06-30-26 Part One - My Vote Is In The Mail

"The absolute macht is the price."

“"Your Reich will be unbezzling what is a Reneer."”

"Stream, the new Staffel, House of the Dragon, at 22nd June, with wow." "Fruity, from which Staffel 1 and 2 of your friends are serious." "And another highlight."

"It's not a second question, I'll give you the money for it."

"Bring home, for the best price." "Now at 2 or 8 90 months." "Gear of Worte for the E." "Streaming" was also not so "wow." "Now, it's Red Eye Radio, Gary McNamara, and Eric Hurley talk about everything from

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." "All across America, we are runnin' radio, he is here, Carly, and I'm Gary McNamara. Good morning." "Hello." "My mind is toast.

Is it?" "Yeah, just going over all the legal stuff of all the Supreme Court decisions yesterday." "You know what? The hardest thing is to read all these decisions and the analysis on it, and then be able to explain it in layman's terms, that is the hardest thing.

I will say this though. The Babylon B, and this is on the male imbalance. The Babylon B, when I saw it, I mean, I just burst out laughing, it was the best headline ever. And this is where the majority led by Justice Barrett, you know, upheld the law where you

can where if the ballot is post-marked, is post-marked and comes in within five days. "Right. It's got to be post-marked by election day." "By election day, that that is okay, and the headline of the Babylon B, woman rules it's okay to be late."

And then it's got a picture of her just kind of, and it looks like she's making the argument because of the headline, you know, that is, "Hey, it's okay to be late." "Yeah." You know, that's the one thing about the end of June. The end of Scottish decision season is that, you know, a lot of the big cases come across.

But it's never been the case at the end of June, you know, basically we wind up this

week that I look back and go. I would love to go and sit down with each and every one of them, not so much the liberal justices, but Barrett or Roberts, Roberts on a few things over the years, and just sit

“down with them, and then because I'm wondering about anything like in the hallways, right?”

And because it would be hard for me to be a Supreme Court judge, mainly because I'm highly unqualified, but also because I would want to sit down and talk to other justices who might be and going through their opinion, if they're differing from me going, what the hell would you think? You know, it'd be hard for me to go, you know, in Scalia had a great relationship with

I'm just blanking on her name, the leftist judge, and that's something that they really talked about, you know, a lot, that personally they could sit and get along, and I think that's the way to do it, that's if you have a debate and sit and talk about it, right?

I have friends I have debates with all the time and it never gets out of hand, they're

not angry, if, you know, if they disagree, by the way, I mean, yeah, yeah, they're against yes, RBG, yeah, so they're called RBG, the OG RBG, and they would sit and have meaningful conversations and sometimes that had nothing to do with cases, quite often, and they were great friends. I, when decision week, well, I call it decision week, I mean, they've been making decisions,

but when the final week of decisions comes down, I always get into this mode, is there

it, you know, on this, and all of that plays out the way it's supposed to play out, not going to work the way that, that Eric's little mind works, but I just, I kind of work

“that way, and I think to myself, well, again, Roberts on the Affordable Care Act, on”

Obamacare, you know, that one is really sticks at the top, it's kind of pinned to the top of the list. Like, what do you think? Well, here in, in the case, and get specific on,

on these cases with the election day case, first, you know, I saw some analogies going

back to, to 2020, I think it's a, a little bit different. When we called it in 2020, we called what the conservative justices would say, because they give wide latitude to, you know, states being able to have their, their, you know, their own way of holding elections, right, you know, going back to the states' rights. I look at this one just a, a little bit different. I think that the descent is, is probably right. Yeah. And I believe that

the descent is, is right on this, because the, and I think a little brought it out, that what about ballot harvesters bringing it in, you know, five days later, what about a hand written postmark. Right. All these things that come in here, what you're doing is you're opening up to the perception of fraud. Now, both sides brought up examples in, in history, you know, for example, the descent brought up the Civil War and said, there was, you weren't a lot

of any type of, you know, late ballots at that particular point. And I tend to agree that the, that the election, everything should be gathered by election day. Yeah. Right. And, you know,

Barrett in the descent basically said, well, the decision is made on election day,

you know, the, as long as the decision is made on election day, which is the postmark,

“that's what counts. And I'm like, no, no, because it's not in your hands. You don't have it yet.”

But if the, if the election bureau does not have the ballot in, in, in hand, then it's not completed at that point. Right. And I tend to agree more with, I believe, how the founding fathers probably viewed this, and that's where I disagreed. That's, that's where I disagreed with it. And it just opens up, I just, the perception of fraud is just as bad as fraud.

Yeah, Alito wrote about that. And, and as opinion, basically talking about undermining the

competence, you know, that, that, that voters would have in the system. This would further undermine that, that competence level. I'm paraphrasing here in, in the system. And that's true because it again keeps open possibilities for fraud. And if you don't have it in, if it's not in, if it's not received, then it shouldn't be counted because there are ways to manipulate. Still, that's the case. And, you know, they come back with the majority came back with,

basically, well, you know, we can't add language to the law. Yeah, but you can interpret the law. And there is a difference. You know, there was a difference when Chief Justice Roberts on the Affordable Care Act, you know, said, well, now it's not a penalty. It's a tax. Well, no, then they should have written it that way because they wrote it as a penalty. And a penalty is different than attacks. Yeah, absolutely. It's the behavior. There's different behavior involved.

“Exactly. Between a penalty and a, and a tax. And to me, that's self-evident. And that's why”

that was such a weak case for, you know, for Roberts. And he was in the majority on this one. Right. You know, and they come back and say, well, we can't, you know, I don't know if he wrote that specifically, but it was basically, well, we can't change the language. We can't add language to it. And I thought to myself really, because Chief Roberts did it on the ACA decision. Yeah. So when, so I look at this and, and I, and I think it's wrong, but this goes back again,

Congress can write specific laws and change it. Yes. And, and so what's happening here is if Congress doesn't have the specific law, you have some of the members, which would include

I don't know what all the others. I can't tell you what the liberal wing believes except anything that may increase the possibility of fraud we are for. Right. Yeah. Yeah. But in, in the Barrett case, it's like, well, look, if you don't give specific things of what to do from Congress, we'll defer to what the state wants. If the postmark is by, you know, is, is there by election day,

“and the, the term would be five days, five days afterwards, but does that just hold to that state?”

I'm assuming that just holds to Mississippi on that particular law. It still leaves it wide open for other states to abuse that, to have, you know, partisan ballot harvesters, you know, bring in and, you know, bring in loads of ballots at the last minute. You don't need it. You don't need that you, you've got to have. You know, we, we've talked about a couple of things that really cause civil dissent civil wars, you know, one is a lack of representation. You know, the United

States was basically formed by that. And we, we see the, the left and how they're pushing, not to have,

a Senate, you know, not to have an electoral college to get rid of the separation of, of, of, of powers. And so we know, we know that this push, for example, with voter ID, from the left, that is landslide numbers, even in Democrat circles, to have voter ID. We know the goal. We, it's obvious what the goal of the Democrats is. And that's, let's have potential fraud in the future. Let's have fraud in the future. Right. Because there's no other way to look at it. There's no other way you'd

sit there and say, no, we, you know, we can't do it. I mean, the hilarious thing was as they were talking about, you need ID to get into the, whatever the presidential, um, you know, bomb a presidential center. Okay. Camasots of, uh, from, uh, from a wrinkle in time. Yeah. Yeah. Camasots building that you, that you, that you build, that looks like a, you know, it is perfect though, because it looks like a building that the Soviet Union would have built. Right. Uh, which, by the way, was the whole point of

Camasots in a wrinkle in time. Yeah. You've got to talk in about, uh, Madeline Engel was talking

about that basically the reference was to communism. Looks like it kind of looks like one third of

three mile island too. It's like, they're not keeping things in. They're keeping things out. It looks like. Yeah. So, uh, I, I would, I would agree with the descent. I would just, I agree with the descent on it. I think the, the purpose of election day is for the election bureau to have all ballots

“and everything in by election day. If you want to do, if you want to do early voting, you can do”

early voting. Right. Yeah. Uh, and the last and federal elections, Congress says you can't do it. Yeah. Yeah. But when you look at this here, um, I, I, I, I would agree with the descent that everything should be, you know, a ballot. Well, a ballot's complete if it's postmarked, but you don't have it. Yeah. If the election bureau doesn't have it, then the election isn't done. Well, because, and the potential for fraud exists out there. To me, the words chain of custody

always come into play. And with all due respect to the USPS, it's, it leaves open. Does that mean no

respect. I'm getting. I said, all due respect. Take it any way you want. No. And I did. I took the opposite. I don't know what to do. And what is it? Let's, let's hear from the Supreme Lord on that one. Right. Don't, don't, don't be a slave and tell me what you really mean. I think I just did.

“But here's the thing is, is that again, when you, when you talk about that, it, it is, you know,”

the, because I've always seen it as chain of custody. Fewer moving parts, very limited when it comes to mail-in ballots to begin with. And this is the problem. The left wants more moving parts. I mean, they don't, they don't want ID. The fact that we can't get voter ID done as a laws and nation is just ludicrous. It's absolutely ludicrous. You know, we've got to done in some states,

you know, they want fraud because they lie about the law. They lie about the Georgia law called it,

you know, was a Jim Crow 2.0 and everything took the all-star game out of Atlanta for that. Right. And hurt a huge number of black businesses by doing that. And they're, you know, claim, and it was like the participation was through the roof. Right. They screamed racism and then took it out of an area that would have benefited black owned businesses and put it in another state. And it was, that was their answer to it. And then, and then kind of pretended for a while

that that it didn't happen. You know, because when the results start coming in, you know, it's when they've been, because they've been fighting this voter ID thing. And so in areas where they've implemented voter ID and the results come in, it's like countering exactly what they have been saying would happen. And it's quite the opposite.

“Then they go the opposite direction. We went full circle with, uh, was it worn up in, in Georgia?”

Yeah, exactly. And, and, and he says, you know, I've never,

at one point, because at first, he's against voter ID. Right. Then, I don't even know anyone who's against, in the Democratic Party who's against voter ID. They all are. Yeah. And now he's back against voter ID. You know, as, was there one Democrat in Congress is voted for voter ID? I, as federalman. I was going to say that if it was, it was probably federalman.

I don't know. Has any of those 10 Congress, uh, Congress persons that that have said, when we're not going to be radical socialist? Yeah. And then did, how did they vote on the radical transgender movement? How did they vote on voter ID? I'd like to see. But, but war not has gone complete full circle. Yeah. You know,

“we are Red Eye Radio. Brought to you by Hot Shot Secret. Hi. I'm Jen Numus, a transport safety”

expert at JJ Keller. Compliance safety accountability is the FMCSA safety compliance and enforcement program. It's goal is to hold motor carriers and drivers accountable for highway safety. CSA does this by assessing the safety performance of motor carriers and drivers. Motor carriers are assigned to score. The carriers then grouped with other carriers who have had a similar number of safety events. Carriers scores within the group are then

ranked. Low scores are better. So carriers with the highest scores are those that are most likely to be targeted for intervention by the FMCSA. Interventions range in severity and may include warning letters, roadside, offsite or on-site inspections, civil penalties, or operation out of service orders. This tip was brought to you by JJ Keller and Associates. Visit us at JJ Keller.com. Get in touch with Red Eye Radio, toll-free at 866. Mighty Red Eye.

We are with our radio. Excuse me. He is there only. I'm Gary McNamara. That's doing. Hi, son. I'm the old man. I don't know. We shouldn't say that because sometimes during the fall and winter we do sound like that. We'll take a look at some of the other Supreme Court cases following the bottom of the hour. I was going to start now and I'm going to need more than a couple of minutes to do it.

The split decision on executive power, and this really goes back to these independent agencies

“that Congress has created, whether it's CTC or the Fed, even the Fed, and who do they report to?”

Because really this whole thing that there are independent agencies out there that don't report to anybody,

I've always viewed as unconstitutional. Yes, exactly. You don't get to, and I forgot

what the word is before experts, but it was like when all these are the experts and the experts stay out of the politics. We all know that it's a bunch of horse manure, and so we will get to that plus the civil suit, which really, I was reading Andrew McCarthy on the whole this is the Trump and the civil suit with E. Jean Carroll, and something about the civil law I did not know, and it shocked me a little bit. We'll get to that coming up.

Immer gut, immer günstig, immer vielfältig, kurz gesagt, frische für alle, zum Aldi Preiss, diese Woche, mini Wassermilohn, das Kilo, für nur ein Euro 29, oder nectarinen. Die Einkilo Schale, für nur ein Euro 80, entdecke jetzt viele weitere Angebote in deiner Aldi not filiale, und weiter geht's einfach lauschen und genießen. Hey there, I'm Paula Penn. I help people make the smartest money decisions possible. If you don't control your money,

“it controls you. If you're not in control of your finances, and you have to look outside of”

yourself to live the life that you want, you're not in control of your life. What is it that you actually want? Money should follow the dreams and goals, because sometimes you make the dream and goal the money, and you've overworked yourself, and you've exceeded what you've needed for the actual thing you want. Sometimes we forget, like, what's the actual thing you want? A Ford anything, follow and listen on your favorite platform.

You're listening to Red Eye Radio, from the Relief Backer Studios. And he is there, Corning, and I'm Gary McNamara. Welcome in good morning. Thanks so much for being here this morning. Download our Red Eye Radio app today. You can listen when and where you choose. Just so everybody knows whenever we look at any type of Supreme Court case. The parties that are involved in it, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether it's Trump

doesn't matter whether it's a Democrat, right? We look at the law. We always have.

“And I think anybody who's been a long time listening to the show knows that.”

And so when we make an analysis on the law, it's got nothing to do with Trump. Right, it's got to do with the law. And when I look at the the other Supreme Court case, where they refuse to hear, this is the $5 million suit of the E.G. Carole lawsuit against him, they refuse to hear it. And basically, you know, it's standing that the $5 million suit is okay. And reading here from Andrew MacArthur, because this is the one thing that, because you wondered,

well, what was, what was the legal stuff? And I think he does it in a couple of paragraphs. To be more concrete in Carole's case, her sexual assault allegation was a quarter-sensually old uncoroperated by any physical or eyewitness evidence. There was testimony that she'd given

“fairly contemporaneous accounts of it to a couple of friends, but there was no forensic support.”

She never went to police. And she wasn't even exactly sure what year it happened. She first

described it in a memoir published during Trump's first term decades after the alleged fact. To try to shore up a case that relied almost entirely on her testimony, Carole called as witnesses to other women who claimed they had been sexually assaulted by Trump, though not to the extreme alleged by Carole who claimed to have been raped. A claim the jury did not find proved, though it did appear to find a serious assault involving, at least, digital penetration.

Sorry, we got to let you know. That's the case. The two other alleged victims testimony was emotional and compelling, especially on the heels of another instance of a similar act evidence admitted by Judge Louis Kaplan, a Clinton employee in the infamous Access Hollywood video, which Trump was recorded bragging about being sexually aggressive with women. In many context, a court

would not admit similar act evidence, if it seemed powerful to the point of overwhelming

weak or proof of the formal allegation in the case, which means in the several cases or different than a criminal case, proponderance of evidence in a civil case beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. But in many contexts, the court would not admit similar act evidence, if it seemed powerful to the point of overwhelming weaker proof of a formal allegation in the case. So, in civil court, what they're saying is, if you have, if you have somebody who's suing you for

some reason, but your evidence is in good. If somebody else comes in and says that you committed an act on them, which has more credibility, that the jury can find you guilty of not the incident that has that isn't being adjudicated in civil court, but the case where there isn't enough evidence

him liable, even if it wasn't convinced of Carol's supported account, because it was inflamed

by the similar act evidence, believing that Trump had a propensity to engage in sexual abuse. And they said, but I pointed out the changes in federal law in 1994. This is Andrew McCarthy. The rule of evidence, a generally controlled similar act evidence, and so-called character evidence, was supplemented by a series of rules in the federal law that eased away for admitting such evidence in sexual abuse cases. It included this rule that said, in a civil case involving a claim

up for relief based on a party's alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit

evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation. And then this is

“now one conquestion, the wisdom of the rule. And at that point, that's why I look at it and say,”

that's not, that's not a good law. Why, why instead of just refusing to hear it, the details of why that law is constitutional, even in civil law, because if civil law is a proponderance of the evidence and you're saying that the proponderance of the evidence in that case doesn't matter, but in another case that isn't being adjudicated, it can apply to this case, that that somehow that applies to this case, and we can take all of your money,

sets up for very dangerous territory, and I believe should be viewed as unconstitutional. If you talk about establishing a pattern of behavior by the accused, that's one thing, but it's nothing

“without the evidence specific evidence in that particular case. If you're using the evidence from”

another case to support this one, and there isn't great evidence in this case, I just don't see how that applies. Well, and the other thing that he pointed out, this only applies to sexual assault and other in child molestation. Right. It doesn't apply, you can't use that for any other, any other case. And it's a judge, I would look at that and say, you can't have that. Right. But if it's preponderance of the evidence, and that's the legal

term that you're using, yet the court itself says that you can use other cases that are not being adjudicated to make your point on this case, that has to be, I view that as being unconstitutional. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm not, and again, nothing to do with whether it's Trump or not. Right. But it's that legally, I view that as just a week case. Right. By the way, I've gotten through a few of these cases, and my mind hasn't fried it, because that's, for me, the toughest part is

going through all the legal mumble jumble and saying, okay, how can I explain it on the radio, because it gets to be, I mean, it gets to be quite complicated. What, what, what I just said probably covered, I don't know, 30, 40 different pages of analysis that I saw today.

Well, that's the thing is that you and I are reading from basically lawyers and former prosecutors

who break it down and think goodness, they're out there. Amy, how over it, let's go to this blog, Andrew McCarthy, others who have broken down what the law is. And this is, you know,

“important, because again, do you think about this, this particular case? What is it set up that?”

I mean, the, that 94 law sets up the possibility that again, if someone wanted to frame someone, then their lawyers, their attorneys could come in and use evidence from another case. Again, if it's sexual assault or child model station, that's what it applies to. But imagine what they could do to a person, and in this case, it's a political figure and come in and they could do it to anybody they wanted to, as long as they could back it up with, okay, there's,

but there's evidence of it happening to someone else. Right. Yeah, it's, and, and the other point that that, that, and McCarthy brought up in his, please, a national review is that Trump's biggest mistake was not testifying and presenting no defense, because in a criminal case, the jury is

choice not to testify. In a civil case, the jury is invited to conclude that if the defendant had

“innocent explanation, he would have provided it in testimony. Yeah. So that probably also,”

yeah, heard him for not, from the actual case, but just the overall rule. There are two things. If civil cases are a preponderance of the evidence, yet you're saying the evidence doesn't necessarily matter in that case, because you can bring evidence in, from other cases are not being adjudicated, that's a problem, and having that particular law in federal civil cases just based on two separate crimes and not applying overall to all crimes would be another problem that I would

look at as a judge. Yeah. Yeah, it's, it just doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't. The,

the burden of proof in civil law in civil cases has always been different, but this is

“vastly different when you can bring evidence from another case and use it as evidence here where”

the evidence in this case is lacking. I don't get that at all. Again, if you're talking about establishing behavior, that's one thing, a pattern of behavior, as long as, by my standards, you can also constitute, again, a case here with evidence in that particular case. You know, and I would view the, you know, E. Jean Carole, the fact that she couldn't identify the year, sorry, that would have thrown it out. Yeah, in my opinion, because again, you didn't have any

forensic evidence in it. If it's something, if it, if it, if it, if it, if you're talking about a traumatic experience, experience, there's, there's no way you would ever forget it, right? I don't, I don't know how you would. And, and so like I said, I, I think the, I think the wrong decision was made there, and I think that's a problem constitutionally, whether the Supreme Court wishes to look at the majority wishes to look at that or not. Right. That is, that's a huge problem.

Yeah. Right. Yeah. How it could be used? I don't know. I didn't think of an example in my head, maybe I could come up with one, but you just, you, you can't, I don't believe whether it's civil law or criminal law say that cases outside of it, yeah, that have the stronger evidence,

“then your case can decide your case if it's a weak case. Right. Yeah. No, without, you have to have”

that strong case, and with the exception, again, establishing a pattern of behavior by the accused. If they've got a pattern of behavior and look at the evidence in this case, which is strong, I'm okay with that. Some judges will say, okay, that doesn't apply any pattern of behavior before this doesn't apply here, but in this case, you've got a law that says, with this particular type of crime, that they can use that evidence, even if the evidence is extremely weak in the

current case. Yeah. That's not establishing a pattern of behavior. That's basically saying

once guilty, then always guilty just by saying so. Right. If you had a stronger case for, for, for

Carol, yeah, whatever that would be, more evidence were it's like teeter and man, this is, and then you bring in other witnesses that are just as strong or stronger. Right. You know, and again, what is that point? I don't know, but the fact that you allow that if there's weak evidence, which that case was when it came to evidence, extremely, basically he was, he said, she said, right. Okay. Well, what do we find? Well, we found more. She said over here,

in other cases, therefore, in civil court, you can lose millions of dollars because of it. I, I just view that as unconstitutional. Yeah. I just do. Yeah. We are run I radio. We'll be right back with more run I radio with every currently and Gary McNamara.

We're running with you. He's currently and I'm Gary McNamara. And then we have the, the, the other case,

“the interesting case of the FTC and the Fed and everything else and whether the president can fire”

or not, and this gets into Congress setting up pseudo, pseudo independent agencies. And what did they, what did they call it? It was called the rule by experts that there are some agencies set up by Congress, even though they're a part of the executive branch, that because that it is rule by experts should remain independent from anybody. And the Supreme Court sort of said, no, I don't think so. And even in the Fed case, that isn't saying he can't fire her,

it's saying you've got to go through the process before you fire her. Right. So really, and by the way,

did you, did you notice yesterday some of the headlines? You read that because I woke up. I

“woke up, was doing things around the house, sort of other, you know, fires to put out yesterday.”

And I looked at headlines and I'm like, oh, wow, Trump lost on that. Right. No, all the headlines made it look like fire. Right. Yeah, fire. It's like, no, no, you got to go through the process. But he, but it's like he lost and like, and then I ran like, no, no, that's not, that's, and for people that read headlines, you know, especially at Supreme Court decisions, the, the tribalism to jump on and distort what the Supreme Court says

at times is, yeah, pretty blatant. Yeah. How to be our news is brought to you by how product is at how products.com. This is Red Eye Radio on Westwood One. Now, it's Red Eye Radio, Gary McNamara, and Eric Hurley talk about everything from 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.

All across America, we are Red Eye Radio, and he is Eric Hurley and I'm Gary McNamara. Welcome in good morning. Hello. All right. Thanks for being here. I can't wait till this show's over. Yeah. Why, my mind is much going through all the stuff. I thought we were going to do the old, uh, a Mitch headberg joke because you've been eating a role of lifesavers and the next one is pineapple. Yeah. No, it's, uh, yeah. Let's go this week. You know, the final week, the final

push usually the bigger cases. And that's when the, you know, basically all the analysis comes down. And, you know, it's, for us over the years, it's been about, all right. Yeah. What's, first of all, it was the intent of our founders. But also, what was the intent of a law that was written,

“and the interesting challenges that come about. I think Amy Howard does not get enough credit.”

I think she does a great job at SkodaSpark. And, uh, and deserves all the credit if you're not, you know, SkodaSpark just go, just go to SkodaSpark.com. And, uh, she and the entire team there

do a great job at breaking it down. It's not always plain English, but they do a really good job.

I think the best they can, uh, with, with describing what's, what's going on and, and, and also using parts of the decisions that come down the opinions, uh, in, in their analysis of it. And it's, it's, it's, it's, and it's been our constant forever. And then, of course, we have Andrew McCarthy and all the other, uh, that are very knowledgeable about such things that we're rely on. By the way, I, I look at this as a, uh, the, this particular case, and this would be the

Trump versus slaughter and Trump versus cook, uh, as a, uh, not a, not a, uh, separation of, of, of, of powers, but a separation from authority. Uh, and this is where Congress creates pseudo federal agencies that actually are under the executive branch that they claim because they are ruled by experts that they are not part of, you know, setting policy or involved in, in partisan political functions, because they're independent and experts. Right. And they,

out there, you know, the, whether it's the FTC, you can't have them out there just doing whatever

they want. Yeah, beyond authority. Right. Beyond authority. So if you don't like the performance,

“you can let them go. Right. And that's what he did with slaughter. What I find interesting”

is the, the flip on, on, on cook. Now cook it's because, uh, Trump wanted her, uh, gone because, uh, he claimed that, uh, she was involved in mortgage fraud even though she hasn't been charged with it or whatever. Um, uh, it's not that he can't fire her. It's that they have to go through the process. I saw that yesterday from Bloss, because he can't fire her. No, he can fire her, but it has to be, you've got to go through a particular review process in order to, in order to do that now. Right.

But that being said, the question would be, why? Why is it different? And that's what Roberts could answer. Yeah. As I pointed out, he sidestep that. Why can Congress create, and we've talked about this before, why can Congress create any agency and say, this is too important. It's, you know, it, this, this agency is too important, uh, to be, uh, even though they, they, uh, behave with executive power, they cannot be, they're not under the authority of executive power,

but then who authority, who's authority are they under? Right. If you're putting it as part of the executive branch, you can't say that. And somebody has to be an authority. You can't have agencies that don't report to anybody. Right. Yeah. Um, you know, and in my question would be, all right, then what, what would be the

“process, you know, in terms of the firing cook, you know, basically you have to go through the”

process. Well, what, what would be the process? Because that goes back to authority. You know, now again, if the basis for the firing is allegations against the person that they have done outside of their job, uh, then maybe, I don't know, you could take a look at that and say, all right, they're going to have to, they're going to have to prove that there is that basis there. If that is your only basis, here's the Wall Street Journal. In a five or four decision with the

three liberal justices joining the chief and just as Brett Kavanaugh carved out an exemption to the president's removal authority for the Fed, the majority held that Mr. Trump can't remove

“Lisa Cook, a Biden appointee from the federal board of governors, without first providing notice”

and an opportunity to respond. Uh, but the chief's majority opinion sets a high bar to prove cause without such constraints in place, any perceived or alleged misstep past or present could provide a ready pretext for a governor's removal, a fact that he would surely know and that would surely weigh on him as he decided what to say and how to vote the chief rights saying if you're considered independent agency and you do and you say and do something knowing that it disagrees

with the president, he could fire you. More significant, the five justices went further in held that the Fed has a unique status as an independent agency in the government, owing its role,

owing to its role in monetary policy, the chief sites a tradition of the first and second banks

of the U.S., which Congress charted the chartered in part to regulate the currency. The clearance Thomas points out in the dissent that those banks possessed no sovereign power, while the Fed has vast executive authority to regulate financial institutions, the chief brushes past this inconsistency means doesn't mention it, doesn't argue that point. Yeah. But the decision could prompt legal challenges to fed banking regulations

as I'm sure that it would. Our guess is that the chief and justice cabinet made the pragmatic judgment that they simply don't trust Mr. Trump to run monetary policy.

They're right on politics, but just as Thomas makes a powerful case on the law, and that's the

case. What are you talking about, monetary policy is about regulation and is about a ton of things

and we've said this before, if you get somebody in there, if the president runs the Fed,

“then you don't need the Fed. Wow. Yeah. And so, but but you look at it, you cannot have”

these, and you don't necessarily, there's a process they have to go through, but are they saying he can justify your for cause? He can't fire for disagreement? Why? What gives the Supreme Court the ability to say, well, we believe that this agency, even though it exerts executive behavior, and as part of the executive branch, cannot be completely controlled by the executive branch, where is that written in the Constitution anywhere that an independent agency can exist in the

government outside of the politics because of the rule of experts that these are experts, and therefore you can't touch the experts. There'll be on reproach there'll be on authority. Right. Now I'm willing to admit, you can get a president if the president is in charge of monetary

“policy, and it's just based on politics could do great things and could do damage. But so can the Fed?”

Yes. You know, it was the Fed that ignored inflation. And so to sit there and say the Fed is

in political, and so you can look at this and go, I don't know what the answer is, but the

is the answer? Is there any legal basis for the Supreme Court to say the president can fire anybody in any of these things except the Fed? Why? That question was an answer. Right. Yeah. He has the authority, but not here. Right. Because either, and these are, it falls under either the Fed board falls under the authority or not. You know, the, the, the administration make the point that, well, there's, there's a low bar for cause. I don't know if they were, if

I would need more information on that, but generally speaking, I would agree. Because if that is the authority, then cause for dismissal is a fairly low bar by comparison to what? I don't know. I don't know where they went with that on, you know, on from the administration's argument. I'm not sure. I didn't listen to the arguments completely on this case. But either they have the authority or they don't. And that's where you started with this. It's not about separation of powers. It's about

authority in this case. And so how does it not apply to court? And it's not Congress is, they talked about this, too. I mean, Congress say, okay, let's create this agency and we don't have to bother with it anymore. Right. Congress keeps giving up their authority to do things to the executive branch. And then these independent agencies who are supposed to be the experts who don't report to anyone. Right. No. No. You can't, you know, what is the exact solution? That's for another show.

But it doesn't matter. Well, you know, that Trump could screw it all up. So could Obama. Right. Any of them could. Any of them could, the the the the the the the Fed can. Yeah, you know, the position is transit well, let's put it this way. Mm-hmm. Was it political

for the Fed for a decade when it never has existed as long as I have known to have interest rates

at point 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, whatever it was. Right. Was that a political decision or was that a monetary decision? Right. That should have been outside. Yeah. Where's the basis for that? Right. Well, what was what was the basis, you know, for for for that when my entire life interest rates were not that, you know, not that way to say that the Fed isn't political when we saw what we went through

“an inflation would be to deny, I think the obvious. Right. And then have the the Fed itself to”

die and use words like inflation is transit transitory. Right. Which means they're clearly not doing their job. They clearly didn't see the forces behind the inflation. They did. They pretended not to see them. They wanted you to believe they didn't see the forces behind the inflation.

This has been the concern by many of us of the Fed basically going on check, but there has to be

ruled today. But then again, you can't fire cook yet. You've got to go through the process.

Well, then you're saying there is, you know, because the argument against the administration is that the termining cause or the bar for cause isn't low. It's very high. Well, okay, now I really want to know the compared to what and why the question to me is where is the representative government authority to give these agencies independence, where they don't have to answer to the elected representatives either the president or congress. Right. The congress can

create these agencies where they say, well, we're not over them in the executive branches and over them.

Yeah. So where does the Supreme Court get the authority to say we're going to treat this agency

“different from that agency? Because we feel it's most important. Well, you're not an elected”

representative. You don't make that case. Right. No, I mean, and, you know, we talked about with wars coming in, who said, look, when it's your guy, it may seem like man, but it's kind of goes back to your analogy on draft day. Oh, man, you run in a great quarterback. It's still the fact. There's still going to be decisions that have to be made and you may not get the fed based on where we were at right now. They may not lower rates for the rest of the year. So the point being

is that the fed's going to be the fat and they're still, again, great concern there, but in this particular case, or cases we're talking about authority, who has authority here to make changes at the

“fed. And why is it that there has to be this process of proving cause when it comes to cook or that”

there is a high bar, a higher bar than the FTC on this. So why is that? Right. Where do you get that authority to say that? Right. Or where did you pick in the Constitution that there's a difference between the fed and the FTC and as well as for journal pointed out, robbers just glossed over that. Right. As if, okay, we're not just going to, we're not going to address that. We just let that one go. Total contradiction, but we'll just, yeah, we'll move on. But if you think about robbers over the

years, plenty of contradictions, we are right, I radio. This morning's USDA Farm Report is brought you by house products tested, trusted, guaranteed since 1920. How to keep your law to healthy during extreme heat conditions? Kansas State University Extension City, Adobe Gidi starts with this tip. You can increase the mowing height of your turf grass to increase its tolerance for the dry weather. You also want to make sure that when you are watering,

you water slowly to allow more of the water to be absorbed. With heat impacts on soils, too much water to quickly results in runoff at water waste, running shorter irrigation cycles that will allow the water to absorb into the soil better. Limiting fertilizer applications and periods

“of drought or approaching drought is important in law to guard and care in that. Because with”

more fertilizer, it's going to require more water to support that plant grows that you just promoted. I'm Rod Bane reporting for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. This report brought to you by Senox Fules and Loops. Coming up more with Gary McNamara and Eric Carley, it's Red Eye Radio. Wearing at radio. He's our Carley and I'm Gary McNamara.

Are we done? I don't know yet. Because another thing. And another thing. Roberts was writing about the federal reserve is more

powerful than its predecessors and the whole thing in that monetary policy should not be subject

to political interference. You know, I mean, if you're talking about as a purist, that's one thing. But if you look at the history, of course monetary policy was about whether it comes from

current Fed chair. So, I understand, you know, this idea on monetary policy.

“This go policy is where we're completely, you know, missing the boat. But if you look for”

example, you know, when Jimmy Carter was in office and inflation was crazy, then Reagan got in. Yeah, Volcker got in and completely changed it. Right. I mean, to say that politics doesn't affect where you go. And then interest rates, remember, when up to like 20% in order to, you know, stop the inflation and re-kicks start the economy. So to say that politics isn't involved in it.

Yeah. Sorry. Is to me is is naive. Now, I understand the concern of how much politics

and should one person be able to control the monetary policy. Yes. But that doesn't take away the constitution and on authority, on authority, and accountability, who are accountable to.

“Right. Exactly. Well, nobody. Yeah. Well, you have to be.”

You have to be. It can't be the pentavorist. [Music] Tell your friends. We're here tonightly, Eric Arley, and Gary McNamara, on Riddai Radio. And we are Riddai Radio, and he is our curly and, uh, I'm Gary McNamara. Well, uh, in the Paris of Deputy Mayor, Blames the United States for the heat wave to get to that in just a minute.

For 250 years. Wow. This week, we're celebrating 250 years. Americans have believed in

one powerful idea that we were meant to live free. But a pain is keeping you from enjoying life.

Are you really living completely a free life? Well, I wasn't. I'll tell you that right now, but really factor, they gave me some to try. And it changed all of that. Really, factors a 100%. Drug free research based formula designed to help your body fight inflammation.

“That's right. Drug free. Just 4 key ingredients that go to work to help your body fight”

inflammation. I used to have lower back pain and just aches and pains from aging and running for years. And now with relief factor, I can enjoy my life again. My freedom is back celebrating 250 years of American independence. And they have a special patriotic price. Just 1776 for your three week quick start. That's right. 1776 gets you started on your independence from pain. Relief factor.com or 800. The number four relief. Relief factor.com or 800. Four relief. So there you go,

the Paris deputy mayor, Audrey Pulver released a lengthy statement blaming the United States for the deadly heat wave over France this past week. Okay. All right. I mean, do I have to go any further on that story, really? I don't know. Really, don't do. I know. Not not serious. No. No. Not a not a serious person again. So no. No. This gets back to the whole air conditioning debate, which I thought was fascinating over this past weekend. I mean, it was you had people yelling at each

other on social media, you know, and then you're people from Europe saying, you know, you Americans are our whims, air conditioning. Yeah. Right. You know, I, I did see, I did see one thing. Oh, I said, the heat wave in France has forced its citizens to use deodorant. That could have been the battle on me. I don't know. It may have been. I just stuck in my head. That's just popped into my head there. It may have been. But, you know, this whole silly debate,

it's like, you know, we as a nation have access, and now more than ever have access to plentiful cheap energy. And the left has just made it to where. Nope. We don't want to get it. We don't want to get it. We don't want to get it. And we're coming to that point. This is all coming to a head. Because the EV mandates and everything else, you know, a Biden administration coming in there,

you know, nuclear power, not. I don't know. It's Biden. Well, that might have been nuclear power. That would

provide nooks would provide energy. Well, it would be warm for a few seconds. But, you know, the thing that they, you know, that that we talk about is, this is a series of choices. Where we are, a series of choices, whether it's energy policy or tariffs or whatever it might be. These are, this is a series of choices we make, because I love it that Europeans come here, and so many had great compliments about America. Now they know why we left. Now they get that,

you know, oh, we see why 250 years ago you left. Now, now we know why Prince Harry left.

“But I think he's in Canada. But the problem that will always have is the willful ignorance.”

People not put into and two together. And the blue states, you know, this idea that, oh,

we can be great. We can be great as the, as the billionaires. And non-billionaires, that's at the state, because they can no longer afford to stay. The people who are non-billionaires. And the billionaires can afford to live wherever they want to. And they're ramping up again. And they believe they're gaining energy. And, you know, I guess it depends on, you know, where you want to put that momentum needle. I don't know where it's going to go or where it's going to end. You said years

ago at some point they got a change direction. They're, they're so radical. But they've done nothing but just put the pedal to the floor. Well, when you look at, I think one of the things when you look at what has happened during the, the, the world cup. Oh, by the way, I was surprised. I guess that now in the elimination round, you actually have to win the game. You have, you get like more time. Oh, is it OK? Penalty shots? All right. I mean, I, I don't really know how they, but I did see

one game was tied one one and they went into extra time. So, so that, that would be, that would be good.

Yeah. First off is, you know, first off, Europeans have to understand why we love football.

It's the Huddle. Yeah. It is. It's the Huddle. Yeah. Because there is no other sport. Right.

“We used to sit there and say, OK, what's the strategy now? What the hell do we do now?”

And after after every play, you know, it's like, what's the strategy? What's the strategy? What are we going to do? Right. And, you know, basically it's just like, you know, they're, they're, they're, they're having a meaning to get things to get things settled. We have a conference. Yes. We're, we're very big on conferences here. Yes. So meetings. No, but that's really the, that's the thing I love about football. The thing I love about football is the strategy. OK. You know,

they've got this defense here. What are we going to do here? What are we going to do? And it's not on the fly. Right. You know, it's, again, after every play, they sit and people go, that's boring. Yeah, but there's nothing like a great catch that's made. And when you, when you, when you watch football, and you watch, you know, that how organized it is from the offensive line to the wide

“receivers, to the running back and the number of things that you can do, that's why they meet and”

have the huddle. Yeah. They strategize how we're going to beat this defense. And then you look and OK, is it a four or three or a three, four defense? Oh, they got a nickel back in there. I mean, who's covering, who's going to, who's going to cover the quarterback, who can, who can, who can run? There's so much strategy involved in it. It really is a chess game where you actually, after you make your move, you sit back and go, all right, what's the next move? And I think that's one of

the reasons that Americans just absolutely love football. Right. And for the violence we'd like to see blood. Yeah. We want to see people hitting each other. OK, I've had on. I, I just, I had to say, it's not a violent sport. It's a context. It's a context when people say it's a violent sport. No, it's a context sport. Yeah. But what has come out of it is the, the whole concept of in capitalism abundance, which means choices. And everything that the left does is to take away

choices. Yeah. Bernie Sanders said it to go back to the French and Deodorant. Bernie Bernie Sanders said it a long time ago. He viewed that one of the worst things in America in capitalism is the fact that you go to the Deodorant section and there's 40, I don't know, there's 40 of no idea. There's 40 different choices of Deodorant and there doesn't need to be that it's he believed it was a waste of resources and capital to have so many, you know, so many

cars, I mean, people drive everywhere. It's wonderful. It's wonderful. But you, you have to look at

“scenery through a window. I didn't even know what that meant. It was almost as if I got to find a”

negative here somewhere because of all these choices you have in America who's got to be a negative.

All right. So, so you, you can always walk out of your vehicle. You can stop and get out of the car.

And you can walk on that hiking trail like millions of Americans do. Right. But it's what you're finding out from Europeans is they just can't believe the number of choices America has. And this gets back to when, you know, you look at when you look at the vast majority of Democrats do not want to live here. Right. It shows you how they've been brainwashed. They have no idea how other countries operate. Right. No idea. Yeah. They don't understand the constitute. They don't, the everything is based on

ignorance and rage. You've got to be thinking, think about this. I want to get out of here.

“Let everybody else in. Everybody else wants to come here. But I want to leave.”

You ever think for a moment why people wish to get here? You really wonder when I took that Uber going back about three months ago. Took that, that, that Uber. And I had the, the, the driver from Pakistan who immediately we start talking and I started asking questions all the time because I

become my father, which I never thought I would be, which is talking to every, he used to embarrass me.

My father, we go out. He just meets somebody, get into a long conversation with them. I hate it. Yeah. It's like, don't these people get upset that my father's always talking to them? He just starts a conversation with everybody. And this is in my teenage years. I've become that person. But when he turned to me and we weren't at the destination. Stop. He turned to me. He just looked. He said America is the best country in the world. He's working like three jobs.

Opportunity. That's it. Just having the opportunity to do something. Yeah. Was was unbelievable to him. You know, you've got so many on the left that have no, they've got it. So damn good. They don't even know how damn good they've got it. Oh, no. And yet they want to leave. Yeah. But you think of electric cars. What was the whole concept of electric cars? Take away your

“choices. Yeah. Right. You know, that, that's what it's about. Take, you know, we're, we're going to”

take away the choices that, that, that, that you have. We're going to make things more expensive. That's why we played the other day. And we, we have to, whenever, I'm going to play it because just played it yesterday. I think we played the Obama thing. His goal was to skyrocket a electricity prices. Right. That was it. Right. Then by comparison, that the so-called green energy looks cheap. Right. I mean, you had the delusional, you had the, the, the absolutely delusional

Biden out there until somebody finally got for months. They were saying, well, he's saying,

we can run. We can run the economy on solar and wind. No, you can't. You're an idiot. You're child. Yeah. You're in kindergarten. Yeah. I mean, seriously, you're not arguing. We're not even arguing with adults anymore. And then finally, when you've got somebody, you know, in the Democrat side, and then it happened to be hopeful that said, no, no, no, we got to stop this climate change stuff because electricity is getting just too expensive. And we just can't allow this. And the

Democrats and the legislature came back. And in, in, in their, in, in their talking points, it was, no, it's supposed to raise the price of electricity. Our, our platform is raising the cost of electricity for our citizens. And then you've got mandami, you know, you've got mandami being able to get millions of dollars, millions of dollars from the rest of New York state. Yep. And there you've got a Republican candidate for governor saying we're going to stop

being a sanctuary state. We're going to get back to more fiscal responsibility. We're not going to be taxing people for what New York City wants. He's down by 20 points. Yeah. They want this. They want us societies or all choices that it, that they, because you don't continue to vote that way, they want a society that is repressive that takes away choices that makes people, uh, you know, get locked, step in, in, in, in, in philosophy that forces people to have certain beliefs.

And if you don't have these beliefs, we're going to punish you. Yeah. You see the thing, you see the thing in Fort Worth. Mm-hmm. By the, uh, the, uh, the, the, was that the, the pride, the,

offends, somebody will arrest you, and they said, you can't do that under the Constitution,

“and then the police were sort of like, well, you know, we'll see what we can do. And finally,”

the city of Fort Worth said, we're looking into this entire thing. It's like, no, if there's a protest, you can sit, you can sit at the side of that protest, and you can yell things,

so what they were saying, you said, if I call you a sur, you know, can, can that get me,

can that get me arrested? They said, if it offends somebody and gets you arrested, it's like,

“wow, somebody went long. And, and I'm sitting and thinking, you need to do a little bit more”

training with your police officers for, what the, show me the law. Yeah, whoever that is, because I think probably most police officers know that. Yeah, I think so. Even in Fort Worth, wherever that police officer was, it was like, wow. Yeah. But, I mean, that's the whole thing. We're going to limit you. We don't want you to free them a speech. We don't want you to be able

to protect yourself with the second amendment. Wow. We want you to have less representatives.

You were freedoms. We are right, I radio. Get in touch with what I radio told free at 866. My dear, I. We are in our radio. He's hurt, honey, and I'm Gary McNamara. So, when you see the whole thing about with the Europeans coming over here and just amazed at the abundance, that really fits in perfectly where we are right now, socialistic versus free markets

and capitalism. Yeah. It's exactly what you see because when you have socialism, you automatically have less choices because the government is in control of the capital and they push it where they wish to push it, not with the free market naturally. Right. Right. And it's about opportunity. It's about choices. And watching eyes

“be opened for the first time is always great. I love that. So, but just remember, when the whole”

soccer thing's done, get up. Go home. You're free to come back later, but go home. This is Ridae Radio. On Westwood 1,