Morning Wire - Historic Homeless Case & Nostalgia on Netflix | 3.2.24

Episode Date: March 2, 2024

The Supreme Court hears a case that could end public homelessness, could Nikki Haley join a third party ticket, and nostalgic shows dominate Netflix. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The homeless crisis in the West could be dramatically altered by the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear a historic case on the matter. What's the case about, and how is the court expected to rule? I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire, Editor-in-Chief John Bickley. It's March 2nd, and this is a Saturday edition of Morning Wire. This week that no matter what happens in South Carolina, I would continue to run for crime. I'm a woman of my word. speculation runs rampant on Nikki Haley's next move, including a potential third-party run.

And old shows are now dominating the streaming services. Why is America nostalgic for past programming? Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. In 2023, the federal government counted a record number of homeless people in America over 650,000. That was 70,000 more than just a year earlier, which is the largest, increase since the government started keeping records. Much of that increase has been in the

Western United States, which has seen a rapid growth in homeless encampments in particular. Many citizens in the West have become frustrated with the growing encampments and have sued cities to clean them up, but these same cities have faced lawsuits from homeless activists trying to prevent such cleanups. One of these lawsuits will soon be heard by the Supreme Court. Here to explain the dueling suits is Judge Glock, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Judge, thanks for coming on. Thanks so much for having me back. So to start off, why is the epicenter of homelessness in the western part of the U.S.?

Well, first of all, it's important to emphasize that the West has simply more of what's known as unsheltered homeless than the rest of the country. That means people living out on streets instead of inside shelters. About half of all of the unsheltered in America are just in California. And most of the homeless in places like California, Oregon, Arizona, are unsheltered, while in the rest of the country, it's mainly sheltered homeless. Some of that is due to the weather in the West, which is obviously much more pleasant, but there are also legal reasons. Since 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the Western United States, has said that cities can't enforce camping bans

unless they have sufficient shelter. They said it was cruel and unusual punishment in a case called Martin v. City of Boise. The case has made it much harder for cities to clean up encampments, helps explain some of the rise of unsheltered homelessness there. So tell us about the lawsuits citizen groups have started over these encampments. Well, it's been difficult sometimes because of that city of Boise decision I've mentioned. But yes, many different groups have sued their cities to force them to clean up the encampments, often using different reasons. Portland, Oregon, for instance, some disabled plaintiffs sued the city,

claiming that the camps made it impossible for them to use the sidewalks. The city settled and started removing hundreds of campsites. Here is elsewhere in the west, the city has had to find alternative shelters, so they made sure they complied with that Ninth Circuit decision. But one of the larger lawsuits actually has been in Phoenix. I should mention that I was an expert witness in that case. Basically, local residents sued the city over an encampment that was known as the zone. Up to a thousand people lived in this encampment at its peak.

But late last year, a state judge declared the, zone a public nuisance, ordered the place cleared by the end of last year, and it was cleared. The vast majority of the people in the zone accepted shelter are one of those alternatives. So the lawsuit worked, in a sense, as the plaintiffs intended. So if the zone could be cleared, does that mean that other cities could clear their encampments if they wanted to, legally? Not necessarily. For one, there are a lot of different lawsuits against these clearances and different judges have interpreted that Ninth Circuit decision in different ways.

but also the Ninth Circuit more recently decided another case called Johnson the city of Grant's Pass, which made it even harder for cities to clean up these encampments. Unlike the previous case, though, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this one. It'll be argued in a few weeks, actually. Now, what are the arguments in the Grant's Pass case? Well, the Grant's Pass case will be the first homeless case basically ever before the Supreme Court. So that's a really big deal on its own, and it's basically dealing with whether, or not, the Ninth Circuit was correct to declare camping bans without sufficient shelter as cruel

and unusual punishment. Most observers expect that they will overturn that Ninth Circuit decision because it is kind of out of on a limb. And if it does, that might make the West look a lot more like the rest of the United States in terms of his homeless problem. Now, do you think there is sufficient political will to sweep up these camps if the legal barriers are out of the way? Well, there might be, but I will admit that politicians have been using these decisions for years as an excuse to not take action. But the public feels very differently about the camps. Whenever they're given a chance to vote directly on camping bans through an initiative or referendum, even voters in really liberal cities like San Francisco have voted for these bans.

At some point, sooner or later, the politicians are going to have to listen to them. And without the Grants Pass and Boise case in the way, it'll be much more likely that they will be able to actually take action on the camps. All right, well, this could be a monumental case then. Judge, thanks for coming on. Thanks so much for having me. Questions are looming as to whether Nikki Haley plans to launch an independent run for the presidency if her long-shot primary race against Donald Trump falls short.

Haley is now fielding questions about a third-party run on the campaign trail, as some Trump supporters accuse her of trying to undermine Trump's chances in November. Here to discuss is Daily Wire contributor David Marcus. So, Dave, is there any evidence or reason to believe? believe Haley is actually contemplating a third-party run? Morning, Georgia. In fairness to those suggesting Haley could run third party, potentially on the no-label's ticket, she has not entirely slammed and locked the door on that, but she has said that she's not having any conversations about it, and there are sore-luser

election laws that could stand in her way. Let's be clear, such a run would be viewed as a betrayal by most Republicans, including many who have cast primary votes for her. It's extremely unclear what the upside would be, especially given that Trump can only serve one term, which has most Republicans positioning themselves for a place in the post-Trumpian GOP. This move would leave Haley out in the cold. There are figures in and around Trump world arguing that Haley is trying to sabotage Trump's general election campaign, but notably, we haven't heard that kind of rhetoric from Trump himself. In fact, by his rather extravagant standards, he has gone and continues to go relatively easy on Haley, notwithstanding occasionally calling her bird brain.

So if this isn't Haley gearing up for an independent run, why do you think she's continuing, given how small her chances are of winning? And just to piggyback on that, how much smaller will her chances be after next week's primaries? Henry Olson has an interesting piece up at Politico on just that question, and it mirrors other pundits who do see a purpose to even a losing Haley primary campaign. She is, albeit modestly, racking up some delegates for the July convention. And that matters for a few reasons. It can get her a prime speaking slot, helping her position in that post-Trump GOP. But it also gives her delegates the ability to influence the party platform and its message going into the final stretch of the campaign. There have been policy differences between Haley and Trump, notably on

NATO and the solvency of social security. So giving these delegates who some might call traditional Republicans, a voice could go a long way to providing party loyalty coming out of the convention in Milwaukee. Well, speaking of party loyalty, many of Trump's critics are saying he's underperforming in the primaries getting about 60 or 70 percent. Are Haley's voters primarily Republicans, or are we seeing independents and Democrats coming out for her? Yeah, Trump has not been losing 40 percent of GOP voters in these contests so far. That's just flat out false because, yes, much of Haley's support comes from independence and and even Democrats. Having said that, there is 10 to 20 percent at least of GOP voters who are

pulling the lever for Nikki, and that could matter. The Daily Beast's Matt Lewis pointed out this week that back in 2021, the Trump-supporting U.S. Senator from Wisconsin Ron Johnson was secretly recorded saying that Trump lost the Badger state because of 51,000 Republicans who didn't vote for him. Biden won Wisconsin by a mere 21,000 votes. So there's a reasonable argument to be made that Haley could help Trump win over some of these reluctant swing state voters who he's very likely to need this year. And now finally, speaking of third party candidates, the PAC for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. say he's set to be on the ballot, at least in some battleground states like Arizona and Georgia,

probably more to come. What impact is that going to have on the race? Polls now pretty consistently show that he is hurting Joe Biden and helping Donald Trump. And it makes sense. The Kennedy clan is still at least petite royalty. in the Democrat Party, and his ideology generally skews more to the left. The more states swing states in particular that he competes in, the worse it could be for Biden who slips further behind Trump when Kennedy and others like Cornell West are included.

In fact, right now, Joe Biden might be the only person pulling for a Haley third party run. All right. Well, Dave, thanks so much for coming on today. Thanks for having me. According to recent Nielsen ratings, the top 10 most stream shows of 2023, were all licensed rather than originals. And audiences were most interested in shows that were more than a decade old and haven't aired new episodes on standard television for years. Daily Wire Culture reporter Megan Basham is here now to explain

why audiences may be craving older entertainment. So, Megan, to start, which shows are dominating on streaming? Well, a lot of them are shows that have long been in syndication. So the Big Bang Theory was high on the list, and it first went into syndication way back in 2010. And then you have NCIS and Gray's Anatomy. Those were also on the list and regularly aired reruns of those shows started on broadcast in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The Gilmore Girls, Friends, and the Canadian drama Heartland also ranked in the top 10.

But the behemoth last year was Megan Markle's legal drama suits. It aired on USA from 2011 to 2019. And what's interesting is that while it was a success for the network, it wasn't exactly a cultural juggler. not, and it really just performed okay on NBC's streaming platform Peacock, but getting acquired by Netflix turned out to be the game changer. So in 2023, it officially broke the office's record for total streaming minutes in a year. Wow. So I wonder if there's a Megan Markle effect there. Now, why are audiences still choosing these old shows? Is this an after effect of the strikes? We know, possibly. We certainly didn't get some of the splashy new debuts that we would normally

expect because of that strike. And some of the most anticipated original streaming series have not returned for their second season. So I'm looking at you, Severance, that's the one I'm waiting for. But that has left audiences kind of sitting around waiting for these new favorites to return, and that might have returned their attention back to some old shows. And then, of course, as you mentioned, the Megan Markle effect, the new cycle might also have given some of these series a boost. Friends seems to have experienced something of a nostalgic boost after the untimely death of Matthew Perry last October. And when we talk about the popularity of suits, we can't ignore that 2023 was filled with royal drama that centered on Megan Markle. So, as you say,

that might have piqued some audience interest. But a lot of analysts are also talking about how viewers may be tiring of series that play out like long movies so that you can't miss any installments if you want to understand what's happening. They're looking for maybe something more episodic that allows them to kind of just mindlessly check out. Paul Chado is a former TV executive who now has a YouTube channel where he provides entertainment-related commentary. And this was his take.

If the first thing on your mind is that NCIS does not hold a candle to the Sopranos or Breaking Bad, yeah, you're right. It was the main reason HBO was able to bleed audiences away from the networks because the shows were better. Even Baywatch has.

something that the streamers just don't understand. Network shows on streaming reveal their true strength. Rinse and repeat. So essentially, they're talking about these old school broadcast type shows as comfort food. They're reliable. They're always available, and they don't require much intellectual investment. Well, I know you've also talked before about how the streamers are also getting stingier with new production contract. Is it cheaper for them to buy and promote old content? Yeah, it is. Netflix's decision to focus more on acquiring rather than creating has been very good for the company. Seven of 2023's top 10 series, including suits, stream there. And it currently has about 100 million more subscribers than its closest competitor, Disney Plus, which has focused on building out its original Star Wars and Marvel content. Well, Disney is now struggling as a lot of the audience has soured on those shows. And the platform has lost $10 billion. over the last five years. So now Disney says it's going to cut back on that original content

and shift more to licensed. Well, I'm going to continue my vigil for the return of severance. Yes. In the meantime, I might try succession. Megan, thanks for reporting. Anytime. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back this afternoon with an extra edition of Morning Wire.