welcome to the mccarthy report podcast where i rich larry discuss with any mccarthy the latest legal national security issues this week what else stephen briars retirement and the next george floyd prosecutions you of course listening to a nash reappeared caspian rose you not already following us on a strictly service you can find us everywhere from spot a fight to itunes and please give this podcasting andy mccarthy the glowing indeed gushing five star reviews they deserve on itunes now without further ado i welcome to this very i'd cast through the miracle zoom none other than to reach our you're getting anywhere you i'm doing fine we do so today i'm sorry

big news yesterday yeah i dont think it with all their unexpected but you know whenever it it's there there such show supreme court seats of such coveted positions that term whenever one opens up even if it even if you expect that you're gonna get jolted when you specially with brian's fires the court's it's ninety ninety four billion just you he's a fixture here so let's start a little bit about him and his legacy but forget too that the more tackled thing here how did they how did they get messed up right it is laid down in was reported in being a being discussed then handicapping observed replaced possible replacements going on even before he had made his official statement yeah rich i have to think that this week came out of the white house i may i think that

you know what shall bream whose in the last couple of weeks where we ve had some of these stories that term particularly the story when the justice sought on my are was angry goes justice for such wooden where a mask on the bench and you know that whole debacle that npr reported and then they stood by and even when the story obviously was wrong she she turned out to be right on that i think she's got pretty good sources and she reported yesterday that briar was very upset about the fact that this got out because it wasn't that he didn't he wasn't going to retire he planned to retire but he wanted to announce in his own way in its own time and i think he also doesn't want to be

strike action this is an unusually it's not only going to be his last term on the court but it's an explosive time i mean some of the cases are going to be historic precedent to the supreme court so they have very big work to do and i don't think he wanted this to be a thing until later in the day

so you don't i heard some reporting that you know naturally allies and violence are saying you know they think that the only came out of the supreme court i think that's highly unlikely if there's one institution discovered that seems to keep a secret pretty well it's the spring glare and its much more likely because of the number of people in the motivations involve that it came at the white house because i think binds having such a bad time over a variety of things not least ukraine right now but go to the inflation we can goddamn lessening we go down the list all the time he's got it but you know he's got things are not going well and this is an opportunity to turn the page and change

conversations and also turn to please the hard left which he has really been able to deliver as promised to so they had it seems to me they had more people who could have done this and they had every motivation to late this and i just make you don't look through for what it's worth philosophically found briar is not a cup of tea i don't think he's been europe by a titanic figure on the court has basically been a rubber stamp for the left on every big case he's done virtually nothing memorable in you know his many years on the court but he's a patriotic american he serve well you know for the purpose that he was on the court for are you ve never heard a bad thing about him

from time to time watch these great old clips of debates that he did with leah over the years and i always thought a space when i was a kid i dont remember hearing from a supreme court justice so i stood it was so great back in those days scully and briar would go out and talk about constitutional theory and interpretation and and you got it from you know the different perspectives but to supreme court justices like each other were very similar to each other by had very strong views and i thought it was maybe privilege overstated but i thought it was

public service that they would go out and do that so yeah i think well personally of justice prior and i just think after all the years he put in on the court that he was that he should have been entitled to go out his own way and i don't think it you know probably a week from now ritual of forgotten about this whole thing these things just kind of move on but i just think it's a shame if the guy wanted to you know if he is here a certain way he wanted to announce this end the rugged pulled out from under am i just think that's a shame so this he even at the exact timing was apparently not not to his nature specifications are what he would have liked the broad tiny make centre right i mean it you if you're in your eighties you want to get out before that the midterms who were senate need change hands

and then you have is the precedence of these other vacancies yeah i you know i think there's a lot of talk about these scalia an ginsburg precedents and i should prefaces rich by saying that one the things i always find full larry us when we have a supreme court opening is that everybody particularly everyone on capital bill rushes to the podium to talk about the rules and the precedents that apply in here is what we must do because this is what we did and nineteen fifty two when you know here's what happened with solely in the only rule here is can you get to fifty one fifty you can make you can pretend that there's all these other rub the that apply but the fact of the matter is if the president

is of the same party that is in control of the senate they're gonna get their nominee and there may be some hemming inviting but if you can get a fifty one you get the nominee and if you can you have to deal so from so from the perspective of a briar he's aid e3 he's watched over the last four years three things i think that are very important number one justice scalia and justice ginsburg died scalia obviously into our health ins berg a little older than briar is now but they were not able to control their exit from the court

because they chose to continue serving and they die and as a result of that from the progressive perspective which which prior shares they look at those two events the way they played out as missed opportunities for a stable progressive majority that could have controlled the court for years instead we ended up getting a six three conservative majority and i'm not talking now about how how are how are you read you know got outplayed and chest over the filibustering all that stuff i'm you know your briar your eighty three you saw what happened a school you saw what happened again spur and you had this brief window of time where you can actually orchestrate this rather than you don't leave it to faint and that's why i think i'm probably more important to him is the kennedy precedent

because kennedy was about the same age as briar is now when he decided to retire he was eighty two briars eighty three he had a president of his own party in the way ass he had his own party in control of the sad and he had some courts deploy am in britain if we remember now i think there was a charm offensive by the trump administration to try to nudge kennedy into retirement but i think they did it gently and they did it behind the scenes and one of the very strong cards that they played i think was when justice scalia died he was replaced by a kennedy clark endorses and then when kennedy diet decided to retire you dont know what these negotiations are but he was replaced by another kennedy clark right so here

comes along briar he's about the same age ass kennedy he's got a president of his party in power and barely the senate in control of the democrats biden has a box to ease requiring to be checked which is that he's going to pick a black woman right he's promised that any reaffirm that yesterday who's the black woman whose most likely catastrophe brown jackson who just happens to be a prior club and we know that these conversations and be going beyond between briar and the white house at least last week but well who knows what else is going on behind the scenes so yeah i think if briar waited till the mid terms and the republicans take over the senate then biden will have to negotiate with the republicans over the replacement and maybe the progressive don't get you know people whether they want to bear whereas in this window as long as they do this before

i mean everybody says they want to get the justice and before i told her when the term starts but the big thing is get the justice and before the mid term elections before the senate changes already if it does and i think you know this is one of these historic moments where all these things a line and briar hudson courts the plane was the right time to go i think it's silly for people to say he was pushed out by progressive because the way our system is set up they can put he'd autumn but ain't nobody can make a supreme court justice do anything but the justice doesn't want to do as we have seen time again so i just think it's it's silly to say he was pushed out by the progressives and it also creates wrong impression because the progressives it's not like there dissatisfied with briar

they want another briar but they want to younger version they want to have somebody there who could be there for thirty four years feeling like you ve hit a wall with your investment strategy or maybe you ve been burned by the stock market you many times since the start of the pandemic what if i told you you could invest in a resilient alternative asset classes at the elite have been quietly putting their money into four centuries i'm talking about blue chip works of art artwork that's outpaced the essen p from ninety ninety five to twenty twenty i want you used to be inaccessible to the everyday investor that's the longer the case masterwork is the one billion dollar start up securitized the once exclusive art market allowing you finally at iconic paintings from masters like basically the castle and basque yet to your portfolio at a fraction of the cost and right now i'm at is giving you priority access to their newest offerings putting your money to work at master words dot are safe

national you again its master words dot art slash nash review simple disclaimers at last words tat i owe slash the skin please check it out so you mentioned judge access to early handicapping says is a likely replacement so oh what we know about her well you know not a lot she's she's young she's by fifty she was on me yeah shipment president obama her only the dc district court and then biden elevated her to the court

peels dc serpent but she's only been on the d c circuit for less than a year and she hasn't even if they get well unreported thrush yesterday that she has written a single opinion yet the i've written about cases that she's been on three times and i you know i don't think they were particularly that the one place where you can really dig into her work was the young the dawn began case where the congressional democrats were trying to get me can you began to testify about president trump and he and the white house resorting executive privilege and she wrote what i really thought was a

taranto's one and two hundred and pay hundred twenty page repetitive incoherent at times internally inconsistent really not a good job and she need an answer the the main question the case which was did he have to testify or not i think we're she ended up coming out was that you know he had to at least show up to you know she wanted the spino but whether he had to testify or not was left up in the air she is also on the panel's that decided both the eviction moratorium case dc circuit and the rejection of trumps exactly the privilege flying but she wasn't the author on either of those decisions and why i think the circuit came out wrong on the eviction moratorium case they were in a position where they could have drag their feet to help biden and they didn't they expeditiously made there

so the case they get up to the supreme court may could review it so even though i didn't agree with where they came out i thought was admirable that they at least four expeditious about it and on young the rejection of transferring which claim i think its correct decision but again she didn't write it notes that while she was on the district court she had as it a striking record of reversal by the deasey circuit including were being reversed by some of the progressive judges on diesel circuit and i must say having read her opinion and began case i'm not surprised to hear that she was confirmed i checked this this morning she's confirm fifty three forty four when biden put her on the circuit so all the democrats and three republicans gram collins

and were caskey voted to confirm her so the outside for her i guess from bidest amply is obviously she has exquisite tomorrow credentials academically she's been confirmed twice it very recently by you know essentially this judiciary committee in this congress on she check the box for black woman and its appealing two briar euro for whom she clark so it just seems to me it makes a lot of sense now she's not the only candidate but she seeking she certainly seems to me to be like the likely one such rights are how long have you been on the dishes dc circuit less than a year

and would run so surrounded by ear eight months not seven months on my back so that this would be a reason why we don't have any opinions from her right yet with tee circuit and that there is less jerry yesterday were according thirsty here that common harris might be a great option because as a way to get her out of the way you don't wanna be vice president take someone else and there she she descend to this autumn awesome position that this is not a plausible idea now and you dont people keep talking like that about this like it's a serious thing which i just you know i ve been here in this room we ve all been hearing it for months right and it doesn't make any sense so first of all temperamental right and i think you don't you and i know a lot of people who have been in government whether there the legal side a government executive branch congress whatever temperament

they are not the same kind of jobs right harris has said any number of times that shit we want to be on the core and that makes it makes total sense it now you can you can think of harris what you want to think about her but temper mentally she is more of an executive branch type then a judicial type of judicial existence is a more her medics contemplatively existence and not everybody is cut out for it some people are great at it to say that she wouldn't be isn't a rap on her there's plenty of raps on her but i dont think she's i don't think she's

fired for that kind of practice of law and there's nothing in her background that that suggests that she is but putting all about aside and this is the thing i can't get over i think maybe it's been too long since we confirmed a vice president i guess nelson rockefeller wisdom was the last one who had to be confirmed but you don't the senate has to confirm the boy president that's part of the process right so if biden word a pic harris through the court he would be handing control over to mcconnell because why would mcconnell schedule a vote on a new vice president that would put to the senate back in the hands of the democrats it doesn't make any

since their there be some external role through for the circumstances in which he confirms a vice president right this precedent ivory by right you're right the tell me about it tell your story walk it so when that the point make their temperament obviously this this place as well the ten crews scarcely talked about as a court appointed you just look i don't want to be i want to be a supreme court justice if i don't understand a room in a reed legal documents are all day long enough if ted for some reason had to do that you know he'd be he be giving press conferences every every day on the steps of the supreme court to look at you i must say i am i i'm visuals things tat says that makes a scratch you had its eyes this one i'm totally sympathetic to what i said about a year a year and a half

in the u s turn office as a deputy in the appeals unit and i always liked that port of though but i like the writing for but i never like the editing for and i had a if i hadn't had i demanded that they let me continue to try cases because if i just had to like myself in a room and do nothing but edit my colleagues briefs i wouldn't i would put a bullet my head there were people who were next door to me in the next two others who loved it who would do nothing else for the rest of their lives so you gotta be wired for not everybody is dear said would remove secondly that that's what did it the notable aspects of scully right is it as you use a genius at it but also had a big larger than life personality right so ok so george floyd we got these these other cops who were in involved in this who are

they state is a trial started or their about your while still well the trial has started in earnest i am always a stickler for this technically speaking a trial starts when you begin jury selection but as they say in the the a business is jeopardy doesn't attach until the jury swore so on monday the jerry was sworn opening statements began and they started to take evidence or were present evidence so that's really what people think of is the technical kick off of the trial and that would happen one so what we have done this federal element here where

strange and i had a proper for a lot of reasons but one that is also the state was being cautious her or not being extremely aggressive and asking these guys for this for this answer this this crime but you have it the feds coming in and wanting to get their piece of flesh is well yeah i think so whose really virtue signalling on the part of the justice department to show their solidarity with the left and the rich we we talk about this every week on the past but you know i was never going to be able to deliver for the left the way he promised to deliver for the left and as a result i think what what

what we ve noted any number of times is that because of their past your daddy's put himself in he has to push the envelope one left every place that he can where he doesn't need help from congress just politically i think they feel they have to do that and a big part of that is basically unleashing this justice depart and especially this civil rights division so even though they shouldn't have happened it was probably inevitable and when i say it shouldn't be it shouldn't have happened saying that it inappropriate to have a federal civil rights investigation but

it is a right way in the wrong way to go about it and the feds are under no time pressure on this they have a five year statute of limitations so what you would ordinarily do is take a step back let the state do their work and after the state is done decide is it worth the expense you're a federal resources to do more than the state has already done and what you want to do is as the federal government is be available to be helpful to the state so if they need help in terms of light forensic evidence and expertise from with that that the feds have that or resources that the fence that the state and not to use you wanna be there and tell them you know if you need our help we're here but what you don't want to do

you take any over measures that run the risk of poisoning the jury pool because the state has an obligation to give a fair trial to the defendants not only do they have an obligation to do what they have an interested in doing it because if they screw up the due process at the trial phase the cases are gonna get reversed on so you want to make sure you're not doing anything counter productive and my opinion since the way they conducted themselves here is that

they went out of their way to poison the jury will now nothing never objective was to poison the jury pulled a their objective was to virtue signal for the left but it has the effect of poisoning the durable and let me give a concrete example shelving gets tried derek children which we could we talked about extensively last year he got tried in april while that case was coming to an end the justice department jumps in and announces that they are going to conduct a pattern of practice investigation which is a civil investigation to deter

whether this discriminatory racially discriminatory policing going on in the minneapolis boys before now they did that at a point in time where the judge was handling children's case wanted to get chauvinist khaistan and then add a couple of months later he wanted to bring the other three cops in for the state trial when the as this department comes in and poisons the well what s happening is the state end up having to postpone the trial of the next three defendants because it is the ratcheting up of the pomp of publicity and when they announced that they're gonna have this pattern a practice investigation it was after a number of the top officials of the many apple is police department had testified in floyd's trial that what show him in the other cops did on the street was completely antithetical to the train

but they have in the minneapolis police department and the if a police in minneapolis is this obama clone a black progressive police reform so what what the trial showed was that this department is run acquiescent obama biden justice department would want to police department run this incident was true it very seriously and an insult ways very severely by law enforcement in the state of minnesota because regarded it as a betrayal of their practice so if anything came out in the trial it was that you didn't need a pattern this investigation of the minneapolis police department but because the racial politics involved here the binding minister should not only does that a few weeks later it may they announced that there's a civil rights investing a civil rights indictment

of the four cops show then and the other three now by now chauvin's doing a twenty two and a half year sentence at that point and the other three are supposed are on the cusp of being tried for me and manslaughter under circumstances where they stand to get sentences if they're convicted in the state something close not exceeding but close to what show me so what's the point at that point of coming in and i i would point out that you do not only did what what it ended up doing was it pushed the state trial off the track when they should have been able to have their criminal trial of these other three police officers are former police and the second thing is i do not i know this is it the sounds quaint to say this but it is the civil rights division that brings these cases

the civil rights division is supposed to be cognisant of the civil rights of the people who been indicted by the state of minnesota and instead they undermine their fair trial rights and they do that in the name of civil rights that that means just ridiculous so so so does this happen in one swoop but the same trial yeah well so here's what i think happened be young so this there's these two litigations are going on at the same time and you have what what in the law we call an antagonistic defences situation going on between sheldon on one hand and the other three cops on the other hand and its mainly unfair to chauvelin because what

they were trying together before them it would be like he had he had for such a prosecutors he'd have to state and then he had the defence lawyers for the other three guys we're trying to it's a blame him and they would complain that they were inhibited in doing their defences by his presence in the trial and the fact that isa dependence or they can even subpoena him as a witness if they wanted to write so it's not surprising that the court's sever their cases at least at the stake what stage the other thing that was going on at the time which was covered and they concerned about how many people could you have in the court room at the same time so for a lot of good reason shelving was tried first and the other three cops we're gonna be tried second the government always wants the most culpable defended to be tried first because don't want to show their whole trial in connection with the least culpable defendants

which makes it easier for though the most culpable defended to get prepare because he gets to see all the discovery and see one with his testimony etc so the government always wants to try to most of what i first several other good reason shelving went first in the meantime the government in died before them and they indict the case in in what i think is a weird way that almost screams out for a severance of children so rather than do what i would have done it i wouldn't have done a civil rights prosecution at least at this stage but if i was going to do i would say that all three cars were culpable equally i you know i mean you write them in terms of whose best it was worse but what they did what they didn t in the federal case is they indicted showman alone encounter

then they indicted the other cops encamped too aid or is in a better of children so right off the bat you're saying he's the principle and they're just now there is in a better spent then they have another camp at the wall prosecuted that the wrong named it so shove it basically i think if children had pushed for severance in the in the federal trial there is a good chance he would have gotten one but what ended up happening instead and this is why i think those be fairer prosecution is such a weasel move here i'm december fifteen shelving goes into federal court and plead guilty to civil rights charges and the justice department hit them with two different civil rights cases one is that the case they had already indicted in may involving george flowing

and the other incident involve chauvelin using excessive force against a fourteen year old boy in two thousand seventy so they make him plea to a separate civil rights on that so now why does chauvinist legal naturally the justice department goes out and says see we have a civil rights violation we had someone come in and plead guilty too what show that has always wanted and this is from the very beginning of the investigation he has wanted to serve his time in federal prison he knew he was going to end up getting time in this so his objective from the beginning has been to serve time federal and it

back there's reporting the new york times is a big story about this other outlets do as well that right after floyd died chauvelin offered to plead guilty to us to stay can't that wouldn't give him a sentence of more than ten years if he could do his time in federal custody and attorney general then attorney general bore turn that down because said he wasn't gonna take civil rights off the table but he was going to wait until the state prosecution played itself out and then decide what to do which i think is that is the way these this is gonna be handle but what the story shows is that from the beginning watch i really wanted was to be in federal prison because that he's back if i should point out here rich chauvelin

how can i have easy time no matter where he served his time and twenty two and a half years is a long sentence but a cop has very hard time in prison but it's much harder time for show then in a maximum security prison ensue in minnesota then it is someplace in the united states where they can figure out where is he gonna be you know safest and you easy as for them too to monitor and supervised there's just it's it's you can see why he would want to do it fairer so with that is background why does chauvinist legal to the government gives him a deal which capsules sentence this the federal government now the government gives him a deal that cast his sentence had twenty five years

with the more likely sentence of twenty years and with good time he's out seventeen worries sentences done in seventy which is roughly what's likely to happen the twenty two and a half year sentence in minnesota because with their parole rules he could be out is as few with fifteen years but probably be roughly what we're talking about here so the federal sentence doesn't give him materially speaking he doesn't get any more time four pleading guilty he gets to serve his sentence federally which is all he wanted in the first place and if you look at it this way he actually gets the benefit of being shielded from any extra prosecution on whatever the civil rights violation was on the fourteen year old because that gets folded into of ineffective gets fallen into the state a sentence so this is

completely cost free for sheldon you know he's not really gonna get any more time and he gets what he wants which is to be in federal custody so the gene this report we could run around call that a wind but i think you know it's probably more beneficial to the sheldon then it is to be done and then likely or are these these other guys to go down on the federal charges its civil rights cases a very tough case because the crime here involves let me let me explain what the climate for us i guess that's the best way to do it you don't you think about this is a murder case or manslaughter case that is not the crime in civil rights the crime and civil rights is buddy under collar of law which means a state official oro were run a police officer but somebody who's operating under collar of law will

fully deprive somebody of a federal either constitutional or statutory right that you have under federal law so people commonly think reached at that must be a racial component to this because these civil rights laws all arise out of post civil war amendments and and and statutes that congress enacted in order to try to to protect the neue free black americans after the civil war so its natural that people think especially because when the government jumps in and when the federal government jumps in on civil rights grounds it tends to be in these racially charge cases like george floyd is very much a racially charge case people remember the ride me king case for it

if there is any number of examples but people as soon as a leak racial component to it there's not italy the statute that discharge in this case what what has to be proved but they were acting on the cholera law and they wilfully deprive floyd of his civil rights and i would point out just or for atmospheric say yeah i think this is a racial prosecution in the sense that a flight was not black we wouldn't even know about this and they certainly wouldn't be anyone prosecutes but you know too in the coffee or are not why one of them is an african american

guy by the name of that alexander king another guy tell us now is some but is a asian i think it's her he's one of the hmong people which is their prominent in accordance with china and other parts of south east asia but they're not they're not why one of the defendants then who is white of horses thomas lane but this is not there wasn't anything we ve thought about this till there wasn't anything there came out in children's trial that indicated that what happened to floyd was racially motivated the guy who resisted arrest and you know now the story but it got it gotta a prominence obviously because of the racial component other it and the people who wanted to make hey but it's not an element of the offence that store so so how was the guy standing it

on the sidewalk truncating holding off the ground and then so who is the weak we talked about this during the shovel trial so deep the theory i guessed at the fact of of how floyd was was killed has to do with your pressure on the back rather than an angry them quickly and so that would would i remembered implicate one it is one of these other perhaps heavily not just open which which which caught that i believe it was a mighty king was next to were chosen then we had lane was on his on his way all about it but i think you know that's all that's almost once you move the you don't want you physically move the pressure point down their equal weight is culpable as chauvinist i think rich in the end when was the senior guy on the scene and obviously key you'll call the shots

and these guys didn't jack which is a big part of the of the case but you don't know believe this a prosecutor looking at this would not this is in a and abetting situation they all have their hands on any die young the guy's holding the crowd was that including a woman who wanted to render medical aid and wasn't able to i dont see this as an aiding and abetting situation and i think the government inadvertent really i'm sure is helping these three got eyes by calling a meeting the and a better because already you signalling to the jury that the real culprit here is spread sheldon right so there's two different charges one is they deprive him of his civil rights by the use of excessive force which under the fourth amendment makes it an unreasonable he sure and then the second charge is and this is what they do charge while for them equally in this george

they say that they violated is due process right i really think it's his fourth amendment rights but that's a they violated is due process right by failing to render him emergency medic all aid when he lost his pulse and losses consciousness and the idea is these guys are all trained in cpr and other emergency medical provisions and they didn't use now i think it's a tough case where the government because again to stress the people the charge here is not that they murdered him or that day you know committed manslaughter the charge is that they will fully deprived him of his civil rights and the supreme court in interpreting the statute back in nineteen forty five noted that it was a very vague statue and decided to try to

said by essentially requiring what we call a higher men's riah which is to be a criminal intent element and they high level of men's riah that require to convict here is wilfulness so it's not enough to show that they acted intentionally it's all this concept of defies the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse they have to show the gun does that they realise that george floyd had these rights and with an evil purpose they went they intentionally try to deprive him of those rights and i think it's very hard to say they did that under circumstances where they called for the ambulance

to try to get an emergency medical treatment and tell of course and even if he doesn't had his hands on floyd at all and has his back to what's going on for a lot of it the other two guys of saying to chauvelin shouldn't we repositioning shouldn't we roll and all but should we do things that you need to do to help a briefer now should they take no for an answer from children no i'm sure he had done more than call an ambulance should they like immediately done sepia the gas they should have done all those things but the thing is this is a criminal prosecution the question here is and where they were born and did they perform in a great day or a great sea way the question is did they know that floyd had these rights

did they go out of their way to deprive them with him up there and i think that's a very tough case to become so far they any let's get to the mass mandate and new york mass mandates becoming a bigger and bigger issue gun yanking is involved down a big fight down there in virginia where he's forced to carve out for parents who don't want the kids the mask this will probably be looks like it it'll be that the school closure debate of this year and also i would expect debate like school closures that the opponents are gonna win intellectually and and politically and i think very see that began to happen but anyway we have big front here in new york we had one judge striking down the mass mandate and then you had another judge staying i guess that decision and ended up in the air worse is gone so rich

this is the new york version of the ocean andy it's almost a bit almost a carbon copy of the ocean litigation so the judge in nassau county this is visa when we start talking about these new york legal things i'm always hesitate to start talking about the courts and the judges like what courts therein because it so confusing for people in new york the lower court is called the supreme court and the men the court is called the appellate division and the highest court is called the court of appeals so the court of appeals is the superior court to the supreme court which you know i mean i it's just its new york right so enough said so anyway a member from the from our impeachment column piecemeal discussions as it were the cook the court was can have a rule role in that way but impeachment of cloud yes we d the supreme the supreme court

in the way new york law works the supreme court judges are jurors in an impeachment so the trial of the impeachment trial as with a state senate and these seven members of the court of appeals all of whom had been appointed like one so guide it lets it nomenclature aside because it just gets people confuse what what you need to know here is the lower court judge who is a national canny judge and is a political component here this is this is probably the same replacement spits and it's a very new york thing so as we had national review now probably better than most anyone there are actually is a conservative party in new york and judge redeker

long island is is more trains more conservative not that this is a high barbara trends more conservative than most of the rest of the state so judge rademacher in nassau county is a conservative party judge these supreme court judge ships these lower court judge ships are elected possessions so he's elected to the bench on the conservative party slate on all so he issues on monday six page opinion and basically what it says rich and the reason i say it's a carbon copy of the of the ocean case is he points out that since covered started first cuomo and now harpo cathy hopeful the accidental governor whose replace club

cuomo issues a bunch of these mandates mandates about the masts contact trade everything you know the whole array of things related to cope with that we can talk about the tubes so at a certain point b the yet very cuomo centric democratic heavily democratic legislature wants to appear like they are outraged by cuomo but not really actually do anything about it right we talk about the impeachment investigation that was never gonna end and you know all the stated that they tried to do show that they were really angry equality without actually taking any action against one so one of the things they did in order to job there rum their disdain for unquote what a day passed a statute that took away some of you

emergency powers and this was especially in response to the the stories i came out about the nursing home order where he basically made the nursing homes take infected patient tried so they stripped away the governors ability to issue all these decrees so now holcomb comes in and alma crime happens and he wants to issue a decree but the problem she doesn't have authority to do it any workers is that the legislature basically took that power away where a lot of it and she can issue with the great she's in the same position as binding he wants to issue a national vaccine mandate right but he doesn't have the power to do so is run claim said famously in the springboard dumb stop this where the sunshine

bright he needed a work around for what they did was a they crawled through the statute books and they try to issue mandates by using the existing statutory authority of these different the credit agencies so what highschool did this when this gets reported in the press as it does as a whole executive order a hockey decree that's wrong this was issue as a rule by the department of health much like widens mandate was issued as a rule by the occupational safety and health administration right and so the mass mandate is the result of a rule by the department of health what judge right a maker says is democracies are not allowed to make room to make law they can legislate

they can only do what the legislature allows them to do and he looks at the legislative authority that the department of health is relying on and it doesn't say anything about being able to issue mass methods it doesn't say anything close to their so what he's basically saying is under the constitution and in this regard the new yorker constitution is the same as if the americas law has to be made by the legislature and the bureau these can only carry out with the legislature tells him they can do so he says since there is no authority for this it has to be struck down so what then answer happening is as does envy deep pointed out in some of the stuff that he's done on the site he's been great on this but all of a sudden the department of education says that basically we judge ramaker said doesn't make any difference in this any rule was stolen effect it

in effect he had invalidated what they now then said that it was still in effect because they figure everybody is so dizzy by these bureaucracies who's to say whether if they say it's an effect maybe it's an effect and they always figure by the time somebody actually rules on this weeks from now but everyone or forget that what they do not the position but anyway while the schools was saying that it was stolen a fact even though it wasn't attorney general letitia james a democrat ran into the public divisions the forum on in new york the intermediate court the appellate division has four departments the second department handles appeals among the places out of long island at a national and suffer county the case ends up before a judge a b

because it's an immediate application for a stay it goes to one judge of the appellate division whose name is robert miller who is a democrat who was appointed by governor patterson back and i think two thousand so surprise surprise miller holds a thirty minute hearing which i think was basically to say enough for appearances sake we gotta show we're having a hearing here and then he issues estate and they supposed to have more father all on this i think on friday morning but basically he does actually buy tuesday afternoon the thing is stay and uniform for rum for what she thinks is around political calculation i think she's wrong about this but you don't she's the professional politician on not hokum things it's good to challenge this in court i think the public it is these kind of sick of the stuff but you know she's doing which he has to do to try to

consolidate progressive support so here's the thing ultimately everybody else in this equation other than judge rademacher is a democrat and most of them a progressive democrats so this is gonna be decided by the appellate division and if there is any appeal it would go up to the court of appeals which we just mentioned is not only the highest court but it's it's a completely democratic word with with the cuomo appointees so as a matter of federal stay constitutional law and federal constitutional law is judged automaker right probably i can't pretend it i've studied the young the underlying statutes that give authority to today department of health but nobody is claiming that they that they say anything like sure issue amass mandate nobody's making their claim but you don't when this is like a dip

and philosophy even though its the same set of rules it's a different philosophy of governance and progressive as we saw in the supreme court decisions about osha about deep vaccine mandates progressives don't really care what do you know what the structural government is they want the bureaucracy to be able to do what they want the bureaucracy says is the right thing and its inconceivable to me that they won't come out that way even though they should occur that's all the time we had this by were produced by the incomparable sarah should he thinks i want for listening and thank you encourage banks rich