UNBIASED - Johnson’s Plan to Avoid a Shutdown, SCOTUS Announces Formal Code of Conduct, Justices Inclined to Uphold Firearm Ban, Man Behind Nord Stream Pipeline Explosion Revealed, and More.

Episode Date: November 14, 2023

1. Speaker Johnson’s Two-Part Proposal to Avoid Government Shutdown (1:41)2. Supreme Court Announces First Formal Code of Conduct Amid Pressure (7:21)3. SCOTUS Justices Seem Inclined to Uphold Federal Law at Center of Second Amendment Case (16:26)4. NEW SEGMENT ALERT: 3 Things You Should Know From the Weekend (26:23) If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.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

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 Tuesday. Today we are talking about Speaker Johnson's plan to avert a shutdown. We'll also be talking about the Supreme Court's first formal code of conduct that they just released on Monday. I'll then give you an update on the United States versus Rahimi, which is a case I told you about a week ago, but now I want to tell you how oral arguments went and more specifically how the justices are leaning and what we're kind of expecting that ruling to look like. And then I'm introducing a new Monday segment called Three Things You Should Know From The Weekend, which, as you may have guessed, includes three

stories from the weekend that you should know about. So that'll be the final segment. Before we get into the stories, as always, let me just remind you that if you love what you hear today, please don't forget to go ahead and leave me a review on whatever platform you listen. And as always, share this show with those that you know, those that you feel would appreciate nonpartisan news. As my legal disclaimer, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. As we know, we have about three days until the current temporary funding measure expires, which means that if Congress doesn't figure something out before then to keep the government

funded, the government will shut down at midnight on Friday. So this past weekend on Saturday, Speaker Johnson announced this new two-step plan that would avert a shutdown. This plan is called a laddered CR, meaning a laddered continuing resolution. If we say this another way, it's basically a multi-step continuing resolution. The first part of the bill would extend funding until January 19th and include funding for military construction, veterans affairs, transportation, housing, and the energy department. So the less controversial appropriations. And basically, it would keep funding the same. The second part of the bill would include funding for the rest of the government and extend funding until February 2nd. Again, keeping the current funding levels

the same. The plan does not include any spending cuts. It does not include any funding for border security as Republicans were pushing for. So it's unclear how much support this will have from the GOP party. Shortly after announcing this plan, Speaker Johnson called it necessary to place House Republicans in the best position to fight for conservative victories. His statement continued, saying, quote, the bill will stop the absurd holiday season omnibus tradition of massive, loaded-up spending bills introduced right before Christmas recess. Separating out the continuing resolution from the supplemental funding debates places our conference in the best position to fight for fiscal responsibility, oversight from Ukraine aid, and meaningful policy

changes at the southern border. With our debt spiraling out of control, the rising costs of Bidenomics hurting families, and our southern border wide open, House Republicans must position ourselves best to fight for the American people. End quote. Something that I want to mention that is relevant to this is the fact that one of the reasons that Speaker McCarthy was removed as speaker, or let's say the straw that broke the camel's back, was McCarthy's continuing resolution. So McCarthy introduced this continuing resolution. He worked with Democrats to get it passed and keep the government, you know, funded and keep the government open. But the hardline Republicans did not like that. They did not like that McCarthy was not advocating for spending cuts. He was working across the aisle

with Democrats. And that is why Representative Gates ultimately introduced the motion to vacate. Now we have Johnson's plan, which doesn't include spending cuts either, and really kind of relies on the votes from the Democrats to get this passed. And those same hardline Republicans that weren't necessarily happy with McCarthy aren't really happy with this two-step plan proposed by Johnson either. Which brings me to my next talking point, which is, does this plan even have the support to pass? While we don't know for sure, here's what we do know. We know that at least seven House Republicans have already voiced their opposition to this continuing resolution as of Monday. The opposition from all seven Republicans is really based on the same perspectives, mainly no spending cuts and no border security funding. Now, the

thing is, it was the Republicans' idea to introduce this two-step approach, so they got what they wanted in that realm, but they really are hard-pressed on these spending cuts, which this continuing resolution does not provide for. Some Democrats have also come out in opposition, but for a different reason. They want a more straightforward funding extension. They don't want this laddered and staggered approach. But one thing is clear, and that is the fact that both sides are going to have to pick their battles. Neither party is going to get 100% of everything they want. It's just not going to work. It won't pass in that case. So for Democrats,

they might not get that straightforward resolution they want, but they're also not getting spending cuts and funding levels are staying the same. For Republicans, they might not get the spending cuts they want, but they're getting this two step structure that they had asked for. So how does this work going forward? The first thing the House has to do is they have to vote on a rule. Now, this rule governs the consideration of the continuing resolution. We're talking about things like how much time will be allowed for the debate on the

resolution? Can amendments be offered? Those certain parameters that will guide the debate on the resolution? Can amendments be offered? Those certain parameters that will guide the consideration of the resolution. So the House has to vote on that first. Assuming that a rule passes, Johnson just needs a simple majority of the House to get the resolution passed and on to the Senate. If the rule doesn't pass, the resolution would have to get passed under what's called suspension of the rules. And in that case, Johnson would need two-thirds of the House for passage before it can go to the Senate. So the first vote on that rule, that first procedural vote that I was just talking about, that is expected to happen on Tuesday. So we will know

more once that happens, but now you're at least set up to know what we can expect depending on if the rule passes or if the continuing resolution passes or it doesn't. If it doesn't pass, obviously they have to go back to the drawing board. They have to come up with something new that can pass. So that's what's going on with that. Now let's talk about this new formal code of conduct. The Supreme Court of the United States adopted its first ever formal code of conduct on Monday, and its purpose is to govern the ethical behavior of the nine justices. It's this 15-page document. It starts with a statement from the court. I'm just going to tell you right off the bat,

it's pretty vague. It's pretty clear that this is an attempt by the court to sort of dispel the recent criticisms that it's drawn. It doesn't, you know, it still leaves outstanding questions as far as how will the code of conduct be enforced? What's the punishment? Things like that. But it came because there's been this pressure from Congress to investigate the Supreme Court and for the Supreme Court to implement a code of ethics

or a code of conduct. Because within the last year or so, ProRepublica has published some reports, mainly on conservative justices, but not always, in regard to their failure to report various things on their financial disclosures. So last term, the ProPublica report centered on Justice Thomas and some trips that were paid for by Harlan Crow, who is a billionaire and he is also a GOP mega-donor. Crow also let Thomas use his jet on multiple occasions, but these things were not reported on the financial disclosures. Thomas said he didn't report these things because the rules at the time didn't require such disclosures. And I will say the financial disclosure rules were updated in March. I'll talk about that a little bit in a second, but that's why Thomas says they weren't included. More recently, it was reported that that same guy, Harlan Crowe,

had purchased multiple real estate properties from the Thomas family. He had paid for a year of tuition for a kid who lived with Thomas's family as a child and who Justice Thomas eventually became the legal guardian of. That also was not reported. ProPublica also reported on Justice Alito, who had taken a fishing trip in 2008. He had also taken a jet. And again, some conservative figures had organized the trip for him to where he didn't have to pay for accommodations or the jet that he took to get there. And that was not disclosed. Alito responded to those allegations by way of this op-ed, actually, that he took to get there, and that was not disclosed. Alito responded to those allegations by way of this op-ed, actually, that he authored in the Wall Street Journal, where he wrote that

the reports from ProPublica weren't valid and that hospitality did not have to be reported under the rules in effect at that time. The Associated Press recently raised questions about Justice Sotomayor. This was in July, and more specifically, her use of taxpayer-funded court staff to coordinate book sales. So yes, in the last year or so, there's been some reports about various justices and their ethical behaviors. As I briefly mentioned, the financial disclosures rules were actually changed in March, shortly before these ProPublica reports came out, and the rules were updated to clarify what had to be disclosed. So as of March, trips on private jets, stays at privately owned resorts, those things had to be disclosed on the financial disclosures.

Prior to this, there was this loophole where justices could get around disclosing these things. Anyway, let's get back to the headline of the story. The court starts the code by saying this, the undersigned justices are promulgating this code of conduct set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethical rules and principles that guide the conduct of the members of this court. For the most part, these rules and principles are not new. The court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources. The absence of a code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding,

we are issuing this code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct, end quote. It sounds like what the court is saying here, hey guys, you think we do whatever we want and we don't hold ourselves to any standards despite being subject to the same rules as all the other members of the federal judiciary. So here you go. Here is a code of conduct to settle this once and for all. Basically, the code is broken down into what are called canons. Each canon is a rule, and the code contains five canons. So there are five main rules, and then under each rule, there are various subsections to go into more detail about each rule. So here are the five canons. Canon one, a justice should uphold the integrity and independence

of the judiciary. Canon two, a justice should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Canon three, a justice should perform the duties of office fairly, impartially, and diligently. Canon four, a justice may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of the judicial office. And canon five, a justice should refrain from political activity. Now, given the recent controversy and the criticism of the bench, eyes are mostly going to be looking at Canon 4. Canon 4, as I said, goes into extrajudicial activities, which include law-related activities, civic and charitable activities, fundraising, fiduciary activities, governmental appointments, and most importantly for this story, financial

activities, compensation, reimbursement, and financial reporting. So here is what it says in relation to financial activities. There are four sub-parts. One, a justice may hold and manage investments, including real estate, but should refrain from dealings that exploit the judicial position or involve the justice in relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to appear before the court. Two, a justice may serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of a business only if the business is closely held and controlled by the justice's family members. Three, a justice should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the

judicial conference regulations on gifts now in effect. And four, a justice should not disclose or use non-public information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the justice's official duties. So that is what this code says in relation to financial activities. As far as financial reporting goes, the code says, quote, For some time, all justices have agreed to comply with the statute governing financial disclosure, and the undersigned members of the court each individually reaffirm that commitment, end quote. And again, this code also goes into things like compensation, what they can be paid for, speaking engagements, things like that. But I don't want to bore you with all of that. I'm not going to sit here and read you the entire code. So I did include the

code as well as that judicial conference regulations on gifts that the code referred to in the sources section. Both are fairly easy reads. I think one is eight pages. The code is 15 pages. It's all pretty straightforward. And as I said in the beginning of the story, the code of conduct doesn't set forth any sort of punishment if the code is violated or who enforces it, anything like that. And it also says that it's going to work with additional resources like the Office of Legal Counsel, which is a legal office within the court, to guide it going forward with things like financial disclosures and other ethical issues.

So again, pretty open-ended, but that's the basis of it. That's what I feel you need to know. Now you're in the loop, and if you want to read it for yourself, you definitely can. Let's take a quick break. When we come back, I will update case called the United States versus Rahimi. And I closed out that story with a promise that I would update you on oral arguments if it was requested. So I had included that in last Tuesday's episode. Tuesday was the day of oral arguments in the case, and I said

if you want to know how the justices felt about the case, let me know, and I'll go into that in the next episode. I didn't touch on it on Friday, so now is my time to do so. First, let's recap this a little bit, though. This was a case about a federal law that prohibits people subject to a court-ordered protective order from owning or possessing firearms. And I do just want to clarify something from last episode. I was using the term restraining order rather than protective order, and I do want to briefly note the difference there. A listener from Texas actually brought this to my attention, so thank you very much. But the difference here is that a protective order, which is what the defendant in this case had, is an order used to prevent criminal acts of family violence, whereas a restraining order is a little bit different in the sense that it's used in the civil context.

So if we look at these two orders in a family setting, a protective order would prevent criminal activity like assault or battery, things like that. Whereas a restraining order would do things like prevent a parent from taking their child out of state or unenrolling them from school, things like that. So I hope that clarifies the difference. In this case, as I said, Rahimi had a protective order issued against him by a Texas court. He had gotten physical with his ex-girlfriend who also was the mother of his child. She requested a protective order and it was ultimately granted. However, about a year later, when that protective order was still in effect, he was the suspect in multiple shooting incidents. His house was searched by police, and in that search, police found a pistol,

a rifle, some ammo, and magazines, which, as we learned, per this federal law, he cannot do. He was arrested, faced various charges, and after his arrest, he decides he is going to challenge this particular federal law on the basis that it violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. If you want a full detailed explanation of the procedural history of this case, please go ahead and check out my episode from last Tuesday. I really go into detail, but in this episode, I'm going to focus more on the oral arguments and how the justices reacted to each argument. But what I will say is this. The reason it ended up in the Supreme Court is because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately struck down this federal law that prevents people with court orders against

them from owning firearms. It was a unanimous decision in Rahimi's favor. And the reason they did that, the reason they struck down this federal law, was because of a case decided by the Supreme Court last summer called Bruin. What Bruin said is that in order for a firearm regulation to be upheld as constitutional, there has to be some historical tradition in the United States to support such regulation. So the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down this federal law, and the United States decides to take it to the Supreme Court because they say, hey, Supreme Court, you got to clarify what you meant in Bruin because the Bruin decision potentially has some pretty dangerous implications, and we need you guys to help us

understand what you meant by that. So last Tuesday, the United States and Rahimi presented their oral arguments to the justices. And how these arguments go, just so you know, is the party petitioning the Supreme Court. So in this case, the United States first presents their arguments. They have 30 minutes to do so. The justices will typically use this time to ask questions because keep in mind, the parties submit their briefs before they actually argue orally. So the court knows how the arguments are going to go. So they use this time to take advantage of their opportunity to ask questions and address their concerns. First, the petitioner goes, they have 30-ish minutes depending on questions and all that, and then the respondent will go for the same amount of time, present their arguments, face questions, etc. If the

petitioner wants, they can reserve time for a rebuttal. That way, they have the last word. So the United States Solicitor General was arguing on behalf of the United States, and she first argued that the Fifth Circuit interpreted Bruin incorrectly, that in Bruin, the court noted that Congress can constitutionally disarm people who are not responsible law abiding citizens by enacting legislation such as the law at issue in this case. And she said, look, you know, Supreme Court, you guys said Congress can enact legislation that takes the guns away from people who are not responsible law-abiding citizens. And the Fifth Circuit got this wrong because they said, so long as there's not analogous regulations in United States history, this law can't stand. But that's not entirely true. And Justice Thomas was the first to ask a question. He asked how the United States would define a responsible law-abiding citizen. She said, history and tradition tells us that those who are not

law-abiding are those who have committed serious crimes. And those who are not responsible are those whose possession of a firearm would pose an unusual danger beyond the ordinary citizen with respect to harm to themselves or harm to others. To which the justices kept asking about various hypotheticals. Thomas was asking if someone who doesn't store their firearms properly would be considered irresponsible. Chief Justice Roberts was asking if someone who doesn't store their firearms properly would be considered irresponsible. Chief Justice Roberts was asking if someone who doesn't take his recycling out to the curb on the proper day is irresponsible. So they're really just trying to get to the bottom of what the United States would define a law-abiding or responsible citizen as. And that's kind of how their back and forth went with the United States. It was really focused on the responsibility and law abiding component. They didn't really give the United

States too much pushback as they did with Rahimi's attorney. So when Rahimi's attorney went, he definitely got a tougher set of questions signaling how the justices felt. And let me give you a few examples of what I mean. One argument that really took Justice Gorsuch by surprise was Rahimi's attorney arguing that the right to due process, which guarantees us citizens that the government won't take away our rights to life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We are all entitled to due process. Rahimi's attorney argued that due process does not apply to protective orders, that people who get protective orders issued against them, like Rahimi did, he never got due process. And Justice Gorsuch followed this up with, is this really a position

that you want to take? The point at which Rahimi's argument kind of really took a turn south was when Chief Justice Roberts asked, you don't have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you? To which Rahimi's attorney responded, well, I would want to know what a dangerous person means. And Chief Justice Roberts said, someone who's shooting at people, that's a good start. And that got a good laugh out of everyone who was in the courtroom. And Rahimi's attorney acknowledged that that was fair. But then he gave this hypothetical where he said that, okay, let's say there's this piece of legislation from before Rahimi was arrested that specifically said if you did all of these nine things that

Rahimi ended up doing, you don't get to keep your gun. That would be constitutional 100%, which triggered Justice Kagan to say, I thought you just said no. There's no history of any kind of ban that relates to felonies, so what would make that hypothetical piece of legislation constitutional? Rahimi's attorney then responded by saying, well, something like I suggested would stem from either a court's historical equitable powers or the government's right to protect someone from imminent danger. And he continued on by saying, there are examples, some early justice of the peace manuals that talk about if you see someone that is on their way to commit a crime with a weapon, you can take the weapon away from them. And the problem with that is that he essentially walked back on his historical tradition argument because now

he's acknowledging that there are these early Justice of the Peace manuals that say you can disarm someone if they're about to commit a felony. So Justice Barrett then said, I'm so confused. She really got thrown off, didn't understand where the argument was going. So, you know, as I mentioned in last week's episode, we won't know until closer to the end of the term how the Supreme Court is going to rule on this case. But we can sometimes get a feeling for how it's going to go based on the questions that were asked, the concerns that were brought up by the justices. And in this case, it does seem as if the justices are very hesitant to strike down the law. So it does seem they are leaning in favor of upholding

it. If you are really interested in this case and you want to hear more, I do have the actual oral arguments linked for you in the sources section. It's only about an hour and a half, so it's not too bad. And just as a side note, I did want to mention the next oral arguments in the Supreme Court aren't until after Thanksgiving, so I probably won't have any cases to fill you in on until then, but that's, you know, now at least you're caught up with Rahimi. Now for the three things you should know from the weekend. Number one, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina announced the suspension of his 2024 Republican presidential campaign on Sunday night.

He was appearing on Sunday night in America on Fox, and he said, quote, if you ever want to love America more, run for president. And he explained how during his campaign, he's met so many people and how his love for the country grew so much in doing that. But he then said, quote, when I go back to Iowa, it will not be as a presidential candidate. I am suspending my campaign. I think the voters, who are the most remarkable people on the planet, have been really clear that they're telling me not now, Tim. I don't think they're saying no, but that just wasn't enough. He did have a lot more money than some of the candidates, but according to a source familiar with the campaign, apparently the money was tightening up a little bit. Last month, actually, his super PAC called Trust in the Mission PAC canceled millions

of dollars in ads that were planned for the fall because they just said that the Republican electorate was not ready for a Trump alternative, saying that it would be a waste of money to spend all of that on advertising. So that probably played into it a little bit too, but all that to say he did drop out, so he is no longer in the running. Number two, five United States service members were tragically killed when their helicopter crashed over the eastern Mediterranean Sea on Friday night during what military officials say was a routine air refueling mission. The military first announced the crash on Saturday. It said that there were no indications of any hostile activity involved, and the European command also said the incident was not related to the situation in Gaza.

One U.S. official told us that the crash happened near Cyprus. Now, Cyprus is this little island country in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea. So right above Cyprus is Turkey, right to the right of Cyprus is Lebanon and Syria, and right below Cyprus is Israel, Egypt, and Gaza, where Gaza is. So naturally, given its geographic location, people were and are speculating that the crash was related to the situation in the Middle East. So let me give you multiple sides of this and some stories we're hearing from all different sides, including the government, as well as from some theorists. Some theorists think that a better explanation than just a random failure is that it was actually Iranian proxies

that took it down. The United States has obviously been conducting retaliatory strikes on Iranian sites the past few weeks, so their thought is why wouldn't Iran fight back? In fact, the United States just struck Iranian-linked bases in Syria on Sunday. And since then, within a 24-hour period, United States troops have been attacked at least four times. So the theory here is like, we're obviously involved in this. Why wouldn't they down this helicopter over the Mediterranean Sea? On the other side of that, obviously, as I said, United States officials are saying there's no indications of any sort of hostile activity, any signs that this is linked to what's going on.

Another thing I want to mention, though, that's not necessarily proof by any means, but it's just good so that we have all of the facts surrounding the situation. Earlier this year, in April, the Army actually grounded all of its non-critical helicopters because of safety concerns. Two Black Hawk helicopters crashed in March in Kentucky. Nine people died. Two other helicopters crashed in Alaska in April, killing three, injuring a fourth. And another Black Hawk crashed in Alabama in February, killing two that were on a training mission. So following all of that, the Army grounded every single one of its non-critical helicopters. So that's a little bit of background information as well as some potential theories for you, but no matter which explanation you go with,

it is a terrible, terrible tragedy. The third and final story you should know from this weekend is that a joint investigation conducted by the Washington Post and a German media outlet pin a 48-year-old ex-Ukraine Special Forces member as the coordinator behind the Nord Stream pipeline explosion in September of 2022. So to jog your memory a little bit, the Nord Stream is a network of pipelines that runs under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. It provides Western Europe with natural gas. And last year, some European countries reported an attack which caused two of the pipelines to leak into the Baltic Sea. And the Nord Stream AG reported that three of the four lines of the system had

sustained unprecedented damage and were not working. Following the attack, naturally, various countries are trying to figure out who was responsible for it. All countries are denying any sort of responsibility. So this investigation says that it was a 48-year-old man named Roman Trevinsky that coordinated this six-person operation, which involved renting a sailboat and using deep-sea diving equipment to lay bombs on the pipelines. Notably, the report does say that sources claim senior generals were the ones who initiated the plot, but Chervinsky was the one who coordinated how it would be carried out. And Chervinsky is actually in jail right now for something unrelated.

But Zelensky, Ukraine's president, has denied Ukraine's involvement since day one in the Nord Stream Pipeline explosion. And according to this joint report, he was reportedly kept out of the loop intentionally. So he didn't have any idea it was happening. The Washington Post says that it received its information from officials in Ukraine, as well as elsewhere in Europe, and from, quote, other people knowledgeable about the details of the covert operation, end quote. And if you want to read more about it, as always, I do have the sources for you in the sources section. That concludes today's episode.

Thank you so much for being here. Please don't forget to leave me a review and share this episode with your friends and family. Have a great week and I will talk to you on Friday.