The Daily Signal - Double Supreme Court Victories, Barrett Backhands Jackson, "Big, Beautiful Bill" Heads to Debate | June 30, 2025

Starting point is 00:00:00 Feeling festive? Catch classic holiday favorites, like Home Alone, the Santa Claus, and Die Hard, along with holiday episodes from Family Guy, Abbott Elementary, and more with Hulu on Disney Plus. From festive Disney flicks to binge-worthy Hulu originals, Hulu on Disney Plus is your home for the holidays. Celebrate the season with Hulu, available on Disney Plus in Canada. Back-to-back Supreme Court victories and a scathing series of opinions mark the end of an era. And the Senate votes 51 to 49 to advance President Trump's big beautiful bill to the floor for debate. I'm Tony Kinnett, host of the Daily Signals, Tony Kinnett cast, syndicated nationally at 7 p.m. Eastern.

Starting point is 00:00:43 It is Monday, June 30, 2025. This is the Daily Signal's top news in 10. Two major decisions by the Supreme Court on Friday not only mark the end of this year's term, but also signify a major political pivot in the United States. First, Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion for a six to three, ruling along ideological lines in favor of the state of Texas in the case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. The court ruled that the state of Texas law requiring adults to provide proof of age to access online pornography did not violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Starting point is 00:01:27 After several decades of laws, decisions, cultural movements, and technological advancements, normalizing access to sexually explicit content for all ages, this ruling finds that it is not an infringement on your rights or your privacy to prove that you are an adult in order to access things like pornography. The Supreme Court's ruling along the same ideological lines in Trump v. Casa is without a doubt the most important and consequential ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States in the last 40 years, bar none. According to the Daily Signals, Tyler O'Neill, the Supreme Court struck down a lower court injunction blocking the Trump administration's executive order on birthright citizenship, laying out clear rules for courts utilizing universal injunctions

Starting point is 00:02:14 going forward. The point of this Supreme Court case was not to determine whether or not the Trump administration had a good hold on what the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution meant regarding birthright citizenship. The point of this ruling was to illustrate and to define once and for all that lower court judges at the district and the appellate level cannot issue nationwide injunctions just because they feel like it. According to O'Neill, Justice Amy Coney-Barrant delivered the opinion of the court which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice's Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch,

Starting point is 00:02:49 and Brett Kavanaugh joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion which justices Alina Kagan and Katangi Brown Jackson joined. Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion that is something special, and we'll get to that. But first, Barrett wrote, quote, Traditionally courts issued injunctions, prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy

Starting point is 00:03:12 against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, end quote. This means that for the vast majority of United States history, if you were suing the federal government and the lower court found that there might be a little something to this, but a little more of the legal process is required, the federal judge could rule a temporary injunction that would put a hold on how the federal government was interacting with you, the party, in the lawsuit. But somewhere along the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, district court judges began throwing out nationwide injunctions like there were candy at a parade, resulting in a series of injunctive

Starting point is 00:03:48 battles between district courts, the Supreme Court, and the executive branch during the first Trump administration, the Biden administration, and now at the beginning of the second Trump administration. I don't have to tell you how many nationwide injunctions have been thrown out by judges from districts in Connecticut and Washington, D.C., Idaho and California, just because some district judge didn't like some executive order by the Trump administration. Justice Katangi Brown Jackson's dissent was mocked all weekend, and the reason is because we've never really seen this level of creative language in a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Katangi Brown Jackson openly swore in her dissenting opinion

Starting point is 00:04:32 wrote colloquial phrases like Wait for It, popularized by Barney Stinson in How I Met Your Mother, a sitcom from the Mid-Ots. It's going to be legend. Wait for it. Wait for it. Wait for it. Wait for it. Wait for it. Wait for it. Dairy. Legendary. Bizarre grammatical and syntax errors like suggesting, quote, and for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone, including the executive, to follow the law, M-Dash, full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness in which the executive,

Starting point is 00:05:08 et cetera, ad nauseum, the words full stop indicate one is finished speaking. That was not the case for Justice Katanji Brown Jackson. Now, I really don't have to share this with you personally because Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney-Barritt targeted this disconnect from the traditionally collegiate writings of Supreme Court justices with a bit of special attention from Justice Barrett, quote, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. No one disputes that the executive

Starting point is 00:05:48 has a duty to follow the law, but the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation. In fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so. See, for example, Marbury v. Madison. Quote, Justice Jackson skips over that part because analyzing the governing statute involves boring legalese. This was the term that Jackson had used to describe other justices' opinions in the Supreme Court of the United States, the chief and preeminent court in this country of determining the legalese used to define the very specific and articulate execution and upholding of the United States

Starting point is 00:06:28 Constitution and the laws built on top of it at the state and federal levels. There is one other line that I must admit I am particularly fond of and would be remiss if I did not share this with the crew listening to her watching The Daily Signals Top News in 10. Barrett wrote, quote, the principal descent focuses on conventional legal terrain like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and are cases on equity. This is Barrett nodding to Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, at least trying to cobble together a legal argument based on precedent in the evolution of the interpretation of the Constitution over time. This is what those who believe the Constitution evolves in meaning are at least

Starting point is 00:07:05 attempting to hold true to U.S. history in Supreme Court rulings from what is considered the liberal side of the aisle. Barrett wrote, quote, Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor frankly to any doctrine whatsoever. waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a, quote, mind-numbingly technical query. To quote William Shakespeare in Antony and Cleopatra. She's dead, my queen. At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak startup funding and comprehensive game plans.

Starting point is 00:07:42 We've mastered made-to-measure growth and expansion advice, and we can talk your ear off about transferring your business when the time comes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us and contact Desjardin today. We'd love to talk business. And late Saturday night, the Senate voted 51 to 49 to push the big beautiful bill to the floor for open debate and then the final vote. The president posted just after midnight on Truth Social, quote, tonight we saw a great victory in the Senate with the great big beautiful bill, but it wouldn't have happened without the fantastic work of Senator Rick Scott, Senator Mike

Starting point is 00:08:26 Lee, Senator Ron Johnson, and Senator Cynthia Loomis. They, along with all of the other Republican patriots who voted for the bill, are people who truly love our country. As president of the USA, I am proud of them all, and look forward to working with them to grow our economy, reduced wasteful spending, secure our border, fight for our military and vets, ensure that our Medicaid system helps those who truly need it, protect our Second Amendment, and so much more. God bless America, and make America great again. Two Republican senators voted against the bill, these being Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky

Starting point is 00:08:58 and Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin had previously stood opposed to a lot of measures in the bill, but ended up flipping his vote at kind of the late hours so that Vice President J.D. Vance, who was also nearby, didn't have to come in and break a tie. Two things to note on this particular matter. Number one, Senator Tom Tills has received such explicit pushback

Starting point is 00:09:20 from the president of the United States, as well as a lot of the rest of the country, for opposition to this bill, as well as pushing through a lot of Biden and Obama appointee judges through his tenure as senator. He's announced he's no longer running for re-election in 26. Additionally, Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader in the Senate, has put forward a rule that is going to cause the clerk to read the entire thousand-page bill end to end, as a measure of opposition, I suppose, to keep the president from signing the bill on the 4th of July. While Schumer has chosen that as his particular fight in the Senate, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat Senator of Connecticut, made the choice to go on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday to complain about illegal immigration enforcement under the Trump administration.

Starting point is 00:10:07 You know, border crossings are at a record low. Do you give the Trump administration some credit for that? And are you, when you look at those figures, do you think things are moving? in the right direction, at least in that regard, Senator. No, I don't give them credit for that because border crossings are low because they're violating the law every day. So we have a law in this country that says if you are fleeing terror or torture from another country, you can come here and apply for asylum. The Trump administration has suspended that law.

Starting point is 00:10:37 They are not allowing anybody to come here to apply for asylum. We wrote that bipartisan bill last year to reform the asylum process to make sure that only the right people are coming in and that we judge those cases. expeditiously at the border. So it's true. There are very few people crossing on a daily basis, but that's because the Trump administration is violating the law. And it should matter to every American that on so many facets, the Trump administration doesn't care about the law. This is becoming a lawless administration. We are on a road to see our democracy afterfeits of the point that it will be unrecognizable. And the border is just one example of many ways in which

Starting point is 00:11:16 this administration doesn't care about the law anymore. A rather unpopular position, according to a lot of polls in the country, but that's never stopped Senator Murphy. Before you go, head down to the description and make sure you're subscribed to the Tony Kinnett cast. And join us tonight at 7 p.m. Eastern, where we sit down with none other than CNN's Scott Jennings to talk about what has become a bit of a rarity, that being reading the stuff in front of you before opening your mouth on national television. I'm Tony Kinnett, and this has been The Daily Signals, Top News in 10.

Starting point is 00:11:45 Take care. Thank you.

The Daily Signal - Double Supreme Court Victories, Barrett Backhands Jackson, "Big, Beautiful Bill" Heads to Debate | June 30, 2025

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.