Good morning.
Welcome.
Welcome to Matt Nair on air.
Jane Matt Nair, Greg Bach, Calvin Butenoff coming to you live from our studio here at Radio Park in Racine.
You can always join us.
You can call.
You can text.
The number is the same.
It's 855-752-4842.
Leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook, YouTube and what used to be Twitter.
It is Thursday, March 6th.
As of today, the average price of a gallon of 2% milk here in Wisconsin, $3.18, the same as yesterday.
The average price of a dozen large eggs here in the state, $6.24, also the same as yesterday.
We're going to have a really, really busy show for you today.
Coming up at 10.33, our friend and colleague from Amicus, a law review, which you can listen to Saturday mornings from 9 to 11 across the network.
Jim Santel will be here.
Donald Trump just suffered a loss at the hands of the Supreme Court.
Yes.
And with an interesting player.
Very interesting player.
Jim will be talking with us about that among another, among another whole bunch of other things.
That would be words.
legal wise, because we are not lawyers.
That's why we bring experts on like people who are actual lawyers.
After the 11 o'clock news, Dr. Calico Schmidt is a veterinarian with the UW Madison Veterinary Medicine Group.
And I've been wanting to do this for a while.
I saw an article about a month ago about dogs getting Alzheimer's.
And this relates to my sister and I both had dogs that got into what Berkeley was 14.
And I think Nina made it to like 16.
But at one point, her little dog would, she would stand in the corner and she would just stare at the wall.
I know, it breaks your heart because they can't tell you what's wrong.
But if you're a pet owner, and if you have questions for Dr. Schmidt, please email those in,
You can do that right now at 855-752-4842.
Dr. Calico Schmidt,
joining us after the 11 o'clock news, then a little weather and wine with Brittany Merleau.
Boy, did they get creamed up north.
Yes.
If you're in Hayward or Bayfield or, I think she mentioned Butternut this morning.
I love that town.
I just
can't believe there's a place in Wisconsin.
Oh, I from Butternut.
Butternut.
It makes me so happy that there's a Butternut at Wisconsin.
So, and, but then we have a big warm up coming.
So Brittany Merlot will be joining us at 1120.
Paul Noonan from the Acme Peck Inc.
their sports guru will join us at 1133.
And then we'll wrap up the show as we always do with this shouldn't be a thing.
Today it is the all things must pass eventually edition.
Stay tuned for that.
Didn't want to start off though.
This is not good news.
Betrayed veterans from the Daily Beast rage over Trump's sweeping VA cuts.
Nearly 83,000 Veterans Affairs employees are now facing the X in the name of efficiency.
And we did reference this briefly yesterday.
We didn't actually play the clip from a Donald Trump lackey.
It's Habba.
Alina Habba had this to say about Americans veterans.
Calvin, can you play that clip, please?
Well, as you know, we care about veterans tremendously.
I mean, that's something the president has always cared about.
Anybody in blue, anybody that serves this country.
But at the same time, we have taxpayer dollars.
We have a fiscal responsibility to use taxpayer dollars to pay people that actually work.
That doesn't mean that we forget our veterans by any means.
We are going to care for them in the right way, but perhaps they're not fit to have a job at this moment or not willing to come to work.
And we can't, you know, I wouldn't take money from you and pay somebody and say, sorry, you know, they're not going to come to work.
It's just not acceptable.
That last part makes no sense.
I've listened to that last part maybe like 10 times.
First of all, we're going to take care of veterans in the right way.
I'd love more details about what that means.
Also, we support anyone in blue,
as you just said.
Except the Capitol Police.
Which they're nothing.
No.
And there is a plaque that is supposed to be put up in the House of Representatives honoring the Capitol Police who
protected our lawmakers on January 6th as that attack was happening at the Capitol.
Yeah, that plaque still hasn't been mounted because because they can't decide whether or not they actually support the Capitol Police apparently.
Well, there are people who actually say no police died that day.
You're not you're you're
very correct.
You're very correct.
Nobody died that day.
But because they died a day later, a week later, that's totally different.
Had nothing to do with January 6th.
It was all Biden's fault.
So Alina Habba.
If you were a veteran and I would love to hear from you when, how does that make you feel when you hear Alina Havas say something like that?
Maybe you're not fit to have a job right now.
It's too
lazy.
You don't want to come in.
You don't want
to come in and go to work.
And that was the other thing too.
People who don't want to come in this underlying low rent targeting of remote work.
We're seeing it in Madison with Robin Voss.
He makes a big old deal about it when it's not a big deal.
In fact,
Reports have shown efficiency goes up productivity goes up when you allow people to work remotely, but this whole attack on remote work work from home That's not the proper road to use when Just of I'm gonna say crapping over the vets was what she is doing calling them lazy
A memo leaked yesterday revealed that the VA in partnership with Elon Musk's DOGE will return to 2019 staffing levels.
The goal is to return to those levels even though the PACT Act in 2022 expanded VA health care and disability benefits to cover millions more veterans who had been exposed to burn pits and other toxic substances.
The V.A.
was contacted for comment from the Daily Beast, yep, no response.
Because the person who answers that phone got fired probably.
Senator Tammy Duckworth, who's a Democrat of Illinois and also a veteran of the Iraq War, put this on Twitter, mark my word, this is a Republicans plan all along, gut the V.A., then push to privatize the department so they can fund tax cuts for billionaires and our heroes.
will pay the price.
Vote Vets, which is a group that I follow on Twitter.
I encourage you to do that.
Vote Vets is a group that encourages veterans to run for office.
They call the plan infuriating.
If you are a veteran or the spouse of a veteran or the daughter or son of a veteran, I would love to know how you feel about this.
When you hear Alina Habba in Trump's inner circle saying, well, we're going to take care of vets the right way.
but maybe they don't deserve to have a job right now.
Well, Cassandra on the live stream is very frank about it.
She says, my dad was a vet and couldn't work because of his military service.
With respect, she can shove it.
Thank you, Cassandra.
Pre-concise and to the point.
An FCC compliance.
I really, I appreciate that.
The proposed layoffs at the VA will deliver a one-two punch where veterans are being laid off at the same time that it becomes more difficult for other veterans to get care.
This is just gonna be an ongoing
cycle of pain.
Yeah, well, and that's what we were told to expect for two years and also This is just the VA.
I mean the the executive order on the Department of Education They are going to gut anything they don't find necessary and it's the Republicans they don't find anything in the federal government Necessary they're going to do what they've been trying to do for decades, which is make it so small It's incapable of working and sell it off to the highest bidders
I saw yesterday reports, of course, and we had talked about this a couple of weeks ago.
Donald Trump now talking about privatizing the United States Postal Service and privatizing Amtrak.
And is it the greatest idea to put everything in the hands of private individuals like Elon?
Is that the answer to all of our problems?
Nope.
And I
will once again give a very brief example of this theory in Racine.
Back in the 2000s, they wanted to privatize their garbage pickup.
They went and looked at different groups to do it.
They found out that not only were they going to pay more in a year for private garbage pickup versus having it be a public service, they were also going to not be able to provide customer service of the same quality because it's a private business.
So the city can give a certain the city can give certain guarantees But when it's privatized that's
them
then it's it's not you're on your own Well, and
when we talked about the postal service the postal service has to deliver to inconvenient areas That's part of their mandate.
They have to deliver your mail.
Yes, a private company isn't gonna have to do that.
No, they can change your mind like
You have to come here to get your mail.
We're giving you
we're giving you complimentary P. O. Boxes eight five five seven five two four eight four two.
If you would like to join the show talking about Alina Habba in Trump's inner circle skating yesterday that maybe our vets don't deserve, you know, a job.
No, because
I don't even like saying it because like the idea of like her calling them.
And she didn't say lazy, but that is the take.
Well, that's
the inference.
They don't want to come into work.
Exactly.
You don't want to come into work.
Al from Milwaukee is on the line.
Good morning, Al.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Good morning.
I am a Vietnam veteran, wounded six times.
My grandfather was in the army.
My mother was in the army.
My father was in the Navy.
My sister was in the Army.
I have two sons who were Marines and three uncles who were in the Army.
We came home and got cut off from everything, no matter what.
You go to other countries, the veterans are given free housing, they're given food for the rest of their lives, and they come to them for advice about
how to approach other issues dealing with war, what have you.
In this country, you get kicked to the curb.
And when I was Vice President of the Center for Veterans Issues in Milwaukee, a black-funded, founded organization which has been taken over by all white men, we did research on the VA.
And the VA, after Vietnam,
showed us that only one third of all of the veterans in this country get services through the VA.
But the VA has one of the largest budgets in our government.
And we could not find in our research any place that they audited the VA's budget.
So, Al, I don't mean to cut you off, but we're coming up against the break.
So do you feel that these cuts are a good thing?
Definitely not.
These people earned what they were getting and they actually are on old more and These people all of this is about money.
It's not about the people or service to a country It's about Trump and that idiot from South Africa Gathering as much money in this
in this government if possible, so they can go do something else with it.
Yep.
Thank you so much, Elle.
And thank you and your family for your decades of service.
Seriously, we mean that.
Yes.
Stay with us.
You are listening to Matt Nair on air coming to you across the Civic Media Radio Network.
We will be right back.
Good
morning.
Welcome back to Matt Nair on air.
Jane Matt Nair, Greg Box, Sweet Calvi on the board coming to you from our studio here at Radio Park in Racine.
You can always join us.
Call her text.
The number is the same 855-752-4842.
Leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream.
on Facebook, YouTube, and what used to be Twitter.
Our friend and colleague, Jim Santel, host of Amicus Law Review on Saturdays across the network from 9 to 11.
Jim's going to be joining us after the 1030 News.
Donald Trump actually lost a case in front of the US Supreme Court.
I don't think he's happy about that.
We'll talk about that a little bit with Mr. Santel coming up very, very shortly.
I did want to address this just a little bit this morning because I think it's important.
especially when people wonder, what can I do?
I'm so frustrated, I'm worried, I'm concerned, what can I do to make a difference?
This came out yesterday.
Rich Cramer, excuse me with the byline at the Wisconsin Public Radio headline reads, poll shows many don't know about Crawford or Schimmel in pivotal Wisconsin Supreme Court race, this according to the Marquette University Law School poll.
that came out yesterday.
A majority of registered voters in Wisconsin do not have an opinion yet about Susan Crawford or Brad Schimmel, and the election is April 1st.
Yes.
Four weeks.
Four weeks away, this is a critically important race.
Yeah.
If Brad Schimmel is elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it will once again flip back to conservative control.
We've only just gotten fairer maps once Janet Protasewitz was elected.
If Brad Schimmel gets on there, I predict they will undo that almost immediately, because they want to make sure they lock in those Republican seats so they don't actually have to face their constituents who might be unhappy with them.
Yeah.
Agreed.
Because that's what it does.
If we go back to the old maps, this just insulates all lawmakers, essentially, Democrats too, from having to be accountable to their constituents because their seats are so safe, they don't have to respond.
That seems like a bad idea to me.
Well, I
would say
that... Excuse me, I would say that...
Almost everything Brad Schimel stands for is not a good idea because you look you you take a 30,000 foot view of him and it's not just the maps It's his viewpoints and abortion
1849 is great law where's the 49 abortion ban is a great law according to Brad Schimel quote.
Where's the flaw?
Where's the law
19th century piece of legislation
for women could vote.
Yeah
And by the way, he has the backing of ProLife Wisconsin, which doesn't want any exceptions for abortions, even the life of the mother.
Please think about
that for a moment.
And there's another aspect to him as well.
His viewpoints on the Affordable Care Act.
Yeah, he signed on when he was Attorney General under Scott Walker.
He signed on to a case in Texas.
trying to overturn the ACA, which is also known as Obama, Obamacare.
And so you have those three abortion, you have legislative maps, and you have the ACA pile on top of that.
Who's funding him?
You know who really likes Brett Schimmel?
Who,
Jane?
Elon Musk.
This guy.
Java the Musk Elon Musk really really likes Brad Schimel.
He's pouring in millions of dollars into Wisconsin Absolutely to make sure that Brad gets on the court and this is my speculation Elon currently does not have any company run Tesla dealerships in Wisconsin There is a chance that this could come before the Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately.
Yes, wouldn't it be handy?
If Elon's guy was on the court, should that case come before them?
So
with the powers of the court tipped in the balances of the right, I think that Brad Shimmel being in that position would just help them get, well, darn near everything they want to get.
I guess my point is, and we say this and I know it, it might not feel like enough, but talk to people about what you know.
Talk to people about what you know about these candidates.
We got four weeks to inform people about who they're going to be voting for.
Yes.
And personally, I don't think it should be based on how many yard signs you see, but that does sway people.
It does
end commercials.
Absolutely.
When
Brad Schimmel is sandwiching his commercials around Susan Crawford commercials, and it's only going to get worse and worse and worse,
but
more money comes in and not just from Elon.
Diane Hendricks.
Oh, yeah.
The
U lines.
I mean, it is the usual suspects of millionaire and billionaire influencers here in Wisconsin for the right.
They're pouring their money into these campaigns for a judge's race, which is going to be more expensive than, you know, the last race.
855-752-4842.
Cindy from Appleton on the line.
Good morning, Cindy.
Thanks for joining us.
Well, I just joined.
Are you talking about the market poll?
Yes.
Yeah, I guess Brad Schimel is leading in the polls and 58% of the Wisconsinites don't know enough about either candidate.
How many years did we have stupid Schimel as our district or our general?
Yeah, I mean, it's like really people are your heads that deep in the sand the man
is violent, evil, and he spent more of our tax for your dollars on foolishness than you can shake a stick at, and 58% of the people just don't understand this stuff.
No wonder we're in such trouble, for God's sake.
But you know, Sidney, I know, but we talk about this a lot.
There are folks who have a lot going on in their lives, and being up on politics isn't their priority, and I'm not going to shame anybody for that.
That's why I am putting the onus upon us, to help people understand within your circle.
What we're talking about here Elon is Brad Schimmel is Musk's boy.
Yes is Elon Musk's boy Brad Schimmel completely supports the 1849 abortion ban, which will kill women Yes, it will kill women Brad Schimmel.
Thank you for reminding me Cindy also spent when he was Attorney General $10,000 of taxpayer money for these fancy schmancy commemorative coins talking about how his office kicked ass every day
a good steward of taxpayer dollars.
And Charles Franklin, who runs the Marquette University poll, will be on Maggie Dawn Show today at 2 p.m.
to talk about the breakdown.
So check that out as well.
We have news coming up next.
When we're back, Jim Santel will be here.
Stay close.
You're listening to Matt Nair on air.
This is the Civic Media Radio Network.
Good morning.
Welcome.
Welcome to Matt and air on air Jane Matt and air Greg box week.
I'll be on the board Coming to you from our studio here at radio park in Racine You can always join us caller text at 8 5 5 7 5 2 8 5 8 2 that's 7 5 8 5 5 7 5 civic leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook YouTube and what used to be Twitter just to remind you're the deadline to register to vote via mail or online for the April 1st
General election is next Wednesday, March 12th.
If you don't know if you're registered, if you want to check, if you want to see what's on your ballot, just go to myvote.wi.gov, myvote.wi.gov.
All you have to do is put in your address and everything you need will come up.
It's really a great one-stop shop, including in case.
You're ever inclined to call one of your representatives.
Jane, can I find phone numbers there?
You can find all the applicable phone numbers right there, and they love hearing from us.
Should I swear and be mean?
No.
Okay.
Don't.
That's kind of the same rule we have for the show.
If all you have are
curse words and insults, then you have no argument.
So yeah, I wouldn't suggest that you do that, but I do encourage people to call.
Yeah.
Leave a message.
Just let them know you're thinking of them.
I think that's important.
Have a good
day.
Have a good
day thinking of you won't forget.
All right, joining us now from his somewhere in southeastern Wisconsin, and he is our friend and colleague who has a show on Saturday mornings across the network from 9 to 11 called Amicus Law Review.
Jim Santel is here now for our new weekly spot.
Thank you so much for carving out some time for us.
You are still an acting attorney.
You still actually do attorney things.
A number of different civil rights cases, human stuff, and we can chat about that sometime down the road.
If I can jump right into Greg's comment about things we say on the air, note as well that this president on February 18th entered an executive order in which he claimed
that yes, the Federal Communications Commission is now under his exclusive control, that he states what the law is and that this independent agency previously created by our Congress is now inside the Oval Office.
A stunning thing.
So Greg, watch what you're saying, not only before, but especially now because apparently the president is listening.
It's a stunning thing.
I don't mean to make light of it at all.
It is horrific.
And is he actually allowed to do that?
This is mine now.
I'm taking this agency.
Now it's mine.
That
Go on.
I'm sorry, sir.
No, no, it does beg a lot of questions.
And the answer is no.
And yet, as we're going to talk, I think in the next few moments here today and and every Thursday, which I'm very excited about, by the way, to be with you, I'm going to talk about the challenges to that.
And what do you do?
Well, as to the FCC, as to these other agencies, these likewise now brought apparently under the White House aegis here, the Federal Trade Communications, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, a part of the Federal Reserve that establishes our financial policy.
What's going to happen is we're going to be running into court now, challenging all these things, and eventually leading up to the Supreme Court, which, again, is we're going to talk.
does is now weighing in on all this.
Why are we doing this as Americans rather than focusing on things like education and environment and commercial policy and yes, overseas, international policy, healthcare, all those labor, commerce, agriculture, but instead we're running into court getting judges, requiring judges to say almost across the board unanimously, you can't do this, Mr. President.
That's the frustrating part about all of this.
Because it seems like, and it seems like to me that executive orders in the sense of like the FCC is mine.
That seems almost like a proclamation type of level.
Like it's not really your day.
You can say it's yours, but it's not yours.
The FCC, but now what it does is instead of, it doesn't change anything other than you having to go to the courts and fight the executive orders language, which now just.
gums up are already slow working court system, takes time away from the work they should be doing on actual important things.
But like, I guess, cause that's the thing is like, everyone's freaking out about executive orders.
And I'm wondering which ones are important and which ones do we say, English has the national language.
Let's just focus on the important things.
I think that's exactly right.
And some of the judges are saying just that, that is some of these do go to the core.
And those that do go to the core,
fundamentally are addressing this basic issue, which we all learned, I think, in grade school.
Maybe not, but the fundamental notion is Congress sets up all of these agencies.
It's the article one of our Constitution.
It's the big one.
Congress is the one that makes these decisions.
They put it in place.
They establish the rules.
And as a part of our checks and balances, the president, yes, can make decisions in these areas.
But the agencies then respond, the Congress responds, the courts respond.
And when a president simply says, as Louis XIV did, way back in the 17th century, here's some French this morning, right?
Le ta se moi, right?
Greg, you and I talked about a number of weeks ago.
When the president simply says, I am the law, which is what he said on February 18th.
And you follow that.
And if you don't, bad things are going to happen to you.
That's when, once again, as we're always saying so consistently, we now have an authoritarian government inconsistent with our Constitution, the basic ways in which our government works.
There are so many different ways that this is problematic.
And I've spent a lot of time, Jim, because, again, one of Congress's main things is the power of the purse.
That is their power.
They control what money gets sent out, what gets appropriated where.
So that is their big constitutional power.
And I kept thinking about
If you are a member of the house, why would you cede that authority?
That's the best thing you've got.
That's your cudgel.
That's your thing.
I can only imagine that they are being promised that, well, if you just cede this power to the president, we're going to make sure you never have to run again.
And essentially, you'll never have to work another day in your life because you're never going to have to respond to your constituents.
All you need to do is show up every so often at one of those house with the Senate buildings on either side of the Capitol will keep you there.
And Shane, I could not have said it more.
No one can say it better than you just did, which is you are elected by the people, whether it's some of the districts in Wisconsin or one of the other 434 other districts around the country to represent them.
If you make decisions, if you vote in certain ways and a majority of your voting constituents say no, all right, that's again, a part of our process and I recognize that power is a big thing, but that also affirms the fundamental notion that we do have a representative democracy.
If you are ceding, as you just said, that authority given to you by your local constituents and you go to Washington and say, you know what, I'm not going to do anything other than what the White House has told me to do.
You're in violation of the oath that you took.
You're in violation of the contract that you made.
with everyone who voted for you.
If you're just joining us, Jim Santel is our guest.
He hosts Amicus Law Review Saturday mornings from 9 to 11.
It's a wonderful program.
You
learn so much.
And in actual human speak, as opposed to just lawyer speak, which is a whole different language.
We try.
know.
One of the reasons I wanted to have you on, Jim, this is from Esquire, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump, but it didn't stop Justice Alito from getting snotty.
I love the headline.
So Donald Trump did actually have a loss in front of the Supreme Court that happened this week.
And this is a big one.
This is a big one.
And the important reason it's so important, Jane and Greg and Calvin, that you address this for all your listeners is that this has got everything inside it, right?
It's got the usurpation of authority by a president.
It's got congressional action.
It's got, again, snottingness.
I would describe it as intellectual dishonesty.
We'll talk about some of the language that Alito has used.
It's simply wrong.
It's simply wrong.
It's intellectually dishonest.
It's got foreign policy.
And yes, it also has the continuing emergence of Amy Coney Barrett, distancing herself more and more.
We've talked about a lot of this on your show in the past.
from her conservative allies, watch her in the future and see what she does.
She joins John Roberts and handing this defeat to the president.
When I saw that I almost fell out of my chair, seriously, and MAGA is up in arms now about Amy Coney Barrett.
They are furious that she sided again with the liberals, but then John Roberts did too.
which is nothing
John Roberts.
in a while, he does something not nuts.
Because I really do believe, as we've discussed in the past, I think every so often he wakes up and thinks, gosh, this is the Roberts Court.
It's going to have my name on it for all time history.
And maybe on some of these really fundamental things, although again, he is also the one that eight months ago gave the president a pass on criminal activity, for which justice and aside,
Have you heard about this hot mic at the State of the Union?
Yes.
President walks over to John Roberts and says, thank you.
We won't forget.
Yeah.
Oh my goodness.
Oh my goodness.
Quid pro quo right there in the walls of the halls of the Congress.
But again, this is this is a situation where you've got maybe an emerging Supreme Court, maybe a little bit of the Chief Justice saying this is too far.
And so he also in a very brief order to get into the substance of this.
This is what Donald Trump did as he promised on January 20.
He halts all programs, all monies for what we know is USAID.
This is the foreign aid programs that does all sorts of things, medical care, food, businesses, commercial disease prevention, political instability.
When I was in Iraq, these are the folks who made things happen.
They are to develop an institution, a new government.
And Donald Trump comes in and again says horrifically,
stopping all of that.
And what happens is it goes to a judge named Amir Ali, we've talked about before.
He's in the federal district court in Washington, DC.
And Ali looks at this and says, first of all, again, no authority, no executive authority for the president to do this.
And he orders that it all be stopped.
At least the answer is what's called a TROA, temporary restraining order.
And again, indicates, tells the president, knock it off.
Let's get these funds flowing once again.
and about $1.5 billion.
The judge directs them to do that.
And again, in the category of this event, this new story has everything.
We've got the other major issue here, which is arguably moving toward a constitutional crisis.
Because as Judge Ali said, during the course of these initial proceedings, gets the attorneys back in and he says, what's going on?
Why are you not following what I told you to do?
the attorneys for the Department of Justice say, well, I can't, we've got some theories here that maybe your order didn't mean what it says.
He says, no, he says, no, do what I said, or I'm going to find you in contempt.
And it's then that the attorneys take this to the Supreme Court.
John Roberts briefly suspends, stays everything that the judge has done.
And then again, just yesterday issues this five to four decision, just a paragraph.
It's kind of convoluted because there's all this procedural history there, which I've somewhat glossed over.
But in the end, he says, nope, the president needs to abide.
At least he needs to follow the law.
He sends it back to the judge and says, be a little bit more particular about what exactly you need for them to do.
You should clarify what obligations the government must fulfill.
the judge in this case, he will jump right on that.
I'm sure he's on it today.
And he will tell the attorneys once again, here's exactly what you need to do.
Follow what I'm saying or else.
And again, if Donald Trump says no, we do have that constitutional crisis afforded.
Well, and that leads to me.
And we're going to come right up against the break.
So we'll address this on the other side.
What does that or else mean?
Where does that or else take us?
And what could happen?
If we get to that point, Jim Santel is our guest.
He's host of Amicus, a law review across the network Saturday mornings from 9 to 11.
We're going to continue our conversation.
Stay with us.
You were listening to Matt Nair on air coming to you across the vast statewide country wide.
We are global if you have the app, baby.
Civic Media Radio Network.
We'll be right back.
Good morning.
Oh, welcome back to matinee here on here.
I'm getting all Dave brew Becky get that jazz vibe in the air.
Welcome to matinee here on here Jane matinee Greg Bach and the Calvinator on the board committee from our studio here at radio park in Racine.
You can always join us call or text.
The number is the same 855-752-4842.
Leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream.
On Facebook, YouTube and the platform that Elon continues to actively ruin.
Next hour at this time we will be wrapping up the show as we always do with this shouldn't be a thing.
Today it is the all things must pass eventually edition.
Stick around for this one.
And if you ever have a thing you think should not be, send it into Greg and me at janesaysatcivicmedia.us.
J-A-N-E-S-A-Y-S at civicmedia.us.
We are joined by our friend and colleague and host of Amicus Law Review Saturdays from 9 to 11 in the morning.
Across the network, Jim Santel is here.
And right before we went to the break, we were talking about kind of this surprising decision by the Supreme Court voting five to four to uphold a lower court ruling that will force Trump
to release $2 billion in aid already approved for this USAID program.
Right before we went to break, Jim, I asked, what if they don't do this?
I mean, some of his advisors, and I can't think of which one off the top of my head, have already said, just ignore them.
So the Supreme Court ruled this way, just do it, just do it.
One
advisors, and I think all three of us, all of your listeners probably would put advisors in quotes, is the Vice President of the United States of America.
Jane has said just that.
He said, you know what?
Presidents do not have to follow what mere federal judges say.
No, you went to law school.
Apparently, you were sleeping through most of the constitutional law courses, Mr. Vice President.
But you do have to follow that and becomes relevant, Jane.
And Greg, just because, again, Judge Ali said, I'm ordering you to do this.
When they didn't do it, he called them back in.
He said, you're not defying my order.
You need to follow what we're doing.
And the government comes back and says, well, we're looking at these contracts case by case.
The judge interrupts him and says, no, no, no case by case analysis.
You released the $2 billion.
And he orders them basically by midnight of a day last week to
to put all this in place.
And that, as you just said, is when we get to the Supreme Court.
The question you raise is, now that we've got this order and we're going forward, do those same attorneys who said, we don't need to follow what you're directing, Judge Ali, do they do what they say?
And that is, that is the premise.
That's the predicate.
for a true constitutional crisis.
We talk a lot about things being constitutional crisis.
Watergate was not a constitutional crisis.
Why?
Because in the end, Richard Nixon complied with the order to release those tapes that spelled his doom.
He followed the rule of law and his presidency devolved after that.
Here, we have now, for the first time in our history, a president and his advisors who may be saying, we don't need to follow that.
And if that is the case,
where do we go?
What is the next step?
What is the next step?
There is no further check on that short of the people once again, like in South Korea and Israel before the Gaza War taking to the streets and saying, we are not going to permit this to happen.
That's what's looming.
And that's why this story is so very important.
That, of course, and including your favorite justice, Jane San Malito, and the language there also speaks to this issue.
He is, again, intellectual dishonesty, right?
What he says is that he's got an eight-page dissent.
You know, he thinks that does protest too much, an eight-page dissent in all this, and he says the law does, and he says, the judge is requiring you to pay this $2 billion, not because the law requires it.
Oh, yes.
Oh, yes, it does.
The Congress said, you've got to do this.
He said, but because a single district court judge ordered it.
Well, that too.
And now I wonder if you were sleeping through Law School Justice Alito.
We have judges all the time who order things.
They've taken up an appeal.
Remember the judge in Northern Texas who ordered a nationwide ban on Mipha Pristone?
Yes.
That was a singular judge.
Yes.
Now
But when he says it's intellectually dishonest to say it's not what the law requires.
But here's the big one.
Here's the big one.
He says it's judicial hubris.
He's talking about his colleagues.
that imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.
No, no.
It's a penalty only if the budget of the United States of America and things the Congress does is a penalty.
If you buy into that crazy language, then you're right, Mr. Associate Justice.
But that's intellectually dishonest, and he knows it.
He just plain knows it.
That's why this is so very frustrating.
I guess Alito snoozed through Yale Law School and just became a tax expert.
I think of Sam Alito missed his time in history.
He should have been around for the Inquisition.
He would have been great.
He would have been a happy guy, witch hunting and stuff.
And he goes on to say, of course, that he's got this obligation to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges is supported by the Constitution that it's not abused.
Judge Ali is not abusing anything, Mr. Associate Justice.
You're the ones who, by encouraging defying of this order, were setting us on the course of a true constitutional disaster here.
Judicial hubris?
No, judicial support.
It is stunning, Candidly, that all the justices of the Supreme Court are not voting in favor of supporting the lower court.
The fact that we've got four of them who are still out there saying, yeah, this is okay.
That should also be stunning for all your listeners.
I know it is.
Check out Jim's show.
It's fantastic.
He's going to be joining us once a week every Thursday at this time.
Amicus Law Review Saturday mornings from 9 to 11 across the Wood Network.
Thank you so much, Jim.
Really appreciate it.
News
coming up next, and then we're going to talk dogs and Alzheimer's.
OK, it's going to be OK.
Yeah, that's all on the way.
Stay with us.
You're listening to Matt Nair on air.
This is the Civic Media Radio Network.
you