04-01-26 Part Two - Absurdity Of Justice Jackson

politics to social issues and news of the day, whether you're up late or you're just starting

your day. Welcome to the show from the Relief Factor Studios. This is Red Eye Radio. We are one of our radio. He is Eric Hurley, and I'm Gary McNamara.

“The show comes back so quickly. I think we've got things going on. We're so busy. We're”

very important people. We just want to let our audience know that. They may not know the show's getting in the way. If you and I, BS in off the air. I know. All right, a couple

of things are Supreme Court stuff. Let's get to it. All right. We promise it, but there's

so many other things going on, but this is really important. You know, we talked about the the the entire thing in in Colorado, the eight one decision that came down yesterday on conversion therapy. I just want to we discussed it earlier, but I wanted at least read a couple of sentences

“here from the editors of National Review, because I think they hit it perfectly and make it”

understandable for everyone, because the next one's going to be more complicated. Yeah, birthright

citizenship, the legalities of it. They write the power of government to regulate the professions,

especially in medicine and law, has created a lot of levers to enforce conformity that power can be exercised openly through law making and more subtly by delegating licensing and disciplinary powers to quasi public cartels run by the professionals themselves in child's versus Salazar, the Supreme Court struck a blow against the use of these powers to dictate speech and stifled

“disfavored opinions, still more encouragingly, just as Gorsuch ringing opinion attracted a”

lopsided eight to one majority with only justice, Jackson in dissent, child's arose from yet another effort by Colorado to ban dissent from LGBTQ ideology, which was yet again defeated by a legal team from alliance defending freedom. A state law bans license counselors from engaging in conversion therapy with minors on the penalty of fines or loss of license. The law is flagrantly one-sided. It applies only to therapy that aims to resolve gender dysphoria or reduce homosexual attraction

while permitting state-favored counseling in favor of gender transition and homosexuality. It is coercive and destructive of parental authority. Now this gets to the major point of it though, the specifics of it, why it was so outrageous. While blue states have scheme to let public schools socially transition kids without telling their parents, Colorado won't even let the disfavored therapists talk to minors when both the minor and the parent consent.

So if you have a child who is confused and the parent and the child both give their consent to the counselor to talk to them and the counselor says well no biologically you can't be. If you're a male you can't be a female you may be thinking that way you could lose your license in Colorado for that. Wow, it is speech you could. Wow, it is speech specific. Unlike red state bans on irreversible surgeries and puberty blocking drugs, the law applies to purely talk-based therapies. Wow.

So there you go. Just so you know what that's about. Can't have a conversation with a medical professional, a conversation with a medical professional about it. One of the things that there was ever a place for people to learn, it was COVID. Yeah, yeah. So much of what we were told and if you debated it, remember the great bearing to indoctrination. Remember that? Oh my gosh. Controversy

We're not going to go over them now, but we know it. We can go over them if anybody wishes to have

that discussion. Right. But we've gone over it over and over and over again. What was wrong? What was wrong? The majority of what was wrong and some things that were right. But the majority was wrong. Everything that they did lock you down. I think the fact that COVID was a virus was the

“only thing they had. The only thing they had right. It's their garden start, clear for the”

garden. By action, quality and the need for the price. So, for example, a gardener in the 40 cm or 70 cm. Or a gardener in a garden town, it's only 70 cm. And here we have all the garden products in our period and in the action app. Action, small prices, great. Hey there. I'm Paula Pan. I help people make the smartest money decisions possible. Do not ever worry about your salary. You need enough to make sure that you don't in a bad financial position. Once you have that, your salary becomes

moot. What matters from that point forward? Upside games. Any type of ownership stake or ownership

“potential. That's the money. Remember, you can afford anything. Just not everything.”

afford anything. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. No, but everything else. But you couldn't have a conversation anywhere about the lab leak theory. No. And on the left in the pop culture world, who kicked that door open? John Stewart of all people on his buddy Colbert's show of all places. And then from there, Elon Musk buying Twitter, changed the game is still changing the game. And I'm thinking to myself without that because there are a lot of things,

you know, the Jamie Diamond cut from yesterday. It was all over X. You know, that was, and it was on Fox and friends. Typically, that would make the other financial media groups, which many of them,

“by the way, are liberal. I think Fox business is the only one that's not. Well, you guys, you”

and I was liberal. You and I always talked about how can socialist be covering Wall Street?

It's weird. We always think goodness, you know, there, Maria Bartromo and others who understand the principles behind economics are now in a place where they can talk about it, but at CMDC, it's a liberal game all together. The point is, and I know that sometimes media groups don't want to promote what's going on on the other media, but if they get it wrong, you know, for Jamie Diamond to say that, people are voting with their feet. It's a big deal. Liberals in liberal

activists in the media don't want anybody else to hear that. And so there were, it was limited basically

to social media because I was doing searches for the story. I saw the story. It came from Fox News, but the liberal activist media didn't want to be a part of that. You know, it's and I don't know where, you know, where you draw this, where there's a line I guess to be drawn. It's, it's just, the activism is nonstop. And it, they will shut you down to the point that if you're the parents that believe therapy could be good for your child,

that they made a law that said, and this is conversation therapy, talking to someone, talking to a medical professional. You can't have that conversation. Yeah. That, this, this is, of course, to be coupled with all of the other laws that these states are fighting to enact, these are, they are fighting for children to be able to mutilate themselves. They are fighting for parents to not have any say so in their children's lives. And if they do, and everybody agrees to talk

to a therapist, you can't do that. That is absolutely, well, look at all the medical associations

been doing this. We probably shouldn't have been doing this. Right. Well, as you said for years,

the lawsuits are going to change everything. Yeah. And the AMA, the American Medical Association actually came out. It was that same week. It was the day or two after that settlement that one suit came out and, or ended. And it was, you're going to see that more and more. I don't know how much was, I have to believe the lawsuit was a driver for the AMA. But at some point, and we've been saying it for a long time, the medical community has a massive problem here, and it goes beyond

the financial liability. This is absolutely tragic that anybody would perform irreversible

“surgery on a child. Well, based on here's the thing I think the Supreme Court also looked at.”

None of this has settled science. Right. None of it settled science at all. It's not always

settled for the individual in terms of the choice, which is why, which is why here when it said, even if the child and the parent consent and say, we want help, because my child is having this thoughts. My son is having this thought that he's a female and he doesn't like it and he wishes to talk to you about it. The only people that he can talk to are the people that say, no, if you have this thought, then you're right, you are a female. You can't have the opposite opinion in. There's no

“science. No, there. It's all opinion. And it's just not saying. Yeah. But understand, you know,”

and when you when we look at, again, with with with COVID, which the doctors, we want to vibrant debate, especially on a virus that was new. So we, we knew, like in anything in medicine, what you think initially might not be right. The ability to discuss that and the argument back was

basically, no, we need to go with this because the people are stupid and we've decided this is the

best way to go. Right. Yeah. That's not science. No. And what you've got to the point here is we will, in Colorado, if you speak on something that disagrees with the narrative, the opinion,

“the commentary of something where there is no settled science on it whatsoever, if you don't”

agree with the state and our opinion, well, we'll destroy you financially and we'll destroy your career. Yeah. When you have so to my or and Kagan come out and go, no, and then they went, then they went after Justice Jackson after she went after them. Right. They said, my God, there is this is such clear. If you can't see this is such clear freedom of speech, but then again, as we know, don't criticize Justice Jackson too hard. She has no idea what a woman is. Well, think about

it. Right. Exactly. Go back to our Senate confirmation hearing and they all all of that. And and we said, she's disqualified because either she's lying or she doesn't know what a woman is. Can't define a woman. But this is, think about this. Fighting for irreversible treatment, fighting against conversations. Conversations. Yeah. That's right. This is, this is only the therapy of, of talking a great point, having a conversation, which is not irreversible,

you don't know what the outcome is going to be for that person or the person who wants to transition, as a child or later as an adult. But it's not irreversible. There's nothing in that moment or series of therapy sessions that is irreversible. But they're fighting for the irreversible and what the parents out of the picture in situations like that, you don't get to make the decision, we will consider that to be child abuse. That's the thought behind that on the left.

We'll consider that if you don't agree with your child having this irreversible

there's no way, which, of course, again, is not irreversible or is reversible. You can

have the conversation all day. You're not administering any kind of procedure or hormones or anything else. And that was pointed out to illustrate the total absurdity of Justice Jackson she ruled last year that states do not have the right to ban child sex changes. But ruled today that states do have the right to ban counselors from telling boys that they are not girls. Really what you said. Yeah. And that's, again, this is what the left is fighting for. Yeah.

To the point where it was like, you don't even understand the law. Yeah.

You don't even know. Well, this is a clear violation. This is clear. Long standing as she,

I think she used it with long standing law on speech. Yes. You don't even know what she doesn't care. She doesn't care. I think that, uh, I think it was the battle on B. That had a good, that had the great headline. Let me see if I could find it real quick here. It was pretty funny. Yeah. Justice Jackson, how can a law be unconstitutional if I like it? Ha ha ha ha. No, that's it. That's it. It is about preferences to about a gender. Yep.

We are Red Eye Radio brought to you by FPPF fuel power max surviving and thriving as an owner operator has just as much to do with managing costs as it does with generating revenue.

“Like the chief financial officer of any company, you have to be concerned about rising costs,”

especially without increases in revenue. Trying to reduce costs, let alone make sense of them can be a complicated task. Understanding basic principles of operating costs can save you thousands of dollars a year. A penny saved could be $1,000 earned. Saving just one penny from mile over 100,000 miles driven annually will deliver $1,000 to the bottom line at the end of the year. Owner operator business 101 is provided by overdrive

partners in business program. Go to overdriveonly.com to the partners in business section of the website for more details on this and many other topics brought to you by Shell Rotella with advanced synthetic technology is designed to help keep your rig running with more mileage and less maintenance. [Music] We are when I radio. He is there currently and I'm Gary McNamara. Welcome in good morning.

All right, the president going to speak prime time audience and all the networks about a ran. Here's Scott Jennings previewing what he thinks will be talked about on CNN last night.

“I think tomorrow night, based on what I'm hearing, we're going to get a couple of things from the”

president probably a recitation of how he sees the last four or five weeks. The military successes we've had. The fact that we've obliterated their navy, we've obliterated most of their missile and drone capacity and the fact that we did take out the previous regime and now we're talking to new people that I think the president and the administration believe are somewhat more willing to have a reasonable conversation. I also believe we're probably going to hear how he sees the next

two to three weeks and when we will wrap up what he sees is our military objectives. And hopefully bring our large scale operations to a conclusion in a way that meets all the objectives. The nuclear stuff, the missiles, the navy, the exporting of terror and also leaves us in a position on the nuclear piece to know that not only have we taken away their ability to do it,

“but they won't be developing any further. That's what I want to hear and I hope that's what he's”

able to say. Yeah. Yeah, I mean everything seems to be pointed at the taking their enriched uranium.

Their ability, their final basically whatever is left of their nuclear program and that would be

the heart of it without the enriched uranium they'll get nowhere. And if that is the case then all right the war effort is over. You watch if you can get the straight-of-war moves straightened and and worked that out by the way the UAE has said they are willing to jump in.

brand and they say we're willing to jump in to make sure that everything is flowing in the straight. So

“we may see this settled within a couple of weeks.”

Catch Redi Radio live every night on the Redi Radio app available in the app store. Red, I radio. And he is here crawling and I'm hearing McNamara. Download our Redi Radio app today listen when you choose. And thank you. Yes. All right. So let's get to it. Supreme Court today

you see Trump may sit in. I didn't know this. I saw they actually have a chair where the president

can sit if he wishes to view what goes on in the Supreme Court. I wasn't aware of that. I wasn't

“either. I saw that in social media yesterday so it must be true. Yeah as long as he's in that”

show. Thank you. I am checked. You guys were wrong on territory. I am checked. You people. But everybody knows on birthright citizenship. Yeah number one it's bad policy.

Yeah. Okay. It's a bad policy. I'm against birthright citizenship. But is it constitutional

would be the next question? Right. What is the interpretation of here of? And we all get to the we all get to the the 14th Amendment and when it was enacted, one thing that people don't know

“is that it wasn't until I believe let me just get the date here. You know we had no immigration laws”

here till 1875. You can come over from another country and just settle here. Wow. Yeah. So immigration laws did not happen. And so we you know get to the you know to the the the the 14th Amendment and the original meaning of the 14th Amendment. I'm reading the Wall Street Journal. They've a long said no no no it's obvious that that was the intent of it. That the intent was that anybody could be in the country. And if you were born here you were a citizen. I don't read it that way at all.

And a couple of things. This was let me see. This is from an op-ed piece that going against with the Wall Street Journal was was was sane from is let me just get his name here. Randy Barnett who is I got so many papers are faculty director of Georgetown Center for the Constitution and co-author of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment. Okay. And he writes that the clause 14th Amendment grand citizenship to persons who meet two conditions.

Birth in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. The dispute is over the meaning of the latter term as we know. Right. That's yeah. What does that mean? Exactly. Everyone on both sides. He points out agrees that it excludes at least three classes children of diplomats, soldiers, some in invading army and American Indians maintaining tribal authority over everything. Right. That was original meaning of it. Right. In each of these

categories the status of the child depended on the status of the parent. The constitutional debate is about the original concept embodied in the text that explains these exclusions and whether that concept embraces or excludes children born on U.S. soil to parents who are unlawfully

Before Mr. Trump's executive order, what originalist scholarship existed on the original

meaning was subject to the jurisdiction was sporadic and lightly tested at all. This past year has produced an explosion of originalist scholarship on both sides. The justices are now in a good position to decide which side has presented the stronger originalist case, which means this isn't what the founding fathers thought. It was what was the thought at that time,

“for example, at the 14th Amendment and also the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That's what you”

have to look at both of those. They say, "Curt Lash of the University of Richmond has examined

the congressional debates over the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that act declared that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are citizens." The 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize not alter the Civil Rights Act. That was the originalist intent of the 14th Amendment was to look at the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize not alter that Civil Rights Act. Congress

reenacted the same language after the 14th Amendment was adopted, suggesting an identical operation,

but the draftors of the 14th Amendment saw a need for constitutional language that more clearly excluded the children of tribal Indians. Senator Lyman Trumball, who managed the citizenship clause in the upper chamber explained, subject to the jurisdiction meant not only an allegiance to anybody else, whether to a tribe or a foreign power. Senator Representative John Bingham of Ohio, this is way back then, moved was the moving force behind the 14th Amendment, used the same

framework referring after ratification to persons born in the United States and not only allegiance to any foreign power, that's a quote. The statements and others' Mr. lashes identified demonstrate how leading Republicans explained the concept the text was meant to capture birth plus full political membership in the United States. Opponents of this interpretation rely heavily on the statement by Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, also a Republican, that the clause would include every other

class of persons beside children's of diplomats in isolation, Howard statement does support the challengers understanding, but it cannot be taken literally, otherwise it would have to include tribal Indians. That right there, I looked at that and went, I don't, I have not seen an argument as I've been looking at this the last week and when we've talked, you know, done research

“on it before, I can't find an argument that beats that legally. This is beyond whether I think”

it's good policy or not, I think it's bad policy, but the fact that I believe it's bad policy for illegal immigrants, children to be, and I understand that people go with somebody's been here illegally 20 years or 10 years and has a child and they're good citizens or whatever, I understand people's emotion there. It's still bad policy to do it, I believe, but that's not what's being discussed. It's not whether you have sympathy for somebody who's been here a long time or whether

I believe it's bad policy, that doesn't matter. The Constitution you look at and say, what was the original intent of the law from Congress, which was the 14th Amendment and then the excuse me, the Civil Rights Act and then the 14th Amendment, what was it based on, what was the

“thought process at the time and because it excluded tribal Indians, that's the key.”

Yeah, right. Because that's where you can still be in this country, but if you owe your allegiance to the tribe, you're not a citizen. Right. So if you're not a citizen of the United

at that point back then, that's literally the Civil Rights Act, you know, the parents' allegiance

if they're illegal, they have not pledged allegiance to the United States at that point. I don't know of a legal argument that beats that. If someone has it, if someone has it sent into me because, you know, I want to see what that legal argument is, I have not seen one that beats it. Very interesting. You know, I was watching after the death of Chuck Norris on my YouTube, some Chuck Norris Bruce Lee clips came up and so Bruce Lee keeps popping up in my YouTube and I was

watching a couple of clips and a lot of people may not know. He was a U.S. citizen, he was born in San Francisco

and his parents timed it that way. His father was an entertainer and when his mother was close

to giving birth, his father brought his mother along hoping that she would give birth in the U.S. And that's exactly what happened. And you look at those, the dynamics of birthright citizenship and you break it down and it would be the question of, all right, should it be just automatic? I'm with you on this and I believe no. It shouldn't. And I do understand the emotion that people who come here, they work here for

however many years and they're not committing any other crime, they have a child or two,

“and they want them to be citizens. But that's why I've said that opinion and our opinion that”

it's bad policy means nothing in judging whether it's what was your original intent when it was written and I can't see an argument that beats at the original intent was not to allow illegal immigrants. Somebody who has not pledged allegiance to the United States that aren't a part of the political system, which is you pledged allegiance, you become a citizen at that point. Your allegiance is elsewhere and by looking at how they treated, you know, how they looked at tribal Indians who could not

become citizens because of what their parents' loyalty was, that's the slam dunk legally on because both sides are looking at, that's what this debate is on both sides. What was your originalist intent of it? Not the originalist intent of the founding fathers. But once we got

“to a point, and again, remember, we didn't have, there were no immigration laws. You could come”

from elsewhere and just come here and settle in the United States for significant period of time, you know, in this country. But what was your originalist intent of, it didn't mean you were citizen necessarily, if you came over here. But what was the original intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then the 14th Amendment afterwards? What was it based on? I don't see the argument on the other side. It hasn't been made clear to me that argument that I read the other day

is the best argument so far. Yeah, I don't know how to argue against that. Neither do I. Yeah, I just, I don't, I don't see it because then you're contradicting yourself. Right. Legally that is. Yeah. Right. And we've talked about this many times. I may have an opinion on something. My opinion means nothing. And then the opinion on the other side means nothing,

“either it was your originalist intent. And both sides are saying what was your originalist intent?”

That's actually the argument going on here. Yeah. Exactly. What was your originalist intent? So it's going to be exactly. This is about interpretation. I can't wait to read Scota's blog. Oh, this, oh, this is going to get you know, just comes down tomorrow afternoon. Yeah. I mean, when they when Amy how just analyzes, you know, what the questions are. Right. Yeah, because we won't hear what we won't hear a decision on this. What? Probably

June. June. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Oh, by the way, we're in April. Hey,

happy April first. April full day. Well, I didn't even think about it.

Gary McNamara and Eric Carley. It's Red Eye Radio.

“We are when I radio. He's our Crony and I'm Gary McNamara. Well, I just learned a new word.”

Yeah. What's that? Reading here from believe it or not, rolling stone.

Christy gnome responds to husband's quote, "bimbo vacation" end of quote, fetish photos.

“Well, bimbo vacation. Bimbo vacation. Bimbo vacation. Yes. Yeah. The former Homeland”

Security Secretary as Repairs, following the revelation that her husband engaged in

Bimbo vacation content. Now, the New York Post, of course, had pictures.

“And I'm just going to say to the New York Post, I didn't need to see.”

But those pictures will go a long way and possibly, you know, the worst case or something. It's, yep. You can't deny how the pictures are there. You can't deny what's happening and then the pain is stopped. No, no, no. I don't want to say it. Yeah, exactly. This pain is so deep that they just understand. The egalab studio, job or to stop. Christ, I don't want to say it. You don't want to say it. Save. With this pain.

You can't. You can't. If you're in the middle of the house. And if you're in the middle of the house. You can't. We're in the world that you're out there. Because the credit is just like that. Or you're still going to get your credit on your own. Also my credit is just online.