Trump goes to WAR with SCOTUS and Imposes Brand New Tariffs!
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
174.18692
Summary
The Supreme Court strikes down President Trump's tariffs on China in a 6-3 ruling. What does this mean for the future of the case and what does it mean for our economy? What will happen to the money that has been collected so far? And what will the Supreme Court do about it?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
We do. We've got a very fractured opinion, but initially what it says, we know it's authored
00:00:08.100
the primary opinion by the chief justice and says essentially that this IEPA, this law
00:00:13.420
that grants the president emergency powers did not, it looks like by this first blush
00:00:18.360
reading by justice, the chief justice here, does not give him the power to levy these
00:00:25.560
tariffs that he's levied. Part of this initial opinion says the words regulate an importation.
00:00:31.620
The president says that gives him the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any
00:00:36.320
country, any product, any rate, any time. These words, it says, cannot bear such weight.
00:00:41.420
We know we've got a dissent by Justice Kavanaugh, by Thomas and Alito, it looks like. And those
00:00:46.040
were the three we thought during the arguments, if anyone would be persuaded to allow the president
00:00:50.920
to move forward with these tariffs, they would be the ones to do it. So at first blush, like
00:00:55.140
I said, there are multiple parts and concurrences to this opinion, but it looks like what the
00:00:59.440
primary holding is going to be is that these tariffs cannot be used in the way that the
00:01:04.060
president had tried to use them. Let me get, get you to the closing paragraph that we have
00:01:09.480
in this initial opinion here. It says the president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally
00:01:14.900
impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope in light of the breadth, history and
00:01:19.960
constitutional context of that asserted authority. He must identify clear congressional
00:01:24.760
authorization to exercise it. Meaning if he wants to do it, he's got to show that Congress
00:01:29.360
has allowed him to do it. But they say IEPA, this emergency powers law contains no reference
00:01:34.640
to tariffs or duties. The government points to no statute and was Congress use the word
00:01:39.960
regulate to authorize taxation. And until now, no president has ever read IEPA to confer such
00:01:45.620
powers. We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs, but we claim only
00:01:50.860
as we must the limited role assigned to us by article three of the constitution, fulfilling
00:01:56.540
that role. We hold that IEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. We'll keep reading.
00:02:03.140
That is the first blush authored by the chief justice, John Roberts.
00:02:06.720
There you have it, folks. Welcome to The Great America Show. Happy Friday. Thank you so much for
00:02:11.380
spending your Friday with us here on The Great America Show. We know, as always, there's so many
00:02:15.480
places for you guys to go, so we appreciate you spending it here with us on The Great America Show.
00:02:20.440
What you heard right there was a rebuke from the Supreme Court today, which we sort of expected,
00:02:25.240
according to all the prediction markets, they had it at about 70 to 90, depending on the time in the last
00:02:30.140
few months, 70 to 90 percent chance that the Supreme Court was going to rule against President Trump in this
00:02:35.380
IEPA ruling, 6-3 decision, conservative justices, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh siding with President
00:02:43.260
Trump, whereas the disgraced John Roberts, Coney Barrett has been the most underwhelming person,
00:02:49.380
and Gorsuch has been pretty reasonably good siding with the Marxist Dems and the liberals in this case.
00:02:58.340
Now, in May, the Court of International Trade in New York said that President Trump had exceeded his
00:03:03.180
authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economics Power Act, also known as IEPA, of 1977.
00:03:11.320
The order back then halted President Trump's 30 percent tariff on China, 25 percent tariff on some goods
00:03:16.560
imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10 percent universal tariffs on most goods going into the United States.
00:03:23.400
Now, in just a few moments, we're going to be joined by Professor William Jacobson,
00:03:27.820
Professor Cornell Law, to get his take on where President Trump goes from here.
00:03:34.960
Can he fight them further past the Supreme Court?
00:03:40.020
And more importantly, what it means for the money that's already been collected so far,
00:03:46.380
which President Trump himself is questioning, how this thing is going to play out.
00:03:56.220
And what they do, they don't even talk about that.
00:03:59.840
That was the first question I asked also to make you feel good.
00:04:02.880
I said, what about all the money that we've taken in?
00:04:10.200
What you're saying is, are you saying that you don't plan to honor refunds for companies that file for them?
00:04:19.180
We'll end up being in court for the next five years.
00:04:24.920
It's President Trump asking the questions that we all want to know.
00:04:28.220
Will this money have to be paid back in some form or another?
00:04:31.580
And that question was actually brought up in the Supreme Court to which Brett Kavanaugh had spoken about.
00:04:37.880
And we're going to take this up, like I said, with Professor William Jacobson to get the legality of it all to find out where this goes and what's going to happen.
00:04:45.640
But President Trump not seemingly caring what the Supreme Court had to say about this, just as Joe Biden didn't care about what the Supreme Court had to say when it came to student loan forgiveness.
00:04:56.260
President Trump today adding on an additional 10 percent tariff universally.
00:05:01.580
Under the various tariffs authorities, so we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed.
00:05:15.520
Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs, they're existing, they're there, remain in place, fully in place.
00:05:32.320
And in full force and effect today, I will sign in order to impose a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.
00:05:46.040
And we're also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.
00:06:03.420
And I say quite simply, which I've said for a long time, make America great again.
00:06:10.020
And interestingly, we've already made it great, so I don't have to use that.
00:06:19.260
So President Trump ostensibly telling the Supreme Court, go to hell.
00:06:25.380
This is my right as president of the United States.
00:06:27.980
And I want to ask Professor William Jacobson, when he joins us in just a few moments, the legality of that, because we saw Joe Biden tell the Supreme Court to go to hell when they came back and said, listen, you can't do this student loan forgiveness that you think you're going to do.
00:06:46.900
And the funny thing is, is was this was the actual like the reverse, whereas Joe Biden was spending the nation's money.
00:06:54.400
You had President Trump bringing money into this country to which I mean, it makes America look like a total laughingstock on the world stage.
00:07:02.960
You've got these foreign countries who we've charged tariffs to laughing in our face, saying, you know, you couldn't do it.
00:07:14.020
So that's what ostensibly the Supreme Court did today.
00:07:18.780
A big smack in the face of America, a smack in the face of all Americans.
00:07:23.220
But President Trump warned of this months ago, warned what was going to happen should the Supreme Court decide to come down and do this is lost for our country.
00:07:33.420
Our country will be weak, pathetic and not not rich.
00:07:37.400
It will be, you know, I put us in a position, even negotiating, I negotiated seven peace deals because I was able to use tariffs without tariffs.
00:07:48.360
Many of those deals, half of those deals I wouldn't have been able to do.
00:07:56.720
And it's the same exact thing that they've done to us for 30 years.
00:08:01.220
If that decision would be lost, it would be an economic disaster for the United States.
00:08:12.900
If we lose that decision, we'll be one of the very poor countries.
00:08:17.480
So, like I said, it doesn't matter, I guess, what the Supreme Court thought was going to happen.
00:08:23.960
This is the route that the Supreme Court decided to take.
00:08:26.740
Now, in other news, folks, because we're going to try to keep it a little bit light here.
00:08:31.220
On this beautiful Friday in America, President Trump, he's got some news for us.
00:08:39.600
President Trump posting this on Truth Social the other day, or last night, rather.
00:08:44.420
Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War and other relevant departments and agencies to begin the process of identifying and releasing government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life,
00:08:55.280
unidentified aerial phenomenons, UAPs, and unidentified flying objects, UFOs, more commonly known,
00:09:02.520
and any other information connected to these highly complex but extremely interesting, important matters.
00:09:10.860
So, we're going to find out soon, folks, if aliens are true or aliens are just a myth.
00:09:17.840
Now, as promised, folks, our guest today is Professor William Jacobson, a professor at law at Cornell Law School, a great American, and a brilliant legal scholar.
00:09:28.660
Professor, it's great to have you back with us here on The Great America Show.
00:09:33.580
The big news of the day, the Supreme Court, which we sort of expected this to happen,
00:09:38.680
punching down on President Trump and his tariffs, sort of embarrassing to me under the IEPA Act,
00:09:44.580
sort of embarrassing to me that we have a Supreme Court that came back and did this while all the other nations are laughing at us,
00:09:51.600
saying President Trump essentially can't do his job.
00:09:53.880
But President Trump doubled down and said, yeah, that's fine.
00:09:56.060
I'm adding another 10 percent tariff on top of it all.
00:10:03.900
Well, you know, the new tariffs that he's imposed and the new authority he's invoking is not quite as broad
00:10:10.220
as what he was using before doesn't give him quite as much flexibility.
00:10:15.680
So I don't think he's, you know, refusing to follow the decision,
00:10:20.840
but he's saying I have alternative ways of getting what I want.
00:10:28.500
I think if you listen to the oral arguments, you didn't know which way this one was going to go.
00:10:33.480
I think that Kavanaugh's dissent was right on, that it makes no sense that you have a president
00:10:40.780
who has the ability under the statute to regulate importation and that everybody agreed during the oral argument.
00:10:48.940
And I don't even think it's contested in the written decisions that the president could cut off trade completely with a country.
00:10:55.380
And Kavanaugh's point is if he can do that, you're telling us he can't do something less than that.
00:11:09.940
Now, the majority addressed that and the majority said this is not a lesser remedy.
00:11:17.040
This is a completely different remedy that's not called for by the statute.
00:11:20.760
So it's not like, OK, he can do 10 or he can do one and this is five.
00:11:27.960
But, you know, Kavanaugh and the two other justices weren't buying that.
00:11:39.120
And, you know, was it as terrible a decision as he said it was?
00:11:43.580
He used some flamboyant language about the justices.
00:11:47.880
I think it could have gone either way, but I certainly think that it was the wrong decision
00:12:02.820
I mean, all of these arguments were known at the time he invoked the statute.
00:12:07.800
So when he invoked it, he knew there was a risk of losing in the Supreme Court.
00:12:14.440
So there's always a risk of losing and I'll put it in air quotes because it's just simply
00:12:19.000
based on, I mean, the man could cure cancer and they would go to the Supreme Court.
00:12:22.700
And I'm sort of being facetious, but I'm really not.
00:12:25.920
They go to the Supreme Court and say he didn't have the he didn't have the power.
00:12:28.260
He didn't invoke the emergency powers to to cure cancer.
00:12:33.740
You'd mentioned Kavanaugh, who, like you said, I think he put it very, very clearly on the statutory
00:12:39.200
authority. He said, quote, in light of the statutory text, longstanding historical practice
00:12:43.760
and relevant Supreme Court precedents, I would conclude that IEPA authorizes the president
00:12:48.540
to regulate important by imposing tariffs on foreign imports during declared national
00:12:58.520
Follows up saying the court's decision today cannot be justified as a matter of statutory
00:13:03.540
Where is the big disconnect there where you've got the conservative justices going over with
00:13:11.060
I mean, I there wasn't a thought in my mind that you were ever going to get Ketanji Brown
00:13:14.800
Jackson or the rest of the Democrats to ever come over on President Trump's side because
00:13:24.120
But where do these three conservative justices, Roberts, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett, how do they
00:13:35.800
And Gorsuch made this overreading of the text in a case, I forget the name of the case, but
00:13:42.800
it was involving whether Title VII, which protects against discrimination on the basis of sex and
00:13:49.540
employment, applies to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
00:13:56.520
And he went into these mental gymnastics about reading the text.
00:14:02.140
That they seem to go through various mental gymnastics to get to this result.
00:14:14.100
And, you know, the point is that the statute lists the things the president can do and tariffs
00:14:22.100
And so, you know, while I disagree with the decision, I agree with Kavanaugh and with Thomas
00:14:29.140
I think their decision is right on target, which is you may hate the result.
00:14:40.480
I mean, the cost of the coffee beans I purchased has gone through the roof because of them.
00:14:54.120
I kind of hearken back with Roberts to the Obamacare decision in 2012, where he went through
00:15:02.000
literally, you know, mental gymnastics to call Obamacare's mandate, individual mandate,
00:15:09.400
part of the taxing authority, even though that really wasn't the argument people were making.
00:15:15.320
And, you know, so he held that it violated the Commerce Clause, but was within Congress's
00:15:21.060
And everybody's like, where'd you get that from?
00:15:23.340
And so I kind of feel, you know, with Gorsuch and Coney Barrett, that maybe they just overread
00:15:32.160
But Roberts, you know, I think, unfortunately, has a history of coming out to what to a decision
00:15:38.860
that he thinks preserves the court's credibility and authority.
00:15:42.960
And in doing that, I think undermines the court's credibility and authority.
00:15:47.040
The truth of the matter is, I mean, the tariffs came from bad policy decisions over the course
00:15:57.440
of the last, I mean, five years, 10 years, 15 years, 26 years of bad policy decisions
00:16:04.500
from former presidents selling out this country to every other country out there.
00:16:09.460
So this is what it boiled down to for President Trump to come in and do this.
00:16:12.560
Obviously, he doesn't want to be sitting at the Supreme Court losing.
00:16:15.540
Obviously, he doesn't want to sit at the Supreme Court.
00:16:17.220
But if you look at our trade deficits now, they're falling like they've never fallen before
00:16:24.520
He had rebates going out to the American people, should these have been withstood.
00:16:28.560
Now we're faced with the question, and this was something the Supreme Court, this is Kavanaugh
00:16:34.160
was dissenting, but this is a question now that the Supreme Court's pretty caught up on.
00:16:38.860
Quote, the United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to the importers
00:16:42.560
who paid the IEPA tariffs, even though some of the importers may have already passed on the
00:16:49.300
As with his knowledge and oral arguments, the refund process is likely to be a mess.
00:16:53.760
President Trump said today that it's going to be caught up in the courts for years.
00:16:56.820
But how do you even litigate something like that?
00:17:00.240
To me, it seems like the Supreme Court has just, no pun intended, written that off.
00:17:06.300
Well, there are going to be consequences, and I don't know how that refund process is going
00:17:11.140
to end up working, because as you indicate, a lot of this has already been passed on to
00:17:16.660
Is a particular importer who passed on the cost, like the coffee beans that I purchased, are
00:17:22.820
they going to write to me and say, hey, you're getting a refund?
00:17:27.840
And so it's going to be a really messy, messy process.
00:17:32.120
And I don't think anybody's going to see much money out of it anytime soon.
00:17:39.080
All the fights over those refunds will probably not be resolved before 2028.
00:17:45.420
You remember back, and you and I have spoken about this before on this show, Joe Biden and
00:17:49.760
his illegal forgiving of student loan forgiveness.
00:17:57.440
And he said, to the hell with you, with the Supreme Court, I don't care what you guys say.
00:18:01.120
I'm forgiving student loans, and you're not going to do anything about it.
00:18:07.120
Who's to say President Trump can't do the same with the Supreme Court and says, Biden did
00:18:13.640
I mean, what Biden did is he found another way to do it.
00:18:19.160
He didn't openly thumb his nose at the court and say, I don't accept your decision.
00:18:27.860
They both said, I'm going to find another way to do it.
00:18:30.740
The problem is the way Biden found a way to do it was just as illegal as the first way.
00:18:35.880
Whereas Trump says, I'm going to, I have legal remedies.
00:18:41.280
You shut one door, but there are other doors that are still open.
00:18:49.640
Whereas with Biden, I think there was a very good argument that he was, in fact, defying
00:18:56.080
So he's now, like you said, and as you had mentioned, these tariffs that were struck down
00:19:03.480
They were only the ones that were struck down under IEPA and the sanctions there.
00:19:07.500
Many of his most significant tariffs were enacted under ordinary trade laws rather than on the
00:19:13.500
under any sort of Emergency Authorities Act, which is why a large number of them will still
00:19:19.840
I think the biggest ones being shot down are the ones he'd done on Canada and Mexico for
00:19:24.660
their failure to, you know, tame the fentanyl that's being sent to this country.
00:19:28.860
Imagine the look that you put that on the Supreme Court.
00:19:32.540
But do you expect now this to go back to the Supreme Court under every other regulatory
00:19:39.580
process that President Trump invokes further tariffs on?
00:19:44.100
I'm sure I don't know if it will get to the Supreme Court, but there will be litigation.
00:19:48.140
I mean, one of the phenomenon of this Trump 2.0 is the onslaught, the absolute carpet bombing
00:19:58.820
And this was part of the plan in November, late November of 2024.
00:20:04.680
The New York Times, of all places, reported how Democrats were organizing to flood the
00:20:11.700
administration with lawfare, with lawsuits over everything, how they'd lined up hundreds
00:20:20.020
I don't think the Supreme Court's going to be inclined to take more tariff cases.
00:20:24.320
One of the things about the Supreme Court is once they decide an issue, they don't like
00:20:31.020
And I will say, while people look, Trump was critical of the Supreme Court and he has
00:20:38.180
He's batting about 90 percent in the Supreme Court.
00:20:42.480
He's been doing historically, like you said, pretty damn well against the high court in the
00:20:49.520
I'd say 100 percent of what he's doing is is legitimate and legal.
00:20:53.440
You got to think, William, President Trump knew he was running, regardless of what he
00:20:58.440
I think he knew he was running from the second that he left the White House.
00:21:01.040
OK, so he and Stephen Miller is one of the smartest people in Washington, D.C., regardless
00:21:09.800
Began working on this stuff the second he left office to make sure it was foolproof.
00:21:20.500
So President Trump now continues to enact tariffs under, you know, different regulatory
00:21:28.960
So let's hypothetically say it doesn't make it back to the Supreme Court.
00:21:32.340
Does that mean he has a pretty damn good chance that everything goes on as usual?
00:21:38.240
I think if he's using other statutes, the answer is yes.
00:21:42.860
I don't think the Supreme Court is going to be inclined to hear more tariff cases unless
00:21:47.340
it's something that is, you know, blatant, that is novel.
00:21:52.200
Remember, this was a novel, what Trump did under this IEPA statute.
00:21:57.400
And so but the other ones, he says, OK, I've got plain vanilla tariffs I can increase and
00:22:04.400
So I don't see this getting back to the Supreme Court.
00:22:12.300
So Jonathan Turley, who I regard you significantly higher than I do Jonathan Turley.
00:22:22.600
And I worked with Jonathan while I was at Fox News, but I regard you significantly higher
00:22:27.580
He had said that this is pretty much just a nothing burger.
00:22:31.080
The market's not really responding to it today too much that President Trump will be able
00:22:39.380
The thing that scares me a little bit is the ruling against this means now we have another
00:22:44.940
big case coming up on the Supreme Court that we could probably expect this year.
00:22:48.980
And it's something that you and I have spoken about.
00:22:51.220
And it's something that scares the heck out of me because it makes a difference of us being
00:22:59.320
able to deport millions of people who are here illegally as opposed to them staying here
00:23:05.820
And I mean, the Republicans could kiss their rear ends goodbye for the rest of history.
00:23:12.360
I mean, I think the birthright citizenship is much more important than the tariffs.
00:23:19.040
And to some extent, presidential power and protecting industry.
00:23:24.420
But the birthright citizenship really goes to who we are as a country.
00:23:29.080
Are we a country where you are automatically a citizen if your mother flies in from wherever,
00:23:37.620
lands at Kennedy Airport or LAX, goes to the hospital, gives birth, flies back, you're all
00:23:51.940
And I think that that will not necessarily lead to more deportations because they're somewhat
00:23:57.280
different issues, but it will change the tenor of how we view ourselves.
00:24:03.460
And I think it's extremely important that we establish that if you are in the country illegally,
00:24:13.040
And that otherwise we're incentivizing what are sometimes referred to as anchor babies or
00:24:26.060
It sets the tone and the backdrop for the larger argument over illegal immigration.
00:24:32.620
So I think it would be extremely important if we establish that you've got to have a more
00:24:37.280
of a connection to the United States than merely passing through in order to have your children
00:24:44.860
And it would really put us back in how the rest of the world does it.
00:24:59.060
How did we get into this situation in the first place?
00:25:07.360
I know it goes back to the times of slavery for the children of slaves who were born here.
00:25:13.320
But how did it progress so badly that it's literally what you said?
00:25:18.320
People drive across the border, plop out a baby and say, all right, welcome to America.
00:25:24.220
And then if you try to deport them, say you're separating us from our children.
00:25:27.380
OK, so it's it's just pernicious in so many ways.
00:25:31.960
You know, it's like that boiling frog metaphor is by the time you get to where we are now,
00:25:39.220
you don't know how you got here, but it's been happening.
00:25:41.780
It's just a series of decisions, series of political narratives.
00:25:47.020
The narrative is that if you're born here, you're automatically a citizen.
00:25:51.740
Doesn't matter how you got here, how your parents got here.
00:25:54.200
And that just became common wisdom, became common narrative.
00:26:08.000
Maybe that's not what the 14th Amendment meant.
00:26:11.480
And there is no case in the Supreme Court, contrary to what people think, that says if you are born here to parents who are illegally in the country, that you are a citizen.
00:26:29.660
I bet if you first of all, if you asked 100 people on the street, most of them would have no idea what you're talking about.
00:26:35.780
But of the ones who did, of the ones who did, I think they would all say, oh, yeah, that's the law.
00:26:44.580
It's never been actually ruled on by the Supreme Court.
00:26:47.200
In the one case they always people always refer to had to do with Chinese immigrants.
00:26:52.340
But they were here as lawful, permanent resident aliens.
00:26:58.220
We're talking about people who are here illegally or people who are merely passing through.
00:27:03.380
And there's a whole industry from China of, you know, birthright tourism where you fly to L.A.
00:27:11.040
and you stay a couple of months and you give birth.
00:27:13.740
And now you're the parent of an American citizen.
00:27:16.320
And from that comes a lot of different benefits.
00:27:22.020
You can name them off health care or schooling or fire or whatever it may be.
00:27:58.020
Bader Ginsburg gave to the Republicans and dying while the Democrats in power.
00:28:03.440
The only thing I'm terrified is President Trump's track record on the Supreme Court justices has been a little bit wishy-washy.
00:28:10.900
Coney Barrett has, I think, sided with the Democrats more than I could have ever expected her.
00:28:18.880
Gorsuch has been the one who's been really damn solid.
00:28:25.220
Yeah, I think, first of all, I hate to see Alito go or Thomas.
00:28:38.140
We don't know what's going to happen even in the Senate elections.
00:28:41.520
I think the presumption is the Republicans will hang on.
00:28:46.200
But this could be a problem sooner than we think.
00:28:48.480
If by some reason, and it's not impossible, it's unlikely but not impossible, the Democrats were to regain control of the Senate, Trump's not going to get any judges through.
00:29:02.180
I think it's a small risk and it's one people may be willing to take.
00:29:10.300
And, you know, I think that he probably is cognizant.
00:29:14.200
And I have to believe that Thomas is thinking of the same thing.
00:29:19.980
How can you not if you're in your late 70s and you're you know that, you know, if a Democrat is elected, you may not be here four years on.
00:29:33.320
And that the liberals are furious at Ginsburg for having done that.
00:29:41.640
And I don't know if there's another Alito out there or if there's another Thomas out there.
00:29:46.400
There are, but he's going to have to fight to get them through.
00:29:53.100
I don't know if it's ever been said before, but Clarence Thomas was a big fan of Luce.
00:30:03.100
I wish Ted Cruz would put his ego aside for presidential aspirations.
00:30:08.040
He's never going to be president of the United States.
00:30:11.660
And it's been reported before that President Trump had offered him a Supreme Court spot.
00:30:17.080
He would be so solid and so good on the Supreme Court.
00:30:20.860
Better than possibly any judge he can go out there and find.
00:30:29.860
Yeah, I think that on the next go around, Trump is going to look more towards the politics of whoever he nominates.
00:30:41.660
And all of the ones he appointed had excellent legal credentials and are smart people, but not certainly political people.
00:30:50.360
And I think he'll do what the Democrats did with Jackson, pure political, you know.
00:30:57.380
And so I think the next nomination is going to be might be somebody like a Ted Cruz who is considered politically reliable.
00:31:05.140
And it should be Ketanji Brown Jackson, I have to say, is probably one of the most embarrassing.
00:31:11.480
Situations I've seen in a long time, whether it be her at the Grammys or I'm not even a lawyer.
00:31:20.340
That's why I bring smart people like you on the show to talk about this.
00:31:23.160
But sitting there listening to her struggle about some of the simplest things is just such an embarrassment to the institution.
00:31:31.960
I mean, you know, she has written, you know, that, you know, she writes dissents that even Sotomayor won't sign on to.
00:31:39.340
OK, so when you've lost Sonia Sotomayor, you know, you're really out there.
00:31:45.740
OK, and there was one I don't know if I talked about it on your show or not, but there was one where Ketanji Brown,
00:31:52.440
Brown Jackson wrote a dissent which was so off the wall that Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, criticizing it.
00:32:02.700
So, yeah, it was a very weak pick, very unfortunate.
00:32:06.180
But they got what they wanted and hopefully they won't get any other picks anytime soon.
00:32:13.400
Professor William Jacobson, you get the last word here.
00:32:15.920
Let them know about your organization and what you're up to these days.
00:32:26.040
But we also have something called the Equal Protection Project, EqualProtect.org, where we have filed over 275 legal challenges to discriminatory DEI programs at universities.
00:32:39.400
So EqualProtect.org is a good place to find us.
00:32:43.820
Professor William Jacobson, always a delight to talk to you.
00:32:48.680
Thanks, everybody, for being with us today here on The Great America Show.
00:32:51.260
I hope you all have a great weekend, a blessed weekend with your loved ones, with your friends, with your family.