Supreme Court rules for logical and plain language | Hour 1

What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to vpeteclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support. Now full disclosure. These opinions were issued at about ten am, so like less than two hours ago, so I've not been able to read through all of the opinions. Now. I believe there were three, three or four that came down. They still have like eight more to go. They have a bunch more. They're gonna drop a bunch more opinions on Monday, I believe at nine thirty or so. So just in case you've been waiting to hear about a particular ruling, the big one is Trump versus Barbara or Barbara, and that's the birthright citizenship case that did not come today, so we will look for that on maybe Monday. That did not come today, but some other cases did come down and to me, are there were Yeah, so I guess four cases. Yeah, four I believe that were dropped today. So let me run through what was ruled upon. The first one is Mullen versus Dough. I thought it might be Doe, but no, like the Department of Energy or something, But no, it's Dough. They're anonymous people. So here are the big To me, these are the big two. Really, I would say ground breaking developments that will probably reorder our entire society going forward. Is that. In case people were not aware, Thank goodness, we have a couple of lawyers with a wardrobe change that have been able to tell us now that arrive means arrive and temporary means temporary. I know, like this could change everything going forward. So the first case is, let me start with the temporary means temporary. This was for Temporary Protected status or TPS. This is in relation to immigration from countries where something terrible has happened. There are refuse gs, fleeing and that sort of thing, and so the administration, whatever the administration, is allowed to offer those people wanting to come to America temporary protected status TPS. Okay, Congress actually created TPS back in nineteen ninety Okay, back when well Democrats were in charge, and so here is from the ruling. The question presented is whether respondents who challenge the termination of TPS for aliens from two countries, Syria and Haiti, are entitled to orders postponing determinations during litigation. Okay. So they're fighting the termination of TPS for Syria and Haiti. Trump administration remove Temporary protected status from those two nations, and people from those two nations sued saying you can't do that, okay. And so while they're being while they're in litigation, they had gotten some lower courts to order that the Trump administration cannot proceed with anything while the litigation occurs. Why would you do that, Well, because the argument you are attempting to make is complete horse hockey. Okay. The argument you're attempting to make is that somehow or another, the administration cannot end TPS. And it can. It's literally in the law. Okay. And so they got lower courts. I'm sure there was no judge shopping or venue shopping that occurred there. But lo and behold, as coincidence would have it, they happened to land in front of some lefty lawyers on the bench who agreed that we can't deport anybody until we finish this litigation, which is you are not going to win, which is what the Supreme Court said today too. So Congress enacted TPS in nineteen ninety to provide short term humanitarian relief for aliens who cannot safely return to their home countries. Although designed to afford temporary relief, which I understand why some people might be confused about whether or not this was supposed to be permanent or temporary what it being called temporary protected status and all. But it was designed to afford temporary relief, although TPS designations in practice have often lasted for decades temporarily. Don't you see. Syria, for example, received a TPS designation in twenty twelve. Twenty twelve, So what fourteen years ago? Why? Due to quote extraordinary and temporary conditions related to the repressive regime of Bashar a la sad Okay, Well, he's not in charge anymore, and he hasn't been in charge for several years now. In September twenty twenty five, the Secretary of Homeland Security provided public notice that Syria's TPS designation would terminate. And then there's Haiti. Haiti got TPS status in twenty ten, so sixteen years ago. After a devastating earthquake in November twenty twenty five, the Secretary of Homeland Security provided public notice that Haiti's TPS designation would also terminate. And so here is what the Supreme Court, in a six to three decision. You'll never guess how that broke down. That's right, Republican appointed lawyers. They went. All six of them voted, the conservative majority voted together, and the left wing majority or a minority voted. Together sixty three. So here's the court ruling. The TPS statute bars judicial review of non constitutional claims. What does that mean. Well, in the law that was passed by Democrats in Congress in nineteen ninety, they specifically said that the Supreme Court has no role in adjudicating any of these decisions. So if the administration offers TPS or rescinds TPS, doesn't matter. That is not subject to judicial review. That is not up to the US Supreme Court to determine. Now, if there's some sort of a constitutional claim that's being litigated, then yes, you could argue that claim through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court. But if it's just about designating or not designating, you don't have any role here. And the Supreme Court said it says it right here. Look Section one two five four A B five A, and it says there is no judicial review of any determination of the Secretary with respect to the designation or termination or extension of a designation of a foreign state. So they covered all the bases there. Okay, Supreme Court has no role, no judicial review here in whatever the Secretary decides, whatever the Administration decides on TPS designation, the revocation of the designation, or an extension of the designation. That's it. Case closed. But thank goodness, thank goodness, we went all the way to the US Supreme Court to tell us what the plain language of the bill that democrats wrote and passed says. Man, leave it to a bunch of conservative justices to explain to modern democrats what democrats wrote. All right, For over a year now you've heard me talking about Create a Video. Great local company in mint Hill that has helped more than two million families preserve their memories by turning old photos, VHS tapes, film reels and slides into lasting keepsakes. Now creative videos helping families and groups create brand new memories while they're traveling. Introducing group travel videos perfect for family reunions, church mission trips, group vacations, destination weddings, student trips, senior adult groups, sports teams, I mean, really any gathering of people that you care about that's traveling together. Group Travel Videos gives your traveling pack a private app where everyone can share photos during the trip, send messages, share schedules and important documents. Even a traveler safety locator feature that works only during the trip, and family members and friends back home can follow along and enjoy the experience in real time. No social media, no ads, It's totally private. No emails, phone numbers, account setups, or hassles. With group travel videos, you'll capture today's moments on your special trip while they're happening. Then, after the trip we're gathering, they'll professionally turn your shared moments into a beautiful storytelling video that your whole group can stream and download and treasure for years. Check out Group travel videos dot com. That's group travel videos dot com or call seven oh four eight four six seventy eight seventy Extension two o six And when you do that, ask for Katie. But Pete, can I just email? Well, yes you can. You can email Katie Katie at group travel videos dot com. Group travel Videos from old memories to new adventures, preserving life's moments for a lifetime. All right, So back to the case of temporary and what does it mean and whether or not the Supreme Court can decide whether or not an administration is allowed to follow the law. Turns out temporary means temporary, and the administration can in fact follow the law. And I for one am grateful that we have some lawyers with robes on that have been able to decipher this oh so nebulous language that says, quote, there is no judicial review of any determination of the Secretary with respect to the designation or termination or extension of the designation of a foreign state under the Temporary Protected Status law. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Democrats wrote it back in nineteen ninety and now. They think it means something else. Because this is why I remember, I've been saying this for a while about the Democrats being taken over by the far left as a party, and I say it's because they don't have any natural immunity to this kind of thing, because they it's moral relativism. This is why they are always corrupting language as well. Right, because words meaning is also open to interpretation. Right, So they just kind of stick new words into the lexicon. They give you meaning to a word when they wanted to mean something else, like undocumented for example. Right, it's not a matter of a lack of documents. It's that their documents are not legal, right, Like that's they have documents. They just don't have legal documents for here. Right, So they corrupt the language for the very same reason. Okay, then there is so that was regarding judicial review. Then they take up the Supreme Court takes up another aspect of this. Respondents and the courts below offer no sound theories to overcome the plain meaning of this law. In other words, the people who file the lawsuit and the judges that ruled in their favor do not have any sound theory as to why they should win, which means they just made it up. They're just making up stuff. Why we've talked about this before as well, which is to run out the clock, to stall and delay until Trump's term is over. And then get somebody else in there of a Democrat persuasion who will keep the TPS status. That's what this is about, right. Another part of the lawsuit. Regarding that Haiti had its Temporary Protected Status revoked because of racism. Okay, so here's what the court said about that, the claim that it was terminated because of race is unlikely to succeed. And then the sixth judge majority then goes on to say, ironically, respondents, the people who are suing the hate on behalf of the Haitians and the Syrians. Ironically, the respondents themselves offer a race neutral explanation for the government's action. Okay. They actually argued that the Trump administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program as it has been implemented. That is race neutral. Folks. If they're shutting down TPS every single time one of these things comes up for renewal because they don't like the program, that's race neutral, So your accusation that they're doing it because of race doesn't make sense. And that's what the court told them. So that's ah, that is a victory for for conservatism, and for I would say rationality. Then there is let me see here, we got to a couple other cases. This was Mullen. Oh, I already did Mullen versus Dough. Then there was there was another immigration one. Here it is. Mullen versus al otro laddo. Or maybe that's ai O tro Lado. No, it's probably al The question before the court on this one was whether an legal alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the US Mexico border quote arrives in the United States. All right, so let's think this through. Let's say you're a citizen of Mexico and you're like, I want to go to America. The streets are paved with cheese, and I really love me some cheese, so I'm gonna go there and get some of the free cheese. Right. So you let's say you live right on the border, so you don't even have to you don't even have to make the harrowing journey, right. You just kind of walk to the other side of town and you get to the border and you can see the border, and you're like, I want to come in, and the Americans, those dirty gringos, they're like, no, you can't come in. And then you're like, I claim asylum. I'm applying for asylum, and they're like, well, you can't do that here because you are not on American soil, and you don't you don't have the legal authority to declare or seek asylum. Rather, unless you are on American soil, so go home. And when the administration put in place the remain in Mexico policy, right, if you want to apply, you got to go through like the embassy, which counts as American soil. Right, You've got to go through these channels in order to do it properly. But you don't get to just swarm the border and come over and then claim asylum like Joe Biden allowed with the CBP one app. Right, we just download an app, You pay some coyote to smuggle you across the border. Maybe you know, rape all the women in your party as you make your way across the border, maybe kill some people, hold them for hostage in a completely humanitarian way of course. So then you get across the border and then you go onto the app and you're like, I claim asylum, ali Alioxen free. And then you get a court date of like twelve years down the road. And so now what they're saying is no remain in Mexico file for asylum claims at the embassies. And what these people were saying is no, no, no. If I get to the border, even though I don't cross into America, I should still be able to claim asylum because I have arrived in America. All right. So the idea here. Regarding what does arrive mean, and what the Supreme Court determined and its infinite wisdom today was that arrive means arrive. This is groundbreaking jurisprudence. Okay, here's from the opinion in the spring of twenty sixteen. Okay, so this would have been before. Trump won. Right. Spring twenty sixteen, US Customs in Border Protection began experiencing a surge of aliens seeking admission at ports of entry along the US Mexico border, with numbers sometimes far exceeding safe and secure processing capacity. In November twenty sixteen, the Department of Homeland Security responded by adopting a policy of metering the number of arriving aliens whom CBP would inspect each day and allow to apply for asylum. To enforce the policy, officials stood on the US side of the border and prevented aliens from entering the United States beyond the number that the port could adequately process. Okay, So that was the initial plan, was metering to say, okay, we got a capacity at this facility of you know, one thousand, so we're only taken in a thousand. The metering policy continued through the change in presidential administrations, so now Trump is in office. In twenty seventeen, asylum seekers and the immigration advocacy organization al Utro Lato brought a putative class action against the government in the Southern District of California, arguing that CBP's enforcement of the metering policy unlawfully withheld inspections and asylum processing from aliens who arrive at the border and seek to enter the United States. The district court certified a class of all non citizens who seek or will seek to access the asylum process by presenting themselves at certain ports along the border and were or will be denied access to that process. And so here is what the court ruled. Oh, by the way, the government rescinded the metering policy in November twenty twenty one, after Biden got in Okay, and they said that an alien arrives in the United States and thus must be inspected and may apply for asylum when the alien, while standing on the Mexico side of the border, encounters a United States official at the border. So if you are in Mexico and you make it to the border, but you don't cross that border, you're just standing on your side of the border, and there's a Customs and Border Patrol official, there's an American official there. You are now arrived. You have arrived. You see. It's sort of like. If you call a cab or an uber to your house and you could say, oh, the cab arrived. It's parked out front, right, the cab has arrived. Well, the cab has arrived to the curb. But the cabby is not in your living room, right, So the cab has not arrived inside your house. It is on the border. It is just outside your house. So this is what the Democrats are trying to argue, is that arrived meant parked at the curb. And what the court said is no, an. Alien arrives in the United States only when he crosses the border. The Immigration Naturalization Act thus neither entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum, nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him. This case is not moot. The District Court's declaratory judgment continues to bar the government from using metering to deal with border surges within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circus. The government represents that it would like to resume the use of metering when border conditions warranted. So the controversy remains live because a ruling for the government could reverse the lower court's judgment and thus give the government the effectual relief it seeks. So they were trying to say, look, Trump has so secured the border that this whole. Thing is moot. Now we don't use the metering system anymore, knowing that if they can punt this thing away and a Democrat wins the White House, then a Democrat would not be able to re implement the metering program, or if there's another surge that comes across the border, like they they could not do a metering thing because they's ah Ninth Circuit Court. They said, you can't do that. So the Supreme Court said it can. Arrives mean arrives, that's what arrives or arrives means arrives. It means you are in America. You have arrived in America when you arrive in America. So I'm glad we could clear that up for our friends on the left. Justice Alito said he called this pretty straightforward. Yes, indeed, it is pretty straightforward. Arrives means arrives. Two other cases there was a gun case out of Hawaii, and there was a case guarding Monsanto, maker of the roundup product. Two more cases came down today, one gun related. This was whether the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circus made a mistake it did in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier. So here in North Carolina we have concealed carry right. And if you are a conceal carry permit holder, you know the deal. Right, you're going to a restaurant or you're going to a store or something. It's open to the public. It's still private property. It's open to the public though, and you see on the door that there's a sign that says no concealed handguns, and then you're like, I'm never shopping there again. Right, But if they don't have a sign, then that means the presumption is that you can enter with your concealed handgun. In Hawaii, they flipped that, so if you wanted to allow concealed permit holders to carry on premises, you would have to explicitly state that. You would have to say you're allowed to have it. Otherwise it's assumed you cannot. So they went reverse and that got overturned by the Supreme Court today. They said no then to do. The other ruling was a seven to two ruling. I think Kagan may have joined in on this, or maybe. It was Superbigo. This was about a lawsuit filed against Monsanto, which manufactures and distributes round Up, a glipho sate based herbicide designed to control weeds. The EPA has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate this, according to the ruling, and repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer. The EPA's assessment is shared by many other regulatory bodies around the world. In accordance with EPA's view that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans. The EPA has not required labels on glyphosate based pesticides like Roundup to include a cancer warning. Okay, so this was the nature of the of the action was that they didn't have a cancer warning and so they should have had a warning. But Monsanto says, yeah, but the EPA requires us to put labels on our packages, and we do. And so like your beef is really with the EPA, it's not with us because we just put the label as required by the EPA. Now, the EPA has. Not found that glecossate causes cancer, so they did not include that in their label that we put on our package. In twenty nineteen, a guy named John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that he had used Monsanto's Roundup products for over twenty years and they had caused his non Hodgkins lymphoma as relevant here, Durnell brought a failure to warn torte claim, asserting that Monsanto should have included a cancer warning on Roundup's label. A jury agreed and awarded him more than a million dollars on the failure to Warren theory. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals rejected Monsanto's argument that the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide I'D Act expressly preempted Drnell's failure to warn claim, and that's called the FIFFRA. The Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Wrote End to side. FIFFRA expressly preempts Durnell's state law failure to Warren claim because the claim would require Mansanto to add a cancer warning to roundups label. Fiffra's preemption clause provides that a state shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this sub chapter. So, in other words, FIFFRA the law says this is what should be on the labels, and states cannot mess with these labels. So Monsanto won because they were using the EPA label. All right, let me go check out the text line here. Doug says, if the Democrats passed a law, well, then it's a living, breathing law that molds and adapts to the whims of their desires. What they said when it was enacted is irrelevant. What matters now is that they care, and the law must become what they want now, not what they said. Then. This is relativism, as I went over in the beginning of the hour, right, this is why they play Calvin Ball with everything. Calvin Ball. By the way, for those who may not know, there used to be a comic strip called Calvin and Hobbes about a little boy and his stuffed tiger. It was a little what they call them. Plushy, we call them stuffed animals, little doll, but it was real to him, and so they would play this game called Calvin Ball, where they would just make up the rules as they played. So that's like, that's the equivalent is Calvin Ball. It's like the Democrats have moved so far into the realm of the absurd that they just try to find meaning and they twist and contort law for whatever the momentary advantage is. Chris says al ultro lao means other side in Spanish. Oh, that makes sense, trying to get people to the other side of the border. And Russ says Pete. I remember the great walking thesaurus named Bill Clinton that gave us the extra the extra definition of the word is ah, yes, good times. I had no idea at the time that there were multiple definitions of the word is the famous line from Bill Clinton that depends on what your definition of. The word is is yeah, Calvin, Bill, all right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without yours and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast, so if you'd like, please support them too and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to dpetecleanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.