Podcast appearances and mentions of Neil Gorsuch

OA1239 - Did the Supreme Court just hand Donald Trump the biggest L in US presidential history? We go beyond the headlines to break down the first decision on the merits of any of the second Trump term's policies. What is the deal with the “major questions doctrine” and why can't the conservative justices agree about what it is and how to use it? Why did Neil Gorsuch choose this case to drop a lengthy diss track with bars about every one of his colleagues? And is there anything Clarence Thomas wouldn't let a Republican president do? We then review a lesser-noticed SCOTUS decision from this week on whether you can sue USPS for intentionally stealing your mail for openly racist reasons (the answer may surprise you!).  Finally, in today's footnote: Thomas Takes the ICE Exam! Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump (2/20/2026) United States Postal Service v. Konan  (2/24/2026) “The Postmaster,” William Shawn, The New Yorker (11/14/1970)(letter addressed to William Faulkner from Post Office Inspector Mark Webster) Memorandum Summary of Documents Newly Received from DHS Whistleblowers, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (2/23/2026)(with leaked ICE training documents attached) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Sarah Isgur and David French dive deep into the world of immunities, examining recent Supreme Court decisions and their implications. They discuss State of the Union attendance patterns, analyze a postal service immunity case that split along unexpected ideological lines, and explore the contrasting jurisprudential approaches of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh across different administrations. The Agenda:—State of the Union attendance—Postal service immunity—Executive power dynamics between Gorsuch and Kavanaugh—NRA v. Vullo and qualified immunity—Q&A from Florida State University Show Notes:—Postal Service v. Konan—The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, a retired U.S. Army officer and an experienced military analyst with on-the-ground experience inside Russia and Ukraine and the author of "Preparing for World War III"Topic: "President Trump’s Iran warning is serious — but Americans need the full facts" (Fox News op ed) Danny Coulson, Former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI and Founding Commander of the FBI Hostage Rescue TeamTopic: FBI obtained Kash Patel and Susie Wiles phone records during Biden administration; FBI searching home and office of Los Angeles schools superintendent David Wildstein, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of New Jersey GlobeTopic: Mikie Sherrill nominates first woman to lead the NJ State Police Liz Peek, Fox News contributor, columnist for Fox News and The Hill, and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & CompanyTopic: "America expected one thing from Trump’s State of the Union. It got another" (Fox News op ed) Sgt. Joseph Imperatrice, Founder of Blue Lives Matter NYC with 19 years of law enforcement experience primarily in the Detective Bureau fieldTopic: Snowball attack on police Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryTopic: "Kash Patel is restoring the FBI despite constant attacks"; Other legal news of the day Nicole Parker, Special Agent with the FBI from 2010 through October 2022, Fox News contributor, and the author of "The Two FBIs: The Bravery and Betrayal I Saw in My Time at the Bureau"Topic: Meeting the Men's Olympic Hockey Team Paul Jacobs for Food for the PoorTopic: Food for the PoorSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court just struck down Donald Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs, but this case is about far more than slinkies and sombreros. When Congress passes an ambiguous law, does the president get broad discretion, or only the specific powers clearly granted to him? We unpack the Major Questions Doctrine, Justice Roberts' loaded-gun theory of taxation, Gorsuch's blistering concurrence calling out judicial inconsistency, and the surprising dissents from Kavanaugh and Thomas. This is an episode about tariffs — but it's really about who holds the power to tax, and whether the Constitution still means what it says.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a gut punch on live tariffs, but here we are, listeners, just days after their bombshell ruling on Friday, February 20, 2026. Picture this: I'm in my living room in Washington, D.C., coffee in hand, when the news breaks from SCOTUSblog and The New York Times—Justices Strike Down Trump's Tariffs. In the consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, a 6-3 majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president the green light to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies.Trump had declared emergencies over drug trafficking from Canada and massive trade deficits, hitting Canadian goods with 25% duties and more worldwide. But Roberts' opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said IEEPA lets the president regulate, block, or prohibit imports—not tax them with tariffs. The Court vacated one lower court ruling and affirmed another from the Federal Circuit, sending shockwaves through Wall Street and the heartland. Even among conservatives, there was drama: Justice Neil Gorsuch and Barrett concurred but split on details, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, arguing IEEPA's text and history backed Trump's power, and slamming the majority for ignoring the major questions doctrine in foreign affairs.By evening, Trump stormed to the podium outside the White House, as captured in that fiery CNBC Television clip. "I'm absolutely ashamed of certain members of the court," he thundered, calling some justices "disloyal to the Constitution" and "unpatriotic," swayed by "foreign interests." He ripped his own appointees—praising Kavanaugh's "genius" but blasting others as an "embarrassment to their families." No backing down, though. Trump vowed revenge, signing an executive order that very day titled "Ending Certain Tariff Actions," but pivoting to new weapons: a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in within days for up to 150 days or longer. He teased Section 301 investigations for unfair practices by China and others, plus fresh Section 232 probes on steel, aluminum, cars, copper—you name it.Fast-forward to Tuesday, February 24, in his State of the Union address, as ABC World News Tonight reported, Trump doubled down, framing the ruling as a bump in his America First road. Politico and Axios chronicled the fallout: lawmakers from both parties reacted, businesses cheered lower costs, but Trump's base roared approval online. The Washington Times noted his promise of "other authorities" to fight back, while Fox News called it a "major test of executive branch powers." Even The Guardian dubbed it the end of Trump's "one-man tariff war."Here I am on February 25, still buzzing. This isn't just legalese—it's a clash reshaping trade, presidential power, and maybe the Court itself. Will new tariffs survive in the D.C. Circuit or Federal Circuit? Trump's already hinting at years of fights. Clark Hill and DLA Piper analysts say uncertainty reigns, but Trump's playbook is thick.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In a new episode of the Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance are joined by former Solicitor General of the United States Don Verrilli to break down the Supreme Court's decision striking down President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. In an excerpt from the conversation, they discuss Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion. In the full episode, Preet, Joyce, and Don dive deeper into the tariffs ruling, including the separation-of-powers principles implicated in this case and the logistical chaos that may follow as companies seek reimbursements for tariffs paid.  CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis.  Not an Insider? Join a community of reasoned voices in unreasonable times. Insiders get access to full episodes of the Insider podcast and other exclusive content. Head to cafe.com/insider or staytuned.substack.com/subscribe.  Subscribe to our YouTube channel. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Executive Producer: Tamara Sepper; Supervising Producer: Jake Kaplan; Associate Producer: Claudia Hernández; Senior Audio Producer: Matthew Billy; CAFE Team: Celine Rohr, Nat Weiner, Jennifer Indig, and Liana Greenway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's expansive tariffs, ruling that they exceeded the authority given to him by Congress. The 6-3 decision saw conservative Justices Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts align with the court's three liberal justices, though as Mary and Andrew explain, through different pathways: the conservative justices using the “major questions doctrine” as their guiding principle, while the liberal justices arrived at the same result through statutory interpretation and good ‘ole “common sense.” The co-hosts spend most of this episode walking through key parts of the ruling, noting Justice Gorsuch's opinion that the legislative process ought to reflect the will of elected representatives, “not just that of one faction or man.” Then, Mary and Andrew turn to a significant ruling against ICE in West Virginia, where a federal judge admonished agents for wearing masks and using unmarked cars, a presence akin to a “secret police force." And last up, a scathing review of Judge Eileen Cannon's decision not to release Jack Smith's report in the classified documents case. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sarah Isgur and David French record live at Florida State University and further examine the Supreme Court's major tariff decision, examining Justice Kagan's consistency argument, debating the Major Questions Doctrine with Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, and analyzing Justice Kavanaugh's dissent on executive power in foreign affairs. The Agenda–Analyzing Kagan's argument–Deep dive into statutory interpretation approaches–Footnote battles (fun!) and methodological disagreements–Executive power and Kavanaugh's track record–Special deference in foreign policy context–Balance of payments vs. trade deficits–Should justices attend Trump's State of the Union address after his attacks? Show Notes:–Emergency AO following Tariffs decision–Fifth Circuit 10 Commandments Case–The Insignificance of Judicial Opinions Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

DOCKET ALERTS:Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on the stolen documents case must remain sealed forever in perpetuity.Kouri Richins goes on trial for murdering her husband in Utah. She's not being charged for writing a terrible children's book about dealing with grief over the loss of a parent … but maybe she should be? The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, allowed Louisiana to require the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom statewide. The law had been blocked, but the Court decided that no one had been injured yet, so the case is unripe.Elon Musk is being sued for securities fraud in California. But they can't seat a jury because everyone hates him.MAIN SHOW:It's all about tariffs. We break down the Supreme Court's Learning Resources v. Trump, and explain why dragging this case out for a year ensures chaos as importers try to recoup money they've already paid. And we'll talk about Trump's plan to impose new illegal tariffs based on a gross misinterpretation of yet another internal statute.The opinion is particularly contentious, revealing the justices' angry, internal feuding over the future of the court. And subscribers will get a deep dive into the origins of this conflict, reaching back to Justice Kagan's famous 2015 “Antonin Scalia Lecture Series” lecture at Harvard Law School and extending through Justice Jackson's concurrence in Learning Resources.US v. Trump [stolen documents case]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trumpKouri Richins Warranthttps://www.scribd.com/document/654496602/Kouri-Richins-WarrantContempt for Musk clouds jury selection in Twitter takeover trialhttps://www.courthousenews.com/contempt-for-musk-clouds-jury-selection-in-twitter-takeover-trial/Roake v. Brumley [Fifth Circuit Ten Commandments]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848.389.1.pdfLearning Resources, Inc. v. Trump [tariffs case]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdfCongressional Research Service, “Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs”https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48435/R48435.1.pdfElena Kagan “Antonin Scalia Lecture Series,” Harvard Law School (2015) [via YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEtszFT0TgShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's Headlines: On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Donald Trump's tariffs are unconstitutional under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The dissenters: Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. Trump responded by blasting Justices Gorsuch and Barrett as “disloyal” and insisting he can “destroy trade” but not “charge a little fee.” He then proposed a global 10% tariff workaround — later bumped to 15%. Meanwhile, Americans are still effectively paying 9.1% in tariffs, and the Court didn't address what happens to the $133 billion already collected. Over the weekend, Trump announced he's sending a “great hospital boat” to Greenland, despite Denmark saying it wasn't informed and doesn't need it. The Navy ships in question are reportedly in Alabama. Sure. On the Russia beat, a Trump ally signed a natural gas deal with Russian energy giant Novatek despite U.S. sanctions tied to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine — the first known new U.S.–Russia venture of its kind. Separately, ICE and other agencies contracted with phone-forensics firm Oxygen Forensics, which has ties to sanctioned former FSB figures. At the same time, DHS has issued hundreds of subpoenas to tech companies seeking identifying information on users critical of ICE. Trump is also pressuring Netflix to remove Susan Rice from its board amid maneuvering around a media acquisition deal that could affect CNN. Casual. In Florida, Secret Service agents shot and killed a 21-year-old man who allegedly breached the perimeter of Mar-a-Lagowith what appeared to be a shotgun and fuel can; the investigation is ongoing. Meanwhile, Florida lawmakers approved renaming Palm Beach International Airport after Trump — a $5.5 million rebrand. And finally, taxpayers will now provide new Secret Service agents with two tailored suits upon graduation. Inflation hits us all differently. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: NBC News: Trump raises global tariff to 15% shortly after implementing reworked 10% levy NYT: Denmark Rejects Trump's Plan to Send Hospital Boat to Greenland NYT: With ‘Tremendous' Deals at Stake, Trump Is Bringing Russia in From the Cold Substack: ICE Is Using Phone Extraction Software Linked to Russia's FSB-Connected Network Military: DHS Collecting Big Tech Users' Personal Data, Issuing Subpoenas For ICE-Related Criticism Financial Times: Trump demands Netflix remove former Obama official from board NBC: Law enforcement shoots and kills armed man trying to enter Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service says Politico: Now boarding: Florida Legislature approves renaming Palm Beach airport after Trump NYT: Homeland Security to Shut TSA PreCheck and Global Entry at Airports CNN: Exclusive: Secret Service will offer tailored suits to new protective detail agents Subscribe to the Betches News Room and join the Morning Announcements group chat. Go to: ⁠⁠⁠betchesnews.substack.com Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After the Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's tariffs, he detonated. He targeted justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, fuming that the ruling was an “embarrassment to their families.” He doubled down on the idea that he has unilateral tariff power. He tacitly threatened to investigate the high court for foreign influences. He called the ruling a “disgrace to our nation.” Yet this is backfiring: It prompted GOP Representative Don Bacon to declare that this might prompt more GOP votes to constrain him, remarking that Trump “didn't do himself any favors.” Indeed, after we recorded this episode, Senator Mitch McConnell pointedly noted that Congress is “not an inconvenience to avoid,” suggesting more Congressional action ahead, and other Republicans celebrated the ruling.  We talked to legal scholar Matthew Seligman, a lawyer for some of the businesses looking for tariff refunds. He explains why the ruling was such a major rebuke, why Trump's efforts to revive the tariffs might encounter turbulence, and how his impotent fury—and the GOP response to it—undermine his political mystique in a deeper sense.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A bit about the recent Court decision, with a note about the concurrences of Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, which agreed with each other on the decision merits but warred on the reasons why. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Monday, February 23rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Utah teacher forces student to wash off Ash Wednesday cross A Utah elementary school faced backlash after a teacher told a Catholic student to remove an Ash Wednesday cross from his forehead, a symbol marking the beginning of Lent, reports WHSV TV. Fourth-grader William McLeod had attended church on Ash Wednesday and arrived at Valley View Elementary School in Bountiful, Utah wearing a traditional ash cross.  He said classmates initially questioned him about it, unaware that the ash cross marked the beginning of Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness before the beginning of His three-year ministry. The boy recalled his teacher asking, “What is that?” He replied, “It's Ash Wednesday. It's the first day of Lent.” She said, “No, it's inappropriate. Go take it off.” In front of his peers, she gave the child a wipe and told him to clean his forehead. McLeod said, “I felt really bad.” His grandmother said he was embarrassed and upset, saying he later went to see the school psychologist “crying.” The Davis School District issued a formal apology, saying the teacher's actions were unacceptable. A spokesman said, “No student should ever be asked or required to remove an ash cross from his or her forehead.” The teacher later apologized. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against Trump tariffs On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs, striking down a central part of his economic agenda, reports The Western Journal. TRUMP: “The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country.” The case focused on tariffs President Trump imposed under a 1977 emergency powers law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. He used that law to impose reciprocal tariffs on most countries beginning last year. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” Associate Justice Amy Barrett and Neil Gorsuch sided with Roberts and the court's three liberals. However, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, reports the Associated Press. President Trump imposes new tariff using different authority On Truth Social, President Trump wrote, “I would like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for your strength, wisdom, and love of our country, which is right now very proud of you. “When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets — But they won't be dancing for long!” Kavanaugh wrote, “The decision might not substantially constrain a President's ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case. ... Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).” TRUMP:  “Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected. Great alternatives. Could be more money. We'll take in more money.” Inspired by Judge Brett Kavanaugh's dissent, President Trump imposed a new 10% global tariff the same day of the Supreme Court decision last Friday, using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, reports NewsNation. GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales had affair with aide who set herself on fire U.S. Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales of Texas engaged in a romantic relationship with an aide who died last year by setting herself on fire outside her Uvalde home, according to a text message and people close to the aide and her family, reports the San Antonio Express-News. Both she and Gonzales were married to other people at the time of the alleged affair. A former staffer in Gonzales' district office, who worked closely with the aide, Regina Ann Santos-Aviles, said she told him they had an affair in 2024, and that she spiraled into a depression after her husband discovered the relationship and Gonzales abruptly ended their affair. Exodus 20:14 says, “You shall not commit adultery.” He also shared with the San Antonio Express-News a screenshot of a text message from Regina in which she acknowledged having an “affair with our boss.” The staffer, who asked not to be named, citing a fear of retaliation, faulted Gonzales' office for failing to intervene, saying he warned the congressman's district director months before Regina's fiery suicide that he was concerned about her well-being. He described her as his “best friend” and said their families knew each other. Gonzales, a Republican representing Texas' 23rd Congressional District, is currently seeking re-election in a contested primary.  The San Antonio Express-News, which had initially endorsed Gonzales in the March 3rd Republican primary, recently withdrew its endorsement. In the Republican Primary for Congress in District 23, many South Texans are looking to support Francisco “Quico” Canseco during early voting or on Election Day, Tuesday, March 3rd. Texas bobsled gold medalist almost quit And finally, (audio of Olympics theme song) It was a couple of weeks before Christmas. Elana Meyers Taylor, age 41, was in Norway, prepping for a World Cup bobsled weekend. Things were going horribly. Her body was hurting, she wondered if she was doing right by her two deaf children, and the racing results were, well, bad, reports the San Antonio Express-News. So, she texted her husband. The message: I'm done.  She wrote, “This is just impossible. It's never going to work.” She was 10th in the World Cup monobob standings. Eight women won medals on the circuit this winter and she wasn't one of them. Her average finish was 10th and her result during a race on the Olympic track in November was 19th — a whopping 2.43 seconds behind the winning time. FEMALE ANNOUNCER: “She had probably her worst season of monobob in her life.” Her husband, former bobsledder Nic Taylor, is now a performance coach and works with the NBA's San Antonio Spurs. When a Spurs player — the couple won't say who — learned Elana was struggling, he gifted Nic a plane ticket and told him, “Go to Norway immediately!” So, Nic flew to Norway to encourage his wife in person after those discouraging texts to talk her out of quitting.  That strengthened Elana's resolve to compete. Listen to the Olympics announcer during Elana's bobsled run. MALE ANNOUNCER: “Elana Myers Taylor has this magical moment to win another Olympic medal and potentially gold. Her husband Nick and sons, Noah and Nico, are here in the crowd. “This is a promising run for Elana Myers Taylor. Sixteen-hundredths of a second ahead of Kaillie Humphries, 12-hundredths of a second ahead. Elana Myers Taylor has never won a gold medal at the Olympics. She has now. It's gold for the United States, and that elusive gold medal for Eleanor Myers Taylor, is elusive no more. The most prolific female bobsledder in history.” At 41, she became the oldest woman to win an individual gold medal in Winter Games history. It was her sixth Olympic medal. She said, “I was determined to keep fighting, determined to just put down the best runs I could. And look what happened. There were so many moments during this entire season, during this past four years, that I thought it wasn't possible.” And now you know the rest of the story. In 1 Corinthians 9:24, the Apostle Paul asked, “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.” Or, in Elana Meyers Taylor's case, slide in such a way as to get the prize. Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, February 23rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com).  And now, to close the newscast, here's my son, Valor Tyndale, who just turned 11 on Saturday. VALOR: “Seize the day for Jesus Christ.”

After the Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's tariffs, he detonated. He targeted justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, fuming that the ruling was an “embarrassment to their families.” He doubled down on the idea that he has unilateral tariff power. He tacitly threatened to investigate the high court for foreign influences. He called the ruling a “disgrace to our nation.” Yet this is backfiring: It prompted GOP Representative Don Bacon to declare that this might prompt more GOP votes to constrain him, remarking that Trump “didn't do himself any favors.” Indeed, after we recorded this episode, Senator Mitch McConnell pointedly noted that Congress is “not an inconvenience to avoid,” suggesting more Congressional action ahead, and other Republicans celebrated the ruling.  We talked to legal scholar Matthew Seligman, a lawyer for some of the businesses looking for tariff refunds. He explains why the ruling was such a major rebuke, why Trump's efforts to revive the tariffs might encounter turbulence, and how his impotent fury—and the GOP response to it—undermine his political mystique in a deeper sense.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After the Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's tariffs, he detonated. He targeted justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, fuming that the ruling was an “embarrassment to their families.” He doubled down on the idea that he has unilateral tariff power. He tacitly threatened to investigate the high court for foreign influences. He called the ruling a “disgrace to our nation.” Yet this is backfiring: It prompted GOP Representative Don Bacon to declare that this might prompt more GOP votes to constrain him, remarking that Trump “didn't do himself any favors.” Indeed, after we recorded this episode, Senator Mitch McConnell pointedly noted that Congress is “not an inconvenience to avoid,” suggesting more Congressional action ahead, and other Republicans celebrated the ruling.  We talked to legal scholar Matthew Seligman, a lawyer for some of the businesses looking for tariff refunds. He explains why the ruling was such a major rebuke, why Trump's efforts to revive the tariffs might encounter turbulence, and how his impotent fury—and the GOP response to it—undermine his political mystique in a deeper sense.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week's Supreme Court ruling on Trump-era tariffs didn't declare tariffs unconstitutional.They didn't say the President lacks trade authority.They didn't say Congress delegated too much power.Instead…They said they were “uncomfortable.”And in doing so, they may have quietly replaced constitutional separation of powers with something far more dangerous:

We're less than a week out from the Learning Resources case. No surprise, I'm still collecting my thoughts. At issue were the reciprocal tariffs used under IEEPA, or, put another way, the "gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch & away from the people's representatives." In this video, I take an excerpt from the oral arguments between Justice Gorsuch & Solicitor General Sauer where we first heard of the "one-way ratchet." We then look at Justice Gorsuch's closing paragraph in his concurring opinion. Spoiler: it's a message for you. And you won't want to miss it.This program is brought to you by DAT Freight & Analytics. Since 1978, DAT has helped truckers & brokers discover more available loads. Whether you're heading home or looking for your next adventure, DAT is building the most trusted marketplace in freight. New users of DAT can save 10% off for the first 12 months by following the link below. Built on the latest technology, DAT One gives you control over every aspect of moving freight, so that you can run your business with speed & efficiency. This program is also brought to you by our newest sponsor, GenLogs. GenLogs is setting a new standard of care for freight intelligence. Book your demo for GenLogs today at www.genlogs.io today!

Chuck Todd argues that the United States is in an especially precarious moment of Trump's presidency — but that the guardrails of American democracy are proving they still exist. Todd breaks down the ruling's implications, noting that without tariff revenue the already ballooning U.S. budget deficit will accelerate, and that the coming chaos over refunds for billions in illegally collected duties will be a mess for businesses, consumers, and the trade deals that were negotiated under a now-invalidated framework. He highlights the emerging three distinct wings of the Supreme Court — with Gorsuch writing a pointed concurrence calling out his colleagues, Kavanaugh dissenting on foreign policy grounds, and the liberal justices joining Roberts on textual grounds — and argues the ruling reflects the public's own disapproval of Trump, which a new poll now places at 60% disapproval. He reserves his sharpest commentary for Trump's reaction: rather than pivot, the president attacked his own Supreme Court appointees for disloyalty and accused the Court of "foreign influence," a response Chuck calls a gift to Democrats and a sign that Trump is terrified dissent will become contagious among Republicans. Chuck also cautions that Democrats shouldn't celebrate too much — their brand remains damaged despite Trump's cratering numbers — and offers a counterintuitive observation: that Trump's greatest weakness isn't his authoritarian instincts but his laziness, arguing that his reliance on emergency powers is a shortcut to avoid the hard work of legislating. Then, Emmy Award-winning director and Academy Award nominee Geeta Gandbhir joins the Chuck Toddcast to discuss her critically acclaimed Netflix documentary The Perfect Neighbor, which uses years of police bodycam footage to reconstruct the events leading to the 2023 fatal shooting of Ajike Owens by her neighbor Susan Lorincz in Ocala, Florida. Gandbhir reveals that Owens was a personal friend of her family — her sister-in-law's best friend — and that the film was never initially planned as a documentary; she and her partner went to Florida to support the family and keep the story in the news, fearing Lorincz would walk free under Florida's stand your ground laws. The Sundance Directing Award winner explains how the production team obtained the bodycam footage through the family's attorneys, Benjamin Crump and Anthony Thomas, and describes the rare experience of having not just the aftermath but years of "before" footage — creating a slow-building tension she compares to Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity. Gandbhir emphasizes that the film doesn't preach; it simply presents the chronology and lets the audience decide. The conversation goes deeper into the systemic failures the footage revealed: Lorincz was the only person in the neighborhood who repeatedly called police, yet officers saw her as a nuisance rather than a threat — her whiteness, Gandbhir argues, shielding her from scrutiny. Police never checked whether Lorincz owned a gun, and in other states, her pattern of behavior would have resulted in harassment charges long before the shooting. Gandbhir explains why the case resulted in a manslaughter conviction rather than a more serious charge, advocates for the eradication of stand your ground laws that exist in 38 states, and makes a compelling case that some police funding would be better directed toward social workers and mental health professionals. She also reflects on what the film has meant to Owens' four children and their family, the power of bodycam footage as both a tool for truth and a potential instrument of surveillance, and what a potential Academy Award would mean — not for herself, but as a platform to drive real change. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the Reichstag fire & how Hitler was able to turn Germany’s democracy into a dictatorship through the use of emergency powers he was granted. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Go to https://zbiotics.com/CHUCKTODDCAST and use CHUCKTODDCAST at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics.” Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. American Finance Disclaimer: NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.196% for well qualified borrowers. Call 866-885-1081, for details about credit costs and terms. Or https://apply.americanfinancing.net/thechucktoddcast Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 02:45 We are in an especially precarious moment of Trump’s presidency 08:30 Supreme Court tariff ruling shows the guardrails still exist 09:15 Without tariffs, U.S. budget deficit will grow even faster 11:00 Trump plans on going down with the ship, may sink GOP 13:00 Courts ruling wasn’t surprising, tariff authority belongs to congress 14:30 Gorsuch called out his colleagues in his opinion 16:00 Kavanaugh’s dissent argued tariffs as a foreign policy issue 18:00 There are three distinct wings in this Supreme Court 19:45 Ruling reflects the public's disapproval of Trump 21:15 We saw tariff price spikes in Q4, ruling would help GOP 22:00 Trump’s response was to attack his own appointees for disloyalty 23:45 Trump lashed out, afraid dissent will become contagious 24:45 Trump accused SCOTUS of “foreign influence” 27:15 Trump is too lazy to become one of history’s worst autocrats 29:00 Trump’s laziness is his greatest weakness 30:30 Emergency powers are a shortcut to avoid legislating 32:00 Chaos is coming, people will want refunds for illegal tariffs 33:45 Consumption taxes put the burden on lower income people 35:15 Fallout from the ruling will be a mess for businesses 36:00 What will happen to trade deals that were cut based on illegal tariffs? 36:30 Trump has alienated every major ally the U.S. has 37:30 Trump is vulnerable to Republicans walking away from him 39:45 Trump reaction to tariffs was a gift to the Democrats 41:30 New poll shows Trump’s disapproval at 60% 43:00 Democrats brand still bad despite Trump’s terrible approval 52:00 Geeta Gandbhir joins the Chuck ToddCast 52:45 “The Perfect Neighbor” isn’t a gun story, it’s a societal story 53:30 How important is a potential Academy Award for you? 54:15 Awards give you a platform to talk about issues & bring change 55:00 Film produced independently, then Netflix gave it a huge platform 56:00 How close did you follow this story in real time? 56:30 Ajike Owens was a personal friend of Geeta 57:45 There’s so much gun violence, individual stories don’t break through 58:45 The production team received body cam footage from family lawyers 1:00:00 We usually see the aftermath of shootings, rarely the before footage 1:01:45 Needed to understand chronology of body cam footage 1:03:00 Film’s tension building compared to Blair Witch & Paranormal Activity 1:03:45 Racial justice/tension movies can make for a difficult watch 1:04:45 Movie doesn’t preach, just shows the event & let’s audience decide 1:06:30 Footage portrayed a working class, striving community 1:08:00 Everyone knows the Susan Lorincz, “get off my lawn” type character 1:08:45 No understanding of why Susan Lorincz was so broken as a person 1:11:30 Lorincz was the only woman in the neighborhood that complained to police 1:12:15 This didn’t feel like manslaughter, it felt pre-meditated 1:13:00 Prosecutors felt a manslaughter charge would be easier to convict 1:13:30 Hope DeSantis understands the damage stand your ground laws cause 1:14:45 If there was no body camera footage, Susan could have walked 1:16:00 Police bodycams should be on at all times to prevent distortion of truth 1:16:45 Bodycam footage is a double edged sword, can be used for surveillance 1:17:30 Original footage included protests, funerals & B-roll of the neighborhood 1:19:15 Neighbors had a very visceral reaction to the film, but did find it therapeutic 1:20:45 Having body camera footage could have prevented historical race riots 1:22:15 The ultimate hope is to eradicate “stand your ground” laws 1:23:15 There’s power in telling a true story with unscripted footage 1:25:30 Ajike Owens was a bright young woman with a promising future 1:26:45 How are her children doing? 1:28:15 Watching the grief of the children was devastating & powerful 1:29:30 Family wanted the world to see their grief 1:30:00 Hope the film can inform police training 1:30:45 In other states, Susan would have been charged for nuisance or harassment 1:32:00 Some police funding would be better spent on social workers, psychiatrists etc 1:33:15 It felt like police didn’t know how to handle Susan 1:34:45 Police saw Susan as a nuisance, not a threat. Her whiteness protected her 1:36:30 Susan seemed to be a loner & clearly always miserable 1:37:30 Police never checked into whether Susan was a gun owner 1:38:30 What type of projects are you working on next? 1:39:45 Another documentary will be announced in a couple weeks 1:41:00 Telling the story in a visual medium reaches people who don’t read 1:43:00 Comedy and humor is a great way to teach 1:43:30 How do you use AI, what are you comfortable with, what will you fight? 1:47:15 ToddCast Time Machine - February 27th, 1933 1:47:45 Reichstag fire gave Hitler emergency powers 1:48:30 Germany’s economy had been devastated 1:49:45 In three years, Germany cycled through three unstable governments 1:50:45 German elites thought they could use Hitler’s popularity & manage him 1:51:45 Whether Nazi’s helped, or just exploited the fire is still debated 1:53:00 Reichstag Fire decree suspended civil liberties 1:54:15 Enabling Act allowed Hitler to legislate without parliamentary approval 1:55:00 The German dictatorship was created via constitutional rules 1:56:15 Emergency powers aren’t always authoritarian, it’s who uses them 1:57:15 Ask Chuck 1:57:30 Why does populism lead to antisemitism? 2:01:00 Is this the administration that’s run the most like a business? 2:06:15 Starting to see Republicans breaking with Trump? 2:08:15 What if the Constitutional Convention had not been held in summer? 2:11:15 Thoughts on Gallup ending presidential tracking, NJ-11 election? 2:18:15 Need for regulation on prediction markets 2:20:15 What’s going on with Virginia’s redistricting effort? 2:25:15 Does international diplomacy have a greater impact on the president's legacy?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd argues that the United States is in an especially precarious moment of Trump's presidency — but that the guardrails of American democracy are proving they still exist. Todd breaks down the ruling's implications, noting that without tariff revenue the already ballooning U.S. budget deficit will accelerate, and that the coming chaos over refunds for billions in illegally collected duties will be a mess for businesses, consumers, and the trade deals that were negotiated under a now-invalidated framework. He highlights the emerging three distinct wings of the Supreme Court — with Gorsuch writing a pointed concurrence calling out his colleagues, Kavanaugh dissenting on foreign policy grounds, and the liberal justices joining Roberts on textual grounds — and argues the ruling reflects the public's own disapproval of Trump, which a new poll now places at 60% disapproval. He reserves his sharpest commentary for Trump's reaction: rather than pivot, the president attacked his own Supreme Court appointees for disloyalty and accused the Court of "foreign influence," a response Chuck calls a gift to Democrats and a sign that Trump is terrified dissent will become contagious among Republicans. Chuck also cautions that Democrats shouldn't celebrate too much — their brand remains damaged despite Trump's cratering numbers — and offers a counterintuitive observation: that Trump's greatest weakness isn't his authoritarian instincts but his laziness, arguing that his reliance on emergency powers is a shortcut to avoid the hard work of legislating. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the Reichstag fire & how Hitler was able to turn Germany’s democracy into a dictatorship through the use of emergency powers he was granted. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Go to https://zbiotics.com/CHUCKTODDCAST and use CHUCKTODDCAST at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics.” Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. American Finance Disclaimer: NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.196% for well qualified borrowers. Call 866-885-1081, for details about credit costs and terms. Or https://apply.americanfinancing.net/thechucktoddcast Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 02:45 We are in an especially precarious moment of Trump’s presidency 7:15 Supreme Court tariff ruling shows the guardrails still exist 8:00 Without tariffs, U.S. budget deficit will grow even faster 9:45 Trump plans on going down with the ship, may sink GOP 11:45 Courts ruling wasn’t surprising, tariff authority belongs to congress 13:15 Gorsuch called out his colleagues in his opinion 14:45 Kavanaugh’s dissent argued tariffs as a foreign policy issue 16:45 There are three distinct wings in this Supreme Court 18:30 Ruling reflects the public's disapproval of Trump 20:00 We saw tariff price spikes in Q4, ruling would help GOP 20:45 Trump’s response was to attack his own appointees for disloyalty 22:30 Trump lashed out, afraid dissent will become contagious 23:30 Trump accused SCOTUS of “foreign influence” 26:00 Trump is too lazy to become one of history’s worst autocrats 27:45 Trump’s laziness is his greatest weakness 29:15 Emergency powers are a shortcut to avoid legislating 30:45 Chaos is coming, people will want refunds for illegal tariffs 32:30 Consumption taxes put the burden on lower income people 34:00 Fallout from the ruling will be a mess for businesses 34:45 What will happen to trade deals that were cut based on illegal tariffs? 35:15 Trump has alienated every major ally the U.S. has 36:15 Trump is vulnerable to Republicans walking away from him 38:30 Trump reaction to tariffs was a gift to the Democrats 40:15 New poll shows Trump’s disapproval at 60% 41:45 Democrats brand still bad despite Trump’s terrible approval 52:30 ToddCast Time Machine - February 27th, 1933 53:00 Reichstag fire gave Hitler emergency powers 53:45 Germany’s economy had been devastated 55:00 In three years, Germany cycled through three unstable governments 56:00 German elites thought they could use Hitler’s popularity & manage him 57:00 Whether Nazi’s helped, or just exploited the fire is still debated 58:15 Reichstag Fire decree suspended civil liberties 59:30 Enabling Act allowed Hitler to legislate without parliamentary approval 1:00:15 The German dictatorship was created via constitutional rules 1:01:30 Emergency powers aren’t always authoritarian, it’s who uses them 1:02:30 Ask Chuck 1:02:45 Why does populism lead to antisemitism? 1:06:15 Is this the administration that’s run the most like a business? 1:11:30 Starting to see Republicans breaking with Trump? 1:13:30 What if the Constitutional Convention had not been held in summer? 1:16:30 Thoughts on Gallup ending presidential tracking, NJ-11 election? 1:23:30 Need for regulation on prediction markets 1:25:30 What’s going on with Virginia’s redistricting effort? 1:30:30 Does international diplomacy have a greater impact on the president's legacy?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on The Necessary Conversation, Trump takes hits from every direction — the Supreme Court, international investigators, the polls, and even his own economic reality — while still trying to grab more power, more money, and more control.⚖️ Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's TariffsIn a major loss for Trump, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that most of his tariffs are illegal, saying the president does not have unilateral authority to impose them under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Two Trump-appointed justices — Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the majority. Trump responded by attacking the Court, accusing his own judges of bias and disloyalty, and is now scrambling to impose a new 15% global tariff through other legal loopholes.We ask:Should Trump have to obey rulings from judges he appointed?Does this restore any faith in the Supreme Court?Is the economy actually better after Trump's tariffs?

In a massive blow to the administration's trade agenda, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20, 2026, that President Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs. This decision effectively invalidates the "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs and raises immediate questions about billions of dollars in potential refunds for U.S. importers.In this episode, we dive into:The Ruling: Why Chief Justice Roberts and Trump-appointees Gorsuch and Barrett ruled that the power to tax belongs solely to Congress.The "Major Questions" Doctrine: How this judicial philosophy was used to curb a "transformative expansion" of executive power.Economic Impact: What the end of IEEPA tariffs means for inflation, supply chains, and your wallet.The Administration's Pivot: Analysis of the President's plan to use Section 122 as a "stopgap" to keep a 10% baseline tariff in place.The Refund Chaos: How businesses can navigate the complex process of recovering illegally collected duties.Key Fact: While the court struck down IEEPA-based tariffs, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum remain in effect, as they are governed by a different statute.

I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

【聊了什么】 2月20日，美国最高法院以6:3推翻了特朗普基于IEEPA（国际紧急经济权力法）征收的全部关税，判定"监管进口"不等于"征收关税"，税收权属于国会。但特朗普在判决出炉仅三小时后便签署新行政令，以贸易法第122条重新加征10%的全球关税。（录制期间，特朗普宣布将新增的10%关税提高到15%。） 本期我们讨论了：IEEPA到底是什么？最高法院的多数意见和反对意见分别说了什么？为什么多数派法官内部也吵成了好几派？特朗普的关税工具箱里还剩什么？1700亿的退税怎么退？以及这场判决对中期选举和美国经济意味着什么。 本期节目录制于美国时间2026年2月21日上午。 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 01:48 IEEPA是什么？紧急状态权力的历史背景 05:25 核心法律问题："regulate importation"包不包含征收关税？ 08:45 最高法院多数意见：罗伯茨与"重大问题原则" 13:00 自由派的赞同意见 vs 戈萨奇46页无差别开炮 18:02 反对意见：托马斯的"王权论"与卡瓦诺63页全力护航 29:33 1700亿退税难题：退给谁？怎么退？ 34:37 特朗普的反击：122条与关税工具箱盘点 44:43 判决的实质影响：形式变了，关税没变 46:27 国会动态：共和党倒戈与退休潮中的内生反对派 58:01 经济大背景：GDP不及预期、通胀未降与中期选举压力 1:05:02 最高法院与特朗普：蜜月结束了吗？ 1:11:28 大法官人物分析：戈萨奇 vs 卡瓦诺 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Talich：美国政治和文化历史爱好者 王浩岚：美国政治爱好者，岚目公众号主笔兼消息二道贩子 小华：媒体人 品达：美国政治观察人士 【 What We Talked About】 On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down all tariffs imposed by Trump under IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act), holding that "regulate importation" does not mean "impose tariffs" and that the power to tax belongs to Congress. But just three hours after the ruling, Trump signed a new executive order reimposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act. (During the recording of this episode, Trump announced an increase of the new 10% tariff to 15%.) In this episode, we discuss: What exactly is IEEPA? What did the majority and dissenting opinions say? Why were even the majority justices divided into several camps? What tools remain in Trump's tariff toolbox? How will $170 billion in tariff refunds be handled? And what does this ruling mean for the midterm elections and the U.S. economy? This episode was recorded on the morning of February 21, 2026 (U.S. time). 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 01:48 What is IEEPA? The history of emergency powers 05:25 The core legal question: Does "regulate importation" include imposing tariffs? 08:45 The majority opinion: Roberts and the Major Questions Doctrine 13:00 Liberal concurrence vs. Gorsuch's 46-page all-out attack 18:02 The dissent: Thomas's "royal prerogative" theory & Kavanaugh's 63-page defense 29:33 The $170 billion refund problem: Who gets it and how? 34:37 Trump strikes back: Section 122 and the tariff toolbox 44:43 Real-world impact: The form changed, the tariffs didn't 46:27 Congress reacts: Republican defections and a growing internal opposition 58:01 Economic backdrop: GDP misses expectations, inflation persists, and midterm pressure 1:05:02 The Supreme Court and Trump: Is the honeymoon over? 1:11:28 Justice profiles: Gorsuch vs. Kavanaugh 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Talich：Aficionado of American politics, culture, and history 王浩岚 (Haolan Wang): American political enthusiast, chief writer at Lán Mù WeChat Official Account, and peddler of information 小华 (Xiao Hua): Journalist, political observer Pinda：American political enthusiast

  “I always have a backup”, Donald Trump tells us today in reaction to the shameful attempt by Roberts, Gorsuch, and Coney Barrett to strip the Presdent of the constitutional power to set tariffs as established by the Constitution. Following today’s, February 20, 2026 dumpster fire by the Supreme Court, get ready for Trump to outsmart and outmaneuver the RINOs who joined with the Communist Democrats of SCOTUS.

Megyn Kelly is joined by Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article III Project, to discuss the Supreme Court ruling striking down President Trump's tariffs, how the decision impacts Trump's negotiating leverage with foreign countries, the significance of the 6-3 ruling with Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, and Roberts siding with the libs, and more. Then Maureen Callahan, host of "The Nerve," joins to talk about Kelly Ripa promoting the idea that staying in excellent shape is simple, how wealthy celebrities create a false narrative about exercise that is unattainable, the obvious cattiness on display at the Today show involving Hoda Kotb and Jenna Bush Hager, the power struggle at NBC while Savannah Guthrie is away, Trump's latest comments on the Nancy Guthrie case that suggest the investigation may be stalling, major questions surrounding the sheriff's handling of the case, Meghan Markle's courtside NBA appearance with Prince Harry, her constant need for public validation and “black hole” personality, why the new series “Love Story” misses the deeper truth about JFK Jr. and Carolyn Bessette, why the casting lacks the real-life “it factor,” the awful portrayal of Jackie O, and more.   Subscribe to Maureen's show The Nerve: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nerve-with-maureen-callahan/id1808684702 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4kR07GQGQAJaMNtLc9Cg2o YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@thenerveshow?sub_confirmation=1 Substack: https://thenerveshow.com/   Chamberlain- https://www.article3project.org/   Byrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today. Done with Debt: https://www.DoneWithDebt.com & tell them Megyn Kelly sent you! BeeKeeper's Naturals: Go to https://beekeepersnaturals.com/MEGYN or enter code MEGYN for 20% off your order ARMRA: go to https://tryarmra.com/MEGYNto get 30% off your first subscription order     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow  Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

- The Supreme Court delivers a major blow to Trump's tariff authority as Roberts, Barrett, and Gorsuch side with the liberals. - Democrats boycott Trump events and double down on “F-Trump” politics while polling shows Biden rated above Trump. - A Venezuelan illegal immigrant brutally attacks a woman on a Florida beach, reigniting outrage over Biden-era border policies. - New York's new mayor proposes massive spending, property tax hikes, and DEI expansions as critics warn of financial collapse. - A transgender athlete dominates girls' track in Massachusetts, fueling renewed debate over fairness in women's sports. Today's podcast is sponsored by : BOLL & BRANCH COMFORT SHEETS - Discover linen softness beyond your wildest dreams with Boll & Branch. Get 15% off your first set of sheets plus free shipping at ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://BollAndBranch.com/GERRY⁠⁠⁠⁠ with promo code GERRY   MARS MEN TESTOSTERONE BOOST - For a limited time, our listeners get 50% off for life plus Free Shipping AND 3 Free Gifts at http://MenGoToMars.com   QUINCE CLOTHING - Refresh your wardrobe with Quince.  Go to http://Quince.com/GERRY for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns.   Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://Newsmax.com/Listen⁠⁠⁠⁠ Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://NewsmaxPlus.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/shop⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:             • Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/FB⁠⁠⁠⁠             • X/Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠            • Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/IG⁠⁠⁠⁠            • YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV⁠⁠⁠⁠             • Rumble: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV⁠⁠⁠⁠             • TRUTH Social: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX⁠⁠⁠⁠            • GETTR: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://gettr.com/user/newsmax⁠⁠⁠⁠            • Threads: ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX⁠⁠⁠⁠             • Telegram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://t.me/newsmax⁠⁠⁠⁠              • BlueSky: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com⁠⁠⁠⁠            • Parler: ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://app.parler.com/newsmax⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Trump's tariffs in a 6-3 decision. Chief Justices Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch sided with the three liberal justices. The high court did not address the billions of dollars collected from the tariffs. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a scathing dissent and warned that the Court's decision has created a big mess. Trump slammed the liberal justices and praised Justice Kavanaugh for writing a ‘brilliant' dissent. He also doubled down by enacting a brand new 10% tariff!Guest: Professor William Jacobson - Cornell University and Founder of Equal Protection ProjectSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jeff & Shannon shred the Supreme Court's 6-3 strike-down of Trump's IEEPA tariffs—don't panic, patriots—breaking Trump's fiery presser comeback, new 10% global tariff under Section 122, steel plants booming, and why this strengthens America First trade certainty. Tune in at Rumble, YouTube, X and Red State Talk Radio!

The Supreme Court just dropped a bombshell on President Trump’s tariff agenda: a 6–3 ruling led by Chief Justice John Roberts says the IEEPA emergency powers law can’t be used to impose sweeping tariffs—setting up a huge fight over refunds, markets, and who really controls trade policy. We break down the dissent (Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito), the shocker votes (Gorsuch, Barrett), Wall Street’s reaction, and Trump’s backup plan heading into Tuesday’s State of the Union showdown. SHOP OUR MERCH: https://store.townhallmedia.com/ BUY A LARRY MUG: https://store.townhallmedia.com/products/larry-mug Watch LARRY with Larry O'Connor LIVE — Monday-Thursday at 12PM Eastern on YouTube, Facebook, & Rumble! Find LARRY with Larry O'Connor wherever you get your podcasts! SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7i8F7K4fqIDmqZSIHJNhMh?si=814ce2f8478944c0&nd=1&dlsi=e799ca22e81b456f APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/larry/id1730596733 Become a Townhall VIP Member today and use promo code LARRY for 50% off: https://townhall.com/subscribe?tpcc=poddescription https://townhall.com/ https://rumble.com/c/c-5769468 https://www.facebook.com/townhallcom/ https://www.instagram.com/townhallmedia/ https://twitter.com/townhallcomBecome a Townhall VIP member with promo code "LARRY": https://townhall.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In a historic 6-3 ruling the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump's sweeping global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), holding that the Constitution's taxing power belongs squarely to Congress — not the executive branch. TCS President Steve Ellis and Director of Research and Policy Josh Sewell break down the ruling in real time.The court's majority, which included Trump appointees Gorsuch and Barrett alongside Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal justices, found that Congress never authorized the president to levy tariffs under IEEPA — and that the word "tariff" doesn't even appear in the law. Steve and Josh trace TCS's position back to Liberation Day and the August tariff escalation episodes, where they argued that a tariff is a tax and that speculative tariff revenue could never be a reliable budget offset. Today's ruling validated that argument.But don't pop the champagne yet. Steve and Josh walk through what the ruling doesn't do: it doesn't end tariffs. The administration has already signaled it will pursue tariffs under other statutes — Section 232, Section 301, Section 122, and even the ghost of Smoot-Hawley. They also dig into the fiscal fallout: over $133 billion in tariff revenue collected under IEEPA may be subject to refunds, with potential losses of $1.5 trillion over the next decade. With a $38.6 trillion national debt and $1.8 trillion annual deficit, that's not a rounding error.The bottom line: Congress can no longer hide behind executive tariff revenue to paper over its fiscal failures. The court just slammed shut that escape hatch. Now it's time for Congress to do its job.

IEEPA tariffs are found Unconstitutional, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026).Today, Feb 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two combined cases that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the President the power to impose tariffs on imports. This decision stopped tariffs set by President Trump to fight drug trafficking and trade deficits.Soon after becoming president, Trump declared national emergencies under IEEPA. He cited two big threats: Drug influx & Trade deficits.Businesses and states sued, saying IEEPA doesn't allow tariffs. One case started in a D.C. district court, which blocked the tariffs temporarily. The other went to the Court of International Trade (CIT) and was upheld by the Federal Circuit appeals court. They said IEEPA's words about "regulating importation" don't cover unlimited tariffs. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to set taxes and duties, including tariffs (Article I, Section 8). The Framers wanted Congress to control "the pockets of the people." Presidents have no natural right to impose tariffs in peacetime. The government argued IEEPA lets the President "regulate... importation," which they said includes tariffs of any size, length, or scope. But the Court disagreed, using these key points:Major Questions Doctrine: The Court is wary of laws that vaguely give away huge powers. Tariffs affect the economy massively, trillions in trade and billions in revenue. Congress wouldn't hide such a big handover in unclear words. In 50 years of IEEPA, no president had used it for tariffs. Past laws delegating tariff power were always clear and limited. This claim was too extreme, especially for the "power of the purse."Word Meanings in IEEPA: The law lists powers like "investigate, block, regulate, direct, nullify" imports or exports. It doesn't mention tariffs or duties. "Regulate" usually means to control or restrict, not to tax. Taxes are separate, Congress always says so explicitly when giving tax powers. If "regulate" included taxes, it might violate the Constitution's ban on export taxes. The other words in the list are about sanctions or controls, not raising money.No Exceptions: Even in emergencies or foreign affairs, Congress must clearly say if it's giving away tariff power. Tariffs aren't just regulation; they're taxes with big economic and political effects.The Court vacated (canceled) the D.C. case for jurisdictional reasons and affirmed (upheld) the Federal Circuit's ruling. IEEPA can't be used for tariffs. This protects Congress's role in trade policy.The opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, with parts joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett. It stresses separation of powers and careful reading of laws.This program is brought to you by DAT Freight & Analytics. Since 1978, DAT has helped truckers & brokers discover more available loads. Whether you're heading home or looking for your next adventure, DAT is building the most trusted marketplace in freight. New users of DAT can save 10% off for the first 12 months by following the link below. Built on the latest technology, DAT One gives you control over every aspect of moving freight, so that you can run your business with speed & efficiency. This program is also brought to you by our newest sponsor, GenLogs. GenLogs is setting a new standard of care for freight intelligence. Book your demo for GenLogs today at www.genlogs.io today!

In this breaking-news episode recorded immediately after the Supreme Court's landmark 6-3 ruling striking down Trump's sweeping tariffs under IEEPA, Chuck Todd breaks down what he calls one of the most consequential decisions of the Trump era — and argues the Court did elected Republicans an enormous favor. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Gorsuch, Barrett, and the three liberal justices, ruled that the 1977 emergency powers law "does not authorize the President to impose tariffs," leaving only Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh in dissent — a split Chuck argues should have been 9-0 given that the Constitution plainly gives Congress the power of the purse. He contends that the 6-3 margin is critical because it prevents Trump from framing the decision as a partisan attack, and gives congressional Republicans cover to move on from a policy that has devastated America's farm economy, spooked markets with uncertainty, and could now require the Treasury to refund an estimated $175 billion to importers. With Trump calling the ruling "a disgrace" and his State of the Union address just days away, Chuck notes the president has a lot of explaining to do — particularly since he could have sought tariff authority from Congress in the spring of 2025 when he had the political capital, but instead chose to go it alone through executive action. Trump, Chuck concludes, is a huge loser here, and the uncertainty is far from over. Timeline: 00:00 Chuck Todd’s intro - Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs 00:45 SCOTUS did elected Republicans a favor 02:00 Trump doesn’t have the votes in congress to enact tariffs 03:00 There’s a ton of uncertainty coming from this ruling 04:45 Trump has a lot of explain to do at State of the Union 06:00 Alito & Thomas always side with Trump, Kavanaugh mostly 06:45 Congress has power of purse, ruling should have been 9-0 09:00 Supreme Court has given Republicans cover 10:15 Tariffs have been devastating to America’s farm economy 11:45 Markets face a ton of uncertainty 12:30 6-3 ruling means it won’t be viewed as a partisan decision 13:00 Trump is a huge loser here 14:30 Trump could have gotten tariff authority from congress in Spring ‘25 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into battlegrounds for America's future, but here we are in the thick of it. Just a few days ago, on February 4, 2026, in a federal courtroom in Manhattan, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein stared down lawyers for President Donald Trump with a look that screamed disbelief. According to Associated Press reporter Michael Sisak, who was right there covering the oral arguments, the judge seemed downright incredulous at the defense's push to yank Trump's infamous hush money conviction out of New York state court and into federal territory, where they hope to torch it on presidential immunity grounds.Picture this: Trump's team, fresh off a nudge from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals back in November, arguing that even though the 2016 hush money payments to Stormy Daniels were mostly about his personal life during the campaign, some trial evidence touched Oval Office chats with future administration folks like Michael Cohen. They say that makes the whole conviction—where Trump got an unconditional discharge just 11 days before his January 2025 inauguration—immune and erasable. Hellerstein wasn't buying it. Sisak reports the judge hammered them for waiting too long to pivot to federal court, calling it like taking two bites at the apple. He's rejected this move twice before, insisting the case is private scandal, not presidential acts. Trump skipped the hearing himself, but his lawyers left with the judge promising a quick ruling after thanking both sides, including the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, for their fierce arguments.And that's not all unfolding in these frantic days. Over at SCOTUSblog, they're tracking how the Supreme Court keeps slapping temporary brakes on Trump's bold plays. On December 23, 2025, the justices, over dissents from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, refused to pause a Chicago federal judge's order blocking National Guard deployments in Illinois by Judge April Perry. Trump pulled troops from Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland right after. Then there's the mess with Venezuelan TPS holders—Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco ruled against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's termination of their protected status, but the High Court paused it twice, letting deportations roll as appeals drag on in the 9th Circuit.Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker paints an even wilder picture: 298 active cases challenging executive actions on national security, plus suits over the Alien Enemies Act deportations. The Supreme Court's handed down 14 stays favoring the feds, but judges have ruled against them 22 times. Meanwhile, whispers of a massive birthright citizenship fight loom, with U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante blocking Trump's executive order for babies born after February 20, 2025, and the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on April 1.It's a judicial whirlwind, listeners—courts in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and D.C. pushing back as Trump tests every limit. Will Hellerstein kill the hush money bid again? Can the Supreme Court reshape immigration overnight? These past few days feel like the front lines of power itself.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

1. Virginia Politics & Redistricting Democrats in Virginia are moving quickly to enact policy changes after recent elections. The new Virginia congressional map heavily favors Democrats (projected 10D–1R), despite the state split being closer to 53% Democrat / 47% Republican. Comparisons to redistricting in Texas, California, and New England, arguing that both parties gerrymander but Virginia’s map is described as especially extreme. 2. Immigration Enforcement Virginia’s governor (referred to as Abigail Spanberger) cut cooperation with ICE. This policy could result in criminal undocumented immigrants being released into communities. 3. Discussion of Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Tariffs Detailed recounting of a Supreme Court case involving presidential authority to impose tariffs. Highlights: Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett expressed skepticism toward the administration’s position. Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito appeared more open to upholding the tariff authority. Predicts that Chief Justice Roberts may write a majority opinion to uphold tariff powers on institutional grounds. 4. The “Save America Act” House of Representatives passed the act with only one Democrat voting in favor. The act requires: Proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. Photo ID to vote. Presented as “common-sense” election integrity legislation. Describes a procedural strategy within existing Senate rules, not abolishing the filibuster. Would force Democrats to perform a talking filibuster (continuous floor speeches). Requires Republicans to maintain 50 senators physically present, possibly for days or weeks. Democrats aim to: Eliminate photo ID laws. Grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico. Offer citizenship and voting rights to undocumented immigrants. Pack the Supreme Court. Voter ID and citizenship proof are extremely popular nationwide with broad bipartisan support. Republicans should force Democrats to publicly defend opposition during a talking filibuster. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1. The Case at the Supreme Court The case is Trump v. Vos Selections, argued on Nov. 5, 2025. Small businesses are challenging Trump-era tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). 2. Central Legal Questions Does IEEPA’s power to “regulate imports” include authority to impose tariffs? Did Congress delegate too much taxing authority to the President?→ This triggers two major constitutional doctrines: Non‑Delegation Doctrine – Congress cannot hand over core lawmaking powers (like taxation) without clear limits. Major Questions Doctrine – Major economic or political actions require explicit congressional authorization. 3. Constitutional Tension Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to: Lay and collect taxes/tariffs Regulate commerce with foreign nations Tariffs sit at the intersection of foreign policy (executive power) and taxation (legislative power). 4. Oral Argument Themes Justices skeptical of Trump’s argument: Roberts – Concerned tariffs are fundamentally taxes on Americans, which is Congress’s domain. Gorsuch & Barrett – Pressed the need for clear statutory limits; worried about unchecked executive authority. Justices leaning toward upholding the tariffs: Kavanaugh – Emphasized long history of broad presidential discretion in foreign affairs. Thomas – Focused on historical practice of using tariffs as trade tools. Alito – Concerned about practical impacts and the large reliance interests ($133B already collected). 5. Predicted Outcome (from the document’s speaker) Expected ruling: 5–4 in favor of Trump, upholding tariff authority. Predicted majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh + either Barrett or Gorsuch. Reasoning: Court is reluctant to disrupt years of foreign policy and economic decisions already relying on the tariffs. Institutional stability concerns—similar to Roberts’ reasoning in the Affordable Care Act case. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We cover Justice Thomas' Concurring Opinion for the Court today for Part 5 (Episode 16) of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Justice Thomas' concurring Opinion for the Court. We have one more part in this Deep Dive after this one to do the concurrence by Gorsuch. This is the 16th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is winter 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with the Gorsuch's Republican concurrence in Loper Bright next time. Today's episode includes readings from Psalm 104 (RSV) and 25 January in Streams in the Desert (Cowman Publications Lost Feliz Station Lost Angeles, California 1925 non-woke original edition). The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Groundhog Day brings a lighthearted start, but today's conversation quickly turns serious as we examine why the courts matter more than ever. With rulings on election integrity and federal immigration enforcement making headlines, this episode breaks down how the judicial branch is shaping the future of the country. We look closely at the role of the Supreme Court, the importance of constitutional originalism, and why justices like Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch matter in the fight to preserve liberty and the rule of law. If we want to remain a nation governed by laws—not political agendas—understanding how the courts are supposed to function is essential. This episode connects the dots between culture, elections, and the Constitution itself.

Groundhog Day brings a lighthearted start, but today's conversation quickly turns serious as we examine why the courts matter more than ever. With rulings on election integrity and federal immigration enforcement making headlines, this episode breaks down how the judicial branch is shaping the future of the country. We look closely at the role of the Supreme Court, the importance of constitutional originalism, and why justices like Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch matter in the fight to preserve liberty and the rule of law. If we want to remain a nation governed by laws—not political agendas—understanding how the courts are supposed to function is essential. This episode connects the dots between culture, elections, and the Constitution itself.

Gen. Jack Keane, a retired 4-star general, the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and Fox News Senior Strategic AnalystTopic: Possibility of U.S. military involvement in Iran Dr. Darrin Porcher, Retired NYPD Lieutenant, Criminal Justice Professor at Pace University and a former Army OfficerTopic: Mamdani pushing to shutdown NYPD strategic response group Jim Iuorio, managing director of TJM Institutional Services and a veteran futures and options traderTopic: Trump investment accounts for kids Tom Del Beccaro, attorney, acclaimed author, speaker and the former Chairman of the California Republican PartyTopic: Threat of the midterm elections Lt. Col. Chuck DeVore (Ret.), Former National Guardsman and Chief National Initiatives Officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation who served as a Republican member of the California State Assembly from 2004 to 2010Topic: Ongoing situation in Minnesota Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryTopic: "Why surrender is not an option for ICE's Minnesota mission" (Fox News op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode 274- State Police RPO Cover-Up  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 274 SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, our good friend, John Petrolino, who writes about many, many important topics, particularly as well concerning New Jersey, has an article that was in Bearing Arms. And I want to talk about what he’s raised here. The article’s title is “New Jersey State Police Tight Lipped Over Retired Police Permits”. (https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2026/01/21/new-jersey-statepolice-tight-lipped-over-retired-police-permits-n1231288) So, what John has done is he’s used the New Jersey form of OPRA (Open Public Records Act), the Freedom of Information Act, asking the authorities in New Jersey for the number of permits issued to retired police officers. Evan Nappen 01:15 You may recall the then Attorney General Platkin did put up that dashboard and released the data of public statistics regarding carry permits, the number of permits issued. There’s been over 92,000 approved applications for carry permits in New Jersey, and of those approvals, 64,000 are non-expired permits. Now it’s interesting that the State puts out that data, but they don’t put out the data as to the RPO permits. The Retired Police Officer permits, and we want to find out how many folks carry that are not law enforcement, right? That are civilian. And let’s face it, Retired Police Officers are still civilians, even though they were formerly law enforcement. Originally carry was outside of being law enforcement and outside of New Jersey’s insane carry permit system back then, where you had to show “justifiable need”, which, as you may recall, meant showing of urgent necessity. This meant showing that a gun was necessary for you to defend yourself from death or serious bodily injury and that carrying a handgun was the only means that could do it. I mean, it was a standard that was so extreme that basically, if you’ve been shot and killed, you then qualified for a New Jersey carry permit. Evan Nappen 03:08 Now that went away thanks to the Bruen decision, and New Jersey jumped from less than 600 carry permits to now 64,000 valid permits and 92,000 valid, approved permits. But it does not include the RPOs. Now, RPOs had the ability to carry before Bruen, and during that time period when regular old civilians who weren’t retired law enforcement could not defend themselves with a firearm and carry in that manner, right? They were deemed to have to be victims instead of defenders. But now, for some reason, the State Police and such will not release the number of RPO permits. We’re not asking for names. John went forward here, and he didn’t ask for names. He didn’t ask for anything. He just wants to know how many? How many of the RPO permits are out there as well. This should be looked at in the aggregate with all the other carry permits that are out there, and yet that doesn’t happen. Page of 1 8 Evan Nappen 04:25 In December of 2025, John sent a request for the number of RPO permits, and it was denied. And the request was denied weirdly and strangely for reasons that just don’t make any sense. And I’m going to tell you. It makes you wonder, why is there a cover up? The reason they denied it, the reason the State Police have put in writing for the denial. Well, get a load of this. “Improper and Overbroad” was the main reason. Can you believe that the information is supposedly improper and overbroad? Why would wanting to know a statistical fact such as the number of RBO permits be considered overbroad? And why would it be considered in any way improper? It is strictly information. It is based on a record. It absolutely should be released. Evan Nappen 05:52 How come they are releasing the numbers for civilian carry permits, right? The 92,000. How come that’s not “improper and overbroad”? No, the Attorney General does it. Go ahead. Why? Tell me. Why do you think? Teddy Nappen 06:10 So, going back to because John also, if I recall, broke the story about denials where, what was it? Blacks were five times more likely to be denied to their carry. Evan Nappen 06:22 Yes, institutionalized racism. That exists in New Jersey. Teddy Nappen 06:31 So, add into the fact that you have the, well, here’s the trick. The Left have always been anti-police. That is a fact. They were the ones that wanted to defund the police. They were the ones for that. So, now we have the first factor of showing the absolute racism of the gun laws. But also the fact that they were supporting the only carry which, by the way, how much you want to bet they were all for the RPOs under all the Democrat Governors who allowed those carries to come into play. How much of that look, if it shows that there’s this massive amount of RPOs being issued. And because the Left are Marxists who absolutely hate police and hate law and order, this would make them look like absolute elitists and hypocrites. Evan Nappen 07:19 So, the fear is that, arguably, in the defund the police mentality, that if retired police are being armed, they don’t want any police armed, even if they’re retired, because of the perceived threat that they put out there that law enforcement creates toward minorities. In their view, not in my view. Not in my view. It’s the opposite. I mean, the fact is, they’re out there as protectors, defenders of the good people of our State. Every retired officer is somebody who’s not only armed, but also is experienced in armed defense, having served as a law enforcement officer. They’re a resource. They’re a positive benefit to our society. Yet, they’re probably scared of the politics. I mean, why else? What? There’s nothing about it that makes it “improper”. And it sure isn’t “overbroad”. It would be overbroad, maybe, if you want to know the name and address and Dox every carry RPO that’s out there. That’s not being requested. We just want the damn number. How many RPO carry permits? Teddy Nappen 08:41 Page of 2 8 It honestly reminds me, Dad, of that poster you had hung up. It was the joke where it shows if the Left could rewrite the Second Amendment. And I think, and I remember, you remember that. They crossed out, remember, they crossed out militia. And it says, like, military and police, employed police only. We’re kind of that logic where like, well, they’re not in the service, so why should they be armed? Not because there’s massive doxing websites, and that’s why ICE has to have their mask on for that exact reason. But. Evan Nappen 09:17 Exactly. Well, the fight is still ongoing and the question is raised. Why not just give us the number so we all know? And I would like to see a huge number of RPOs. I hope there’s lots of them out there. The more trained law-abiding folks that have firearms, the safer we are. And retired police are perfect in that regard. That’s exactly what we want to see. So, whatever their basis is, it just creates more of a conspiracy, and it just politicizes it so unnecessarily. It’s ridiculous. Release the number. Let us know. Let’s join in showing how many armed folks are out there. Maybe that’s another reason. They’re afraid that if that number, you know is even more, now, more and more people are carrying and suddenly the BITS argument they love to make right? Blood In The Streets. BITS. There’ll be blood in the streets with civilian carry, you know. No, it didn’t happen. And it’ll be the Wild West. It’s not the Wild West. And look at how many folks have carries when you combine the numbers. Maybe they’re afraid of that political aspect. But, you know, we have a right to know these numbers. It’s not a secret. It’s not improper. It’s not overbroad. Just let us know, and we deal with the facts. Evan Nappen 10:47 I also want to bring a couple very interesting things out that I’ve recently learned about. An important one here is the old “Bang or Bong – You can’t have both”. Well, shortly, at least a greater degree, you may be able to have both because President Trump, through his administration, folks, keep that in mind. Through the Trump administration, they have proposed, through ATF, revision of their regulation concerning the interpretation of what a “user of drugs” as a disqualifier, what it means. You know, for almost 30 years, ATF has said they treat even a single incident, a single past admission of marijuana use, or a failed drug test, or one misdemeanor marijuana conviction as evidence of a person being an unlawful user. They have now put forward an administrative reg that when it becomes finalized, which should be happening within the next few months, it will make it so that those things no longer will be deeming a person “an unlawful user”. And this should be of great help. Evan Nappen 12:25 From an article in AmmoLand, written by Dean Weingarten, which is entitled “ATF Finally Admits: One-time Drug Use Isn’t Grounds to Strip Gun Rights.” (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/01/atf-finally-admitsone-time-drug-use-isnt-grounds-to-strip-gun-rights/) It makes it really interesting here regarding that. In 2025, NICS denied 9,163 firearm transfers under the “unlawful user” category, okay? So, in other words, denials, denials of over 9,000 transfers, more than half of those denials, more than half, were single-incident drug inferences. Well, under this rule, those will no longer be denials. That’s over what? Four thousand people that will not be denied their gun rights, just in that one year, no less. Of people being denied over this nonsense. And furthermore, in this article, ATF admitted that 8,893 cases, it declined to investigate, prosecute, or retrieve firearms because of a single-drug incident. So, they’re denying individuals and not prosecuting. Yet, they’re using it as a base for denial. So, finally, we’re getting a reg of common sense that clears it up. Evan Nappen 14:05 Page of 3 8 And it even, to me, appears to go further. Now this may take a little bit more analysis, but in my reading of the reg, and I’m going to have to see how it pans out, it also talks about those that use drugs that are lawfully prescribed. That becomes an exemption. I’m going to be looking further into whether this reg also directly impacts individuals with a medical marijuana card. Because if it’s prescribed and it’s legal in the state and it’s by a lawful prescription, then maybe that, too, gets covered by this new regulation. It remains to be seen, but it sure seems like it. So, this is good. It progress in the right direction of helping protect our gun rights. And, of course, it’s happening under the Trump administration. It didn’t, this didn’t happen under, you know, the senile sock puppets for years. This is Trump, and yet it’s in the area of marijuana. I mean, oddly, it’s going to essentially remove what got Hunter Biden in trouble, you know. Now, of course, I don’t think he had a single individual use, but still. It’s that disqualifier that’s being addressed by the Trump administration. Evan Nappen 15:40 I also want to point out something that caught my attention, and I think it is just great when something illustrates the absurdity of the gun laws. As you know, we’re fighting over with the big, beautiful lawsuit with NFA over suppressors. Of course, there’s no more $200 tax, which is nice, and they have made it much more efficient online to be able to get federally registered through the National Firearm Act, when acquiring suppressors. And I appreciate the progress, but we all know that there shouldn’t be any NFA at all. It shouldn’t exist. There should be no registration of suppressors or silencers. And it’s so stupid the way silencers are regulated. And I just love this. Apparently, this fellow here, regarding the National Association for Gun Rights, registered a potato as a suppressor. That’s right, a potato. (https:// www.facebook.com/share/v/1Aadb9chUS/) It’s the classic potato silencer that they used to be, mythologically, I guess, accredited to the IRA even. A potato on the end of a gun will act as a suppressor, and to a certain degree, it does. So, he registered a potato, an actual potato, as a suppressor, and then proceeded to utilize it. The only problem with the potato silencer is it’s good for about one shot, and then you end up with a lot of mashed potatoes after you use it. But there you go. They did, in fact, register the potato as a silencer. Teddy Nappen 17:31 There’s a slang term for it, too it’s called a Paddy can. Evan Nappen 17:35 There you go. A Paddy can. Well, he registered a Paddy can. And you know, ATF, also, in the past, registered a shoelace as a machine gun, because you could wrap it around the trigger and the bolt. Then you could do a quasi bump fire deal with it. So, there is a bona fide, if you go on the internet, see a bona fide ATF registered shoelace as a machine gun. We have potatoes as silencers, and I think it illustrates just how stupid the NFA is. Evan Nappen 18:07 Hey, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot. WeShoot, as you know, is a range where Teddy and I both shoot, and they have been lately featuring some biographies of their instructors. You see, WeShoot has fantastic instructors, and one of their instructors that they’ve taken a focus on is Todd Friedman. Now, their instructors are fantastic and Lieutenant Todd (Retired) is an elite tactical instructor at WeShoot. He has over 25 years experience with the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office. And he didn’t just serve there. He commanded. He was Special Operations Group, Range Master, PTC Certified Range Instructor. His training and background is really something. He’s completed all the advanced coursework and tactical shot sub gun, tactical rifle, tactical narcotics operations. He is an amazing guy, Page of 4 8 and this is just one of the many fantastic instructors at WeShoot. WeShoot is the place to go. Todd, by the way, also served as a Sergeant First Class in the New Jersey National Guard and supporting the prestigious 82nd Airborne Division. So, this is the kind of guy you want training you, you know, and we shoot has these fantastic trainers. You can take advantage of this by belonging to WeShoot. You can take these courses and really, really learn and hone your skills. You need to check out WeShoot at weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. It’s a beautiful range right there in Lakewood, conveniently located easy to get to, right off the Parkway, right there in Central Jersey. You have this fantastic resource of a range. So, make sure you check out WeShoot. Evan Nappen 20:24 And of course, our friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs have been very busy. They’ve been battling in the courts. We should see some more progress there, and I’ll be reporting on that. They’ve been keeping an eye on what’s going on in Trenton and letting us know about these fights we’re fighting. We’ve made an impact. We’ve made an impact. But man, it is a tough slog. And without the Association, we would be even worse. So, make sure that you join the ANJRPC.org, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol clubs. anjrpc.org. They are the premier gun rights group in New Jersey. You need to be a member. You’ll get the email alerts, and you’ll stay on top of what is going on in the crazy state of New Jersey, where the fun just never ends when it comes to oppression of our rights and the fight for our liberties. Evan Nappen 21:22 And by the way, this is where I shamelessly promote my book New Jersey Gun Law, which is the Bible of New Jersey gun law. You’ve got to get a copy. Go to EvanNappen.com. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It is the book used by everybody, and the only book that describes and explains the complex matrix of insanity called New Jersey gun law. Get your copy today. Go to EvanNappen.com. When you get it, scan the front cover. Make sure you get on my private subscriber base, where you can immediately access the archives for any updates. A new update will be coming out very shortly, the 2026 Comprehensive Update of these new laws that Murphy gave us as his farewell present. I’ll be talking about those and explaining those soon. Get your copy today and join in with the subscriber base, which is free, which is free, by the way. So, that your book stays current, and you’ll know what’s going on and be able to keep yourself from becoming a GOFU. Evan Nappen 22:35 Teddy, what do you have for us today? Teddy Nappen 22:38 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. And I want to remind everyone that the Democrats and the Left are, in fact, the real racists. No matter. They do not care what bounds they have to do. They don’t care about what lines they have to cross. They hate you, and they want to take away your rights. You know. Evan Nappen 23:06 Well, Teddy, historically, historically the KKK were Southern Democrats. That was a KKK. The Democrats. Teddy Nappen 23:15 Yep, and apparently. Page of 5 8 Evan Nappen 23:16 Well, it hasn’t changed, apparently. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 23:19 Well, even better, they’re getting back to their roots. We had previously discussed how the they tried to do that whole argument against Bruen and even citing to like, you know, all the racist laws that would deny blacks their rights to carry and ability to possess firearms. Well, sure enough, from The Daily Caller by Harold Hutchinson. Justice Jackson defends Jim Crow laws during Second Amendment case hearing. (https://dailycaller.com/2026/01/20/ketanji-brown-jackson-jim-crow-law-during-2a-case-argument/) If you have that on your bingo card today, you win. So. Evan Nappen 23:59 Your bingo card is Judge Jackson defends Jim Crow racist Black Codes. Teddy Nappen 24:05 Black Code. Specifically Black Codes. Yes, yes. So, this is about the Hawaii challenge. Remember, they’re trying to attack Bruen. And this is our opportunity to really strengthen and end that insanity. Evan Nappen 24:20 Your talking about the Wolford case. Teddy Nappen 24:20 Correct. Evan Nappen 24:22 About sensitive places. Which is very important. That can have great impact on New Jersey, too. Teddy Nappen 24:28 Oh, we’re all very too familiar about the various sensitive places in New Jersey. But this was the part that caught me. During the forum, where the justices are allowed to ask questions and probe the issues of the facts of the case of the law. So, Justice Jackson then turned and decided to go on and say. I just laugh every time I read it. So, I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes. I mean, I thought the Black Code, this is Jackson, were being offered under the Bruen test to determine the Constitutionality of this regulation, and that, because we have a test, and that asks us to look at the history and tradition, the fact that the Black Codes were at some point determined themselves unconstitutional, it doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us for anyway. So, can you say more about that? So to. Evan Nappen 25:35 Do you believe this person is a justice? Teddy Nappen 25:40 Well, I can, I can believe it, because Biden said it himself. He was going to appoint a black woman and regardless of that. So, just take a step back though. Let’s unpack that line right there. It’s not relevant to the fact the laws were found unconstitutional, not relevant to the fact of the constitutionality of the Second Amendment and the and the fact that you are citing, and this is the war on Bruen they are Page of 6 8 making, where they try to say history, text and tradition. Where does history begin? Well, to the Left, apparently, the history begins in the 1860s where you have the various Black Codes and racist gun laws, but you know, to us with the, you know, traditionalists and go and have a little bit further knowledge of history, go back to the very foundation of our country and when the Second Amendment was born. And not only that, this shows you the degree that they hate us and hate guns and are willing to pursue a second amendment oppression agenda, even to the degree that they will utilize unconstitutional purely racist laws of the past to justify prohibitions now that are themselves we can show utilizing institutionalized racism in their enforcement, no less. I mean, they don’t care, as long as they can get the guns and take away the rights. So what if they have to be on the side of racism? That’s fine with them there. Teddy Nappen 27:28 Well, and here’s the reason why I pulled from The Trace where, you know, they absolutely loathe Bruen. This is why they hate it, and this is why they don’t care where length they have to go they cite in. This is from The Trace. (https://www.thetrace.org/projects/bruen-tracker-supreme-court-gun-laws/) 1100 plus. The number of people with felony convictions have used Bruen to challenge the ban on the possession of guns. So, in other words, people that were lawful possession and have unconstitutional laws currently putting them in jail? Oh, now there’s a hammer that is Bruen that can actually help them defend themselves and not be prosecuted. Amazing. Well. And it goes back to race, because blacks are six to one felons to whites, and what is the left pushing? Oh, the disqualifier of a felon, you are sure, because it gets a racial discrimination. It’s six to one again, always pushing the one side of their mouth, claiming to fight for civil rights. Teddy Nappen 28:37 And yet, when it really comes down to the truest of civil rights, they immediately sell it out to pursue a second amendment oppression agenda, yeah, and also the fact they highlight, they highlight this rate of 48% of Republican appointed judges have struck down various gun laws under Bruen, as opposed to the 13 Democrat appointees. So there is political bias for that, you where they’re actually applying the law versus them ignoring the Constitution. But you know, that’s a separate but this is something I want to highlight to everyone. The fact is, if the Left ever take power back, and James Carville has said this, they will pack the court. He said, we’re going to pack the court. We’re going to make a gonna make Puerto Rico a state like everything they can to maintain power. Teddy Nappen 29:30 What are they going to do when they pack the court? Go ahead and read the dissenting of Bruen. I pulled the line right here from buyers, which all of them agree with buyers on this. They refuse, when considering the SEC refuse to consider government interests and just and the challenge to gun regulations regarding the compelling interest to be, in our view, when the court interprets the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper and in often necessary. Necessary to consider the serious danger and consequences of gun violence that lead states to regulate when you when they consider gun laws, they have to factor in the gun violence. You know, the propaganda they promote, race manufacturers on a daily basis, by the way, right? That’s what they have to consider when exercising. So whenever you want to exercise the First Amendment, always consider the hate speech. This is why Reagan said, you know, freedom is only what one generation away from being lost. You know, paraphrasing, but that’s what it means. If they get power, they get total power. We’re in for it, so be vigilant, folks. Make sure you vote. Make sure you do your part in our republic, in defending our rights. Page of 7 8 Evan Nappen 30:55 Hey, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU, which is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. We always like to talk about GOFUs, because these are expensive lessons, real cases, real individuals have learned. And I don’t want you, my listeners, to have to repeat these mistakes. And this one is, this comes up at any number of cases, even just this week. And here’s the bottom line on this GOFU, folks. Know what you have. Let me tell you what I mean by that. I get cases all the time where people end up with their property seized and their house gets searched. Now you may say, well, no one has searched my house. Yeah, except it’s so easy in New Jersey to have that happen. All it takes is just some allegation by any party. You don’t even get a chance to say anything till afterwards. After they do the search that red flags you, or puts an unjustified restraining order on you, or just your house has a fire, and the firemen come in there. We’ve seen this happen so many times, so many ways, and something gets discovered that you didn’t even remember that you had. Evan Nappen 32:17 Because remember, New Jersey has turned things into crimes where there was no grandfathering. If you had old magazines that held over 10 rounds, in other words, you could even if you complied with Florio way back in the day and made sure your mags only held 15. Well, if you’ve got 15 round Florio mags, you’ve got felony charges on your hands. Even though they were made compliant way back. Because now it’s 10. That’s just one example. If you have firearm that became non-compliant under New Jersey law and didn’t realize it, there’s just a multitude of things that New Jersey can screw you over with. Please make sure you know what you have and not have anything that you shouldn’t. Because it’s so easy to have boxes of accessories, boxes and you know, lo and behold, what’s in it? An old bump stock or an old large capacity magazine or a trigger crank, or any of the things that were legal, but then New Jersey unilaterally decided it is intrinsically evil and must be turned into felonies for possession. So, folks, know what you have. Evan Nappen 33:37 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 33:48 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Page of 8 8 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E274_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., turn into the hottest drama in town, but here we are, listeners, on this chilly January day in 2026. Just yesterday, on January 21st, the justices wrapped up their January argument session with Trump, President of the United States v. Cook, a case that's got everyone buzzing about whether President Donald Trump can fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook at will. Picture this: the marble halls of One First Street, packed with lawyers, clerks, and even a few Capitol Hill interns. Paul Clement, arguing for the Trump administration, tried to push that the president has broad firing powers over Fed officials, but the justices weren't buying it. Justice Neil Gorsuch cut him off mid-sentence, saying, "I asked you to put that aside for the moment," according to live coverage from SCOTUSblog. NPR reported the court seemed doubtful of Trump's claim to fire Fed governors by fiat, while Fox News noted the justices signaling skepticism. Newsweek even hinted the Supreme Court may be preparing to deal Trump a disappointing blow, and Politico said they cast doubt on his power without proper review. An extraordinary friend-of-the-court brief from every living former Fed chair, six former Treasury secretaries, and top officials from both parties warned that letting Trump oust Cook would wreck the Federal Reserve's independence and tank the credibility of America's monetary policy, as highlighted by The New York Times.This isn't isolated—Trump's name is all over the docket. Earlier in the session, on January 12th, the court heard Trump v. Cook's opening arguments, listed right there in the Supreme Court's Monthly Argument Calendar for January 2026. SCOTUSblog's Nuts and Bolts series explained how January's the cutoff for cases to squeeze into this term's April arguments, starting April 20th at the Supreme Court Building, or they get bumped to October. Trump's push here echoes last term's Trump v. CASA, where the court expedited a birthright citizenship fight and ruled against nationwide injunctions on June 27th, 2025.But the action's not just at the Supreme Court. Down in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, January 23rd, Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee grilled former Special Counsel Jack Smith during a hearing titled "Hearing Evidence of Donald Trump's Criminal Actions." Cohen pressed Smith on the evidence from federal grand jury indictments—Trump's alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and illegally retaining classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Smith stood firm, detailing Trump's witness intimidation attempts, and Cohen called him a great American we can all respect, as recounted in Cohen's e-newsletter. Meanwhile, Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker notes a dismissal on January 14th in a case over Trump dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, ruled moot.And get this—House Speaker Mike Johnson, during a Wednesday press conference covered by The Hill, backed impeaching two federal judges who've ruled against Trump: Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and Judge Deborah Boardman of the Maryland District Court, criticized for her sentencing of Sophie Roske, charged as Nicholas Roske for plotting to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh. California Republicans even filed an emergency application Tuesday against their state's 2026 election map for racial gerrymandering.It's a whirlwind, listeners—Trump's second term, one year in as the ACLU marked on January 20th, is a battlefield of lawsuits from the Federal Reserve to election interference probes. The justices' private conference tomorrow, January 23rd—no, wait, reports say after the 22nd—could add more cases, with opinions possibly dropping February 20th.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson presents herself as the dumbest Supreme Court justice to have ever existed. 

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson presents herself as the dumbest Supreme Court justice to have ever existed. 

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a wom

The Cheat Sheet is The Murder Sheet's segment breaking down weekly news and updates in some of the murder cases we cover. In this episode, we'll talk about cases from Florida, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.CNN's reporting on the murders of Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan, allegedly by Juliana Peres Magalhães and and Brendan Banfield: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/us/brendan-banfield-trial-testimonyWTRF's reporting on the shooting death of Mary Lynn Noll and the arrest of Jarrod Noll: https://www.wtrf.com/top-stories/mother-killed-father-injured-in-pennsylvania-shooting-suspect-arrested-in-west-virginia/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WTRF_7NewsWTAE reporting on the shooting death of Mary Lynn Noll and the arrest of Jarrod Noll: https://www.wtae.com/article/pa-state-police-isolated-shooting-incident-greene-county/69869719The Supreme Court of the United State's decision on the case of William Case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-624_b07d.pdfSCOTUSBlog's report on the case of William Case: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/court-finds-police-properly-entered-mans-home-despite-absence-of-a-warrant/Local 10 News's report on the case of Jose Leonardo Chacon Martinez: https://www.local10.com/news/local/2026/01/15/trivial-spat-over-shoe-authenticity-immigration-history-led-to-midtown-miami-murder-attempt-cops/Find discounts for Murder Sheet listeners here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/discountsCheck out our upcoming book events and get links to buy tickets here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/eventsOrder our book on Delphi here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/shadow-of-the-bridge-the-delphi-murders-and-the-dark-side-of-the-american-heartland-aine-cain/21866881?ean=9781639369232Or here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Shadow-of-the-Bridge/Aine-Cain/9781639369232Or here: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Bridge-Murders-American-Heartland/dp/1639369236Join our Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/c/murdersheetSupport The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Check out more inclusive sizing and t-shirt and merchandising options here: https://themurdersheet.dashery.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Interesting fact: While all federal officials take an oath that they will support the US Constitution, Supreme Court justices must also take a second (and very profound) oath of office.As New York Times judicial columnist Adam Liptak reports, each of the nine “supremes” must swear that they will “do equal right to the poor and the rich.” Yes, class fairness is not only a core element of justice, but it's supposed out to be a formal measure of Supreme Court behavior.Every justice is aware of this consequential, ethical requirement, since each one took the oath. How damning, then, that the Court's right-wing ideologues feel no twinge of conscience about flagrantly and frequently violating their own word of honor! Call the roll: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. In case after case that pits corporate power against workers, consumers, small business, voters, communities, our environment, farm families—i.e., you and me—this plutocratic cabal rules for the rich.This month, an independent study of decisions by the Roberts Court revealed that two-thirds of its rulings favor wealthy powers over middle-income and poor people. Thus, our so-called “court of justice” is a primary pusher of inequality, especially through its farfetched decree that unlimited corporate political cash is “free speech,” and that corporations are “people.”Chief Justice Roberts smugly proclaims that the Constitution tells him whether the corporate giant or “the little guy” should win. “That's the oath” I took, he sniffs.This is Jim Hightower saying… Bovine excrement! It's obvious that plutocratic ideologues like him are using the Constitution like a ventriloquist dummy. And—hello, your honorableness—what about that other oath you took about equal fairness for the poor?Do something!There are groups that are working on holding the mighty Supremes accountable—what a world that will be! Check out:* The Alliance for Justice* Common Cause* Brennan Center for JusticeJim Hightower's Lowdown is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jimhightower.substack.com/subscribe

Gas Prices in California are more than $4.20 a gallon. In Oklahoma, it's less than half that. Sen. Markwayne Mullin explains the difference between his state and Gavin Newsom's, talks about Iran, and takes a shot at Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Plus, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin responds to a New York Times hitpiece and explains how the Trump deregulation agenda is trickling down to enrich Americans. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss chat with Notre Dame Law Professor Jeffery Pojanowski about his forthcoming paper, “Faces of Formalism.” The paper explores the complexities of formalism in legal interpretation, discussing its two faces: authority and method. They delve into concrete examples, such as Gorsuch's application of textualism in the Bostock case, and examine the tensions that arise between […]

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The UK temps for the green new scam are fake, the manipulated the data to push the scam, it has now been exposed. Fake news has no choice to tell the people that the economy has been improving. Trump is getting to move the economic system to the new system which will include sound money. The [DS] is now using everything they have to stop the Trump and his team. Judges are now dictating that the President doesn’t have the authority to remove someones security clearance. The Supreme Court just set the stage for Trump to use the insurrection act when the enemy pushes the insurgency. Never interfere with an enemy while they are in the process of destroying themselves. Economy https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/2003668549857055223?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");   uncertainties of 2°C to 5°C. That’s not a typo – 5 degrees Celsius of potential error. Only 19 pristine Class 1 sites remain capable of measuring actual ambient air temperature accurately. The rest? Located on airport runways, walled gardens, next to main roads, and inside solar farms. Places where concrete, engines, and infrastructure create artificial heat islands that have nothing to do with atmospheric temperature changes. The Met Office database also contains data from over 100 stations that don’t exist. They’re using “estimated” temperatures from unidentified neighboring stations and presenting it as real data. When journalist Ray Sanders started asking questions through Freedom of Information requests, the Met Office dismissed them as “vexatious” and “not in the public interest.” After media inquiries, the Met Office quietly removed estimated data from 3 non-existent stations. Of 17 new sites opened since April 2024, nearly 65% were immediately placed in the worst quality categories. UK Science Minister Lord Patrick Vallance is calling scrutiny of this mess “misinformation” that weakens trust in science. Perhaps what actually weakens trust in science is using temperature readings from imaginary thermometers next to jet engines to justify trillion-pound Net Zero policies that reshape the entire economy. The data might be fine for tomorrow’s weather forecast. Using it to revolutionize Britain’s energy infrastructure? That requires stations that actually exist. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/2003537920624677163?s=20 https://twitter.com/JeffPasquino/status/2003667251426197766?s=20   dollars” already – language and words are important – but this time the difference will be to the benefit of stablecoin holders. “But if it is pegged to the dollar, why will it matter?” you might wonder. That's a great question. The difference will be that today's bank accounts are in Federal Reserve “dollars”, which are debt-based, inflationary and losing value at a rapid pace. The new digital dollar stablecoins will be backed by gold or other assets (yet to be defined, but it's clearly how they're heading) and the purchasing power will go up. This is the first step out of the debt-based system enslaving most Americans – and by extension of the world reserve currency, most everyone in the Western world. People will eventually see that the asset-backed “digital dollar” is far superior to the Federal Reserve dollar. Once noticed, stablecoin dollars will be hoarded while Fed dollars will flood the market (Gresham's Law). No one will want the dying dollar -or any debt denominated in it – and much like the rise of gold and silver now against the Fed dollar, the digital dollar will also rise in value. Then everyone will transition, by choice, to an asset-backed currency without even knowing why they want those new dollars – they will just know that they hold value better. In other words, the “digital dollar” will actually be a store of value – evidence that it is actual money, not just a currency. Fix the money, fix the world. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2003631214939218223?s=20   amounts to a green light for radical activists already attacking federal officers to escalate. The incident has triggered mounting calls for Frey to resign. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2003595914582364475?s=20 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2003559651586286006?s=20 https://twitter.com/TheSCIF/status/2003513211757134259?s=20   social media. No corroboration exists, no limo driver testimony, no Oklahoma death matching description. This story was a distorted version of another hoax that was debunked years ago. They are desperate and have nothing, and they know it and resort to literal A.I. pictures and confirmed hoaxes that have been debunked YEARS ago in an attempt to slander Trump because they are paid to and lie right TO YOUR FACE. You better wake up and stop listening to people who are paid to lie to you and telling you to stop asking questions. The truth ALWAYS prevails. https://twitter.com/TheSCIF/status/2003773196210692274?s=20  claimed he knew the 2nd Oklahoma City bomber. There was NO collaboration, NO limo driver testimony, and NO deaths in Oklahoma that even matched any real deaths. And they always pop up right before an election. Even the whole Trump on Epstein’s plane drama. YES, Trump never was on the Lolita Express. Epstein owned 5 aircraft. Trump took 7 trips between 1993 and 1997. Never with any underage girls or women, only family. Epstein didn’t even own the island until 1998. The flight logs have been out. They’re just recycling old information and acting like it’s new. How naive can you be? And how lame can you be for posting it? You’re not a journalist. You’re a fraud. The mainstream and every account pushing these lies didn’t verify their claims and authenticity before posting? Or did they know and were just hoping YOU wouldn’t check to push a false narrative? DOGE https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2003500113680085072?s=20 Geopolitical Disgraced Former Prince Andrew Stripped of His Gun License, Can Only Use Firearms Under Supervision Andrew had his gun license stripped by Met police. The hunter becomes the hunted. For his long association with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is facing a long list of repercussions that seem to have no end. Now, the avid hunter has surrendered his firearms license to the Met Police – the same police force who dropped the investigation into his alleged crimes. The Telegraph reported: “The former Duke of York, 65, agreed to give up his firearms and shotgun certificates last month after he was visited by the Metropolitan Police at Royal Lodge in Windsor.   Andrew in Sandringham on the lap of five redacted women – presumably Epstein victims. Daily Mail reported:   Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/2003720679892615609?s=20 https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2003737409440350530?s=20   commissioner who crafted Europe’s Digital Services Act, basically a censorship framework disguised as content moderation. Imran Ahmed of the Center for Countering Digital Hate is also on the list. He had a very specific mission. Want to know what his organization’s annual priorities were? Internal documents show “Kill Musk’s Twitter” at the top of the list. Not “reduce hate speech” or “improve online safety.” Kill Twitter. Destroy the platform entirely because Elon wouldn’t play ball with their censorship demands. These groups operated by labeling anything they disagreed with as “misinformation” or “hate speech,” then lobbying governments to force platforms to remove it. Clare Melford’s Global Disinformation Index used U.S. taxpayer money to create scoring systems that effectively blacklisted conservative American news outlets, steering advertisers away from them to financially strangle speech they opposed. Breton personally sent threatening letters to Elon warning of consequences under EU law right before his live interview with Trump during the campaign. Now the banned activists are claiming this is an “authoritarian attack on free speech” and calling it “immoral, unlawful, and un-American.” These are the same people who built entire careers pressuring tech platforms to silence voices they found problematic. Suddenly they care deeply about censorship when it affects them. Free speech isn’t negotiable. It’s not something governments should regulate away because certain viewpoints make them uncomfortable, whether in Europe or America. The U.S. just made clear that exporting censorship regimes to silence American speech won’t be tolerated  https://twitter.com/UnderSecPD/status/2003567940462084439?s=20 https://twitter.com/DNIGabbard/status/2003635821719466479?s=20 regulate or silence our free speech is a gross violation of our sovereignty that must be answered with accountability. Thank you, @UnderSecPD . https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2003641415465566593?s=20 to end their relationship with Denmark. https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2003571566131704124?s=20 War/Peace https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2003760225774444924?s=20  Russia has explicitly rejected the following point by insisting on stricter terms: Point 14 (Territorial issue): Russia rejects Ukraine’s proposal to “stay where we are” in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, demanding instead a full Ukrainian withdrawal from the Donetsk region.    No other specific rejections from Russia on the new 20-point plan have been confirmed yet, as Moscow is still formulating its official position.  The US has reached consensus with Ukraine on most points but has rejected or disagreed with Ukraine’s proposals on the following, offering alternatives instead: Point 12 (Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant): The US rejects Ukraine’s option for joint US-Ukraine management on a parity basis, proposing trilateral management (involving the US, Ukraine, and likely Russia) with a key role for the American side.   Point 14 (Territorial issue): The US has not fully agreed to Ukraine’s “stay where we are” principle, proposing a compromise in the form of a free economic zone, potentially subject to a Ukrainian referendum if no other agreement is reached.  These disagreements were highlighted by Zelenskyy himself as areas where no consensus was reached with the US.  Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2003629130516955478?s=20  inside the department. She was promoted to lead the EMS in 2019 but by 2022 she was forced to retire. The FDNY is a complex organization of 17,000 employees who need a qualified leader, not a diversity hire. https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/2003615869008814124?s=20   realtor confirms Somalians have bought over 455 homes just in one neighborhood alone. The Somalians have nice cars like BMWs and Mercedes @Brookerteejones “Here in Minnesota, a local realtor reached out to me to tell me about another way that Somalians are scamming Minnesotans out of their taxpayer dollars. In her community alone, Somalians have bought up over 455 homes. They buy these homes claiming they’re turning these homes into home health care centers. She says the way we know Somalians have bought these homes is because all of a sudden extremely nice cars start showing up. Mercedes, BMWs, the nicest cars are parked in the driveway. She said, by law, the state will not come out and inspect these homes and make sure these homes even have clients living in these homes. — Somalians have bought that home and they’re using that as a home health care center. She said these homes can even take people in who’ve just been released from jail and the neighborhood does not need to know about this. But she says, many of these homes do not even have clients in them. But the state is writing them checks every month for the clients that the Somalians say are in these homes. These Somalians are making millions of dollars off of these homes every year.” “The Somalians have figured out exactly the perfect plan as to how to scam Minnesota taxpayers out of their money. They are banking on this making millions of dollars and the government here in Minnesota is too lazy to go and check it out and to see if there’s even clients living in these homes. The fraud in Minnesota is so deep” https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/2003104576766140813?s=20 Democrats from Minnesota, Ohio, Maine, and Boston Embrace Somalians Democrats across the country are praising and supporting Somali migrants, despite growing evidence of massive anti-social fraud by the foreign arrivals. As millions of dollars in more fraud and theft of state and federal welfare funding are uncovered in Ohio, Minnesota, and other places committed at the hands of Somali migrants, democrats are falling all over themselves to show their unmitigated support for the fraudsters. Source: thegatewaypundit.com President Trump's Plan  https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/2003550668796350710?s=20 JUST IN: Biden Judge Blocks President Trump's Attempt to Strip Security Clearance From Deep State Lawyer Mark Zaid https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/2003674593995944077?s=20 US District Judge, Amir Ali, said Trump's attempt to strip the security clearance from Mark Zaid may violate the US Constitution. Recall that Mark Zaid represented Eric Ciaramella, the Trump-Ukraine impeachment ‘whistleblower.' Zaid also represents intelligence officials and other Deep State actors. Earlier this year, President Trump stripped the security clearances of at least eight corrupt ‘antagonists' who worked for Biden or targeted him for ruin over the last several years: Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken Former NatSec Advisor Jake Sullivan New York Attorney General Letitia James Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg Biden's Deputy AG Lisa Monaco Corrupt prosecutor Andrew Weissmann Deep State lawyer Mark Zaid Norm Eisen – the man behind all the lawfare against Trump Source: thegatewaypundit.com Jamie Raskin Reintroduces Radical “Ranked-Choice Voting” Scheme Ahead of Midterms in Latest Bid to Rig Future Elections Radical left-wing Jamie Raskin is once again pushing a sweeping overhaul of America's voting system, this time by reintroducing a federal mandate for so-called “ranked-choice voting” (RCV) just as the country barrels toward another high-stakes midterm election cycle. Raskin posted a video on X on Monday, pitching ranked-choice voting as a cure-all for American politics. The video was released after he reintroduced H.R. 6589, a bill that would mandate ranked-choice voting in elections for the U.S. House and Senate nationwide. Under the system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and ballots are “redistributed” to remaining candidates until someone crosses the 50 percent threshold. Raskin even praised races where candidates who finished second in the first round ultimately “catapulted ahead” after vote redistribution. In Alaska, where RCV flipped a Republican seat to Democrat Mary Peltola despite 60% of voters backing GOP candidates, the system exhausted ballots and ignored second choices for top vote-getters. In New York, socialist Zohran Mamdani led on election night with 43.5% of first-choice votes, but after several rounds of eliminations and redistributions, he was declared the winner with 56%, while Andrew Cuomo finished with 44%. A study of Maine elections found that, of 98 recent ranked choice elections, 60 percent of the victors did not win by a majority of the total votes cast. RCV opens doors to fraud and manipulation. The multi-round tabulation delays create gaps ripe for accusations of tampering, while exhausted ballots mean winners often lack true majority support. Sites like RCVScam.com expose how it lets initial also-rans steal victories, undermining “one person, one vote.” In 2025 alone, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and South Carolina prohibited ranked-choice voting, joining 11 other states for a total of 17 bans. It is a scam, and Americans should push back hard. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid To Deploy National Guard In Chicago The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Trump’s emergency request to allow National Guard troops to be deployed in Chicago, dealing a setback to the admin’s attempts to curtail high crime rates in major cities. The 6-3 decision left in force a judge's ruling that has blocked the deployment since Oct. 9. “At this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the majority said. The government hadn't shown the president could legally “federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.”   Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the high court's ruling Tuesday, saying he had “serious doubts” about the majority's reasoning. “The Court fails to explain why the President's inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose,” Alito wrote, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a separate dissent, contending that the challengers to the National Guard deployment – the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago – had forfeited the argument about the meaning of “regular forces” by failing to present that issue in the lower courts. Trump contends military force is needed to protect federal immigration agents from what he claims are violent protests.   Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2003592327244447867?s=20   cause the President to use the US military more than the National Guard”. The Supreme Court just admitted that Trump has the authority to invoke the Insurrection Act to bypass Posse Comitatus and send the troops to Chicago, and any other city he wants. Trump tried to exhaust every legal avenue possible before resulting to the Insurrection Act, but the Dems resisted and refused to cooperate. Sounds to me like Trump just got the green light. INVOKE THE INSURRECTION ACT! https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2003681206148251711?s=20  THAT'S the hard part. Especially when the MSM are compromised and telling the public that Trump is literally Hitler and is going to unleash a military dictatorship. This had to be done delicately, as not to cause panic. The public must be psychologically prepared. That's why Trump has been giving us soft disclosure about the Insurrection Act for a long time. They have been mentally preparing us for what they knew had to be done, by showing us why it needed to be done. Here he is back in September addressing all his Generals, and reminded them how Washington and Lincoln used the military to keep the peace. This was always the plan. https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/2003586519374717151?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");