UNBIASED - Debt Deal, Inaugural Poem Controversy, Negative 'Little Mermaid' Ratings, SCOTUS Releases New Unanimous Opinion

Episode Date: June 2, 2023

1. Fiscal Responsibility Act Passes House (Update: Passed Senate in a 63-36 Vote Thursday, June 1st, 11pm EST) (2:15)2. Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision Re: False Claims Act (9:31)3. Florida Parent Complaints About Amanda Gorman's Inaugural Poem, 'The Hill We Climb'; District's Response Causing Controversy (14:05)4. IMDb Uses Weighted Rating Scale for 'The Little Mermaid' Following Unusual Amount of Negative Reviews (21:52) If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

You are listening to the Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Friday. We're going to address the elephant in the room really quick. I am sick, but that's not stopping me from cranking out the content for you. So just bear with me and my voice this episode because it definitely doesn't sound like me, but that's what we're working with. I have four stories for you today. The first is about the fiscal responsibility act that passed the house on Wednesday night and is soon going to be voted

on in the Senate. The second story I have for you is about a recent Supreme Court opinion. The third story is about Amanda Gorman's poem, specifically the poem that she performed at President Biden's inauguration. This is kind of old news in the sense that it was making headlines last week, but I figured better late than never. Let's talk about it now because I want your opinions on it. And the fourth and final story is about IMDb changing their rating scale a little bit following the release of The Little Mermaid. So a bunch of negative reviews came in and IMDb said, hey, we're going to make some changes to this because the reviews aren't that reliable. So not super political, but definitely does have political ties. So that's going to be the fourth and final story.

And that's what I have for you. So before we get into it, let me just remind you per usual, please leave me a review on whatever platform you listen. I'm actually about to break a combined 400 reviews. So between Apple Podcasts and Spotify, I'm right on the verge you listen. I'm actually about to break a combined 400 reviews. So between Apple Podcasts and Spotify, I'm right on the verge of 400, which is really exciting. So if you can help me out with that, and then also just share this podcast with whoever you feel will enjoy nonpartisan, unbiased, fact-based news, I always appreciate that as well. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. On Wednesday night, the House passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act in a 314 to 117 vote.

The bill will now go to the Senate. It has already made its way to the Senate. And before we get into this, I just want to clarify some things. So my news cycle stops at 3 p.m. the day before the episodes are released, just because that gives me time to finish researching whatever I need to still research. Also gives me time to record and edit and get it uploaded and all of that stuff. So all of the producing is on my end, which means I do have to kind of, you know, cut my days short a little bit. With that said, it's undetermined as of now whether the Senate is going to vote or have their final vote on the Fiscal Responsibility Act on Thursday night or Friday. So it's either going to be Thursday night or Friday at this point, they're not sure.

So I'm going to cover this enough to where if they do vote by the time this episode releases Friday morning, you'll know where this stands. However, if they don't vote until after you listen to this episode on Friday morning, you will also know where this stands. It was originally thought that this wasn't going to be super easy to get through the House. You know, you had extreme Democrats, extreme Republicans on both sides saying that this wasn't something they were going to agree to. And not everyone did agree, obviously. You're not going to get a unanimous vote on something like this. But the original estimates from both McCarthy and President Biden were expecting it to pass with pretty narrow margins. So McCarthy was estimating

he would have somewhere between 140 and 150 votes. Democrats then had to deliver somewhere between 70 and 80 votes, because obviously you needed to get that 218 majority in order for this to pass. We know that it well surpassed that 218 number. But it turns out that more Democrats voted to pass this measure than Republicans. So in total, there was 165 Democrats that voted to pass it and 149 Republicans voted to pass. So McCarthy's estimate was pretty much right on point. He said he estimated somewhere between 140 and 150. That number ended up being 149. So that's how the numbers broke down. Now, it was nice to see that although some representatives strongly opposed McCarthy's negotiations, some were also

willing to see that it's okay to disagree sometimes. And that's pretty refreshing. We're also willing to see that it's okay to disagree sometimes. And that's pretty refreshing. You know, we're very used to seeing polarizing sides on a lot of things. And in this case, there was there were enough representatives that realized, hey, look, we're not all going to be happy here. One of those representatives was Representative Nancy Mace. She did not vote to pass this bill. She actually defended her vote against the bill, saying that the left knows how good of a deal they got. That's why so many of them voted for it. Republicans got very little, but she also made it known that she still trusts McCarthy. She said that she strongly disagrees with McCarthy, but she also knows that they can agree to disagree on a lot of things,

and that's okay too. As I mentioned before, this measure headed to the Senate on Thursday, which is very narrowly controlled by the Democrats. The issue here is that the Senate has a lot of procedural rules that make it more complicated to pass legislation in the Senate than in the House. So there's things like the cloture rule, you have what they call a unanimous consent agreement, which I'm going to talk about in a little bit. You have the filibuster where senators can just stand on the floor for hours and hours, days, sometimes just stalling a vote on something. So there are definitely rules in the Senate that make make measures like this harder to pass. Some senators have already said they're going to offer amendments. So if any of those amendments were to pass and it goes back to the House, this pretty much almost guarantees that the bill would not be signed in time for that June 5th default date. Even Rand Paul, he tweeted, quote, there's nothing conservative about a debt deal

that grants unlimited borrowing for two years that experts estimate will likely exceed $4 trillion. I will insist on an amendment to enact real spending caps that lead to a balanced budget in five years, end quote. So he's already guaranteeing that he's going to offer an amendment. Other senators have said something similar. You also have senators that have said they're voting no on this, like Senator Bernie Sanders. But the key here is that no amendment passes and that at least 51 senators vote yes. That would be the key to get this legislation passed and signed in time for that June 5th default date. Another option for the Senate is a unanimous consent agreement. And that is what it sounds like.

If the members of the Senate that are present and voting unanimously agree to a rule, then that rule can proceed. Now, this rule can govern anything from, you know, when a measure will be taken up to when the measure is voted on, debate time limits, limiting the number of amendments, disallowing amendments completely. It's really anything that the Senate agrees on in full. So obviously it has to have 100% of senators in support of this, but they can basically make up whatever rule they want so long as all senators agree. So that's why these negotiations are kind of happening in the Senate right now. And i say right now i mean thursday afternoon because they're trying to get all senators on board to

get this to a final vote as soon as possible whether that means only allowing a certain number of amendments or only allowing a certain amount of time for debate on certain amendment like they're just trying to come up with some sort of procedure that everyone can agree on to get this to a scheduled final vote. Also, as of Thursday afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told the chamber that the Senate will remain in session until the debt ceiling bill passes, saying that time is a luxury that the Senate does not have. Also on Thursday, Minority Whip John Thune told reporters that the final vote on the bill is more likely to happen on Friday. However, there were also reports that it could happen Thursday night. So just stay tuned for that June 5th date. Now, again, there's a lot of possible things that can happen. Less likely is that an amendment is offered, an amendment passes, and now it goes back to the House. In that case, not super likely that we meet that June 5th default date. But again, the likelihood of an amendment passing at this point is slim to none. Obviously, you can never say never,

but I think enough senators are on board where, you know, even Bernie Sanders, he said, I'm voting no on this bill, but I'm not going to vote to delay anything. So he's not going to vote to pass any amendments or anything like that. So that's where this whole situation stands as of now. Now, of course, if something happens and you're confused about it, you can always reach out to me on Instagram at Jordan is my lawyer or send me an email Jordan at Jordan is my lawyer and ask me any questions you have and I'll try to clear that up for you. So that takes us into our second story, which is this recent Supreme Court opinion on a case where various individuals filed suit on behalf of the United States against Super

Value and Safeway. Super Value and Safeway are obviously two supermarkets slash pharmacies. These were actually two separate cases that were consolidated into one, but this decision and two others were released on Thursday. I linked all of them on my website for you, jordanismylawyer.com, but I do want to talk about this one in particular that pertains to the False Claims Act. You may have seen me post a reel and or a TikTok about it depending on where you follow me about a month or two ago, but basically the plaintiffs filed suit against Safeway and Supervalue saying that they were offering prescription drugs at discounted prices to customers that were paying out of pocket, but then charging higher rates to government programs like Medicare and Medicaid for reimbursement. In other words, they were

profiting off of government reimbursement because they were being reimbursed more than they were charging the customer. Now, the False Claims Act lets individuals, so private individuals, bring a lawsuit on behalf of the government when they have evidence of fraud against federal programs. Under the FCA though, to be liable, you have to knowingly submit a false claim to the government. And this knowingly element is called the scientere element. Scientere speaks to someone's knowledge. So you have to know you are submitting a false claim to be liable. But that definition of knowingly was what was being challenged. So what the pharmacies and these supermarkets said is we didn't knowingly submit

a false claim because the Medicare and Medicaid billing requirements are so ambiguous, they're so confusing, that one could read the requirements and find that what we were doing is consistent with those requirements. You know, even if we thought maybe what we were doing was a little wrong, someone could read the requirements and say, oh no, what they're doing is fine. So they're basically looking at it from a objective reading of it rather than a subjective reading. So there were two issues. One, were the claims they were submitting false? And two, did the defendant know the claim was false? At the district court level, the court ruled against the supermarkets as to question one. So they said, yes, these claims were false. But when it came to question two and that knowingly element, that scientier element, the district court said the laws are a bit ambiguous and therefore

it doesn't matter if the supermarket knew their actions were inconsistent with the law, but rather if an objectively reasonable interpretation of the law supported their actions. And this goes up to the appellate court and the appellate court affirms it. So then they take it to the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court says is, no, no, no, no, no. The FCA's scientere element refers to a defendant's knowledge and subjective beliefs, not what an objectively reasonable person might have known or believed. And therefore, the appellate court, you guys got it wrong. It's not an objectively reasonable interpretation, but rather the defendant's subjective knowledge. So it's not that the

Supreme Court necessarily ruled that the defendants were liable under the FCA, but they interpreted that knowingly element and sent it back for the appellate court to make a final decision based on the Supreme Court's definition of knowingly. So whistleblowers are ecstatic about this ruling because they're saying, had the Supreme Court ruled against us, it would have made it easier for these big companies to get away with defrauding the government because they could just say, well, you know, if you read the law this way, then we're off the hook. We read it another way. But if you read it a different way, we could be fine. You know, like what we're doing could be seen as innocent.

And that decision out of the Supreme Court was actually a unanimous decision. So all of the justices were in agreement on that. Now, as I said at the beginning, there were also two other opinions released on Thursday. If you're interested in reading those, they are linked on my website. So feel free, jordanismylawyer.com to read those opinions for yourself. you may have heard the controversy last week but i haven't talked about it yet and i thought better late than never amanda gorman is an american poet she is also the youngest inaugural poet in u.s history and she read a poem at the inauguration of president biden called the hill we climb it was subsequently turned into a book format, and it can be seen in school libraries, libraries generally. You can order it online.

It had its foreword done by Oprah Winfrey, and this is the poem at the center of the controversy. Last week, a K-8 school in Miami, Florida decided to move The Hill We Climb from the elementary school section of the school's media center to the middle school section of the school's media center. It has since caused some uproar, some controversy, if you will, and also some misleading headlines. So let's get into it. The parent of a student at a K-8 school in Florida complained about a few pieces of instruction at this school library. One of them was, of course, The Hill We Climb. Another was Love to Langston, which is a poetry-based biography of a Black poet named Langston Hughes. Another one was The ABCs of Black History.

There's also one particular book in a series called Countries in the News that focused on Cuba, and another book called Cuban Kids. Now, the materials review panel took a look at this complaint. They assessed the situation. They declined to remove the books from the school entirely, but they moved the Hill We Climb and two others from the elementary school section to the middle school section. It's part of the same school. It's a K-8 school. It just moved sections in the school. The move was a result of Florida's law, HB 1467. What this law says is that school districts are responsible for instructional materials and materials made available in school libraries, etc. School district boards are to have a policy in place for when a parent or

resident of the county objects to the use of any material. So basically, if a parent or resident feels that there is class material or a book that either contains pornographic material, isn't suited to students' needs, or is inappropriate for any grade level, they can complain to the school district by filing a complaint. From there, the school district, if it finds that there is merit to the parent's objection, the school district has to remove that material for the grade level or grade levels or age group for which the use is inappropriate or not suitable. This is what happened here. Not all material that the parent complained about was moved,

just those three publications. Now, I want to focus on Gorman's though, because that's making headlines. In the complaint that was filed by this parent on March 29th of this year, the parent cited the following reason for removal. Quote, is not educational and have indirectly hate messages. Page 12 through 13. So pages 12 and 13, from what I saw,

read the following. I'm pretty sure there's only one printed version of this poem in a book, so I can only imagine this is the book that was in the library. But this is what 12 and 13 say. So it says, We've braved the belly of the beast. We've learned that quiet isn't always peace. And the norms and notions of what just is isn't always justice. And yet the dawn is ours before we knew it. Somehow we do it.

Somehow we've weathered and witnessed a nation that isn't broken, but simply unfinished. One of the questions on the form was, are you aware of professional reviews on this material? The parent writes, I don't need it. Another question says, what do you believe is the function of this material? The parent writes, cause confusion and indoctrinate students. By the way, I have a picture of the complaint and the four other complaints that were filed linked on my website if you would like to see them for yourselves. Following the filing of the complaint, obviously the school district, you know, reviews the situation. They make their decision to move the books. Gorman, the author, made the following statement following the decision to move the

book. She says, quote, I'm gutted. Because of one parent's complaint, my inaugural poem has been banned from an elementary school in Miami-Dade, Florida. Book bans aren't new, but they have been on the rise, and let's be clear, most of the forbidden works are by authors who have struggled for generations to get on bookshelves. The majority of these censored works are by queer and non-white voices. I wrote The Hill We Climb so that all young people could see themselves in a historical moment. Robbing children of the chance to find their voice in literature is a violation of their right to free thought and free speech. Together, this is a hill we won't just climb, but a hill we will conquer." And I always, always say to read past the headlines, because this is one of those situations where if you only read the headline, you won't know the

full context of the story. The majority of the headlines that I saw at least made it seem like the poem was removed altogether, and I must admit it caught my attention. I saw them and I said, I gotta know what this is about. What was banned from this school? And whether you agree with the decision to move the book or not, hopefully you can see why these headlines are misleading. Headline number one, Amanda Gorman gutted after Florida school bans Biden inauguration poem. That was by The Guardian. Headline number two, Amanda Gorman's inaugural poem restricted by Florida school, New York Times. Headline number three, Amanda Gorman's inaugural poem is the latest in book bans, LA Times. And number four, with Amanda Gorman ban,

anti-blackness strikes again, Sacramento Observer. Perhaps when I read those to you, you can kind of hear in your head why they're a little bit misleading. They insinuate that this was a book ban. A book ban by definition would mean that the book was banned from the school, the students are not allowed to read it. However, what happened in this case is the book was moved, right? So it was by, you know, the school district thought that this was a book better suited for middle school aged students. Some headlines that I found to be a bit more accurate were the following. The first one is from the BBC. It says Amanda Gorman's inauguration poem moved by school after parents complaint. The second one was by Politico. It says Florida school limits access to Amanda Gorman's inaugural poem after parental complaint.

That one's still a little bit on the fence, but better than using the word ban. And the third headline I found was by CBS News. Perhaps the most factually accurate. It says Florida school moves Amanda Gorman's poem, The Hill We Climb, to middle school section after complaint. So now that we've gone over all of those facts, I highly encourage you to read this poem or watch her performance of the poem and just focus on the words. So I was going to read the poem for you, but given my voice and the amount of coughing attacks I've had this episode alone that I've fortunately for you edited out, I just, I couldn't get through that right now.

So I highly encourage you to read it for yourself. Focus on the words. I don't want you to focus on who she is. I don't want you to focus on the fact that it was at President Biden's inauguration versus President Trump. I don't want you to focus on any of that. Just focus on the words and let me know your thoughts. That's what this Spotify poll is going to be about this week. So please, if you're a Spotify listener, let me know your thoughts on it. That takes us into our fourth and final story. It's a quick one. IMDb changes their rating scale following the release of The Little Mermaid and an influx of negative reviews. So this obviously is, it's a mix of pop culture, but also there's political ties for obvious reasons. Maybe you'll,

if you're not familiar with the new Little Mermaid movie, you'll understand in a minute. But if you look at The Little Mermaid reviews on IMDb, you're going to notice something interesting. The movie has a 7 out of 10 IMDb rating, yet 39% of its reviews are one-star reviews. Now, the negative reviews stem from the people who are upset that the main character was cast as a non-white woman. They're calling, you know, Disney's remake forced diversity, woke ideology, what have you, but they're upset that Disney is not adhering to the original main character. Now, when you add on top of this Disney's controversy with Governor DeSantis in Florida,

it definitely doesn't help because obviously those people that are on DeSantis' side of this aren't necessarily fans of Disney right now. So anyway, long story short, a lot of negative reviews came in. And following all of these negative reviews, IMDb issued a note on the Little Mermaid's webpage. What this note says is, quote, our rating mechanism has detected unusual voting activity on this title. To preserve the reliability of our rating system, an alternate weighted calculation has been applied. What is this calculation? We don't know because the website says that when this happens, when there is unusual voting activity on a title, to ensure that the rating mechanism remains effective, they do not disclose the exact

method used to generate the rating because obviously then people can go and circumvent that. So it's interesting. The unweighted rating is a 4.7. The weighted rating remains a 7.0. Despite the controversy and the negative reviews, the movie still managed to rake in nearly $117 million at the box office during its opening weekend, which was Memorial Day weekend. And as of Thursday, it had brought in $200 million. So not that crazy of an effect. I think if anything, you know, when things like this happen, and it's very polarizing, then the people who obviously support the movie show up even more, right, to try to compensate for all the negative reviews and just negativity in general surrounding it. So that concludes this

week's episode. Please don't forget to leave me a review and get me past that 400 review mark. I cannot wait. Thank you guys so much for being here thus far. And I'm excited to continue bringing you the unbiased nonpartisan content. Please don't forget to share my show with anyone who you feel will also appreciate nonpartisan news. Thank you for bearing with me and my voice today, and I will talk to you next week.