The Daily Signal - SCOTUS Debates Judicial Authority, Walmart Price Hikes, James Comey's "86 45" Post | May 16, 2025

Starting point is 00:00:00 At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. 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.

Starting point is 00:00:25 We'd love to talk. Business. The Supreme Court finally begins oral arguments on nationwide injunctions. Walmart announces price hikes as President Trump concludes a whirlwind Middle Eastern tour. And former FBI director James Comey makes a post about 86ing the president. I'm neither Bradley Devlin nor Virginia Allen. I'm Tony Kennett back from Dallas to tell you that it is Friday, May 16th, 2025. This is the Daily Signals top news in 10.

Starting point is 00:01:00 The Supreme Court of the United States has begun oral arguments over the case regarding the president's explanation and interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the United States, specifically birthright citizenship in which an individual born within the borders of the United States is automatically granted citizenship, no matter whom their parents are or how long they have been here. Unsurprisingly, the conversation quickly moved into the area of district court federal injunctions, in which district judges around the country have levied major injunctions, freezes, stays, pauses, and the like, in order to suspend actions by the executives in administrations since the 1960s.

Starting point is 00:01:40 Liberal Judge Katangi Brown Jackson argued that it would make things a lot quicker for the courts if district judges were allowed to simply issue injunctions whenever they pleased. I would think we'd want the system to move as quickly as possible to reach the merits of the issue and maybe have this court decide whether or not the government. government is entitled to do this under the law. Wouldn't having universal injunctions actually facilitate that? It seems to me that when the government is completely enjoined from doing the thing it wants to do, it moves quickly to appeal that, to get it to the Supreme Court, and that's actually what we would want. What I worry about, similar to what Justice Kagan points out,

Starting point is 00:02:26 is that if the government is saying no lower court can completely enjoin it, it actually means that the government just keeps on doing the purportedly unlawful thing and it delays the ability for this court to reach the underlying issue. Justice Amy Coney-Barritt got a little bit lost in the weeds arguing about when it would and would not be appropriate to follow an injunction issued by a federal district judge, despite whether or not that was in the judge's constitutional authority or not. opinions and judgments here. Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a Second Circuit precedent, say, in New York,

Starting point is 00:03:08 because you might disagree with the opinion? Our general practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice. And that is not just a new policy. This administration's practice or the longstanding practice of the federal government? And I'm not talking about in the Fourth Circuit, are you going to respect a statute? Second Circuit I'm talking about within the Second Circuit. And can you say is that this administration's practice or a longstanding one? As I understand it, longstanding policy of the Department of Justice. Yes, that we generally, as it was phrased to me, generally respect Circuit President,

Starting point is 00:03:40 but not necessarily in every case. And some examples might be a situation where we're litigating to try and get that circuit president overruled and so forth. Well, okay, so I'm not talking about a situation in which, you know, the Second Circuit has a case from 1955 and you think it's time for. it to be challenged. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about in this kind of situation. I'm talking about this week the Second Circuit holds that the executive order is unconstitutional and then what do you do the next day or the next week? Generally we follow.

Starting point is 00:04:08 So you're still saying generally? Yes. And you still think that it's generally the policy, longstanding policy of the federal government to take that approach? That is my understanding. Okay, so but it sounds to me like you accept a Cooper versus Aaron kind of situation for the Supreme Court, but not for, say, the Second Circuit. Where you would respect the opinions and the judgments of the Supreme Court, and you're saying you would respect the judgment, but not necessarily the opinion of a lower court. And again, I think in the vast majority of instances, our practice has been to respect the opinion as well, in the circuits as well. But my understanding is that has not been a categorical practice in the way respect for the precedents and the judgments of the Supreme Court has been.

Starting point is 00:04:47 So you're not hedging at all with respect to the precedent of this court? That is correct, I believe. the quotation from our application directly addresses that, and we stand by that completely. Okay. And originalist justice Clarence Thomas took the opposite position as Katanji Brown Jackson, arguing that the United States had gotten along quite well without federal district sweeping injunctions all the way through to the 1960s and then ramping up in 2007. General, when were the first universal injunctions used?

Starting point is 00:05:20 We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Warts in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. There's a dispute about Perkins against Lucan's oil going back to 1940. And, of course, we point to the court's opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and said it's profoundly wrong. Now, if you look at the cases at the either party cite, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite, like National Treasury's Employment Union, Perkins against Lucas Oil, Frothingham and Massachusetts against Mellon, going back to Scott against Donald, and all of those, those are cases where the court considered and addressed the sort of universal,

Starting point is 00:06:02 in that case, statewide issue of provision of injunctive relief. So when the court has considered and addressed this, it is consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs of appearing in court and complaining of that remedy. So we survived until the 1960s without unanimousal. universal injunctions. That's exactly correct. And in fact, those are very limited, very rare, even in the 1960s. It really exploded in 2007 in our Surve petition in Summers Against Earth Island Institute.

Starting point is 00:06:28 We pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims. Snap up Ancestry DNA's lowest price ever in our incredible cyber sale. With 50% off ancestry DNA kits, it's the perfect time to help a loved one unwrap the past. And with their latest update, they'll discover their family orders. origins like never before with even more precise regions and new and exclusive features. Their best gift, our lowest price. 50% off ancestry DNA only until December 2nd. Visit ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply. After posting solid first quarter sales, Walmart has announced that it will be raising prices

Starting point is 00:07:08 due to tariff costs saying that they can't withstand the amount of pressure from the tariffs and trade wars. That's the crystal ball that all retailers wish they had right now is to try to figure out where tariffs are going to be at what point in time so they can manage their inventory flow. We importantly are continuing to flow inventory. We want to have products on shelves for customers and members when they want to buy them. So understanding what that demand is going to be, though, is pretty challenging. We've not seen a period where you've had prices go up this high this quickly. We're well equipped and experienced in dealing with elastisties or price increases that are going up two or three percent, but not 30 percent. So understanding by category,

Starting point is 00:07:50 buy item, what the demand is going to be is really important to making sure that you have the right amount of inventory in the right places at the right time. The president of the United States concluded a major portion of his Middle Eastern tour by securing a $243 billion deal between the United States and Qatar through the purchase of jets through Boeing as well as other industrial economic options and locked in a $142 billion defense deal with Saudi Arabia. The over $1 trillion of investment into the United States is considered a record number of economic deals in such a short amount of time. The president of the United States has also announced that he will be leaving the Middle

Starting point is 00:08:31 East heading to destination unknown. Kevin O'Leary, the popular Shark Tank host, as well as a major business and economic mind, gave what I believe to be one of the most accurate assessments of Trump's Middle Eastern tour, as well as how this relates to the U.S.-Chinese trade war. What's going on with this trip are two things. One is China. He doesn't want China to develop a relationship in what I call the Middle East Circle of Friendship, and that is Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

Starting point is 00:09:02 And then you ask yourself, why are all these AI guys with him? What's with that? And I'll tell you what it's about. At the end of this week, he has a meeting in Abu Dhabi. And what's happened in the last two years, maybe it's taken three. But U.S. is number one in AI development and spending. Number two is China. Number three now, and very advanced in certain verticals is the United Arab Emirates.

Starting point is 00:09:26 They are so far ahead in many different verticals. And he wants to see that cooperation on AI be removed from the China model. because remember there was talk about the UAE starting to talk to China about AI. He doesn't want any of that. He wants these companies to form very strong bonds in AI, and when we get later this week to the UAE, that's what you're going to hear about. This is crucial. So China and AI, and of course all this money talks fantastic.

Starting point is 00:09:53 But we're in an economic war with China, and he is cutting them off at the past in the fastest growing region on Earth, the Middle East. And former FBI director, James Comey, caused a major controversy when he released an Instagram post, yesterday evening, quote, cool shell formation on my beach walk. He showed a picture of shells he presumably arranged himself, spelling out 86-47. President's son Donald Trump Jr. said, quote, James Comey casually calling for my dad to be murdered. This is who the Democrat media worships demented. 86 is a classic American term often used in law enforcement, the military,

Starting point is 00:10:32 and cooking to suggest getting rid of something, removing it, getting it out of here. After deleting his original post, Comey posted, quote, I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beachwalk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me, but I oppose violence of any kind, so I took the post down, and quote. It's interesting here that Comey seems to allege he wasn't the one who organized the picture of those shells in order and just happened to stumble upon a post of 86-47 in the sand. Before you go, head down to the description and make sure you're subscribed to the Tony Kinnett cast,

Starting point is 00:11:12 as well as Bradley Devlin's The Signal Sitdown and Virginia Allen's problematic women. Thanks very much to both of them for hosting while I was out of state. We'll be back this evening at 7 p.m. Eastern to close out the week only the way we know how. I'm Tony Kinnett, and this has been The Daily Signals, top news in 10. Take care.

The Daily Signal - SCOTUS Debates Judicial Authority, Walmart Price Hikes, James Comey's "86 45" Post | May 16, 2025

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