. It was advantageous to have into his party.
Speaker 3: And I think there's something very very similar going on here.
Speaker 1: Well clearly, but I suppose history has demonstrated that when
Speaker 1: FDR tried to pack the court, the judges ended up
Speaker 1: doing a liberal more liberal pro FDR policy shift. They
Speaker 1: see their own jobs on the line maybe and decide
Speaker 1: to capitulate to some degree.
Speaker 3: Well, that's correct. He did get two of the big
Speaker 3: things he wanted, the National Labor Review Board and the
Speaker 3: Supreme or the Social Security Administration ended up being narrowly
Speaker 3: approved after that, because I think a couple of the
Speaker 3: judges probably did flip. And I do think you're going
Speaker 3: to see some action from the Court here, particularly the
Speaker 3: one aspect. Well, I think the eighteen year term part
Speaker 3: is dead on arrival, and the efforts to overturn their
Speaker 3: recent decision about presidential immunities dead on arrival. But the
Speaker 3: co of ethics part of it, I do think the
Speaker 3: Court will end up doing something different with They've been
Speaker 3: kind of grappling with that. Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice,
Speaker 3: has been grappling with that. We have a couple Justices Alito,
Speaker 3: particularly Thomas, who have admitted going on, you know, big
Speaker 3: trips and so forth with wealthy political donors, even though
Speaker 3: those donors didn't have cases immediately before the court. They
Speaker 3: were the kinds of gifts and at the kind of
Speaker 3: price point that have attracted attention. So I do think
Speaker 3: they're going to do something on the ethics front.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's fine, But and I know Thomas didn't
Speaker 1: disclose that he flew in a friend's private aircraft, but
Speaker 1: that was before the Judicial Conference changed its rules to
Speaker 1: require that judges disclosed that kind of flight. So he
Speaker 1: didn't violate any judicial rules at the time. But I
Speaker 1: know the appearance of impropriety is right there, and that's
Speaker 1: just what's genning all the people up about Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 3: I think that, Look, clart Thomas has been a lightning
Speaker 3: rod since the moment he got nominated. Yeah, well, it
Speaker 3: doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do, he's going
Speaker 3: to come under some some you know, more scrutiny than
Speaker 3: than anyone else I think who serves on the court
Speaker 3: maybe ever, maybe anyone in the history of the country
Speaker 3: who has served in the court. No one has had
Speaker 3: their personal life, finances and things scrutinized the way Thomas has.
Speaker 3: But you know he did in this one. I think
Speaker 3: kind of lean into it. You're right, he didn't violate
Speaker 3: any rules, but that's the kind of thing that the
Speaker 3: average person want they hear about it, just the kind
Speaker 3: of you know that is that okay? Is that right?
Speaker 3: You know they're you know, big Republican donors, you know,
Speaker 3: fly on private jet, dedicate, they paid for a cruise
Speaker 3: for he and his wife. There several several items like
Speaker 3: that that I think when you add them all up,
Speaker 3: it was a value of several hundred thousand dollars, uh,
Speaker 3: things that the average citizen really can't afford. It is.
Speaker 3: It is an appearance thing, and I think that's going
Speaker 3: to kind of linger for him because there's so much
Speaker 3: there's so much animus against him anyway. I think that
Speaker 3: they're going to continue to make that tough, and I
Speaker 3: predict that the court will do something on the on
Speaker 3: the FIC side of it. But these other two items
Speaker 3: I think are just purely political or they're going to
Speaker 3: lnker are they just as political talking points.
Speaker 1: Are legal experts to you good and from Pord to Wright,
Speaker 1: let's possible. And we'll bring it back and find out
Speaker 1: why the ethics changes may end up being a train
Speaker 1: wreck as well. Considering enforcement seven thirty seven to fifty
Speaker 1: five KRCD talk stations, whos Att Lows Camp for your
Speaker 1: not buying a home, or you financing your existing mortgage.
Speaker 1: You need Suzette loads Camp with Cross Country Mortgage. She
Speaker 1: is definitely going to help you out and you will
Speaker 1: be very happy with the help that sust provides you
Speaker 1: because she is wonderful to work with, a true, wonderful
Speaker 1: customer service agent with more than probably anybody in the
Speaker 1: mortgage business in terms of experience thirty five plus years
Speaker 1: since she's with Cross Country Mortgage. I don't care what
Speaker 1: state you're sitting in. She can help you right there
Speaker 1: where you are deal with mortgage, whether you want to
Speaker 1: get some money out of your house, release some of
Speaker 1: that equity, or even a reverse mortgage if you think
Speaker 1: that's the right direction to go. Not a fan I am,
Speaker 1: but if you are, there's an option for you first
Speaker 1: time buyers pre approval letter and help you get financing.
Speaker 1: No junk fees, no application fees. It is always great
Speaker 1: rates at a low cost and a well oiled machine.
Speaker 1: She and Cross Country Mortgage are I think it was
Speaker 1: like two days for my daughter to call her and
Speaker 1: then get the nancing locked in. That could be you
Speaker 1: two so's call her up and she'll get right back
Speaker 1: with it. You can even call her right now before
Speaker 1: business hours. It's five one three three one three fifty
Speaker 1: one seventy six. Five one three three one three fifty
Speaker 1: one seventy six, or shoot her an email Suzette dot
Speaker 1: Low's camp, los e Kamp Suzette dot Low's Camp at
Speaker 1: CCM dot.
Speaker 3: Com fifty five KRC.
Speaker 1: Partly cloudy to mostly Sunday. Today, it'll be humid going
Speaker 1: up to ninety seventy one overnight. It or remain humid Tomorrow,
Speaker 1: Partly cloudy, isolated thunderstorms and showers in the afternoon and evening,
Speaker 1: going up to ninety one down to seventy three overnight,
Speaker 1: with maybe a spotty storm popping up somewhere. Thursday I
Speaker 1: mostly sunny day, chance of showers and storms as well.
Speaker 1: Ninety five for the high. Right now, we're looking at
Speaker 1: seventy two degrees. It is time for traffic.
Speaker 2: Chuck from the UCL Tramphings Center. No matter the injury
Speaker 2: you see, health orthopedics and supports medicine, redefines recovery to
Speaker 2: get you back to doing what you love. Call five
Speaker 2: one three, four, seven, five eight six nine zero inbound
Speaker 2: seventy four crawling from before North Bend to an accident
Speaker 2: that blocks the left lane before seventy five. You're over
Speaker 2: a half hour delay southbound seventy five slows through. Blackman
Speaker 2: and Cruiser are working with a wreck below Morrow. That's
Speaker 2: on twenty two at subs milk Chucking, Vermont fifty five
Speaker 2: krc the talk station.
Speaker 1: About KRCD Talk station Brion Thomas with legal expert Extraordinary
Speaker 1: from the law firm. Reporter right, Steve Gooden. Always welcome
Speaker 1: to you coming on the program and explaining things for us. Steve,
Speaker 1: I wrote the word lawfare down on this. The justices
Speaker 1: already have a code of conduct, but it's kind of
Speaker 1: like the Internal Affairs Department that since Saint Police monitors
Speaker 1: its own if there's a complaint, the IA looks at
Speaker 1: it and then makes a decision on whether there's been
Speaker 1: misconduct or not. I don't the justices already sort of
Speaker 1: monitor each other under their code of conduct because Biden
Speaker 1: is basically calling for outside enforcement, wanting lower court judges
Speaker 1: to investigate charges of ethics violations and then rule on
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices behavior that sounds to me like a
Speaker 1: train wreck waiting to happen with thousands of complaints following,
Speaker 1: and they even have that going on right now. Judge
Speaker 1: Eileen Cannon, the one that's sitting on Donald Trump's document case,
Speaker 1: apparently he's already received more of a one thousand complaints
Speaker 1: in one week, what the Circuit Court called an orchestrated campaign.
Speaker 1: If that kind of volume comes in, they're not going
Speaker 1: to be doing anything but investigating allegations or judicial misconduct.
Speaker 1: How could this be right or a good way to go, Steve?
Speaker 3: Or is it? I think it's a terrible way to go.
Speaker 3: And I mean, look, I get again the politics behind this.
Speaker 3: I mean, we have this situation where you know, in
Speaker 3: my view, two of the justices, particularly Thomas, you have
Speaker 3: opened up this issue by accepting and ultimately disclosing these gifts.
Speaker 3: But you know, what we're forgetting is is that you know,
Speaker 3: when they updated and redid their code of conduct last year,
Speaker 3: it did require these disclosures in tom Us quickly disclosed them.
Speaker 3: So we know about them. We know about them for
Speaker 3: sure because he told us. So from that standpoint, it
Speaker 3: is working. And if there was any you know, presumed
Speaker 3: bias or anything, it has been disclosed and it's out there.
Speaker 3: That's the whole point. But you're right, otherwise this you know,
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court has really been outside denomination process, which
Speaker 3: is terrible now and highly politicized, but outside of that process,
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court is one of the last parts of
Speaker 3: our government that really kind of is exempt from lawfare
Speaker 3: and does work the way it's supposed to work. I mean,
Speaker 3: these are lifetime appointments. Once folks are there, they're able
Speaker 3: to do generally, able to do their job. This would
Speaker 3: change that. This would open the door, as you put
Speaker 3: it out, to all kinds of artists in the tax.
Speaker 3: It would open the door to orchestrate the tax. That
Speaker 3: would open the door to you know, if you don't
Speaker 3: like the politics of someone on the court, you can
Speaker 3: engage a lawyer who is like minded to file a
Speaker 3: complaint and just tie the justice up and these endless
Speaker 3: disciplinary processes. That's not what this is before about. And
Speaker 3: you know they call this, Biden's calling this that nobody
Speaker 3: is above the law Act. Well, we're not really sitting
Speaker 3: in the Supreme Courts above the law, but they are there.
Speaker 3: They basically are the final arbiter of the law under
Speaker 3: our constitution. Our founders, you know, set it up this way,
Speaker 3: and I think they were correct set it up this way,
Speaker 3: see right, I think this would just be the opening
Speaker 3: a door into nothing but put more chaos that will
Speaker 3: undermine the rule of law long term, but will undermine
Speaker 3: the Court's legitimacy. Ironically, they're thing, we're doing this to
Speaker 3: make the court to preserve its legitimacy. All it's going
Speaker 3: to do is long term undermine it's legitimacy.
Speaker 1: In my view, well, couldn't they just simply ban the
Speaker 1: judges from accepting any outside contributions, gifts, donations, flights on
Speaker 1: aircraft period in the story, regardless of whether it results
Speaker 1: in a conflict or not. Oh oh, but the hypocrites
Speaker 1: in Congress might have to look to themselves in the
Speaker 1: mirror and say, gee, we go on all kinds of
Speaker 1: trips and conferences, resorts, we get speaking fees, we get
Speaker 1: booked on I mean, I mean position heal byself.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly right. I mean, look, if you're in Congress,
Speaker 3: your ability to take honor area for speeches with no limit,
Speaker 3: like you could charge somewhat, you know, fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 3: for speech, They'll pay it. You can write a book
Speaker 3: and have your donors buy it massive amounts of copies
Speaker 3: of it. Because no one in the general publics ever
Speaker 3: going to buy your book, but the book can become
Speaker 3: profitable because donors buy it in an orchestrated way. I mean,
Speaker 3: there's all these things that people do to supplement their income.
Speaker 3: In Congress, and some of the justices have explored things
Speaker 3: like that over the years, there's no question, and they've
Speaker 3: been pretty open about it, both liberal justices and conservative justices.
Speaker 3: And in fairness to them, they get paid roughly what
Speaker 3: a regular judge is paid in the federal judiciary. They're
Speaker 3: not getting rich. They're getting paid roughly two hundred thousand dollars,
Speaker 3: which is a lot of money for the average citizen.
Speaker 3: But if you're if you're living in the district at
Speaker 3: clubs are the most expensive places in the country to live,
Speaker 3: and you really have to travel the country check you know,
Speaker 3: as a part of your duties supervising the federal courts,
Speaker 3: it's really not as much money as it might seem.
Speaker 3: So the temptation to look for outside income, speaking fees
Speaker 3: and so forth is very much there. But you're right,
Speaker 3: I mean, look in Ohio, if you're a public official,
Speaker 3: you know, if you are the governor or even work
Speaker 3: for you know, Department of National Resources or a state trooper.
Speaker 3: You can't take more than fifty bucks from somebody, and
Speaker 3: any gives time. And that's but if again it's good
Speaker 3: for the goose is good for the gander. If you're
Speaker 3: going to do something like that to the court, you're
Speaker 3: going to have to do it to the other branch
Speaker 3: as a government as well. And that would send shock
Speaker 3: waves through Washington because the average citizen, I don't think,
Speaker 3: understands how these things work. And how can particular numbers
Speaker 3: of Congress find ways to supplement their income through speaking
Speaker 3: fees and books and things of that nature.
Speaker 1: It's interesting you even brought that up, because, as you know,
Speaker 1: something's subject to the SEC's rules. I've got a heapload
Speaker 1: of rules about you know, plug all a pail. You
Speaker 1: can't accept anything more than like twenty five bucks or something.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's they're really, i mean, across the board,
Speaker 1: very broad prohibitions on you know, because I have a
Speaker 1: forum here, I could you know, promote something for as
Speaker 1: a favor for a friend or whatever. I at least
Speaker 1: understand and get all that. But here I am living
Speaker 1: under these types of rules, and wouldn't be a wonderful
Speaker 1: thing if Congress had to go do the same thing.
Speaker 1: But no, you'll think they're going to vote money out
Speaker 1: of their own pocket, do you, Steve?
Speaker 3: They haven't yet. We've we've been waiting two hundred and
Speaker 3: thirty four years for something like that. Now I don't
Speaker 3: think it's happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, still lay away good night, dreaming of the day.
Speaker 3: Hey.
Speaker 1: And finally, insofar as the proposal for eighteen year term
Speaker 1: women from justices, and coming from a guy like Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: given his age, I thought was kind of comical. The
Speaker 1: Constitution does give them life tenure, which means there would
Speaker 1: have to be a constitutional amendment to change that.
Speaker 3: Correct, you know, I believe shown. Now what's interesting to
Speaker 3: me is this commission that he has put together, that
Speaker 3: Biden has put together, seems to be of the impression
Speaker 3: that Congress could change the terms themselves. And that's not
Speaker 3: how I understand it. And I know there's other folks
Speaker 3: much much more verse than these matters than I who
Speaker 3: are throwing the caution flag on that particular proposal as well.
Speaker 3: In a way, it doesn't matter. There's an absolutely no
Speaker 3: way this gets through Congress, and even my senses, there's
Speaker 3: even quite a few Democrats who are sort of institutionalists
Speaker 3: who would really not want to make these changes. So
Speaker 3: I think it's dead on that. Proposals dead on arrival.
Speaker 3: But if you read his proposal closely, he seems to
Speaker 3: be of the mindset that Congress has the ability to
Speaker 3: do that. So and I think if somehow or other
Speaker 3: he were to get through the votes, or if Harris
Speaker 3: were to win and get a large majority in both
Speaker 3: houses next time and actually pursue this, which I don't
Speaker 3: think they even would if they did, But if they
Speaker 3: did pursue this, I think that would end up being
Speaker 3: litigated and ironically right back in front of the court.
Speaker 3: So I would think that this would require a constitutional
Speaker 3: amendment that they seem to think it would not. And
Speaker 3: the Constitution is hard to amend on purpose. You know,
Speaker 3: it requires it's going to pass both houses of Congress
Speaker 3: by super majority, and it has to pass three orts
Speaker 3: of the state legislatures. You have to have a real
Speaker 3: support among the state been a country for two hundred
Speaker 3: and thirty four years, give or take, and it was
Speaker 3: only amended the Constitution or what twenty six times, and
Speaker 3: those are for big giant issues, you know, like they
Speaker 3: deal with you know, women getting the vote and ending
Speaker 3: slavery and things of that, where there are gigantic political
Speaker 3: movements and a lot of consensus, and they're certainly not
Speaker 3: that kind of energy or consensus around this. So I
Speaker 3: think that's that's the debt on arrival. But you know,
Speaker 3: they do seem to think that they could just do
Speaker 3: this by act of Congress.
Speaker 1: Well, amen, and I just just before we part company,
Speaker 1: that approval rating in people's approval rating of the constant
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court. To me, that just represents a
Speaker 1: fundamental misunderstanding of how the courts work, whether you or
Speaker 1: a originalist or a liberal activist. That's the real distinction
Speaker 1: between the left and the right. The originalists believe in
Speaker 1: the righting of the document and stick to it, and
Speaker 1: that to me is a sound legal foundation to be
Speaker 1: you know, to be working on. Can you imagine if
Speaker 1: this conversation came up during the war in court administration,
Speaker 1: where the right was freaking out about all the left
Speaker 1: leaning decisions coming out. No, you didn't scream and yell
Speaker 1: and talk about packing the court back then, did they?
Speaker 3: No? You know, And I think that really cuts to
Speaker 3: the bottom of what's happening here. Is. You know, there
Speaker 3: were folks in the conservative legal circles who were very
Speaker 3: very upset about Roebuck in nineteen fifty or seventy three
Speaker 3: and a lot of the other decisions that followed out
Speaker 3: of that court. So they began what was really a
Speaker 3: fifty plus year project kind of grooming conservative justices and
Speaker 3: going through the political process to try to get those
Speaker 3: justices appointed over time so that a different sort of
Speaker 3: philosophy would take over the court. And that's what's happened here.
Speaker 3: So you know, this group Biden is basics saying, hey,
Speaker 3: we don't like the bend of the court. We're not
Speaker 3: going to do We're not going to do our own
Speaker 3: project and groom our own judges and make the argument
Speaker 3: and win over you know, Congress and try to win
Speaker 3: the presidency. We're just going to change the rules. And
Speaker 3: that's that's really what they're doing here. Amen.
Speaker 1: That Steve Goodinporter Right dot Coms where you find them online.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, Steve. It's always a
Speaker 1: real pleasure having you on the.
Speaker 3: Program, Sir, that's great being here. Take care of Brian.
Speaker 1: You two fifty bout KRCD talk station and plum type
Speaker 1: Plumbing the right plumbers to call for your residential plumbing needs.
Speaker 1: Whether you're in Northern Kentucky, the Dayton area Cincinnati, call
Speaker 1: Plump Type Plumbing. They provide every customer with a truly
Speaker 1: exceptional plumbing experience with a licensed plumber, highest quality product,
Speaker 1: services and customer relations in the industry. That's why they
Speaker 1: enjoying a plus with a better business veureau. You got
Speaker 1: a dream problem, They're the ones to call you have
Speaker 1: a backup, no problem there. They do any plumbing job,
Speaker 1: no matter how big or small, and it's always fair
Speaker 1: and ethical prizing. Let you know when they're on they'll
Speaker 1: arrive on time and they will establish that customer service
Speaker 1: and then give you a free quote. And that is
Speaker 1: a free quote. Those service charge with Plumb Tight Plumbing,
Speaker 1: no mileage fee. Family Nown operated your neighborhood plumbing company
Speaker 1: since nineteen ninety nine. So call them at five one
Speaker 1: three seven two seven Tight t I T E seven
Speaker 1: two seven eighty four eighty three. Online you'll find them
Speaker 1: at plumtight dot com. Fifty five KRC the talk station
Speaker 1: men over forty five