Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 2, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:30

Ep. 167: SCOTUS Madness AND MORE! Covering the Most Recent Court Ruling!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, Eduardo, I'm in your house here.
	It's an empty house, and it's good to see.
	We're going to bankrupt you right out of Miami, and we're going to take all your dolphins away soon.
	See you soon, Eddie.
	There is some context to this for those of you who don't know what's going on.
	Start from the beginning, short and sweet.
	And then I want to talk about that dolphin.
	This is Miami Seaquarium.
	Hey, Eduardo, I'm in your house here.
	It's an empty house, and it's good to see.
	We're going to bankrupt you right out of Miami, and we're going to take all your dolphins away soon.
	See you soon, Eddie.
	And by the way, watch the dolphin.
	It's almost as though the dolphin decides to say, hey, Eddie, look at my butt.
	All right, I don't know who Eduardo is.
	Okay, hold on.
	We can stop.
	We can stop with this now.
	Hold on.
	Stop.
	Good evening, everyone.
	Remove this.
	I'm going to get into why I might look tired if I do.
	All right, for those of you who don't know who that is, that's Phil Damaris.
	Now, a very interesting thing, by the way, about this clip, and I don't know if it's a glitch, and I don't know, and before I accuse it of being, you know, something chicanerous, when I go to try to open that clip in incognito...
	I'll show you what it shows for me.
	I cannot watch that clip in incognito.
	This is the clip.
	I just cut and pasted right here.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Won't work.
	Retry, retry, retry.
	Now, I don't know if that means that that clip is like flagged as adult only or not adult.
	You know what I mean?
	Like mature.
	And it won't come up except in a logged in account because it doesn't come up in incognito.
	It doesn't come up when I'm logged out of my account.
	And I didn't get a warning for that video.
	Not that there's anything in that video that should be, you know, requiring a warning.
	But it does lead me to believe that that might be an indication, not of a glitch, but rather of a method in which Twitter is dealing with Phil Damaris, the walrus, the walrus whisperer.
	Okay, for those of you who don't know.
	Phil Demers, the man you just saw right there, from Ontario, Niagara Falls region, used to be, or I think still is, but it doesn't matter what he does now.
	Don't want to get anybody in any trouble if they're not in trouble.
	He got involved in a decade's worth, a decade-long litigation.
	With Marineland.
	Everybody knows Marineland.
	Everybody loves Marineland.
	And I'm being sarcastic.
	In Niagara Falls, Ontario.
	Everyone loves Marineland.
	Not everybody loves Marineland.
	Phil Demers used to work as an animal trainer at Marineland.
	He was known as the Walrus Whisperer because he developed a relationship with Smushy the Walrus.
	Like Smushy, when she was a calf, bonded with Phil.
	They had an amazing Human-animal relationship, unique, singularly unique.
	It made Phil quasi-famous.
	He was on Wipeout Canada.
	He hit the news because of his connection with his walrus.
	He ended up leaving Marineland because he could not stand the way they were treating the animals there.
	He spilled the beans on how Marineland was treating their higher-order mammals at Marineland, and then Marineland sued him, his girlfriend, and he was...
	Dragged into 10 plus years of lawfare with Marineland, who were notoriously litigious, notoriously...
	Well, to the extent that they're notoriously litigious, I won't call them any names.
	They were notoriously not...
	They were proactive with lawsuits, but not with, you know, making them go quickly.
	Because they were trying to bankrupt and silence Phil Demers.
	He ended up coming out of that...
	Decades-long litigation, somewhat victorious.
	Their lawsuit was dismissed, and he settled his cross-claim for abuse of proceedings simply by ensuring that Smushy the walrus, who had then had a calf in that 10-year period, breeding walruses in captivity, ensuring that she would be transferred to a proper facility that Marineland was not, and it ended up happening.
	Smushy was transferred to...
	To a place in Abu Dhabi.
	Apparently it's beautiful, but Phil, I'm not sure that he can visit.
	All right, so that's how Phil became known as an animal rights activist through his litigation with Marineland.
	Ten plus years, it ended up with Marineland dropping their suit, Phil settling his counterclaim, smushy the walrus, hashtag free smushy, she got a good home in Abu Dhabi.
	He has set his sights on the Miami Sea aquarium.
	Now, a few weeks ago, it was...
	Oh, the day before I left, actually, to drive back to Montreal, I went to Miami Sea aquarium.
	I went to see the protest because he and his crew were organizing a protest there.
	And then Phil said, you're not going to believe how bad it is inside unless you go in to see it.
	And I went in and I made a short documentary.
	I didn't know it was going to be as bad as it was.
	I went in there.
	For those of you who don't...
	Didn't see the video.
	I won't play a clip for it now.
	They have two manatees, one of which is 65 years old and the other one I think is 40 years old, living in a glorified swimming pool.
	I mean, there are people with backyard pools bigger than the manatee den.
	The place was the most depressing place I've ever seen.
	Maybe the Bronx Zoo was a little more depressing.
	So I made a short documentary about that, but Phil Demers...
	Has now turned his sights on the Miami Seaquarium because they...
	Behind the scenes of the depressing part that's open to the public, they've got an orca named Lolita.
	She's got another name now.
	I forget what her other name is because Lolita has unfortunate connotations.
	There's an orca living in a stadium that's not accessible to the public.
	Day in and day out.
	I'll show a video, actually.
	I'll have to show a video of that.
	Hold on.
	I'll show you what the conditions for Orca currently look like.
	This is his Twitter feed.
	This is what the Orca is currently living in.
	He got this footage, or I don't know that he got it, actually.
	Somebody got it by drone, which is going to lead us into another legal aspect of all of this.
	This is a killer whale, Lolita.
	Did I say Orca or killer whale?
	Killer whale.
	Maybe they're the same thing.
	I might be an idiot.
	Forget it.
	Living in this fish tank.
	She's been there for, I don't know, decades.
	This stadium has been condemned.
	It's not open to the public anymore.
	This whale is sitting there, basking in the open sunlight with a little shadow portion.
	That little fish there that you see is another type of dolphin, I forget what it is, that's intended to keep her company.
	I said, this is not a life for a gerbil, let alone...
	A killer whale.
	Phil Demers has turned his sights to Eddie, who owns the Miami Sea Aquarium, and wants to wage the righteous war against Eddie.
	Phil Demers got served with a lawsuit a couple of weeks ago.
	When I was there the day of, there was a bailiff or a process server trying to serve Phil Demers with papers.
	And he was no longer there.
	The process server couldn't find him.
	It looks like they might have found him because Phil tweeted about how he's been served.
	He's been served with a lawsuit, something like an injunction, a no trespass, and a cease and desist from flying drones over the facility to capture aerial footage because, God forbid, the world should see what's going on at the Miami Seaquarium in a part that's not accessible to the public.
	So that's Phil Demers.
	And he, as far as I understand, I mean, the whole joke is I don't think he's welcome on the property.
	And like a true gangsta with an A, he's in there in front of that dolphin pool.
	Hey, Eddie, I got into your place here.
	I'm going to bankrupt you.
	Get rid of that freaking whale.
	The hashtag is FreeLolita, but I forget what the name is.
	And that's it.
	That was the intro today.
	I was going to start with the video of me getting shocked by an electric fence at a wedding I was at yesterday.
	But in order to see that, you'll have to go and join our community at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All right, people, good evening.
	When Barnes gets here, we're going to put another story from Canada on mega blast.
	And that is basically, you know, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, SCOTUS.
	Issued a bunch of rulings last week that caused a blue checkmark meltdown.
	A blue checkmark avalanche of hysteria and insanity.
	There's one case that recently occurred in Canada where our Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a woman who was taken off an organ donor list in Alberta because she refused to get the jibby jab.
	It's a death sentence.
	It's nothing shy of it.
	I had her on last week.
	We're going to put that story on massive blast tonight.
	We're going to go over the Supreme Court rulings in the United States.
	We're going to talk about RFK.
	So, don't Google Free Lolita.
	Anyone in the chat, remind me, if you can Google it, remind me what her name is, because Lolita was her original name, or it was with a name, and then they changed it to something else.
	So, we've got an amazing, amazing show tonight, because I don't...
	You know, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
	And these days, giving people the benefit of the doubt, the blue checkmark MSM propagandists, is to think that they're stupid.
	Because it would be better to be stupid than to be dishonest.
	And they cannot be so stupid.
	It's just impossible.
	They can only be dishonest.
	The descriptions of the lawsuits, the analysis, the summaries, the hyperbole, whipping up people into...
	Outrageous frenzies on the interwebs.
	It can't be the product of stupidity because nobody's that stupid.
	And nobody ascended to that level of society by being that stupid.
	They ascend there by being dishonest.
	And I'll dare say this, maliciously so.
	Okay, what I was going to say now, standard disclaimers, these beautiful things that you see here, these highlighted colored...
	They're like tips, like interweb tips.
	They're called Super Chats on YouTube, and they're called Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	YouTube takes 30% of all of this.
	So $5 is a Super Chat.
	YouTube takes $2 of that.
	I hope I did the math properly.
	If you want to support us, you can go over to Rumble.
	They have the things called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20% ordinarily, but they're taking 0% for the rest of the year.
	And I'll try to get to as many of them as I can.
	What else was there?
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	Let me read these and then let me do my sponsor because you may have known this video, Sid, contains a paid promotion.
	Cheryl Gage, the Bud Light fiasco is a microcosm of America right now.
	Everyone is going to have to pick a side.
	I was going to start with the video of Barnes and I, I think it was over Christmas, like a year and a half ago, where I accused Barnes of drinking Bud Light.
	And I said, my goodness, if you're drinking Bud Light, it's going to like shatter the image that I had of you in my soul.
	Before the whole Dylan Mulvaney thing, I never liked Bud Light.
	Even though I know it's like the true American beer, who the hell wants to drink beer that has no flavor?
	I understand the low-calorie aspect of it.
	You want to drink a lot of it so that you can always have something in your hand, not get too drunk.
	If I'm drinking beer, I want Duvel, like a 9.5% to 11.5% Belgian triple-fermented beer.
	I would like to have Mozzit, one of the Unibrew products when they were...
	Back when they were good.
	Or I'd just like a martini.
	All right, what do you got here?
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	Says, I am fully convinced leftism is a civilizational cancer.
	It metastasizes until it ends the host.
	Their core values are the seven deadly sins.
	We weren't the first and we won't be the last.
	It is very interesting.
	It's an interesting observation.
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	It could certainly be said of socialism because socialism is parasitism.
	Communism is parasitism.
	You squeeze the...
	Money.
	You squeeze the intellect until there is nothing left to be squoze, and then you move on to a new house once your society collapses.
	Venezuela, the Soviet Union.
	It's ideological, economical parasitism.
	And so you're not way out in left field on that.
	DTQCViva, since you're in the eastern townships, what's your favorite poutine place?
	I'm no longer in the townships now.
	Favorite poutine place?
	I don't know.
	I had Lazy Dog Poutine on Saint Laurent.
	It was delicious.
	Just so long as the cheese curds are fresh and the gravy is hot and melts the cheese curds, it could be anywhere.
	$10 says, this is from Ian, after some questionable search terms announced the FBI has entered the chat.
	Okay, what do we got here?
	TDS and now SCOTUSDS.
	It's amazing.
	Maybe the issue isn't either Trump or SCOTUS, but the deranged ones.
	Asking for a friend.
	Yes, the typo is attentional.
	And we got this one here.
	Viva, how do we help free the orca?
	I am crying.
	Go follow Phil Damaris on Twitter.
	He's on Instagram and it's called Ocean...
	Oh, I forget what it's called.
	Go follow him on Twitter.
	Everybody, Phil Damaris.
	It's The Walrus Whisperer.
	One word.
	Walrus Whisperer.
	He's a great guy.
	Now, Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Before I bring him in, let me do one thing.
	Because you may have noticed.
	They said this stream contains a paid promotion, which it does.
	We're switching it up tonight.
	It's not.
	I'm switching the Sunday night up from Field of Greens, which I love and use.
	Jen Yacel is getting the Sunday night stream tonight.
	And by the way, if I do look...
	Do I look tired?
	Let me see something here.
	Hold on one second.
	Where's my face?
	If I look tired...
	I'll tell you why I look tired afterwards.
	But if I look younger, hold on.
	Look at my face.
	If you don't see bags under my eyes, I've actually, as something of a...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Not a...
	As a test, I've actually started using that retinol stuff under the bags under my eyes because I felt tired.
	I want to see if it actually makes a difference.
	And if you notice a difference, it is because of this, Genyacel.
	Now, Genyacel...
	Like, I'm not very much into skincare.
	I'm not much into anything except maybe, you know, hair care.
	But some people are.
	You gotta wear suntan lotion, they say, to protect your skin from the sun, the aging effects of the sun, yada, yada, yada.
	GenuCell, as skincare products, it's not just that they work.
	They work to the degree that the founder of this company, an Egyptian pharmacist, came to America, started his pharmacy.
	Made his own proprietary blends of skincare products.
	Gave them out to his customers.
	And they said, you know, the weekend comes around and then they come back on Monday.
	They say, that stuff works so well.
	Make more of it for me.
	And that's how the company got started.
	They employ something like 50 some odd people.
	I think they're in, I want to say New Jersey or New York, but it's made in America.
	They are the sponsors of the New Jersey Devils.
	People vouch buy their skincare products.
	They got the retinol skin firming one.
	And it's a product that literally sold itself and built its own business.
	That's how well it works.
	So go to Janicell.com.
	You put in promo code Viva.
	You'll get 70% off the most popular package.
	And that's it.
	If you're into that and you want to look young and you want to take care of your skin, that's how you do it.
	I will continue to be stubborn, but I might try new things.
	There's nothing wrong with looking young, but I'm not going to dye my hair.
	I'm not going to dye my beard.
	Natural and pure, like the day I was born.
	Naked.
	Kicking, screaming, and slimy and wet.
	All right.
	With that said, Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Barnes, I'm bringing you in.
	In three, two, one.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Robert, have you ever been shocked by an electric fence?
	No.
	So, for everybody, go to locals.
	We were at a wedding in the Eastern Townships.
	It was on a farm.
	And they had this lamb.
	And it looked like an electric fence, but I didn't know that it was on.
	And my kid says, can I touch it?
	I said, you can touch it.
	I think it's an electric fence.
	He touched it, Robert.
	I saw the spark.
	And it's like getting kicked in your nervous system.
	And he stops.
	And he was about to cry.
	And then he started laughing.
	And then I felt morally required to actually touch the same fence.
	So I tried some science.
	I'm not doing it again.
	He took it better than I did.
	It did not feel good.
	Robert, do you have a book?
	You do have a new book over the back of your shoulder.
	Yeah, that's a biography of Abraham Lincoln written in 1888.
	It has some of his legal briefs from his legal days in it, stuff like that, which is cool.
	And it references a book that will come up in the affirmative action case discussion tonight.
	A great book called Lincoln at Gettysburg.
	By Gary Wills, that might be our book of the month that we review at vivobarneslaw.locals.com, because it's about the American Revolution finally expressing its full, complete meaning through the 14th Amendment and establishing equality for all, and that all men are, in fact, and indeed, born free.
	And that the speech at Gettysburg is part of what...
	Is indirectly referenced by Justice Thomas in his concurrence as to an originalist understanding of the colorblind constitution that we'll be discussing later.
	Yeah, it's going to be a saucy episode today because, I mean, some of the takes on some of those decisions were amazing.
	And you have to remind me of Ben Shapiro's.
	It's like a burn that you lick your finger and you go, and it was a legit burn on the Ketanji Brown Jackson.
	Robert, do you want to highlight our topics, and we'll start with the first on the list?
	Yeah, so the first announcement off the top, on Wednesday, I will be discussing the social, political, and cultural impact of the affirmative action decision with Michael Malice on his show.
	And on Wednesday, going to be doing a special edition show with the Duran, almost like a Hush Hush style, where we explore the alternative explanations for the Russian coup.
	And kind of do it like if you were in an intel briefing back room trying to deconstruct what may have happened.
	Look at the four prominent alternative theories being promoted, the evidence in favor of them, the arguments against them, the repercussions and ramifications if a particular interpretation is the accurate one.
	So that will be fun.
	We'll do that live on Wednesday with the Duran.
	On Friday, I discussed some of the affirmative action.
	Social political impact with America's Untold Stories, Eric Hundley and Mark Robert.
	You can see that there.
	And then on top of that, discuss the economic impact and the impact on the sort of political policy with George Gammon on his show Rebel Capitalist Live.
	So we'll be discussing the legal constitutional impact here.
	So yeah, just an upfront announcement.
	For those that wondered, I did plan on being on vacation this week, but plans changed, so we're doing the show.
	Anyhow, plan of vacation will be delayed until August.
	Tonight, a bonus...
	Topic off the top, a lot of people had asked about was, oh, another announcement.
	We will go to Locals at the end of this, do a Locals-exclusive portion of the show where we'll be answering some of the questions that have been asked, the top five most liked questions on two different posts, and be answering any live tip, any tip chat that's at least $5.
	The reason for that is some people were bombarding with $1 or $2 and we wouldn't be able to reach them all.
	So that's why, those are the ones we guarantee we answer.
	And that's at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where everybody's above average.
	First up, the bonus out of Understanding Robert Kennedy's campaign.
	And people think that his reaction to a lot of issues this week hurt him.
	It didn't, given who his audience actually is.
	The Canadian Horror Show, which you can talk about and have talked about and did an interview with, the denial of a right of an organ donor just based on vaccination status as Canada continues to sink into oblivion.
	We'll discuss both France and Farage in the separate section on Locals, because that was a common question there, as well as the Bill Gates mosquito problem.
	But for the main show here on Rumble, we'll have Eric Hundley.
	Is he going to jail?
	Then a lot of big Supreme Court cases.
	First up will be the Title VII religious rights case, how that impacts vaccine mandates.
	A big California case on vaccine mandates.
	The Trader Joe's update, that case that we talked about at the very onset of all of these issues.
	Then we'll be discussing the Supreme Court's affirmative action case.
	Then the Supreme Court's Biden student loan case.
	Then the Supreme Court's election clause case.
	Then the Supreme Court's free speech cases on true threats and the rights of religious expression for creative enterprises against attempts to call it discrimination.
	The 16th Amendment case that we've talked about, the Supreme Court took it up.
	We'll discuss what some of the ramifications of that may be.
	That was the most popular by a small margin on the Viva Barnes Law Locals Board.
	Then we have the foreign reach of domestic laws in the trademark context, which has some broader ramifications.
	Jurisdiction over corporations in due process.
	A big class action got filed suing OpenAI over its ChatGPT and about how it really may have monetized information it stole from users.
	And then as a last bonus topic, the Pence card and how it is playing a role in both the Eastman and Clark so-called disbarment cases.
	All right, well, I'm going to start with the...
	We're going to have a big audience for this story.
	I think a lot of people probably know about it, but maybe they don't.
	I'm going to put the link to her Give, Send, Go.
	This is Sheila Annette Lewis.
	Robert, I don't know if there's been cases like this in the United States.
	And like with this and with the commission on Justin Trudeau's Emergencies Act invocation, I didn't find that the big podcast platforms in the States were paying the requisite degree of attention to this because...
	When the right to protest gets stifled and violently shut down in Canada and then ratified by an independent commission, it's not long off until that trickles down to the states or at the very least some states within the states, California and New York.
	I don't know how many cases there have been of people denied organ transplant in the United States.
	This is the most egregious one I've ever seen.
	She's a 58-year-old woman.
	It's not like she's a 95-year-old woman who has no chance of a successful transplant.
	58-year-old woman with a degenerative condition, which she's not at liberty to discuss because of the gag order in the case.
	She can't mention her organ.
	She can't mention the hospital that is refusing to do the transplant.
	She can't mention the doctors who have provided this, what's the word, guidance that you must...
	Take the COVID jab in order to remain on the organ donor list.
	58-year-old woman, degenerative disease diagnosed in 2019.
	When she was diagnosed and had to be put on the list or was going on the list, they had some criteria.
	She needed to get up to speed on all of her vaccines.
	And she's from the east of Canada, Nova Scotia, I think.
	And now she's living in Alberta.
	She didn't have that.
	She didn't have it digitized or whatever.
	So she actually went through a full session of legit...
	You know, time-tested and true vaccines, if anybody still believes in that.
	Then it came time for them to say in 2021, you got to get the Rona jab.
	Otherwise, we're going to take you down from a two on the list, which is like the most urgent for an organ, to zero.
	And they did because she refused to get the jab.
	And then they ultimately took her off the list.
	Save a lot of time on this.
	She went to the lower courts to revise the hospital's decision.
	The lower court said, we're not getting involved with what is quintessential medical advice, medical guidance.
	Doctors say they think in their expert advice, you need to do this.
	This is part of the program.
	If you don't want to do it, you're free to die.
	Court of Appeal comes in and says, same decision, basically.
	It's not a charter violation because it's not a government guideline.
	To impose this requirement.
	And so it's not as though these doctors are abiding by government guidelines.
	It's their own professional medical opinion.
	And they say, it's not a charter violation.
	We ratify or we reaffirm the lower court's decision.
	But even if it were a charter right at issue, it's your decision.
	It's not a charter violation.
	I guess you don't have a right to life in Canada.
	You have the right to do what they say you need to do in order to get the right to life.
	Supreme Court says we're not hearing the case, thus sealing her judicial death sentence.
	And now she's got to raise about a million bucks.
	Within of the week since the story, I think her give, send, go has gone from 70,000 to 110,000.
	So she can now do preliminary tests in Texas that don't have this requirement.
	And then the procedure, if she's approved, is going to cost upwards of a million Canadian.
	And I try to steal my net, Robert.
	I understand how the doctors can say...
	We're not going to give a liver transplant to a raging alcoholic.
	We're not going to give a lung transplant to a smoker.
	If you don't want to abide by the logical, scientifically tested guidelines, we can't put you on the list because there's other people who will, who are going to be better off in terms of receiving and tolerating that organ.
	And so that's the steel man.
	I've been putting a lot of pressure on the premier of Alberta because I know that she follows me on Twitter and I'm not calling her names.
	I'm calling her out.
	That if she remains silent while one of her citizens is allowed to die, that's a very big problem, especially coming from...
	This is Danielle Smith, who's the recently elected Premier of Alberta, especially since she was recently the one who said there has been no group more discriminated against in recent memory than the unvaccinated.
	If she remains silent and lets one of her citizens die, that's a very big problem.
	That's the steel man.
	And so, Robert, what are your thoughts on this?
	Have you heard of anything like this out of the States?
	And is this...
	Is this one of those cases where we're walking the line between doctors have to have independence, but they can't have independence to do absolutely outrageous things?
	And do we want politicians saying, doctors, we as politicians are going to override your medical expert opinion?
	It has come up in the U.S., but to my knowledge, hasn't reached a litigation stage.
	And I'm not sure if anyone was...
	Finally denied, because I think they were going through appeals processes and the rest.
	Do you have medical malpractice laws in Canada?
	We do, and that is the next venue that she's taking right now.
	So she's lost on the charter application.
	Supreme Court said we're not even taking it.
	Now they're going after a medical malpractice lawsuit.
	But Robert, what faith would I have in that lawsuit succeeding if the courts, the lower Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, have deferred effectively to the guidance?
	Medical opinion, par excellence, we're not getting involved.
	I wouldn't see the courts getting involved.
	I mean, I guess they could adjudicate or adduce evidence that would show that it's actually totally frivolous malpractice.
	Her lawyer said it, Robert.
	I mean, it makes total sense.
	I forgot to mention, she also has natural immunity, robust natural immunity.
	Her T cells, whatever it is, are very high.
	Robust natural immunity, where her doctor said, there's strictly no benefit to imposing this.
	There is only risk.
	So we do have it.
	It's not worth what it is in the United States by any means in Canada, but that's her next and last venue other than raising the money to do it herself.
	Yeah, I mean, I think medical malpractice may be the only avenue available in Canada under these existing circumstances.
	The only other question is whether or not some degree of Nuremberg or international human rights may be applicable, somehow enforceable in Canadian law, but I don't know what the status of that is.
	Yeah, that's it.
	I mean, I'm going to follow it.
	I'm just sending this.
	Tag everybody when you send the give, send, go, because unfortunately, to raise a million dollars, the give, send, go has to go quasi-viral.
	It takes more than a bunch of motivated individuals who are within the community.
	So the story's outrageous.
	I've been DMing it to everyone that I have a direct contact with in the States because I think America needs to be looking at this because this will trickle down.
	It's not a question.
	Once the precedent has been set and tolerated in a Western democracy, It will metastasize like a cancer, proverbially speaking.
	Robert, do we head over to Rumble now?
	Yeah.
	Let's do it.
	Okay.
	Everybody, I'm going to share the link one more time.
	For those who are new, what we do is we start on YouTube and Rumble.
	We end on YouTube, go to Rumble exclusively with locals in the backdrop, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Then we have a little after party at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending on YouTube now.
	Come on over to Rumble, people.
	There should be 2,789 people migrating now.
	All right, Robert, RFK.
	Do I get the impression you like Robert RFK Jr. a lot?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So, I mean, he's a client, a friend of mine, very good mind, very good heart.
	And that's where, like, you know, if you have somebody that has a good mind, good heart, good methods of learning information...
	That's about as good as you can get, because often what they face in public office is not anticipated.
	And historically, people with the right methods of learning and deciding things, with the right mind and heart, are more trustworthy and reliable in positions of power than people who say all the things and check all the boxes that you want said and checked.
	So this week, I mean, the thing to understand about Robert Kennedy is his default position is his Uncle Ted Kennedy's liberal democratic tradition.
	So it's in those issues where he's made a deeper inquiry, where he often has dissident opinions and populist positions.
	And so he has populist positions on censorship, on social media control, on openness of dialogue and debate, on war, on foreign policy, on trade.
	On global relationships, on vaccines, on COVID, on mandates, on public health, on big agriculture, on the national security establishment, and the deep state and the intelligence community, including also on elections.
	So on those areas, he has all populist positions.
	On your conventional social-cultural issue, he has default democratic positions.
	And for him, he is right now competing.
	In the Democratic primary, to get votes amongst Democrats and independents who will vote in the Democratic primary, to get donors that want to see him succeed in the Democratic primary, and volunteers that want to see him succeed in the Democratic primary.
	In that context, his audience generally supports all the same positions that he has announced on these other issues that the court adjudicated.
	So your average Democrat is...
	Pro-choice is for gun control, for assault weapon bans, for affirmative action.
	That one's a little bit closer, actually.
	We'll get into that a little bit more when we discuss the affirmative action aspect.
	On all those kind of issues, he's echoing what Democrats believe.
	And so you get some conservatives and Republicans that agree with him on the popular side, don't agree with him on these other issues, and they get strangely agitated.
	It's like, well, why?
	Twofold.
	One is that's not who his audience is.
	He raised a million dollars in a day this week, which set a record for an independent outsider candidate like him in the Democratic process.
	He continues to do well in terms of social media access.
	Volunteers are going to be doing RFK support rallies at July 4th parades all across the country over the weekend and on July 4th.
	So he's doing very well in all those categories.
	And if he came out and said and had a Republican position on a bunch of these other issues, all it would do is diminish his chance to do anything in the Democratic Party.
	And diminish the populist causes that he is voicing because those people would just completely tune him out.
	That you have people who are pro-choice but are willing to listen to how their ideas of bodily autonomy should extend to the issues of vaccine mandates.
	You have people that are pro-gay rights that would be amenable to extending that to religious freedom issues.
	So there's a range of places where he can reach.
	The Democratic voter group to expand and extend a populist message on populist issues that he would forfeit if he decided to embrace Republican conservative positions on everything.
	So it's not in his interest at all to be pursuing Republican positions on these other issues.
	And so the people get agitated.
	It's like, you know, I mean, he's a Democrat.
	He's a liberal Democrat with a bunch of good populist positions on issues that really matter.
	To the populist community, and his best benefit is extending and expanding the audience for that and the support for it in an otherwise hostile circle of Democratic primary voters.
	And so the people understand that they can...
	That then they won't necessarily react like some have.
	Like, oh, Mad Bobby Kennedy doesn't have Donald Trump's views on abortion or gun control or gay rights or any of those issues.
	So there was some controversy because Moms for Liberty was doing a national conference.
	They had invited him.
	And he had initially accepted the invitation.
	Then he got blowback.
	Some of the blowback was misrepresentations of what Moms for Liberty is about.
	But it's...
	Not really decontrovertible that Moms for Liberty is an overwhelmingly conservative and Republican-leaning group.
	So it wouldn't do him a great benefit, frankly, to go there.
	Now, if I were him, I would have handled it differently in the debate about responding to it.
	Otherwise, he'll keep falling for that trap.
	Why associate with so-and-so?
	Why affiliate with so-and-so?
	Why appear on such-and-such?
	That he should go to his other position, which is he wants debate and dialogue across all political.
	Otherwise, we won't get any improvement in society writ large, and that should have been his response rather than to forego the invitation.
	But otherwise, his response makes sense given within the Democratic primary, one of the narratives they're pushing, and they used his acceptance of the Moms for Liberty invitation as a pretext to run the story in Mother Jones and Daily Beast and a bunch of other places, says, see, he's really just a Trump plant, and Democratic voters will to him out.
	If that narrative sticks.
	So he's doing what he needs to do to get the populist message to a difficult audience and to improve his standing in the Democratic primary.
	And so all of that makes sense.
	For those that are upset at him, they're just not recognizing.
	The political situation as it exists.
	Robert, it feels like Robert F. Kennedy, RFK Jr. is like the first politician in a long time that is making people understand that you are necessarily not going to agree with each and every position espoused by a politician, nor should you because it wouldn't be normal if you did.
	It would be tribalism if you were to.
	When people call him a Democrat, I would call him a traditional Democrat where I think some of the views that he has even on woman's choice.
	They're going to be considered radical by a large portion of Democrats these days because the traditional Democrat is today's sort of conservative.
	But people need to understand you're not going to agree with everything any one person says if you've ever even agreed with everything you've said.
	And the whole Trump thing is a bit different where people are almost reluctant to disagree with anything Trump says.
	Let me rephrase that.
	There is a certain bigger degree of tribalism where People don't even want to address constructive criticism with Trump per se because it just lends into the DeSantis battle.
	But RFK comes around and says, look, you're not going to agree with everything I say.
	I understand that he says it in his interviews.
	You're not going to.
	You don't have to.
	But we're going to make it work and we're going to listen to each other.
	And I love listening to him in interviews.
	I forget which one I was listening to today.
	He's just so polite in the way that he's needling Joe Biden.
	He's asked, you know, you might not get a debate.
	He's like, well, you know, I wouldn't want to debate me either.
	If I'm Joe, I wouldn't want to have a debate.
	There's no upside to that.
	He's amazing on social media.
	You may not agree with everything he has to say, but nor should you agree with everything any one person has to say.
	Yeah, and I think Owen Schroyer had a really good take.
	He was like, you know, there's a bunch of things I disagree with him on, but I don't think he's out to destroy my life.
	I think he comes from the right place.
	We just have disagreements on policy.
	But if you come from the right place, that's a manageable political dynamic as opposed to people who have just hostile, malevolent intentions.
	And, you know, I think if he took a deep dive on some of these, if you look at his history.
	When he's taken a deep dive on positions, he's often deviated from the default Democratic position, even to the degree of the assassination of his father.
	As he discussed with Bill Maher, he'd always just assumed it was Saran Saran and refused to even look at it any further until someone else who had been shot that night, who was a longstanding friend of his father, Asked him to look at the autopsy.
	And he said when he looked at it, he realized that it was a respect for the same with vaccines, that a lot of mothers of vaccine injured kept coming to him.
	And that's when he, out of respect for them, he did a deep dive.
	And what he has shown is a very rare trait in public officials these days, which is a willingness to completely reverse positions upon reviewing and researching the information.
	It's a methodological approach.
	That improves the quality of his decision-making.
	And on some of these other issues, I don't think he's taking a real deep dive.
	And I think if he did, I think there'd be a more moderated position that comes out, because I think he's more in the tradition of his father and uncle President John Kennedy than he is in Senator Ted Kennedy's history.
	I think Ted Kennedy's kind of his default position, but it varies when he takes a deep dive and shows a stronger instinct with his father and his uncle President John Kennedy than the other way around.
	And a lot of these issues weren't big issues when Robert Kennedy Sr. and John Kennedy were in politics.
	Robert, on America's Untold Stories, I was watching it.
	I was in the chat.
	I didn't chime in in the chat.
	But Grobert asked you, what is RFK Jr.'s path to victory for the Democrats?
	And I was sitting there screaming at my phone, he doesn't have a path to victory.
	Am I being overly cynical or does he simply realistically never have a path to victory for the Democrats?
	And then the question is going to be running as an independent and potentially splitting the Democrat vote or, I don't know, some sort of group effort, team effort with Trump because I don't see Trump not getting the nomination for the GOP.
	Is it too cynical?
	He has no path to victory for the Democrats?
	Well, two things.
	He's ruled out ever running as an independent, and he's ruled out ever being a Republican or running on a Republican ticket.
	So to him, he's only running for the Democratic nomination.
	If he doesn't get it, that ends the political aspect of his campaign.
	The difficulty he faces is that no incumbent president who ran has ever lost.
	Now, there are two incumbent presidents that chose not to run because of their concern that they would lose, and that's Harry Truman in 1952 and Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1968.
	And LBJ dropped out because his dad ran.
	As soon as his dad announced, LBJ couldn't handle the idea of getting humiliated by Bobby Kennedy, so he dropped out rather than run for re-election.
	So, otherwise, the closest races were in 76 and 80. His uncle, Ted Kennedy, challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980, was ahead in the polls for a period of time, ended up losing to Jimmy Carter by about 10 points.
	Ted Kennedy couldn't break out of what was then the liberal base, and what's still kind of currently the liberal base.
	Ted Kennedy did well in the Northeast and the Southwest, but he couldn't break through anywhere else really in the country, Midwest or the South.
	Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford in 1976.
	In 76 and 80, there still weren't as many primaries as there are today.
	But Reagan got very close to knocking off Gerald Ford.
	But Ford had never been elected, so it was a little bit of a different dynamic.
	He had come in as the replaced vice president for Nixon after the 72 election.
	So that's why people say historically he's got to do something that's never been done before.
	The other aspect is that the second aspect is the obstacle of the Democratic Party.
	They have a lot of superdelegates.
	They're going to rig a lot of rules.
	So the belief is it'll be tough for him to overcome the Democratic Party's institutional hostility to him.
	And then the third is money, is that the big money in media, that the big money in big media will try to blacklist them and blackball them as much as possible.
	YouTube and Google are already proactively doing that by...
	Removing interviews with Robert Kennedy, they did so with Jordan Peterson, I mean, with high-profile individuals, threatening other YouTube makers that their channels will be struck if they simply interview Robert Kennedy.
	So Google's already conspiring to try to limit his podcast strategy of reaching voters directly and circumventing the institutional media.
	So those are the hurdles, and those are big, big hurdles.
	Now, the flip side is, if for any reason Biden were to not run in 2024, then he's in a prime position to take the lead like his father did in 1968.
	The other argument he would make is that the same precedent was broke by Trump to a degree.
	Nobody outside of, who had never held public office, had ever won the presidency before.
	And Trump did.
	I think there's differences there, but he's right that when Trump announced, most insiders thought it was impossible for Trump to win.
	Trump was as low as a 50-to-1 underdog, even when he was leading in polls at times.
	And Nate Silver famously ruined his reputation by staking his claim that Trump would never win, ever, all the way through the entire election.
	And so then had to write a mea culpa later about what he got wrong.
	He still didn't figure out what he got wrong.
	So those are the reasons why Robert Kennedy has a chance.
	I think it really depends on the problem Ted Kennedy really had was he could not break through with black voters.
	So he had enough of the old white Catholics in the North and white liberals.
	Now, white liberals will not be voting for Robert Kennedy, white professional class liberals, just like they didn't vote for his father.
	His father was able to put together a coalition that somewhat doesn't exist in Democratic primary anymore.
	The old working class whites have mostly left.
	So the question is, can he break through amongst younger voters and millennials and Zoomers and the working class portions of those and African-American and Mexican-American voters?
	And that's as well as Puerto Ricans.
	In certain places in the country.
	That will be the open question.
	And we'll see.
	He's going to make a...
	I think he'll be the most significant.
	There's been candidates like him.
	Tulsi Gabbard in 2020.
	Dennis Kucinich before that, who's managing Kennedy's campaign now.
	Fred Harris, if you go all the way back to 1976.
	Senator from Oklahoma who took a popular streak.
	They usually couldn't get above 3-5% of the polls.
	So they got the hardcore anti-war dissident voice, but they couldn't break out.
	Robert Kennedy's already between 15-20%.
	Joe Biden's found base is about 30-35% of people who have a very favorable opinion of him within the Democratic Party.
	So what Robert Kennedy has to do is win almost all the voters in the Democratic process that don't have a very favorable view of Biden.
	Those are overwhelmingly young, working-class voters and Mexican-American and Black voters.
	So can he break through?
	That's the real open question.
	We won't know until the votes start coming in.
	People say, you know, they said it was impossible with Trump also, but with Trump winning the nomination for the GOP, it's a little different because whether or not the GOP and the DNC both play dirty, in my experience of the last, what is it now, seven years?
	The DNC plays.
	Ultra-ooper, super-duper dirty.
	But I wanted to bring up one chat.
	Where was it?
	It says, here, Sancho Relaxo says RFK is anti-tribalism.
	He said so.
	He wants to unite the nation.
	Like Robert said, the man is open-minded, rational, and can be convinced.
	And then it says, David, come back to the north.
	I'm here now for a little bit.
	And then I just had two more here.
	If you need to have pronouns to be addressed by, you are part of the problem.
	Get woke.
	Go stand on the corner.
	And then there was a should have grounded yourself, Eva.
	All right, Robert.
	Now look, speaking of playing dirty and, you know, ending up in jail, Eric Hundley, I mean, this is, we did a, you know, an emergency live stream last Tuesday.
	He called me up.
	He sounded kind of like he's laughing, but, you know, you can tell when someone's nervous because this doesn't happen to everybody every day.
	Hundley apparently had gotten a call from the special prosecutor.
	It is a special prosecutor, right?
	In the Alec Baldwin-Russ shooting investigation, because they wanted to know who was Hunley's source for the rumor of the plinking that had been going on on set.
	Plinking is using a real firearm, the prop firearm, which is a real gun, to shoot Ken's target practice while you're killing time, so to speak.
	Oh, that's a bad pun.
	Not intended.
	While you're wasting time on set.
	And so we know that there were live rounds on set.
	They found them.
	There were a bunch intermingled with the dummy rounds, the blank rounds.
	And Hunley had a source.
	He's been getting information in the context of this investigation, who told Hunley, the rumor is that on set they were plinking.
	This news was reported by New York Post, by other outlets as well.
	He gets a call, ends up on the line with Nate.
	The lawyer, as his lawyer, Hunley shuts his mouth and listens, and they want to know his source, and he says no, and then they say, we're going to issue a warrant, or we're going to issue a subpoena or a warrant.
	I forget which name.
	Oh, whatever.
	Robert, I mean, I asked Hunley after a second, are you sure it wasn't not a prank, but a journalist pretending to be a special prosecutor to get your source so they can go after it?
	You know, the number matched up, so it looks like it was legit.
	What's your take on it, Robert?
	I mean, does he have anything to worry about?
	Well, he was totally nonchalant.
	He was telling me he doesn't care.
	You tell the prosecutor to shove off.
	He's ready to do some time in jail.
	He's ready to go.
	No worries there at all for Hunley.
	Just a little vacation maybe prepared at that.
	But what the prosecutor is doing is deeply problematic.
	And we're probably going to see more of it.
	It's prosecutors going after independent journalists, independent content creators, independent members of the media.
	Who get independent sources, who disclose problems with prosecutions particularly.
	And the journalist's shield law varies by jurisdiction.
	So the federal common law, federal courts have adopted a degree of protection of journalists, colloquially called shield laws.
	And so that can apply in federal proceedings, civil or criminal.
	In state proceedings, it's governed by state law, and that varies completely by state.
	In New Mexico, they have a very robust S.H.I.E.L.D.
	law.
	What he was quoting from when he was with you was the New Mexico's standard for S.H.I.E.L.D.
	law, which basically protects confidential information and the confidentiality of sources.
	And what the government has to prove, or any private litigant in a civil case has to prove to get that information...
	is something that kind of looks like strict scrutiny.
	In other words, a compelling need for the information and that the only means of getting it is getting that information from that source.
	Now, the proper way this should be done is a subpoena gets issued.
	And because he lives in Virginia, the case is in New Mexico, they need to go through certain...
	The processes to get the Virginia to enforce a New Mexico subpoena because a New Mexico state court subpoena is not generally enforceable outside the territory of New Mexico.
	And then he would have an opportunity to contest it, go to court and say, so even assuming they go through that, they get it properly served, they get the interstate approval by either he consents to it or Virginia agrees to help out.
	Then he can go in and say, here's why this information should still be confidential.
	They don't have a compelling need for it, and they have other means, and they haven't exhausted those means or proven they've exhausted those means.
	I think the special prosecutor knows she would not win a subpoena to get the information.
	So what was disturbing about what he was talking about was the extraordinary abuse of prosecutorial power to use a search warrant instead.
	And the reason why they would use a search warrant is twofold.
	One is to circumvent the subpoena requirements, prevent him an opportunity to object to what they're seeking.
	But the second reason is because they could get a lot more information without him even knowing what they got.
	Because the way a search warrant would work in that context is they wouldn't try to go search Eric's home because that would require them to get Virginia state approval.
	That causes all kinds of hurdles.
	What they want instead is to search his phone provider, search his email provider, search his social media provider.
	And you can bet they would have searched a lot more and seized a lot more than even could possibly apply to the circumstances they were describing here.
	Like here they're saying, we want your source that said this was happening.
	But my guess is they would use it as an opportunity to do a...
	Sneak peek and deep dive into all of his sources, into all the information that they could get their grubby hands on.
	And so it's a clear abuse of prosecutorial power.
	Now, in the Tenth Circuit, which is where New Mexico resides for federal purposes, he would have two legal remedies.
	One is Title 42, USC, 1983.
	Which is that anybody who executes or crafts a search warrant without probable cause of that person committing a crime.
	It was clear this prosecutor thinks, I can just issue search warrants for evidence of crimes, even if the person I'm searching has committed no crime.
	And here it wouldn't even be evidence of a crime she was searching for.
	It's evidence of support of different criminal allegations.
	That's not the case.
	You're not allowed to do search warrants without probable cause of a crime for which the evidence is that you're searching, and she didn't have any.
	And then the second problem is, for the prosecutor, the Federal Privacy Protection Act that a lot of people don't know about.
	It's designed in particular to protect journalists.
	And by the way, anybody's a journalist.
	If you're in the news gathering business, you're a journalist.
	You don't have to have some certification.
	You don't have to have a special degree.
	This has been litigated repeatedly.
	I litigated it in the Alex Jones case.
	And even a very hostile judge acknowledged and admitted that it covered Alex Jones.
	It covers anybody in the news gathering business.
	It looks at the purpose of your activity, not the credentials you may have or the platform that you're broadcasting from.
	So this clearly covers him and his activity.
	Under the Federal Privacy Protection Act, they can't seize this kind of information without meeting certain standards, which are not met here.
	And here's the big thing for a prosecutor.
	If you're individually involved in the search, then you can be sued and do not have immunity under the Federal Privacy Protection Act.
	If you are involved in either the drafting of the warrant or the execution of the search, then you do not have prosecutorial immunity.
	From 1983 federal civil rights violations.
	And in those cases, of course, your attorney's fees, they have to pay if they lose.
	So it looks to me like he has a robust federal civil rights and federal privacy protection act claim against this rogue prosecutor should she go forward and execute the search warrant.
	I was watching you again with America's Untold Stories.
	Some of the rumble rants for Hundley were the most hilarious rumble rants ever.
	Yeah, folks, send him memes about him being in jail.
	He finds that really funny.
	He's like, aha, that's so good.
	All right, amazing.
	Robert, before we get it, we're going to get into SCOTUS now.
	I think.
	I have to check the list.
	Before we do that, I've fallen, well, I think we've fallen well behind on some of these.
	Let's do some rumble rants, and then we're going to get into the Supreme Court decisions.
	I just tweeted out at Elizabeth Warren, who yet again referred to the Supreme Court justices as extremists.
	There should be.
	There should be.
	Some sort of political punishment for that.
	Tropical Rocket says, why is anti-vax a pejorative?
	That means I don't want one.
	You can do what you want.
	The other side tries to compel other people to do things.
	The pejorative is vaxxers.
	Tropical Rocket says, would like to see Barnes talk to Lynn Alden about the best financial mind out there, in my opinion.
	Oh, about the best financial mind out there.
	All right.
	We got DeBronx183.
	Good health and happiness to you and Barnes and the families.
	Thank you very much.
	I have to watch that movie again.
	I watched it when I was way too young, understood nothing, and didn't like it, but I can give it a second try.
	It's a very useful read.
	Can Barnes explain how Trump can be charged for January 6th criminally when he was acquitted of January 6th impeachments?
	I know impeachment is impunitive and is office removal, but isn't not guilty, not guilty.
	Robert, we've discussed it.
	We'll cover that if they cross that.
	Okay.
	All right, Robert, let me see.
	What order are we going in with this?
	So, a really big Title VII case that covers religious discrimination.
	In other words, vaccine mandates don't come up in the case.
	It is the major issue that was the major hurdle for relief and remedy for those who were fired.
	After they asserted religious objections to the vaccine mandates.
	This title, this religious rights one was the postal, the USPS guy who didn't want to work on Sunday.
	All right.
	So the summary of that, everybody, is that this postal worker, I don't remember what, if it's USPS or whatever, didn't want to work on Sunday because Sunday is the Sabbath for Christians and said, I have a deeply held religious belief.
	I don't want to work on Sunday.
	I'll work any other day.
	Just, you know, let's make the schedules work.
	Claimed it was an undue hardship under the law.
	But Robert, you're going to have to flesh out this distinction.
	Undue hardship, if it causes a de minimis interruption to the business, as was the criteria for the last however many decades.
	The story had been sort of misrepresented in the media as this postal worker winning his case.
	He didn't win his case yet.
	It goes down now to be reconsidered under the new criteria for when a company...
	is required to accommodate and what is it reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs means because have I misunderstood it that the threshold was reasonable accommodations but if it caused a de minimis interruption to the business The company could say, this is an undue burden, sorry, so we're not accommodating it, and we're not going to accommodate your religious beliefs.
	Supreme Court says, no, the de minimis criteria had been widely abused for too long.
	It allowed companies to say, we're not even going to try.
	Oh, there's a slight inconvenience, we're not going to accommodate.
	And so it has to actually be an undue hardship for the company, which has to mean interfering meaningfully with its business in order to accommodate.
	So they say, throw it back down.
	Post office guy, you get your new trial, your new hearing once again because it had reached the end of it, and it's going to be assessed under this new criteria from the Supreme Court that revises what had been the standard for several decades.
	Is that accurate enough of a summary?
	Yeah.
	I mean, essentially, that other standard was a standard that was never established by the Supreme Court.
	It was a throwaway line in an old case that lower courts had used as their pretext.
	So the requirement, no employer...
	That fits certain definitions, covered employers under the Federal Civil Rights Act.
	So not every employer is covered, but most are.
	And is not allowed to discriminate at all, not just in terms of termination, but in any condition of employment as it relates to religion.
	The Congress had gone in and made clear that included an obligation to reasonably accommodate Anyone who had a religious objection to any aspect of employment, to any term or condition of it, but there was a carve-out.
	You didn't have to reasonably accommodate if it would impose a, quote, undue hardship on you as an employer.
	The undue hardship language had been diluted to be just a little bit above a de minimi burden.
	And also what was being included as an undue hardship was if coworkers just objected or customers objected or vendors objected.
	So if they didn't like something about somebody, I don't want to be served by somebody in a turban.
	I don't want to be served by someone with a beard.
	Or in the vaccine mandate context, I don't want to work with someone who hasn't taken the vaccine.
	So the...
	So that was the big hurdle in all the vaccine mandate cases, is there were a lot of employers holding on hope that lower courts would excuse them, their complete failure to reasonably accommodate, because under this misinterpretation of the civil rights laws.
	So the Supreme Court came in and clarified, unanimous decision, made clear that the words, undue hardship, mean what they sound like.
	And that isn't more than a de minimi standard.
	That is, first, a hardship, which means extreme privation, adversity, negative impact.
	And undo means an excessive and unjustifiable extreme privation hurdle, handicap.
	And then they made clear this is about the monetary cost of doing the business, so it has to be substantial, and it cannot include...
	The bias or prejudice of the specific religious belief from other employees or other customers or other vendors or anybody else.
	It's got to be, well, we can't accommodate you to work from home because our business model requires you to provide direct customer service.
	And let's say that was the accommodation that was being sought or any other accommodation, testing accommodation.
	In the case of the vaccine mandates, or even just evaluating whether a vaccine even had any relevance to spread in the first place.
	All those things.
	The other thing they were doing is they were just assessing the reasonableness of an accommodation.
	They made no effort to actually accommodate.
	And the Supreme Court made clear, you can't do that either.
	It's basically a strict scrutiny type analysis.
	Do you have a compelling interest in your business to have this requirement that you can't accommodate?
	And is the means by which you're requiring this condition of the business, is it really nearly tailored to serve that compelling business interest?
	Are there alternatives?
	Are there other ways you could accommodate your business need and this religious need of the individual employee?
	And you've got to make efforts to look at the risk-reward of every single one, and you've got to do everything you can to actually accommodate, not just assess an accommodation.
	And in the process of doing so, you have to look at all the options, all the alternatives available to you that could meet and balance the interest of your business versus the employee.
	And that's got to be financial concerns of the business.
	And those financial concerns cannot be driven by bias and prejudice either of the religion as a whole or of the substantive particular specific iteration of it.
	Or expression of it in that context.
	In this case, employers can no longer say, well, we can't do this because our other employees won't like it.
	Or we can't do this because our customers won't like it.
	That's out as an excuse.
	They can't say, well, we looked at it and we didn't think we could do an accommodation.
	That's out as an excuse.
	Well, we only looked at this accommodation or the accommodation the employees suggested.
	That's out as an excuse.
	They've got to do a deep...
	Risk-reward analysis.
	And they can't meet that.
	If undue hardship meant what it should have always meant in the words it was written in and how it was interpreted originally, then before these lower courts went AWOL, misinterpreting a throwaway phrase in a Supreme Court case that dealt with pension issues, didn't even deal with this.
	There's specific protections for seniority pensions and seniority concerns as it relates to unionized contracts that are exempt from certain Title VII coverage.
	That was what that old case was.
	So it had nothing to do with the full context.
	It was misquoted.
	But lower courts were eager to protect employers.
	And in the process, they had been gutting religious discrimination cases for decades.
	And now we have robust religious discrimination laws.
	I don't think employers will be able to meet their standards for this vaccine mandate because they have the problem right out of the gate, which we'll talk about in a bit here in the California case, that this didn't even stop spread.
	So there was no benefit of the vaccine mandate for employers.
	There was none.
	So they can't show that it was an undue hardship for them to accommodate something when the original mandate itself didn't serve its own purported purpose.
	So, I mean, the bottom line, Robert, this was a case about it was USPS and whether or not it was undue hardship for them to schedule accordingly so that the religious guy doesn't have to work on Sunday.
	The theory is you're going to apply this mutatis mutandis to religious objections, to not getting jabbed, and what accommodations the company has to take in order to allow a person to remain unjabbed, work from home if you can.
	Maybe make a room for the unvaccinated, the unjabbed.
	Well, I mean, in fact, that's what it really ultimately should, because their only excuse, all these employers' only excuse, was to stop the spread.
	But they knew very early on the vaccine didn't stop the spread.
	So, I mean, so they don't even have any ground.
	They have no hardship from allowing the unvaccinated employee to work.
	None.
	Was there any portion of the judgment, I think I've forgotten now, that discussed the sincerity of the belief?
	Because in a number of cases that we've seen, they say, yeah, we don't think your belief is sufficiently sincere.
	Generally, courts can't do that.
	And for people out there, religion...
	It's just a spiritual belief with a deep belief.
	It doesn't require an actual organized religion.
	You can be an atheist and assert discrimination based on religion.
	So it's based on deep spiritual beliefs is how it's defined.
	And courts are not supposed to second guess.
	And employers are not supposed to second guess the sincerity of the belief.
	You can guess whether it's a religious belief.
	So for example, somebody said, oh, I really need my tattoo.
	It's deeply important to me.
	At times, courts would say, well, that's not really a deeply held spiritual belief about your tattoo.
	Now, there are some that do have a deeply spiritual held belief about their tattoo, just like there are Sikhs about beard and there's a range of other provisions.
	Generally, that's not a grounds of defense either.
	So, I mean, this dealt a death blow to corporate employers trying to continue to deny relief and remedy to the unvaccinated, in my view.
	It's only a matter of time now before the cascading collapse of corporate defenses starts to accumulate.
	The smart ones will start writing checks and admitting their culpability.
	The dumb ones will be forced to get pounded into oblivion.
	And speaking of which, Trader Joe's, what happened with Trader Joe's, Robert?
	I mean, we talked about it at the time.
	Your hatred for, or I should say, disdain for Trader Joe's is exceeded only by your disdain for, what's that food company now?
	Tyson.
	What happened with Trader Joe's lawsuit?
	So this was one of the first cases we covered.
	This was the corporate employee who was fired a day or two after he said that he was going to talk to a lawyer about asserting his religious objection rights to Trader Joe's vaccine mandate.
	That they were trying to force down everybody's throat at the company.
	And it went to summary judgment, and he won on the key retaliation claim.
	And one thing the court did a good job of was the court said, look, he requested a lawyer about religious discrimination.
	He told you he felt he was being religiously discriminated against, that he had made an informal claim, and he had no disciplinary history, and you fired him very soon afterwards.
	He goes, that's a very strong evidentiary inference that you retaliated against him.
	So he goes, that's going to a jury to decide whether that was why you fired him or not.
	And not long after that, Trader Joe wrote a check and settled the case.
	All right.
	And the firefighter case?
	Yes.
	So this is the firefighters who sued the city of L.A. and one of your crazy judges in L.A. dismissed the case at what's called the demure stage.
	So that's like your old jurisdiction.
	So California still operates on this.
	Like most states have motions to dismiss and so forth.
	California still has demurs.
	I demur to the complaints.
	Very old proceeding.
	Used to be done in all the states.
	Now California and a few others.
	And the judge took judicial notice that the vaccines are so safe and effective that the firefighters couldn't sue.
	Because the firefighters sued saying, look, this was not even a rational policy.
	They said the COVID vaccine, because they sued after Omicron was already developing.
	And they said, look, this doesn't even stop the spread.
	And that's your only excuse.
	And so, number one.
	Number two, they said you dig into the government's own documents.
	They're not saying it's safe and effective.
	They're saying maybe, but we really don't know.
	We really don't have a clue.
	And so, but the judge said, well, I hear.
	And so they're also suing that California has a very robust privacy protection.
	California's privacy protection is broader than the federal constitutional protection for privacy.
	And they sued saying, look, we're being threatened with the loss of our job.
	That's an invasion of our privacy when the condition of continued employment is to give up our bodily autonomy.
	And the California trial court said, nah, this is obviously compelling.
	I'll take judicial notice that the vaccines are safe and effective and publicly necessary.
	And the California Court of Appeals probably didn't want to do this, but it did it anyway.
	Came in and said, you know, you can't do that in California at the demure stage.
	We don't have federal plausibility standards for pleadings.
	We have to assume every single fact is true.
	Even if we think the fact alleged is implausible, it has to be assumed to be true.
	Even if the fact concerns medicine or science, we have to assume it's true.
	If somebody's suing because they say the...
	The moon is made of cheese.
	We have to assume at the demure stage, the moon is made of cheese.
	And that this has been established for centuries in California, and the trial court didn't know what it was doing.
	But it went further than that.
	It said, if you look at the internal documents, it's not clear at all that COVID vaccine is safe and effective.
	I think their exact words was, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines are subjects...
	Of reasonable dispute.
	This is now in the California Court of Appeals formal decision.
	That's helpful for a lot of people for a lot of purposes.
	And they said, look, you need to say, what is it safe and effective for?
	Because if the purpose of the law is to stop the spread, not to limit the severity, then there's lots of evidence this vaccine's not actually safe and effective.
	And that means it doesn't even meet rational basis, as the court said, for the purposes of the public policy challenge.
	And then in the privacy interest, they said, is robust.
	And the mere fact that they hadn't yet had their body invaded doesn't matter because it's being threatened as a condition of continued employment, and that violates California privacy rights.
	That's sufficient to give you the right to bring the cause of action.
	So it reinstated the case to the trial court for full discovery.
	And to say, let's dig into the medicine.
	Let's dig into the science.
	Let's dig into what the city was really up to.
	What did the city know?
	When did they know it?
	And they pointed out this virus has been evolving.
	So claims about safety and efficacy can be reasonably contested in general.
	And so it was a very effective decision.
	Big win for the firefighters.
	To get it out of California state courts is really impressive.
	And some good language that can be used in a range of other cases.
	I want to pull up this article, Robert, because we have the same issue in Canada.
	They're talking about a decision, doesn't really matter which one.
	We had multiple courts in Canada.
	This is abuse of judicial notice.
	Absolutely.
	Very limited to, as this court repeated over and over again, Undisputable facts.
	So, for example, they can take notice that the CDC said something.
	They cannot take notice of the truth of what the CDC said.
	They can't take notice of any fact that is indisputed at all.
	They can't take notice of.
	Period.
	They can only take notice of undisputed facts.
	And undisputed facts are...
	The United States was formed on X date, right?
	That's what I was going to say.
	World War II ended on December 1, 1945.
	So the treaty signed on this date.
	That's what judicial notice is there for little procedural things so that you don't have to prove something that everybody knows is true.
	It is not there for courts to become super doctors and overrule.
	The disputed evidence concerning a case.
	I'm certain I saw two of those cases because my brother was talking about them at the time.
	They're talking about vaccinating children.
	And they said judicial notice of the safety and efficacy for children.
	It's mind-blowing.
	All right.
	Fascinating.
	That's fantastic.
	Robert, let's get to the juicy one.
	People have lost their ever-loving minds.
	And it's like people don't really understand.
	What was in the decision?
	Because I said 2% of the people commenting have actually read the decision.
	It's probably wildly less than that.
	We're going to go to the Harvard admissions anti-Asian discrimination for the benefit of African-American students.
	This line, the last stage of Harvard's admissions process, called the LUP, winnows the list of tentatively admitted students to arrive at the final class.
	Applicants that Harvard considered as cutting.
	At this stage, are placed on the LOP list, which contains only four pieces of information.
	Legacy status, which I think people can rightly have a problem with, recruited athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race.
	In the Harvard admissions process, quote, race is a determinative tip for, end quote, a significant percentage, quote, of all admitted African-American and Hispanic applicants.
	Robert, just before we get into the decision, which is the right decision?
	This is basically Harvard saying, we don't think any...
	I'm exaggerating because it's not all of the African American and Hispanic students, just the majority of them, or a lot of them.
	They think they couldn't find qualified African American and Hispanic students.
	They all needed to tip up with their race.
	This is Harvard saying what they think of African American and Hispanic students.
	It's not...
	They weren't combating racism.
	They are the racists engaged in overt discrimination and envy.
	Soft bigotry of low expectations.
	For some reason, there's hundreds of millions of people in the States.
	The majority of the African American and Hispanic students, they're there because of race, not because of qualifications.
	All right.
	You all know, everybody knows who's watching this.
	Sort of a fact pattern.
	Harvard basically was using race not as a factor for the student, but as a...
	Prejudicial consideration against other students.
	So they were effectively penalizing Asian students, Asian American students, in the application process to favor African American students in the application process.
	They relied on I'm not sure how far into the precedents or the prior decisions.
	There's one called Gruber or Gruder, I think, which basically said affirmative action policies could be justifiable if there's a compelling reason, but they still have to be limited in time.
	Bottom line, the court, 6-3, divided along political lines, said what Harvard was doing was unlawful discrimination.
	It was a very, very well-crafted decision.
	Ben Shapiro came out with probably the most biting, sassy diss and said, the strongest argument you need against affirmative action is reading Katanji Brown's dissident.
	It was like reading a story of fiction where you would think what the court just did was basically penalize African-American students in the application process as opposed to stop penalizing Asian American students.
	Robert, what's your take?
	What's your assessment?
	And what's your assessment of the meltdown of those in mainstream media who now basically say this sets black students back 50 years?
	Well, I think the reaction is understandable because of the collateral consequences of this decision.
	that this decision puts equal protection and the original intent of the 14th Amendment back in play across the board.
	That is just as Thomas called it, it's the colorblind Constitution.
	of the original revolutionary promise that all are born equal and free and shall be treated so before the law.
	And that we didn't have that.
	At the time of the Constitution, up until the Civil War, because a group of Americans, reflected in the Dred Scott decision, didn't get it.
	Dred Scott, Supreme Court, came in and said that because of the color of your skin or your ancestry, that you could not be considered a citizen.
	You could not be considered part of the people of the United States.
	Now, that's not what the Declaration of Independence intended.
	That's not what was broadly understood at the time of the founding.
	That was not what Leicester Spooner and Frederick Douglass put together in their very good piece called The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1840s, which, by the way, as is Justice Thomas notes, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in 1793 said that the U.S. Constitution's provisions prohibited slavery.
	I mean, what happened was our courts were corrupted by the Southern Planner class, and they abandoned that initial promise.
	And the 14th Amendment...
	They consecrated the completion of the American Revolution into a colorblind constitution where all men are born free and stay free.
	Even though the Supreme Court had in the Amistad decision reflected that principle, they had abandoned it in the context of slavery and ancestry as it related to ex-slaves.
	And so that's what Lincoln at Gettysburg, the brilliant book by Gary Wills, talks about the reconstruction of the American narrative to re-embrace.
	All of its people into its citizenry in the American family and really created the American identity is our liberty.
	That's what it means to be an American.
	As we're about to celebrate July 4th, it means freedom.
	It means liberty.
	That's what it means.
	That's why I say I'm an American.
	It's not because I grew up or was born someplace.
	It's because I believe in these principles and these precepts.
	And for a couple of decades, the Supreme Court had abandoned it.
	Out of concern over the vestigial impacts of racial discrimination.
	But what the universities were doing, as Thomas talks about, as Gorsuch talks about, with some wonderful language, is that what's really going on here is that this is an elite protecting themselves and acculturating other members of their elite to look good.
	So the reality of affirmative action, I know this from personal experience.
	I was a young student at Yale University.
	I ended up leaving in protest because they were going to discriminate against poor kids, working class kids.
	If you needed money to go to Yale, you needed financial aid, they were going to deny you admission based on that fact.
	And then if you did get in somehow, they weren't going to give you enough financial aid or scholarship aid to get there, even though they raised tens of millions of dollars every year promising to do that.
	From donors that they were suckering in.
	I led the protest movement while I was there.
	What you discover is affirmative action was really designed twofold.
	The primary beneficiary of affirmative action, in the Ivy League especially, but a lot of universities, are rich white kids.
	Legacy kids.
	That's where Bobby Kennedy doesn't know this, doesn't understand this, hasn't done a deep dive on it.
	Because here's the legacy admissions.
	Take up as much as 20% of all the people admitted in the Ivy League, even though they make up less than 5% of the applicant pool.
	And it ain't because they're super smart.
	It ain't because they're special.
	It ain't because they've overcome adversity.
	It isn't because of any of the things that should matter for character and skill and competence.
	When I was at Yale, I wrote a piece.
	I said, next time, you know, when I was a kid.
	Sophomore, junior.
	Said, next time you're in class, you're sitting down next to some student who sounds like a complete idiot.
	You can pretty much guess that he's there because mommy and daddy got him in there.
	Legacy admissions is the biggest problem, in the Ivy League especially.
	William F. Buckley, he got his kid in from legacy admissions.
	Christopher Buckley ain't nothing special.
	I mean, he wrote a couple of half-assed books, that's about it.
	But you're there, you realize, there's a, I mean, the number of legacies.
	Black and Hispanic students combined are less than the number of legacies and donor-based kids at these schools.
	And these schools have become bastions of privilege that increasingly working-class kids can't even get in.
	When I got into Yale, the dean of the university, the dean of admissions, put at the bottom of the letter, it's people like you who belong here.
	I didn't even know what he meant.
	I thought it was cool.
	I got into Yale.
	I got full ride.
	I had private scholarships that would give me full ride, independent of all that.
	And he let in a bunch of us.
	Nick Adamo, a good buddy of mine, grew up homeless on the streets of New York City.
	We all got in.
	We get there and we discovered that, you know, there ain't a lot.
	This place ain't the best and the brightest.
	I mean, Jesse Jackson is just saying it.
	The best and the brightest.
	It's the richest and the whitest.
	Well, it's not quite the whitest part, but that's who was benefiting from these affirmative action programs.
	Here's how.
	How do you continue to do legacy admissions?
	Donor-based admissions, buying access with these fake meritocratic labels put on you for life, guaranteeing you an income for life.
	Because look, I got a degree from Yale.
	I got a degree from Harvard.
	All the rest.
	Without getting sued for racial discrimination.
	Because overwhelmingly, legacies are white.
	Overwhelmingly.
	Now, by the way, they're also WASP.
	Which, to my beloved delight, both Thomas and Gorsuch go right at.
	The first affirmative action at the Ivy League was to keep the Jews out.
	That's how they started this whole nonsense.
	But it was for rich Brahmin wasps, as Gorsuch and Thomas both point out.
	It's wonderful.
	And they're still doing it.
	But the only way they could avoid getting sued is, well, we better guarantee demographically a bunch of positions for people based on checking a box.
	Because this is their definition of race and ancestry, which as Thomas points out, Gorsuch points out, this is all made up, right?
	I mean, race doesn't exist genetically.
	Race doesn't exist biologically.
	This is purely a social construct.
	And increasingly, you can't even figure out where you're supposed to check your box in.
	What defines Asian?
	Asian students were realizing they're getting screwed if they put the word Asian.
	So if you were from China or India or Vietnam or Thailand or anyplace else, you skip that and try to figure out something else to identify you're in.
	This is how Elizabeth Warren is getting promoted.
	She decides she's Native American out of the box.
	This is literally a check-the-box method of admissions that they were doing to prevent people from suing them for favoring all the rich white kids, all the dumb rich white kids, because these kids could get in on their merit.
	They wouldn't need legacy bonuses to get in.
	They wouldn't need donor bonuses to get in.
	And so that's the dirty, deep secret.
	And what it is, is they buy off enough.
	Here's the other deep secret.
	Who in the black community is benefiting from this?
	As Thomas points out, how is it that historically black colleges are the ones still producing all the scientists, all the doctors, all the really people making an impact in the black community?
	He points out, I mean, Thomas went there, so Thomas probably has some personal experience with some of the Ivy League and what he thinks about their real race relationships and their treatment of black people and Hispanics who they benefit here, too.
	But to give an example, Henry Louis Gates, black professor from Harvard, said this.
	He said, if we made a movie about affirmative action at our prestigious universities, the movie would not be straight out of Brooklyn.
	It would be straight out of Brookline because they were buying off...
	The rich black kids.
	The rich Latino kids.
	Let's give you an example.
	I've got a buddy of mine.
	He's actually a residential dean at Yale.
	He was my roommate.
	Puerto Rican.
	His dad was old school, blue-collar laborer from, you know, Flatbush, New York City.
	And he told me he would complain.
	He said, you know, the Puerto Ricans that they've let in here, he goes, overwhelmingly, they come from Spanish aristocracy.
	That's who they were giving special benefits to under affirmative action.
	He said, these are the people who oppressed my grandparents.
	They're the ones getting the bonus.
	They're the ones getting all the clubs, all the membership.
	What a bunch of garbage.
	And that's what it really was.
	It was black working class were still getting stiff.
	Mexican-American black working class were getting stiff.
	Just like amongst the Asians.
	Disproportionately, it was the working class.
	I mean, I had a buddy of mine at Yale who came from Vietnam.
	His parents ran a little dry-cleaning shop.
	He was trying to survive while he was there.
	He wasn't given any special bonus, and it took him forever to get in, or took great hurdles for him.
	He was part of that class.
	I didn't know the dean of admissions.
	I thought he gave everybody a little note.
	I thought that's a smart move.
	I didn't realize until I got to Yale, there was only like 30 of us.
	That he'd written that little personal note for.
	People were like, what?
	Did he have a mission?
	It's like, oh, okay, that's interesting.
	But then I got there and figured out why.
	It's like, these are all rich kids who think the whole world is flyover country.
	When I started raising protests, they used to tell me that, oh, well, why don't you get in your camouflage and go recruit people in Tennessee?
	I was like, deliverance is not a documentary, you moron.
	So that's the real bottom line, is this has been a class war waged by the elite.
	Against working class of all ethnic backgrounds to keep allowing their elite disparate power and influence.
	The second big impact of this is woke institutions, because here's the thing, you send a black working class kid, Mexican-American working class kid, white working class kid, any working class kid, period, whatever ancestor you want to stick on them, that they are not going to line up for feminist intersectional class, right?
	They disproportionately come from STEM, they disproportionately go in these other areas, they want to be successful.
	And part of Thomas's point, The number one sign that a working class or poor kid is going to break out from where they come from is they have an inner loci of control.
	They believe they control their own lives, not other people.
	They don't believe the man is holding them down.
	And that mindset is critical.
	Their promotion of affirmative action was promoting an ancestry-based view of the world that promoted victimization that undermined independence, inner loci of control.
	So it was a multi-level war on the working class, but it was to promote and propagate their woke garbage.
	Because without all these little rich kids from safe space environments in the schools, they're not going to be able to fill up the humanity and social science classes where they're filling kids with crap in their head.
	So that's the third impact is, as Thomas and Gorsuch both make clear, this applies to every Title VII case.
	This is a Title VI case enforcing the 14th Amendment that says if you take federal funds, you can't discriminate at any level.
	On grounds of race.
	But this applies government contracts, government employment, private employment.
	It's all of the diversity, equity, inclusion garbage.
	I think it all, by this decision, a colorblind constitution enforced by those laws mean all of those provisions are unconstitutional.
	All of those provisions are illegal because this is enforced against private employers through Title VII.
	And Gorsuch goes out of his way to say, hey, when I did the Bostock decision, Oh, you liberals were with me.
	And now all of a sudden you want to redefine, discriminate?
	Because you don't like how it politically benefits?
	It's like, well, I'm going to let you know right now, it applies across the board.
	That means race-based determinism is dead.
	And as both Thomas and Gorsuch remind everybody, race-based determinism is what, you know, he talks about eugenics, talks about Korematsu.
	They say this is what the elites have always done, is divvy people up.
	I mean, they even talk about caste divisions and the elites using it to divvy up.
	This was a great, great decision in its rhetoric, its language, its impact, its import.
	And it's a common sense decision because they were just using a check the box, tell us your ancestry, and we're going to give you a bonus or minus based on that ancestry that disproportionately favored the most privileged of the privileged and was propagating a woke system and a diversity, equity, inclusion.
	Neo-Marxist nonsense that was undermining our institutions of learning, undermining our economy, undermining our society, undermining our stock market.
	This case is taking out a building block of all of the entire garbage.
	I'm not going to go through all the bad takes on the internet, Robert, but you had Soledad O 'Brien, whose father was Cuban and her mother was Cuban and her father was Australian, lecturing an Asian individual on Twitter, I don't know who the person was, who said, you've basically set minority groups back.
	50 years.
	And I was like, sold out.
	You realize you're lecturing an Asian person saying, basically, you must deal with the discrimination for the benefit of the group that I want to discriminate against.
	Bette Midler had Possibly one of the most mentally unhinged, deranged takes.
	She said, Robert, I spent some time just screen grabbing a lot of this stuff for posterity.
	One of my concerns, Put the question out in our locals community.
	Was it Kavanaugh or Gorsuch who put out the idea that if you want to analyze, by way of essays, an individual's life story for the purposes of admissions, there's nothing wrong with that.
	Nothing in this decision says you can't do that.
	So have essay submissions.
	You can determine from one's life story whether or not they have defied the odds, fought against the machine and won, and thus allow them to admit them because of Character on an individual basis.
	Some people are saying that's just a workaround, or they're fearing that that is the workaround, the wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
	Here's how you do indirectly what we just said you can't do directly.
	Any legitimacy to that fear?
	There's none.
	Because here's what the Supreme Court said.
	Right after they said, look, this was the other mindset, massive shift here.
	They said no more collective judgment.
	No more ancestral judgment.
	No more blood benefits.
	No more blood libels.
	Done.
	What America requires, this was a celebration of individual liberty across the board.
	Said that's what the 14th Amendment means.
	That's what America means.
	That it's not just the colorblind constitution.
	It celebrates the individual and you cannot be judged by aggregate traits.
	You can't be judged as being part of some group.
	They said it demeans the dignity of the individual.
	And what they said is, look, you can always, as part of your individual story, As part of your character and your application to, say, admissions or to any other program, it may be relevant what adversity you've overcome.
	And that adversity may include racism.
	We're not saying you can't reference that.
	And they point out that if you show that a particular place has discriminated based on race, that a remedy can be some form of affirmative action, but it has to be specific and private, I mean, specifically and directly tied into it.
	But here's what they went on to say.
	They said universities, this is a majority part of the majority decision, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.
	So they cannot use that path.
	Here's what they got to do.
	They got to take out the boxes.
	It's that simple.
	If they leave those boxes in for the admissions process, that check the box which race you are, they're going to get sued again and they're going to lose again.
	Like all these cities and states that have tried to screw with gun issues.
	What has that done?
	That has led to over 100 decisions striking down even more gun laws than likely would have occurred if they would have kept their mouths shut and just obeyed the law.
	It opened court's eyes to how deep the problem was because these legislatures are so dumb they go out and yip.
	And Harvard's already yipping in ways it's going to regret.
	It quoted one part of the decision and decided not to quote that part.
	So if they leave in that box, if there's anything inside their system that is still checking Black, Hispanic, Asian, White, whatever, Native American, Native Hawaiian, they're going to lose again.
	They got to get rid of the box.
	And what it also means is government employers need to get rid of the box.
	Government contractors need to get rid of the box.
	Private employers need to get rid of the box.
	I mean, BlackRock chose a good time to stop using DEI and ESG terms because...
	They're going to get sued for what they're doing because of how broadly impactful this law is.
	It's also a celebration of the individual.
	And so when I got into Wisconsin Law School, the black law school dean had already instituted this kind of policy.
	He'd already looked ahead and said, we're not going to do affirmative action.
	We're not going to make the definition based on race.
	We're going to make everything an individual essay in terms of that part of it.
	We'll have our, you know, what's your LSAT?
	What's your grades?
	What's your college references?
	And that will be one category.
	And the other category will be, tell us who you are as a human being and why you think you can use law to make a difference.
	And he once told me that my application was one of the more debated and discussed ones.
	But he did that.
	And by the way, he created a very interesting, diverse law, our law school class.
	We had one of the more diverse, if you wanted to look at it from a color perspective, but it was particularly more diverse from a class perspective of people that were there.
	Many of the black students I knew who went to law school with went back and served in the working class community.
	You know, a buddy of mine that was a Mexican-American at Yale, he, to this day, works in the Mexican-American community.
	Not some NGO garbage, but doing real work.
	I mean, he's a guy who works.
	I mean, he could make huge amounts of money.
	He doesn't.
	He'll barter with people.
	People will say, oh, I'll bring you four chickens.
	I mean, it's that kind of bartering that he does for people that can't afford representation otherwise.
	That's who's going to start getting in.
	Because what the Ivy League doesn't want to tell anybody, all these universities, all these people promoting it don't want to tell you, is that all of this is for privileged kids.
	They're not helping.
	As Thomas points out, he goes, in fact, a great line, he goes, historically black colleges have still done far more for poor and working class minorities than Harvard ever has.
	I mean, that was a nice stick it right to it.
	These people aren't trying to help the disadvantaged.
	They're trying to screw the disadvantaged.
	And that's why they had it coming.
	And if they try to get around it, they're just going to get hammered and sued into oblivion and writing checks to the other side until their eyes roll back.
	Some people had been accusing Clarence Thomas of hypocrisy because apparently he benefited from affirmative action according to the accusations.
	I couldn't...
	That's false.
	Clarence Thomas grew up, you know, very black, independent grandfather that had a strong impact on his life.
	He was an honors student in a Catholic school when he was very young.
	He was an up-and-coming black intellectual from day one.
	So he liked Thomas Sowell.
	These people never needed it.
	And that's his other point.
	His other point is that people like him are still being judged by these race-specific programs that are meant to diminish black achievement, meant to diminish.
	Puerto Rican and Mexican achievement.
	By making it seem like race is the reason why they're there.
	Now, Kamala Harris probably got to where she got because of people checking off boxes.
	Still the dumbest lawyer I've ever met in court.
	But not Clarence Thomas.
	Not Thomas Sowell.
	Not plenty of others.
	I can tell you from a trial lawyer perspective, some of the best trial lawyers in America are black trial lawyers.
	But very few of them went to Ivy League schools.
	Some did.
	But still, most of them went to the local track.
	Why?
	Because they're not looking for working-class kids.
	I mean, again, if affirmative action was supposed to help the disadvantaged, why is the entire Ivy League more upper-class today than it was 50 years ago?
	And I'll get a quote.
	For the people that doubt the impact of this case, as it was put in the case, this case is meant to, quote, end all such discrimination.
	And it was talking about the whole society, that that's what the 14th Amendment means, to end all such discrimination, no matter where it is originating from.
	So I get why the left went berserk, because they, some of the smarter ones, know what this means, that at the time their diversity, equity, inclusion is peaking, the Supreme Court has just slammed the door on it and opened the door.
	America First Legal.
	Is right now looking at lawsuits across the country in all kinds of industries related to every aspect where this could have an impact.
	Employment, stock market, government contracts, admissions at any level, all of it.
	And so that's where I think it was.
	But brilliant.
	I mean, it's 200 plus pages.
	But brilliant.
	I really recommend Thomas is concurrence and Gorsuch is concurrence.
	This is absolutely true.
	He said, these programs were designed.
	If you look at their origin and history, to quote, perpetuate, and the original ones that screwed out the Jews, perpetuate the pur purity of the Brahmin race, New England's white Protestant upper crust.
	I love that that's in a Supreme Court decision because that's what they've still been doing.
	They just wanted to make it look a little better with a few more different colors around the table, but from the same privileged background to promote the same agenda of the same privileged communities.
	So this decision is a revolution.
	As much as the 14th Amendment was a revolution, as much as America was a revolution, that's why it's the perfect case for July 4th.
	I was going to say, from a gawking, sort of rubbernecking look at the crash on the highway type perspective, read Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissenting opinion.
	It's written like someone who...
	It's a pitiful defense where she cites false facts.
	Because the reality is, she was one of those people, hey, we'll put you in a position of power.
	As long as you play by these rules.
	So she's benefited from it.
	Thomas would have got there anyway.
	Thomas never considered himself owing anything to this crowd.
	And in fact felt they misled him and mistreated him in many respects.
	And there's unusual dropout rates of the students that are brought in that are black and Hispanic to these institutions because they're not there to serve them.
	They're there to buy off a few Barack Obamas.
	So they can continue to stay in power with this elite group.
	All right.
	Now, Robert, if I looked lost for a second, my computer froze and I didn't hear anything for about 10 seconds way back when.
	So if anybody...
	I wasn't sure if everyone still heard you, but it doesn't look like it interfered with the stream.
	Thomas finished great.
	This puts into writing, finally, all men are created equal and are free and will be treated as equal.
	That's what this case is about.
	It's about individual over ancestry.
	It's about accomplishment over checking a box.
	It's about promoting the core of the American Revolution and making the Constitution read in the words it was written in, to paraphrase the one and only Huey Pilon.
	Well, Robert, the media misrepresentation of that decision has been rivaled only, and I think the other one exceeded it.
	The Biden student loan forgiveness.
	Watching the way people were freaking out, what day is it now?
	On Friday.
	It's as though they expect us to not remember that back when the initial promise was made, pundits, experts, Nancy Pelosi was saying, Joe Biden does not have the authority under the HEROES Act to forgive $10,000, $20,000 of student loans.
	They reported it at the time.
	It was...
	Basically accepted at the time.
	And now you see how this disgusting, insidious type of politics plays out.
	They make a promise, which they knew they could not respect at the time.
	And then by the time it gets struck down because it was as unlawful as everybody said it was from the get-go, it then became a promise.
	And now it's the court forcing Biden to not be able to respect his promise, as opposed to Biden finally having the court say, your promise was unlawful from the beginning.
	What some people are having difficulty understanding, and the media is not helping, obviously, is that the HEROES Act seemingly allowed for the forgiveness of certain debt.
	It was applied to, I forget what the student, the other law was, but the student loan law allowed for the forgiveness of debt under certain circumstances.
	If the university went out of business, if the student or the adult became totally incapacitated, their debt could be forgiven.
	Certain portion of it.
	What relevance did the HEROES Act have to interpreting or applying the provisions of the HEROES Act to student loan forgiveness in the first place?
	What was the steel man argument for why it was a lawful promise to begin with?
	Well, I mean, basically after 9-11, they were concerned about emergencies, throwing a wrench in people's ability to repay student loans during the time period of the emergency.
	And also, they were concerned about other exigent circumstances.
	So basically, the Secretary of Education can forgive student loan debt if you die, if you are disabled.
	And people might think, die, why is that significant?
	Because otherwise, usually a state can be sued for an existing debt.
	That's not the case of student loan debt.
	If you go bankrupt.
	Now, Biden and Bush in 2005 made it so that bankruptcy courts could not discharge your student loan debt.
	But Congress did allow the Secretary of Education to discharge your debt if you become bankrupt.
	Schools, if the schools did something false in the certification of the loan, if they did something in terms of other issues, like you mentioned, clothes or default otherwise, in times of war, military operations, so like, for example, soldiers maybe get called up, certain kinds of public employment allowed the Secretary of Education to forgive the debt.
	And then it said you could forgive the debt in the case of national emergency, but it limited that one.
	It said, as may be necessary, number one, and two, only up to the point that the person, you don't put them in a worse position financially because of the emergency.
	The problem the Biden administration did is right as they're declaring there is no more national emergency, within like a week or two, they go in and do a mass forgiveness of debt.
	That's not tied at all to anything related to the emergency.
	They tie it to your social standing, to the amount of money you make, to a bunch of other factors that fit their political preferred demographics.
	Well, that has nothing to do with an emergency-based limitation on student loan repayment.
	And so this goes to the major questions doctrine, which said that on major questions, Congress has to legislate.
	It can't be the executive branch.
	And that's what the Supreme Court made clear.
	They said this is clear that the authority to fix student loan problems for an emergency is meant to be temporary and related to the emergency.
	It's also important because the other impact of this case is another case limiting emergency powers because they've been using all these emergency powers to moratoriums and everything else, eviction moratoriums, control rents, you name it.
	And it's another case of the Supreme Court saying, no, no, no, that's not what the emergency power lets you do.
	And so they abused the emergency power transparently, as Pelosi admitted and they quoted from her.
	And he just got caught doing it.
	Now, if they were serious about what they should do is just announce that they will discharge the student loan debt of anybody who goes bankrupt.
	Because I disagreed with that bankruptcy law change in the beginning.
	And that they already have power to do, but Biden doesn't want to do that because he wants it favored for his own little group instead.
	A lot of whom, by the way, are upper middle class graduate students who aren't yet making big money.
	That's who the target niche of his demographic is.
	The number one activist group in the Democratic Party are post-college graduates who are not yet making big bucks.
	That's who this was designed to get out to vote in 2022, and that's what it's designed for now.
	If they want to do an honest debt relief plan, they can through the bankruptcy laws by exercising their executive authority.
	That is clear.
	He can discharge all debt of bankrupt borrowers.
	He just couldn't discharge all debt selectively of targeted demographics under the pretext that it was an emergency pandemic.
	And I think the ultimate kicker, which I think they've illustrated perfectly, is they could have just passed the law at the time.
	It would have taken less time to do it had they had the support, but it wasn't clear they had the support at the time.
	So what you had was not the Supreme Court tying Biden's hands.
	You had Biden trying to bypass the actual process because they knew they probably couldn't even get it passed by way of law due to lack of support.
	So go by way of executive order, executive.
	All right.
	Good.
	What's the next one?
	Hold on.
	Elections clause.
	Okay, you're going to have to talk to me about this one because I'm not...
	So this is that North Carolina case?
	So the federal courts come in.
	The U.S. Supreme Court says federal courts will no longer be involved in second-guessing legislators' partisan gerrymandering.
	The North Carolina Supreme Court, controlled by Democrats at the time, said, okay, well, we'll do it.
	We'll say that it's too partisan in gerrymander and force a Democratic gerrymander on the Republican state legislature.
	And so then they get thrown out.
	Republicans take over the North Carolina Supreme Court, throw all that out.
	But this case was pending before the Supreme Court in between those time periods.
	So the first question was whether it was moot or not.
	And they decided somehow not moot.
	I don't know.
	Their arguments were pretty weak on that.
	But really it was about Roberts and Barrett especially joined the three liberals to define what is the impact of the elections clause.
	I assume B will be back in a minute.
	The elections clause, there's different clauses where the United States federal constitution specifically puts in delegated power of the U.S. federal constitution and puts that delegated power in the hands of the state government at some level.
	So one of those is the electors clause, which the Supreme Court had previously recognized as plenary, that the manner of appointment of electors for the presidency Is a plenary power of the state legislature because that's who's given the power of manner of appointment under the Constitution.
	Then there's the elections clause.
	The elections clause is that the legislature of each state decides the time, the place, and manner of elections for Congress, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
	Now, they also had a direct elections clause, which allowed the state legislature to pick.
	Senators up until the 17th Amendment.
	Then there's a ratification role of state legislatures in the Constitution to ratify amendments to the Constitution under Article 5. And then there's a consent to land.
	A state can give up land to federal jurisdiction within the state by consenting to it.
	Again, that power is given to the legislature of each state.
	In the past, the question is, is that power, can the state courts, do they have a role in that?
	When the Constitution explicitly didn't give the power to the state, they gave the power to the legislature of the state.
	And so the dispute was, in the past, the dispute has been, what is a legislature under the U.S. Constitution?
	And they said legislature is the lawmaking power of the state.
	And the lawmaking power of the state, the legislature or the voters can choose to give that to a governor.
	They can choose.
	To have the governor share in it through veto power.
	They can choose to have an independent commission involved.
	They can choose to use direct referendums.
	But all of that's keeping the power to the lawmaking branch of the state.
	Here, the claim of North Carolina was that the courts are making sure that the legislature is complying with the state constitution.
	And that is still consistent with the legislature requirement of the elections clause.
	That's where Roberts and Barrett go.
	The problem is that that doesn't really make a lot of sense, and it contradicts a lot of their precedent.
	Contradicts the electors clause president that said the state legislatures have plenary power.
	In the past, whenever state legislatures have consented to federal land grabs, that's what sometimes it was, or ratified an amendment.
	And they didn't comply with the state constitution and the way they did it?
	The Supreme Court said, nah, nah, no role for the courts.
	No role for the state constitution.
	This is a specific delegated power of the U.S. Constitution.
	We want these amendments passed.
	We want these amendments ratified.
	We want that land grab to go forward.
	So we're going to say that plenary power means only the legislature has a role and there's no role of judicial review.
	Now they say, well, not in the case of elections.
	So apparently they say when the legislators are ratifying something, when they're electing a senator, when they're consenting to land choice, those are not lawmaking activities.
	But when they're governing elections, somehow those are lawmaking activities.
	And consequently, the Supreme Court of each state now has jurisdiction over it.
	I agree with Thomas and Gorsuch and Alito in their dissent.
	That that is not a consistent position within the prior precedents.
	It kind of makes a mockery of the Constitution itself, which delegated this exclusively to the legislature of the states.
	So the way Roberts and Barrett try to get out of that is they say, hold on a second, we want the courts to know the state courts can't go too far.
	They can only use their limited judicial review power over whether the state legislature...
	Did it constitutionally in such a way that doesn't strip the legislature of their functional exclusive power in this realm.
	Whatever that's going to mean.
	So they're making it politically convenient so they got a loophole whenever they want to use it.
	So I agree with Thomas that that was not a good idea.
	But right now, but this might not always work to Democrats' favor either.
	Because it's giving state courts a role in federal elections is the net effect of it.
	And that can go multiple different directions.
	But they also maintain that because it's a federal constitutional issue, federal courts can get involved to see whether state courts are going too far.
	That's basically what it is.
	Okay, excellent.
	Now, before you go through the remaining SCOTUS decisions, Robert, let me just do a few of the, or see if I can get these rumble rants in.
	Rebecca Peterson, dear Rumble and Trump supporters, limited edition.
	Well, I am not getting involved in NFTs.
	Thank you for the rumble rant.
	Farnicator DJ Trump.
	For president.
	Vivek Ramsawami for VP.
	Jordan Peterson for secretary of state.
	Robert Barnes for attorney general.
	RFK Jr. is a special counselor.
	He's a special counselor on this matter.
	Big Pharma, CBC, WHO.
	Effetz says, preach it, Brother Barnes.
	Alex Jones won.
	Okay, we got that thing again.
	Babarisa says, take my money.
	Thank you very much.
	Randy Edward.
	Yeah, but how does Robert really feel about the end of affirmative action in college admissions?
	Big Cat Nola.
	How come African immigrants and West Indians are among the highest earning immigrant groups if race was actually deterministic?
	See Obama and Kamala.
	Fleet Lord Avatar.
	Say it viva.
	Jackson is there because of affirmative action.
	I don't need to say it.
	Joe Biden said it.
	We're going to get a black woman judged.
	That's it.
	She fits the bill.
	It's insulting.
	I agree with Thomas.
	It's degrading, demeaning to the individual.
	They now can no longer say, I was the most qualified.
	I may have been qualified, and I had a certain skin color.
	Delta Rose says, you guys are freezing up bad.
	I hope it was only me on my end.
	Tropical rocket.
	Shouldn't the social issue be about the universities as well?
	Tax-free.
	No compelling impetus for performance.
	Where we go one, we go a 38. Thank you both for all you do.
	Mr. Barnes, I received IRS letter in early 2022 that I owe $36,000 for 2020.
	I didn't agree.
	Send additional documents.
	Okay.
	I don't agree.
	Also not.
	And then it goes on.
	I know I need to review before showing, but when you have five minutes, if you don't laugh, it'll bother you for that.
	I'll screen grab that.
	Okay, Robert, what are the remaining SCOTUS decisions that you have?
	True threats?
	Yeah, so the most popular one we'll get to here in a second about the 16th Amendment case that the Supreme Court just took up.
	But yeah, up next is true threats.
	The First Amendment, which we've discussed in a range of contexts, Alex Jones contexts, other cases.
	And this too was a good decision.
	By the Supreme Court clarifying true threats that there need to be limits.
	I think we predicted that this would be the outcome, that they would in fact reverse the verdict of what took place.
	Which one was this?
	I'm totally forgetting.
	This is the online stalker of the Colorado singer.
	Oh my goodness, yes.
	Okay, fine.
	A lot of the statements really weren't that aggressive.
	Remember we went through some of them and they were like...
	We're like, that's violence?
	Things that could be misinterpreted in writing.
	All right, so what did they clarify?
	I mean, I know the standard truth.
	That's it has to be specific, temporal, identifiable.
	They just reiterate the precedent and say apply it properly?
	Yeah, and it has to have what Colorado said.
	And this is, by the way, kind of what the court said in the lower Connecticut court said in Alex Jones's case.
	So this is an acknowledgement that the Connecticut court's got it wrong.
	And so that'll be another issue amongst the many, many appeal issues that he has.
	And for those people who don't remember, he said some critical things of the lawyer on his own TV show.
	And so the court stripped him of his rights to bring in motions to dismiss and his anti-slap remedies on grounds that the judge didn't like his statements about the lawyer.
	There was no evidence at all it met any of the standards of true threats, and definitely not by this standard here.
	So basically what's required is under, and also, by the way, they required finally, clearly, it's being missed, but it's kind of because it's in a footnote, but that intent is also required for all of the First Amendment exceptions, including imminent incitement and including obscenity.
	So basically that, you know, your exceptions to the first amendment are if your speech is obscene, if your speech is, uh, Imminently going to incite a riot or illegal conduct, or you're making what's called a true threat.
	They said that you have to subjectively know that at this point now.
	And basically, recklessness was the intent level.
	You have to be substantially aware of a substantial risk.
	You have to be aware of a substantial risk of the specific harm they're trying to avoid.
	So you have to be aware that the materials are obscene.
	You have to be aware that you're inciting a riot or lawless conduct or imminent violence.
	You have to be aware that this will be perceived as a threat.
	So they said a true threat requires three things.
	First, it has to be true.
	It's not true if it's in jest.
	It's not true if it's hyperbole.
	It's not true if the context, like Alex Jones' statement, is clearly exaggeration.
	Not something that is likely to come true.
	Second, for it to be a threat, a reasonable recipient of the information has to see a real chance of the unlawful violence that's being threatened actually occurring.
	Has to be likely.
	For the example of, I'm going to punch you to the moon.
	Yeah.
	That would be...
	But someone's going to say, well, I think they're going to punch me.
	The to the moon part is hyperbolic, but I still take it as a true threat.
	Correct.
	And then they said it also includes subjective intent.
	You have to know a substantial risk that it will be viewed by the recipient as likely to cause violence.
	And this was one of the best quotes because of how broad this is for First Amendment purposes.
	The First Amendment precludes punishment, whether civil or criminal, unless the Speaker's words were intended and likely to produce imminent disorder.
	So they're returning the First Amendment to its roots.
	Different courts have been getting away from it.
	And this restores meaningful First Amendment protection in the country.
	Robert, when are we going to get to that?
	Can we do the website now, I guess?
	The wedding?
	The next one is religious speech, then the 16th Amendment.
	Those are the two.
	Okay, so do the religious speech first, and then we'll talk about the marriage.
	Yeah.
	This is another Colorado case where, you know, bake that cake.
	Now let's make that website.
	And so somebody sued right away because they make websites.
	And they're like, their concern was that the law in Colorado would be interpreted to require them to produce websites in support of speech that offends their religious beliefs.
	So they brought suit.
	And Colorado said, yeah, that's exactly what we're trying to do.
	We're saying, first of all, they took public accommodation.
	That started out just to make sure you could get into a hotel if you were black.
	That's where this started.
	And now it's any public-facing business.
	So it's everybody.
	California is doing this kind of stuff.
	Everybody's a public accommodation.
	I mean, we're a public accommodation.
	How are you a public accommodation?
	But if you're a public-facing business, now you're a public accommodation.
	And they were trying to use, under the guise of anti-discrimination, coercing speech.
	That if you don't give...
	That you're not giving goods and services on the same terms unless you go along with what speech the customer wants.
	Not just who the customer is, but what speech the customer wants.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, that's unconstitutional.
	That violates the First Amendment.
	This was someone who came in and said it was a same-sex couple getting married that said, build me a website that specifically...
	I'm not doing it.
	They sued and said it's discrimination because you're not doing what I want you to do in the way that I want you to do it with your own words and your own fingers.
	Am I misremembering the bake-caking case out of Colorado?
	I thought the Supreme Court basically came to that same decision that said, you know, making them sell a pre-made cake or, sorry, Prohibiting them from refusing to sell a pre-made cake to a gay couple is different than them refusing to put a specific message on a cake.
	I thought that decision took care of this.
	It didn't because the lower courts had carved it out and said that this law could be imposed against her in that way.
	And that's why they had to take it.
	And that's why they said, no, no, no, no.
	And again, in fact, she was saying if it was a straight couple.
	Asking for her to make a cake that violated religious beliefs, she would not do it.
	It had nothing to do with the identification of the client or the customer.
	It was the content of the message that was the issue.
	And a great quote in the case that will be useful across the board, potentially even in big tech and other cases down the road, said, So that's another great quote for a wide range of cases.
	The other excuses they were trying to say is, well, if you have an expectation of compensation, you're somehow no longer covered by the First Amendment.
	If you're organized as a corporation, you're somehow no longer covered as a First Amendment.
	And if you're in business and you solicit customers, you're no longer protected by the First Amendment.
	Supreme Court said all that is garbage.
	None of that limits your First Amendment rights.
	People are not understanding the critical distinction in this case and this type of business is that there's some businesses where you sell widgets.
	You can't say, I'm not selling a widget to a gay couple.
	You look gay, I'm not selling this to you.
	There are other businesses which, from the business-providing perspective, imply, entail constitutional rights, like speech.
	I was trying to think of an analogy with cameos.
	Someone says, I'll sell you for 50 bucks, I will say happy birthday.
	And then if someone were to say, well, I'm not going to say happy birthday to a gay couple.
	I could see that being more problematic than someone says, I'll do cameos.
	Then you're discriminating against a protected class.
	But that's different than...
	Producing, you know, pro-gay cakes.
	Producing pro-gay websites.
	Producing whatever else.
	Saying, here's my message, Alec Baldwin.
	Read this message.
	And it says, happy lesbian wedding.
	Well, Alec Baldwin's a bad example.
	But if someone says, a difference that I offer a specific product, but I'm not giving it to gays or whatever.
	Versus coming to say, I want you to say this in my cameo.
	Sorry, I can't say that.
	But you can have a cake.
	I just can't write what you want me to write on the cake.
	So there are some businesses that face the public that are public accommodations that nonetheless involve constitutional rights from the service provider.
	And this court says you can't compel them to say something that violates their constitutional rights.
	And when there's a First Amendment aspect to the business facing the public, there are different things at play and you can't compel them to say what you want, but they can't refuse to serve you because of who you are.
	Yeah, the great finishing quote in the case is that in America, you are free to think and speak as you wish, not as the government demands.
	Fantastic.
	Now, up next, the big case they're going to be taking up next year is the 16th Amendment is finally going to go back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	All right, Robert, you're going to have to talk about this one, and I'll ask you questions if I don't understand something.
	We discussed this when the Ninth Circuit made the decision.
	And it's about the mandatory repatriation tax, which, by the way, unfortunately, was passed by Trump because he delegated the tax laws writing to Paul Ryan.
	And it was an attempt to backdoor in, leave it to Republicans to be up to this, backdoor in a direct property tax on the American people.
	They'll probably start off being called a wealth tax.
	But the goal is for them to be able to control everything about you through taxation.
	Because in the end, taxation is confiscation.
	And so what happened was that they basically said that in this particular case, somebody had invested in an Indian company for the purpose of helping self-sustaining farms, by the way.
	They weren't looking to make a bunch of money.
	And they were minority stockholders, and that money over the years had been turned into reinvestment, and no distribution had been issued.
	They had no right to require or even request a distribution.
	The mandatory repatriation tax...
	Said they had to pay tax on any corporate, on retained earnings, just because they were shareholders.
	Even though they never got the money, even though they never requested the money, even though they couldn't demand the money.
	So it's basically a property tax.
	And the Ninth Circuit basically greenlit that.
	And so to give people background, our Constitution was, founders were deeply founding generation.
	When I say founders, I mean all the people that helped create the country, not just...
	People who signed the document.
	We're deeply, deeply concerned with centralized taxation power.
	Indeed, it's the very fountain that gave birth to the revolution was concern over taxation, particularly taxation without representation, but a lot of other aspects of taxation.
	And so the Constitution recognized that and said there would be no direct tax of any.
	And so basically, if it wasn't a tariff.
	Or limited excise taxes.
	That there could be no tax unless it was apportioned evenly according to the population of each state.
	As the founders said, this would be almost impossible to use outside of war because it's going to get struck down at some point later because it's almost impossible to push that through.
	So it became effectively a constitutional ban on the federal government.
	Imposing direct taxes.
	In my view, it should have extended to your labor.
	But at a minimum, they acknowledge it extended to you as a person and on your property.
	People forget the hated head tax.
	In the old days, you paid a tax just for existing.
	$10 to the Lord, right?
	No head taxes.
	No property taxes.
	And in my view, that included labor.
	But that's another story for another day.
	They pass an Income Tax Act during the Civil War.
	Then they revoke it before...
	It ever gets up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Passed another one in the 1890s.
	U.S. Supreme Court says that, you know, you're really not taxing something severed from property.
	You're really taxing the property directly.
	And so they said the income tax of 1893 was unconstitutional and the Pollack decision of 1896.
	That's what birthed the 16th Amendment.
	It removes the sourcing requirement.
	It says Congress can impose a tax on income.
	Even if, regardless of whether it's from labor or property, and without apportioning or having it be uniform, which is the constitutional requirements for direct taxes.
	The U.S. Supreme Court quickly comes in after that and makes clear that the definition of income is limited.
	It's not whatever Congress wants it to be.
	And so historically, income has had to require, it has to be gained, severed from the source, property and labor.
	It has to be received by the individual in real terms, tangible terms.
	And it has to be under your separate individual dominion and control.
	What the Ninth Circuit did is eviscerate all three.
	Said, nah, you don't need any of that.
	You can just relabel something as income and you're good to go.
	The Congress itself is so scared about the impact.
	This is the whole tax protest movement that emerged in response to this.
	The whole Congress is so scared about the constitutional limits of their power.
	That they have chosen since 1916 in that decision to never define what income is.
	You don't take my word for it.
	There was a brief about 15 years ago before the U.S. Supreme Court by conventional tax lawyers that said the definition of income in the tax laws are self-referential and circular.
	And in fact, there's also no clear liability section.
	And this is what tax protesters stumbled onto about a half century ago when taxes started impacting The hair on a working man's head that they said never was in Congress.
	This tax will never hit the hair, single hair on a working man's head.
	And now look at what's happened to mine all because of it.
	So the net effect of it is that the 16th Amendment was supposed to be a restraint on increasing tax power, not an open door.
	And that's why gross income is defined, but they're actually defining the word gross, not the definition of income.
	Be like if I knocked on your door and say, Viva, you owe the widget tax.
	And you say, well, what's a widget?
	Well, it's from all the widgets that you made that are widgets.
	Like, what are you defining as the widgets?
	The widgets that come from the widgets.
	Hold on a second.
	You never defined widget.
	That's how we define income.
	It's absurd.
	But it's because of this constitutional constraint.
	Some of us have believed that the exit tax for those people that choose not to keep their U.S. citizenship is equally unconstitutional.
	That aspects of the estate tax have problems.
	So this mandatory repatriation tax goes right to the issue of the Ninth Circuit made it clear.
	And what the U.S. Supreme Court did is they took the case.
	So if they're taking the case, they're probably going to go back, limit the definition of income so they can't do a property tax, can't do so-called wealth tax, can't do a repatriation tax, can't do an exit tax.
	They're going to strip the federal government.
	Of their ability to expand into all these areas is my prediction.
	It's unbelievable how different directions Canada and the U.S. take at times.
	Taxing retained earnings.
	It's amazing because you have the option to liquidate your retained earnings and benefit from them.
	Taxed retained earnings and you don't get a credit if those retained earnings are not there the next year.
	That's another reason why it doesn't make sense.
	Do we take the remaining stuff over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com or is there one that we should finish with here?
	Well, we can probably do the two other SCOTUS cases quick.
	Okay.
	And then we can do the OpenAI ChatGPT case and the Pence card Eastman-Clark case just for locals and then the top questions from locals.
	Okay.
	And again, if you want to do a tip, $5 tip on locals, we'll answer any of those or above.
	You're free to do, of course.
	The Supreme Court also reached the foreign application of domestic laws in the trademark context.
	And they just re-emphasize that the presumption is that Congress does not govern, its laws do not apply outside the territory of the United States.
	And that Congress has to specifically and explicitly say so otherwise.
	And that if you're trying to determine whether a specific case applies, you have to look at the domestic use.
	There has to be a domestic use at issue.
	Like here, the trademark context, there has to be a domestic infringement.
	Within the United States to bring suit, you can't bring suit under the Lanham Act trademark laws because of foreign infringement of the trademark.
	So that was a good clarification on limiting Congress's attempt to govern the whole world.
	And then a really good jurisdiction over corporations case.
	414 split, but Alito's concurrence is governing on the key issue.
	This is corporations who are chartered privileged entities created by the state to give special immunity to its investors.
	It can be sued in any state where the state says, if you want access to our market, you have to register.
	And if you register, you agree to both accept service of process and you can be sued in our state, even if the underlying claim doesn't relate to it.
	The four of...
	Gorsuch wrote the opinion.
	The four other conservatives...
	Didn't like it because they, frankly, tend to be pro-corporation.
	And they were trying to reinterpret American law to, there's a case called International Shoe.
	And International Shoe was always only supposed to apply where the state, where a corporation was not doing business specifically in the state.
	It wasn't registered there, it wasn't incorporated there, it hadn't been served there, etc.
	In that instance, you could still sue the corporation if they generally did business in the state.
	In other words, they sent their products into the state.
	On a regular basis, or if the specific claim arose from something specifically they did in the state.
	But you could always consent.
	And clearly, if you want access to the market and you want the special privileges a corporation provides, under including that state's laws, because what they're getting in exchange for that, registering as a corporation, is the investors of that corporation can't be sued for anything beyond their investment individually.
	And so I think due process was always consistent.
	With holding them responsible.
	Gorsuch joined the three liberals to hold him responsible.
	Alito agreed with him on that point.
	Alito thinks the dormant commerce clause could restrain them, so he wrote concurrently.
	But that issue hasn't been adjudicated yet.
	Nobody else joined that part of his decision.
	But it was a good decision holding corporations responsible, despite, unfortunately, the other four conservatives wanting to let him off the hook.
	All right.
	Robert, hold on a second.
	Oh, yeah, we don't.
	People, you're going to want to come on over to Locals because we're going to talk about the Pence card.
	And I heard Robert's Bourbon with Barnes.
	Was it a Bourbon with Barnes?
	No, it was one of the audio podcasts last week.
	And I'm sitting there listening to you and I'm saying, my goodness, this legal theory that you're explaining sounds a lot like the one that they're going after Jeff Clark for disbarment for, for having actually entertained the lawful idea that the Constitution allows for...
	An alternate slate of lectures.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And how OpenAI is being sued over ChatGPT in a massive class action covering three different states.
	Okay.
	Everybody, come on.
	You have the links.
	You have the links.
	They're all there.
	Going to end on...
	How do I do this here?
	First of all, everybody who's watching now that's not coming over, happy 4th of July.
	Enjoy your freedom.
	I have stepped back into the asylum, and I got to tell you something.
	Oh, yeah.
	We'll also discuss Bill Gates' mosquitoes.
	Oh, yeah.
	There's malaria in Florida now.
	I still think the mosquitoes are worse up in Canada, but they're not the ultra-super-mega disease-carrying...
	They're not Bill Gates' mosquitoes up in Canada, but the mosquitoes are bad here.
	All right.
	I'm ending the live stream on Rumble.
	Happy 4th of July.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Like, share, snip, clip.
	You know what to do.
	You want merch?
	VivaFry.com.
	You can get shirts and all the good stuff.
	A new design is coming out.
	You want to support us?
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending on Rumble now.
	Good night, everybody.
	Alrighty, let's see.
	Are we good, Robert?
	There's a $3 tip, Rocky Water.
	I'm going to read it just because you might have sent it before Barnes sent out the warning.
	This is from Rocky Water, former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, sentenced to 20 years in prison for leading racketeering conspiracy, $60 million in bribes.
	Compare and contrast to Joe Biden.

▲