UNBIASED - December 3, 2024: House Committee Releases COVID-19 Origins Findings, South Korea Declares Martial Law, Justices React to Vape Flavor Case, Canada to Assist with Border Protection, and More.

Episode Date: December 3, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Supreme Court Justices React to Arguments in Vape Flavor Case (0:55) Outgoing Senate Leader Pens Letter to Incoming Senate Leader About Confirming Trump's Nominations (4:23) House Subcommittee Releases COVID-19 Origins Report After Two-Year Investigation (6:59) Quick Hitters: Newsom Requests $25M for Future Trump Legal Battles, Congressional Staffer Arrested for Ammunition at Capitol, National Retail Federation Releases Consumer Shopping Report Post-Thanksgiving Holiday, Canada to Assist with Border Protection, CFPB Proposes New Rule to Restrict Data Brokers, Jury Deliberates in Daniel Penny's Case, South Korea President Declares Martial Law, Appeals Court Partially Upholds Idaho's 'Abortion Trafficking' Law (10:34) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Tuesday, December 3rd, and this is your daily news rundown. In today's episode, we will discuss how the justices were feeling during arguments in yesterday's vape case, sort of an update to yesterday's episode. We'll also talk about the new COVID Origins Report from the House Select Committee, some internal Senate communications about cabinet confirmations, South Korea's declaration and subsequent revocation of martial law, and more. And as always, if you love the unbiased approach

that this episode provides and you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and leave my show a review on whatever platform you listen, share the show with your friends, and if you're watching on YouTube, please go ahead and hit the thumbs up button and subscribe to the channel if you're not already. All of those things help me out, so thank you very much. And without further ado, let's get into today's stories. Let's start today's episode with a quick update as to how the justices were feeling during oral arguments in that vape flavor case yesterday.

If you haven't yet listened to yesterday's episode, I would recommend doing so just so we're all on the same page. But essentially, the question that the justices are faced with is this. Did the FDA impermissibly deny applications for liquid-flavored vape products since it failed to take into account plans submitted by the vape companies, which would prevent underage access and use. So basically, the e-cigarette companies argued that the FDA is a moving target when it comes to its processes and guidance.

The companies assert that the FDA basically tells them to follow specific instructions for authorization. The company follows these instructions and then they still get denied because all of the sudden the FDA imposes new requirements. The FDA though argued that the companies hadn't actually been surprised by anything and instead that their applications were simply rejected because the companies just didn't provide enough evidence to support their claim. That being that the benefit provided by flavored e-cigarettes, getting adults to quit smoking conventional cigarettes, outweighs the risk that is posed to youth users who are more attracted to these e-cigarette flavors. So the FDA says nothing

changed. There's no moving target. the companies just didn't provide sufficient evidence for their claim. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson all pretty much agreed with the FDA. Justice Jackson pointed specifically to announcements that the FDA had made about the significance of these e-cigarette flavors and the agency's concerns and the fact that these announcements were made

before the companies even submitted their applications, which essentially put these companies on notice that they would have to rebut this concern. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor made similar remarks. Justice Kavanaugh, he also didn't really understand how the FDA made this alleged legal error, which would nullify its denial of the applications. He said that while

the companies may disagree with Congress's decision to give the FDA this discretion to make these kinds of determinations, and maybe the companies disagree with how the FDA balanced the risks and benefits in this case, that didn't mean that the FDA made a legal error. He said it's ultimately up to the FDA to decide whether the evidence outweighs the harm to young people. And then that's the end of the inquiry. Justice Alito was more receptive to the company's arguments. He kind of pushed back on the FDA in saying basically that the FDA didn't give clear directives

of what it wanted. Justice Thomas also pushed back on the FDA's argument, implying that either the agency's instructions weren't clear or the agency had changed their instructions midstream, but something had happened which resulted in the companies being unclear as to what they needed to provide. Justice Gorsuch suggested the possibility that perhaps the companies were not provided with what's called fair notice of how they could comply with the federal requirements and this is something Justice Jackson disagreed with. So the court overall seems pretty split but remember at least five justices need to be on the same side for a

party to win. So we'll see what happens later on in the court's term when they eventually release their decision. In some other news, outgoing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is asking incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune to uphold the Senate's constitutional advice and consent role when it comes to cabinet nominees. So Schumer's letter comes amid some pressure from President-elect Trump for the Senate to enter into an extended recess to allow recess appointments. Now if you're wondering what recess appointments are, the short answer is that recess appointments allow a president to bypass the typical confirmation process in the Senate because the confirmations would happen

when the Senate is on recess and therefore not able to carry out the constitutional confirmation process. The longer, more in-depth answer is available for you in my November 14th episode, where I do a little bit of a deep dive on the topic of recess appointments. But Schumer's Monday letter to Senator Thune reads, quote, reads, quote, Dear incoming leader Thune, as we transition to the 119th Congress, Senate Democrats stand ready and willing to work with Senate Republicans to provide advice and consent as we evaluate all of the incoming president's nominations. In particular, we commit to working in a bipartisan fashion to process each nominee by reviewing standard FBI background investigation materials, scheduling hearings and markups in the committees of jurisdiction, and considering nominees on

the Senate floor. In our system of checks and balances, the Senate plays a vital role in ensuring the President appoints well-qualified public officials that will dutifully serve the American people and honor their oaths to the Constitution. Regardless of party, the Senate has upheld this sacred duty for generations, and we should not and must not waver in our constitutional duty. We look forward to joining you in these efforts as soon as possible once the Senate and its committees are organized in January. Sincerely, Charles Schumer." End quote. Note here though that it is not up to Senator Thune alone as the majority leader to determine whether the Senate recesses. Instead,

a simple majority of senators would have to vote to pass a motion for adjournment, and because of the narrow margins in the Senate, nearly all Republican senators essentially would have to be on board with this. This is of course assuming that all Democrats vote against adjournment and this just most likely wouldn't happen because we already have a handful of Republican senators that have already spoken out about upholding that advice and consent role. So now let's move on to some news out of the other chamber of Congress, the House of Representatives. The House Oversight Committee's COVID-19 Subcommittee finalized its two-year investigation into the origins of the pandemic.

This 557-page report was issued yesterday and found, among other things, that COVID was quote-unquote most likely from a lab in Wuhan, China. In total, the report includes five points of bipartisan consensus and seven other findings. So first, the points of bipartisan consensus. One, the possibility that COVID-19 emerged because of a lab or research-related accident is not a conspiracy theory. Two, EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. and Dr. Peter Dashak should never again receive US taxpayer dollars. Just for context, EcoHealth Alliance is a US nonprofit that allegedly gave taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan lab in question,

and Dr. Peter Daschick is the president of that organization. 3. Scientific messaging must be clear and concise, backed by evidentiary support, and come from trusted messengers such as frontline doctors treating patients. Four, public health officials must work to regain Americans' trust because Americans want to be educated, not indoctrinated. And five, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo participated in medical malpractice and publicly covered up the total number of nursing home fatalities in New York. So the report then continues and says, quote, in addition to these notable bipartisan successes,

the select subcommittee developed extensive findings, some of which include one, the US NIH or National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Two, the Chinese government, agencies within the US government, and some members of the international scientific community sought to cover up facts concerning the origins of the pandemic. Three, Operation Warp Speed was a tremendous success and a model to build upon the future. The vaccines, which are now probably better characterized as therapeutics, undoubtedly saved millions of lives by diminishing likelihood of severe death and disease. Four, rampant fraud, waste, and abuse plagued the COVID-19 pandemic response. Five, pandemic-era school closures will have enduring impact

on generations of America's children and these closures were enabled by groups meant to serve those children. Six, the Constitution cannot be suspended in times of crisis and restrictions on freedoms sow distrust in public health. And seven, the prescription cannot be worse than the disease, such as strict and overly broad lockdowns that led to predictable anguish and avoidable consequences." End quote. So keep in mind, in total, the select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic consists of nine Republicans

and seven Democrats. So those first five bipartisan points that we went over were presumably reached by a majority of the subcommittee, which included members from both parties, whereas the other seven findings, the ones that we just went over, were not classified as bipartisan. But all of these findings do have support in one way or another through research, testimony, interviews, depositions, etc. So if one or more of those findings did stand out to you and you want to learn a bit more, I do have that full report linked for you in the sources section of this episode per usual

Let's take a quick break here when we come back. We'll get on with quick hitters Ben MGM is an official sports betting partner of the National Hockey League and has your back all season long From puck drop to the final shot. You're always taken care of with a sports book born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with bed MGM. And no matter your team, your favorite skater or your style, there's something every NHL fan is going to love about bad MGM. Download the app today and discover why bad MGM is your hockey home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with bad MGM,

a sports book worth a celly and an official sports betting partner of the National Hockey League. the season. Raise your game to to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Now onto some quick hitters. Governor Newsom of California announced yesterday that he is seeking up to $25 million in additional funding from the state for anticipated legal fights with the upcoming Trump administration. This announcement from Newsom was made on day one of a special session called for by Newsom to quote, safeguard California values and fundamental rights in the face of an incoming Trump administration, end quote. A staffer for a House representative was arrested at the Capitol yesterday after a standard

security check turned up ammunition in his bag. In total, four ammunition magazines and 11 rounds were found, though no firearm was located. The staffer told Capitol Police that he had forgotten the ammunition was in his bag, but he does now face potential charges for possession of a high-capacity magazine, though it is unclear whether he will in fact be charged. According to the National Retail Federation, roughly 197 million Americans shopped over the five-day period between Thanksgiving and Cyber Monday this year. This number exceeded the Federation's expectation, which was $183.4

million. Notably, this year's number was below last year's record number of $200 million, but consumers spent more on average this year. On average, consumers spent $235 this year, which is $8 more than in 2023. And of the five days included in that count, Black Friday was the most popular day with about 81.7 million shopping in stores and about 87.3 million shopping online. The Canadian public safety minister who attended a dinner meeting with Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,

and others on Friday, says that Canada will enhance security at its shared border with the United States by adding helicopters and drones. This meeting was requested by Trudeau after Trump threatened tariffs on both Mexico and Canada if they did not help with the immigration surge at the borders. The public safety minister also said that Trudeau spoke to Trump about the negative effects tariffs would have on both Canadians and Americans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, otherwise known as the CFPB, proposed a new rule today to restrict data brokers from selling personal information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Under this rule, companies selling personal financial information would be considered consumer reporting agencies and would therefore be regulated in the same way as credit bureaus. So if this rule is finalized, it of course still has to go through the rulemaking process. But if it's finalized, the rule means that data brokers would have to comply with things like accuracy requirements. They'd have to provide consumers access to their information and maintain safeguards against misuse. The Manhattan jury in Daniel Penny's case began deliberating today after roughly a month-long trial. Penny was charged with second-degree

manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide last year after he put Jordan Neely in a chokehold on a New York City subway. Neely was yelling at passengers on the subway when Penny put him in a chokehold, brought him to the floor of the subway, and restrained him for several minutes before Neely ultimately died. Prosecutors say that Penny acted recklessly, whereas the defense says he was acting to protect others from a threat. If convicted, Penny does face up to 15 years in prison on the manslaughter charge and up to four years on the criminally negligent

homicide charge, but the judge could also choose not to sentence him to any prison time at all even if the jury finds him guilty. For this next one, let me just note that I don't typically cover foreign affairs. I usually cover things domestically here in the United States, but I did have a lot of people reach out wanting to know about South Korea's president declaring martial law. So here's the short version. South Korea's president declared martial law today, but parliament has since voted to lift it.

So martial law effectively replaces the civilian government with the military. It also allows for arrests without warrants. It bans all political and parliamentary activities. It limits freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association, and more. South Korea's leader felt that South Korea's interests were being threatened by the main opposition party, which he says was expressing sympathy for North Korea and quote unquoteunquote anti-state activities. Because of this, he declared martial law. However, not long after, South Korea's parliament got together and voted unanimously to lift the president's declaration.

That vote to lift the declaration prompted the withdrawal of military troops that had already entered the parliamentary building after the president's declaration. The president is obligated to comply with the parliament's vote under the South Korea constitution, so we'll have to see what develops from here, but that's the need to know short version. And finally, an appellate court has partially upheld a newer law in the state of Idaho that created the crime of abortion trafficking. Under the law, an adult commits the crime of abortion trafficking if they, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardians of a pregnant unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for that pregnant minor to use for an abortion by either

recruiting, harboring, or transporting the minor within the state. This crime is punishable by two to five years in prison. So the law was challenged and yesterday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Idaho to enforce most of the law but blocked the portion of the law that references recruitment. In other words, the court held that the state's prohibition on helping a minor get an abortion by harboring or transporting that minor is likely constitutional and can therefore be enforced, but the law's prohibition on recruiting minors likely violates the First Amendment and therefore a person cannot be charged with recruiting or influencing a minor to have an abortion.

That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a great night and I will talk to you tomorrow.