Oh My God I Hate The Left

Summary

Armstrong & Getty On Demand

Episode: "Oh My God I Hate The Left"

Date: April 2, 2026
Host: iHeartPodcasts

Episode Overview

This episode of Armstrong & Getty tackles a broad set of themes ranging from the latest advances in weight loss pharmaceuticals and controversial healthcare privacy practices for minors, to in-depth discussion of birthright citizenship oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The show also covers the renewed U.S. space program, oil markets, political hypocrisy, and closes with segments on celebrity stalking and societal seriousness (or lack thereof) in the U.S. Expect frank, sometimes sardonic conversation, with the duo’s signature blend of humor, skepticism, and exasperation at modern institutions—especially progressive ones.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Weight Loss Medications: The New “Miracle Drugs”

• [00:27–02:43] Discussion of the FDA's approval of Foundao, a new daily weight loss pill by Eli Lilly, which improves upon current competitors by removing restrictions on timing and food intake.
• Charles Barkley is mentioned as an example of dramatic weight loss using similar drugs ("He's lost over a hundred pounds," [01:19] – Joe Getty).
• Both hosts share personal anecdotes and discuss the hope these drugs present, alongside skepticism about long-term effects.
• [Notable Quote] [02:16]
  Jack Armstrong (on his doctor’s opinion):
  "He said I've had virtually nothing but success with it. People tolerate it beautifully. Had great results. I'm a fan."

---

Parental Rights and Child Healthcare Privacy

• [02:43–07:35] Joe Getty expresses outrage over being asked to leave the room at his child's physical, highlighting tension between parental rights and institutional policies often championed by progressive organizations.

• Listeners’ emails are read, challenging this practice:

  • [05:09] Email from Brian in Santa Rosa: "I asked them where they went to school... I don't just let anybody talk to my child alone."
  • [05:43] Email from JT in Livermore: Frames the practice as a cultural violation of the Fourth Amendment—searching for wrongdoing without cause.

• [Notable Quote] [04:13]
  Jack Armstrong:
  "It's like the best guidance of the AMA and stuff like that that you ought this and you're more progressive health organizations, especially in your more lefty places. They're like, yes, that is a great idea."

---

Media Skepticism and Drug Reporting

• [09:16–10:10] Critique of media’s lack of curiosity—for example, misreporting signs of Tiger Woods’ drug state.
• [Notable Quote] [09:31]
  Jack Armstrong:
  "One of the epithets I throw at the media during my frequent screeds is incurious. Yeah, that's the most amazing thing."

---

Space Race & Identity Politics

• [10:52–11:57] The hosts discuss excitement about the Artemis 2 lunar mission, highlighting a young kid’s enthusiasm for space—contrasting with media focus on astronaut identity politics.
• [Notable Quote] [11:33]
  Joe Getty (mocking media focus):
  "He's supposed to emphasize that it's the first one legged, half Asian, half Jewish trans woman or whatever identity politics thing they always throw at us with every space mission."
• [11:59] Jack’s exasperated catchphrase:
  "Oh my God, I hate the left."

---

Oil Prices & Global Markets

• [13:22–15:54] Explanation of why U.S. gas prices rise despite domestic production—oil as a global commodity, and the 'fear premium' created by geopolitical instability.
• Discussion of how progressive states like California intentionally keep prices high to promote climate goals, yet politicians complain when national prices spike for other reasons.
• [Notable Quote] [15:54]
  Jack Armstrong:
  "Oh, they're just so utterly dishonest. Uh, it's discouraging."

---

Ineffective Traffic Policy & Environmentalism

• [16:01–16:57] Criticism of California’s expanded carpool (diamond) lanes, pointing to studies showing minimal or negative environmental impact:
  Jack Armstrong:
  "It's like a superstitious gesture by the environmental left. It does nothing."

---

Birthright Citizenship: Supreme Court Oral Arguments

• [17:22–29:31]
  Special Guest: Joe Lupino Esposito, Pacific Legal Foundation
• In-depth discussion on Supreme Court oral arguments regarding birthright citizenship & the 14th Amendment.
  • Details historic context, including the original intention of the amendment and references to the Wong Kim Ark case.
  • Wrestles with modern dilemmas like "birth tourism" and what constitutes "domicile" in a globalized world.
  • Examines possibilities: could Congress change this by law, or would a constitutional amendment be required?
• [Notable Quotes]
  • [19:42] Joe Getty: "Wasn't the original intention for children of slaves? And unless you're 200 some years old, there are no children of slaves that apply."
  • [22:55] Joe Lupino Esposito:
    “It’s a new world, but the same Constitution.” (Citing John Roberts' response in oral arguments.)
  • [24:06] Jack Armstrong:
    "Why don't you count on Congress and I'll count on the Easter bunny, and we'll see who gets satisfied first."
• Esposito debunks the idea of an 'out of control MAGA court,' describing the Supreme Court as more of a “3, 3, 3 court.”
  • [27:30] Esposito:
    "It seems like the media often wants to only talk about the cases when they are 5–4 and 6–3... Sometimes those opinions where they are 8-1 or 7–2 or 9–0 are really important to look at because those are the ones where you should really zoom in and say, 'Well, this is the thing where everybody can agree.'"

---

Stalking, Celebrity Culture, and Public Safety

• [30:32–34:59] Armstrong and Getty discuss new incidents of stalking faced by Fleetwood Mac’s Lindsey Buckingham, describing escalating, years-long harassment and the challenges of restraining orders.
  • Commentary on the public’s fascination with celebrities and dangers posed by unstable individuals.

---

U.S.–China Space Race: Why It Really Matters

• [35:04–35:21]
  Jack Armstrong underscores the seriousness of the revived U.S. moon program as a response to military competition with China:
  • Jack Armstrong: "Yeah. This is a serious, serious thing and gets no attention around why we're going to the moon."
  • Joe Getty: "That's, that's the entire point of why we're going to the moon... is the military race with China."
  • Jack Armstrong: "We're not a serious country."

---

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• [02:16] Jack Armstrong: "My doctor... said I've had virtually nothing but success with it. People tolerate it beautifully."
• [04:13] Jack Armstrong: "[In California], especially in your more lefty places... they're like, yes, that is a great idea."
• [09:31] Jack Armstrong: "One of the epithets I throw at the media during my frequent screeds is incurious."
• [11:33] Joe Getty: "He's supposed to emphasize that it's the first one legged, half Asian, half Jewish trans woman or whatever identity politics thing they always throw at us with every space mission."
• [11:59] Jack Armstrong: "Oh my God, I hate the left."
• [15:54] Jack Armstrong: "Oh, they're just so utterly dishonest. Uh, it's discouraging."
• [16:39] Jack Armstrong: "Every responsible study has shown that [carpool lanes] either accomplishes nothing or makes pollution worse."
• [22:55] Joe Lupino Esposito: “[Quoting Roberts] It’s a new world, but the same Constitution.”
• [24:06] Jack Armstrong: "Why don't you count on Congress and I'll count on the Easter bunny, and we'll see who gets satisfied first."
• [27:30] Joe Lupino Esposito: "It seems like the media often wants to only talk about the cases when they are 5–4 and 6–3..."
• [35:07] Joe Getty: "That's, that's the entire point of why we're going to the moon."
• [35:10] Jack Armstrong: "We're not a serious country."

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:27]–[02:43] – Foundao & weight loss drugs
• [02:43]–[07:35] – Parental rights in healthcare, listener emails
• [09:16]–[10:10] – Media skepticism on drug reporting
• [10:52]–[11:57] – Artemis mission excitement & identity politics
• [13:22]–[15:54] – Oil markets & political hypocrisy
• [16:01]–[16:57] – Carpool lanes & failed traffic policy
• [17:22]–[29:31] – Supreme Court citizenship case with Joe Lupino Esposito
• [30:32]–[34:59] – Lindsey Buckingham stalking saga
• [35:04]–[35:21] – China/U.S. space race

---

Tone & Language

The episode maintains a conversational, irreverent, often sardonic tone. While critical of the political left, government bureaucracy, and mainstream media, Armstrong & Getty also display skepticism towards fad thinking and virtue signaling—emphasizing the value of reasoned debate, individual rights, and practical skepticism. The hosts blend personal stories and playful banter with serious legal and policy analysis, effectively balancing entertainment and substance.

---

For New Listeners

This episode is representative of Armstrong & Getty’s signature style: wide-ranging, topical, bluntly opinionated, occasionally exasperated, and always aiming to peel back the layers beneath headlines and official explanations. Whether discussing public health, courts, or culture wars, the hosts challenge mainstream narratives and encourage critical thinking—with plenty of humor along the way.

Transcript

[Jack Armstrong]

This is an iHeart podcast, guaranteed human

[Show Announcer]

broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln radio studio at the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Armstrong and Getty.

[Jack Armstrong]

And now here's Armstrong and Getty.

[Narrator/Reporter]

The FDA has approved a drug called Foundao. It's made by Eli Lilly. It's given as a daily pill and it works similarly to drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Zepbound by mimicking a hormone known as GLP1. This one follows another pill that was approved in December, hit the market earlier this year called the Wegovy pill sold by Novo Nordisk. And Eli Lilly says that its drug represents an advance compared with that pill because Foundeo doesn't need to be taken at any particular time of day or with any restrictions on food and water, whereas the Wegovy pill must be taken right when you would up in the morning on an empty stomach.

[Joe Getty]

So they're getting sounds like easier to take these various pills. I don't know if you watch the TNT show on about the NBA playoffs are about to get going in the NBA. Charles Barkley is like half his size because he's on one of these drugs. He's lost over a hundred pounds. He was like 3:30 at his heaviest. Even for a tall guy, that's a lot of weight. And he's getting close to his playing weight from back when he was a fairly thin NBA player. But he's lost over £100 on this drug. And I know somebody that I assume is doing this quite a big woman who's now quite thin. And in a short amount of time it's got to feel like the miracle drug you've been wanting forever for a lot of people.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. Yeah. I always wonder about the long term thing, just as a guy who's lost weight and gained it back again like everybody does, but there's no question that it's. Even if you're lighter for a while, it's pretty good for you.

[Joe Getty]

Well, if you stay on it, you stay thin, won't you?

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, well, and I talked to my doctor who's just a terrific guy and a terrific doctor and he said I've had virtually nothing but success with it. People tolerate it beautifully. Had great results. I'm a fan.

[Joe Getty]

Wow, that's awesome.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. Because you know how it is. If there's a news article that says these drugs are tolerated by most people and do a nice job, I'm not going to think, oh, that's good.

[Joe Getty]

I'm not going to click on it

[Jack Armstrong]

if I see horrific side effects. Of Wegobi will get tongues wagging. You know, it's hard not to click.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Right? Right.

[Jack Armstrong]

So you get an outsized idea of the downsides which exist, of course. Consult your physician.

[Joe Getty]

Speaking of doctors told the story yesterday about how outraged I get when I'm at the doctor's office with my kid. This happened the other day. Getting a physical and I'm asked to leave the room. And I stupidly did it. I mostly did it because I didn't want to embarrass my son. I hadn't talked to him about ahead of time. I will never do it again. Now that I have thought it through and heard from some of you good people, I mean, if I'd have thought it through for a second, what are they going to do? Tell me I my son can't get a physical kick to the ground.

[Jack Armstrong]

Exactly. Cuff you and take your child away from you?

[Joe Getty]

No, but. And I also, I asked the woman and very nice person and I told her, I said, you're just doing your job. It's the hospital policy. I said, is this a hospital thing or a government thing? You know, it's a combination of this and that and blah blah, blah. And apparently a friend of mine in Tennessee who used to live in California and left for Tennessee, like so many people have said, they don't do that in Tennessee. They don't ask you to leave the room to talk to your kid alone. I found it, I find it outrageous, absolutely beyond the pale to step in as the. We're the authority. We, we know what's good and what's best. We that that guy your dad does not. What the kind of message does that send to your kid? Oh my God. It's awful on so many different levels. But anyway, finding out it's not universal is helpful to me and I hope you all finding out that you can just say no. Now I'm not going to do that. Ask any questions you want in front of me. That's the way we're going to do it here.

[Jack Armstrong]

I got a note from a physician friend in California who said, hey, I've got a name of a doctor for Jack that they don't pull that crap. It's, it's like the best guidance of the AMA and stuff like that that you ought this and you're more progressive health organizations, especially in your more lefty places. They're like, yes, that is a great idea.

[Joe Getty]

I'm not surprised that in the town that I live in that they lean that direction. I love my doctor, but I would imagine that the hospital he works at, they tell him to do that.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, yeah. Boy, we got a ton of emails about that. Some of them kind of restate what I just said. I want.

[Joe Getty]

I wonder how many people completely unbothered by it at all go along with it and think, well, that makes sense that the government or some other institution is stepping in as the, the authority between me and my child.

[Jack Armstrong]

So thanks to everybody who wrote really interesting stuff. But I've picked three emails in particular that I think are terrific. First of all, Brian in Santa Rosa, first time a doctor or their assistant asked me, I'm trying to have the other have you leave the room while I talk to my child. I asked them where they went to school and a series of other questions. Then I told them that they would have to wait until I researched their background. I don't just let anybody talk to my child alone. If they graduated from college in the last few years. I bring up the statistics of how easy it is to get through medical school these days. I ask them what their religion is, what their beliefs are and if they're woke up. I was the same way when my children were young. Now it's my grandson. His dad reluctantly agrees with me. Good for you, Brian. I love that the terrific JT in Livermore writes, I've always hated that concept, but I've asking the parent to leave the room. But I've never given it much thought as to why. Now I have. For me, it isn't because I feel like the state is temporarily, temporarily taking over my parenting function or they think they care more about my kids than I do. The problem is that it goes against the fourth Amendment. Illegal search and seizure, either literally or culturally. They are fit wishing for proof of a crime without the slightest provocation that anything is Wrong that is 100% true.

[Joe Getty]

I mean, what else would it be? What else would it be?

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh, it's a. It's if it's not a presumption of guilt, it's a presumption that everyone must be screened and asked to leave the room. Now, I know that the doctor or nurse is not a representative of the government, but aren't they a proxy of a sort given that doctors and nurses are subject to required report laws. But if a policeman or other government representative can't illegally search my child absent even the barest indication of a crime that's been committed, then they can't outsource that illegal search via proxy. What else can a health professional ask that are quasi related to the kid's health can they ask my kid if I ever smoke crack or if I share my prescription painkills with my brother in law or hurt his back or if I've ever driven them somewhere after having a beer?

[Joe Getty]

Yeah, I gotta say I'm highly embarrassed that I did step out of the room. My kids have been coached up on the gun question. We don't answer that question because I got outraged about that many years ago. If you were listening, you remember like you don't get to freaking ask that question. What the hell? Weigh me, take my blood pressure, figure out my cholesterol and then I'll go home.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, yeah. And then finally this from Brian the copy. Great note on a couple of different topics. He says want to provide a perspective about how healthcare professionals professionals are failing at risk children in law enforcement we have reasonable suspicion which leads us to begin an investigation into a possible crime. When it goes further, we begin to develop probable cause to continue to investigate and make an arrest. While health care workers in California have made separating parents from their children in order to discover abuse or neglect through a process they put all families through, they stop using their training and instincts to look for clues of neglect and abuse. They do this believing the process they now use will expose the abusers. Now that every parent is a possible subject, they stop noticing the reasonable suspicion in the parents they would hopefully notice it in the vast majority of parents don't abuse their kids. But now you are blending all parents together and it makes it easier in my opinion to hide the clues you would have noticed before. That's an interesting perspective. And then as a guy who is a certified drug investigator, he says judging by the description of Tiger woods by the roadside, he was on a lot more than narcotic, narcotic analgesics really? Specifically his, his wide pupils, his dilated pupils. Because if he was on what everybody thinks he was on, simply they cause contracted pupils.

[Joe Getty]

He had hydrocodone pills in his pocket, so that wouldn't make your pupils dilated.

[Jack Armstrong]

Not according to this guy who investigates drug crimes. Yeah, that's funny.

[Joe Getty]

And here's another failure of the media. It would take one, I could do it during the commercials to check and see. Does hydrocodone cause your pupils to dilate? Because everybody did that in the news as if clearly a sign. Well, is it?

[Jack Armstrong]

That's what, you know. One of the epithets I throw at the media during my frequent screeds is incurious. Yeah, that's the most amazing thing. Jack and I have observed that so many times. This is The. According to authorities, this is the second highest number of this ever.

[Joe Getty]

I wonder.

[Jack Armstrong]

Okay, well what's everybody wondering? What was the highest? When was it? How much was it?

[Joe Getty]

I wonder what else Tiger is doing then.

[Jack Armstrong]

Microdosing Ketamine. That's what all the rich hipsters are doing. And, and the psilocybin, the magic mushroom.

[Joe Getty]

Or what if he's into bimbofication? What if it all comes together?

[Jack Armstrong]

I'm not sure how that ties in, but I don't want to stomp your theory out before it has a chance to get going.

[Joe Getty]

We're going to talk to a legal expert coming up in a little bit about how the oral arguments went yesterday.

[Jack Armstrong]

You say there are some complicated citizen birthrights case. Yeah, yeah.

[Joe Getty]

You say there are some complicated reasons that it might make sense that we allow any child born in this country to be automatically a citizen.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

And.

[Jack Armstrong]

Or we would have to specifically write laws to change the way it currently works.

[Joe Getty]

Okay, I want to hear about that. So we have lots on the way. Stay here.

[Show Announcer]

Armstrong and Getty.

[Jack Armstrong]

Why do you want to be here? Why do you love space?

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Why do you love being a part of history?

[Jack Armstrong]

We're going back to the moon, that's why.

[Joe Getty]

An excited little kid who watched the space launch with a foul mouth. Did I hear like a re.

[Jack Armstrong]

He said frickin in the.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

The.

[Jack Armstrong]

The tape I saw. Yeah, okay.

[Joe Getty]

We're going back to the freaking moon.

[Jack Armstrong]

I love that. That's right, son. That's right. And you're right to be excited. This is a great country and we do great things and we better beat China to the moon. Stay tuned for hour four. We're going to go big on the space race and how serious it is.

[Joe Getty]

He emphasized the wrong thing though. He's supposed to emphasize that it's the first one legged, half Asian, half Jewish trans woman or whatever identity politics thing they always throw at us with every space mission.

[Jack Armstrong]

I know I saw that headline in what was the USA Today or something? Oh, shut up with that. Are they a great astronaut?

[Joe Getty]

Good.

[Jack Armstrong]

They studied hard. Give them credit for their expertise. Not the color of their skin or

[Joe Getty]

who they like to sex up.

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh my God, I hate the left. I found this very interesting. Listen to this. Would you speak into the Artemis mission?

[Joe Getty]

The crew of Artemis 2 now bound for the moon.

[Space Mission Narrator]

The Artemis 2 mission is underway. Four astronauts on a 10 day mission to the moon and back. The Orion spacecraft lifting off, powered by that massive 322 foot tall 6 million pound rocket packed with. With more than 700,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen passing one minute, approaching max Q before launch. Teams checking those suits. Then, just as astronauts have done in past missions, a bit of superstition. Playing cards until everyone loses a hand to leave bad luck behind.

[Joe Getty]

Wow, like Sharia law loses a hand like that sort of thing.

[Jack Armstrong]

You misunderstand. Jack, a hand of cards. In other words, an individual little game within the game. Oh, that's an interesting superstition, though. What the heck? If that helps set your mind at ease as you strap yourself on top of a bomb and get vaulted into space, do whatever helps. So, speaking of the burning of fuel, I thought it was interesting. I was just going through email and we get a heck of a lot of it and notice we have a handful of people all asking the same question. In essence, if we don't depend on the Straits of Hormuz, as Donald Trump has said repeatedly, then why are our gas prices going so high?

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

And

[Jack Armstrong]

I was mildly surprised that some of the people asking that. But then, you know, everybody studies different things and knows different things. Here's the answer. It's fairly simple. Number one, oil is a global commodity. And I'm reading now think of the world's oil supply like a single giant bathtub. Even if we're only dipping our cup into the North American side of the tub, when someone pulls the plug in the Middle east side, the water levels drops for everybody. The 20% rule. Roughly 20% of the world's total oil supply passed through that narrow strait. And you can see how if prices skyrocket in Asia, for instance, the prices kind of react all over the world. It's a global market. There's also a difference in the kinds of oil different countries use from different places.

[Joe Getty]

Well, I think that's why the global market thing plays in, is we're doing a different kind of oil. Because otherwise couldn't we just go isolated? Couldn't we just stay out of the global market, pump our own oil, use our own oil and just stay out of the global market? In the same way. In the same way that I could make my own beer and charge myself

[Jack Armstrong]

for whatever I want to charge? Well, yeah, but that would be a complete restructuring of how oil markets have always worked.

[Joe Getty]

So it would be completely independent.

[Jack Armstrong]

You're a mercantile drill baby drill. Oh, tariff, baby tariff. Let's see. And then there's the way the oil markets work. And gas is, you know, obviously refined oil, the fear premium, what they call. Because it's all based on the futures market, gas prices often jump before a single barrel of oil is actually lost. Traders on the commodities market buy oil futures contracts for oil to be delivered months from now. That's how it works. When a critical choke point like the Strait of Hormuz is threatened or closed, traders panic and bid prices higher to hedge against a future shortage. That fear premium is passed directly to gas stations almost immediately. Then I could get into some more details, but that's it. The short answer is it's a global market and always has been.

[Joe Getty]

I heard somebody making this point. A lot of the politicians that are making the loudest noises about the price of oil slash the price of gas and how awful it is are from states where they artificially keep the price of gas high to try to drive you into electric cars.

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh, great point.

[Joe Getty]

Like California. The whole point of our gas being so high, a lot of the taxes is hoping that you'll stop driving, you'll start carpooling, you get an electric car, all that sort of stuff. But when Trump launches this war, then you scream and yell about the price of gas like you care. You love it being high. You want people to stop driving gas powered cars.

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh, they're just so utterly dishonest. Uh, it's discouraging.

[Joe Getty]

God. I was driving over the weekend to San Francisco and back and they've, they've expanded the, a diamond lane, the carpool lane. It used to be just a very short portion of my drive. Now it's the entire way and it's just empty. There's nobody in it. Oh, and it's seven days a week. That's why I was so mad about it. It's all day Saturday too. So on Saturday you have the carpool lane. So you're taking away in some cases 25% of the lanes because there's only four lanes that anybody can drive on. And so traffic is horrible on a Saturday at 11am because a quarter of the lanes you can't use. It accomplishes nothing other than every responsible

[Jack Armstrong]

study has shown that it either accomplishes nothing or makes pollution worse. That's correct. Yeah. It's like a superstitious gesture by the environmental left. It does nothing.

[Joe Getty]

Well, that and it's a. The goal is to make you miserable enough that you'll take the train or carpool or some BS that they think they're going to make us do, which we never are.

[Jack Armstrong]

So birth tourists, Chinese oligarchs popping out kids in America for the citizenship. Birthright, citizenship before the Supreme Court. The oral arguments you were yesterday with the president in attendance. We'll talk to Joe Lupino Esposito of the Pacific Legal foundation about how those arguments went and how he thinks it might turn out.

[Joe Getty]

And it's the opposite of what I want, I think. What do you think? Good. All right, stay tuned.

[Show Announcer]

Armstrong and Getty.

[Legal Expert]

There are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?

[Legal Expert]

I think it's. I quote what Justice Scalia said in his Hamdan dissent where they have. Where, like their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment. I think that shows that they've made a mess. Their interpretation has made a mess of the provision.

[Joe Getty]

Hmm.

[Jack Armstrong]

Some of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday, with notably the President in attendance weighing the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship and that sort of thing, it strikes me that's such an interesting topic for a lot of reasons, including the utter change in the way the world works and immigration works, and you can jet around the world in a single day. And anyway, to examine this question and then how the oral arguments went, who better to talk to than Joe Lupino Esposito of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Joe leads a team dedicated to developing solutions and advocating for change in federal law that respects the Constitution and is lined with PLF's legal practice. Joe, welcome. How are you, sir?

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

I'm doing well. Thanks for having me.

[Jack Armstrong]

So do you find the oral arguments pretty interesting yesterday and what'd you make of them?

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Yeah, you know, they were pretty exciting. You know, obviously, like you mentioned, the President being in the room, that's pretty tough for your boss, looking over your shoulder there. But I think John Sauer did a very good job with a very difficult and really an uphill battle for the President by trying to attack the idea of birthright citizenship through an executive order. So really, the justices were engaged on a whole bunch of different levels here, but primarily it seemed to really come down to this issue of what was the original intention of the 14th Amendment? Who was it really meant for? What was the context of when that was passed? And then further, have there been any precedents that have gone forward since that date, like in the late 1890s? The one I kept mentioning was the Wong Kim Ark, and that was another one that they wanted to kind of recabin. And Sauer's argument essentially was we need to look at it a different way and then I think you will find that we are on the right side. So that was his take and he got quite a bit of challenge on that.

[Joe Getty]

Well, wasn't the original intention for children of slaves? And unless you're 200 some years old, there are no children of slaves that apply. So then where does this break down?

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Right, exactly. And that's really the essential question.

[Jack Armstrong]

Right.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

And during the arguments, I don't recall which justice brought it up. It might have been Justice Alito had said something along the line lines of, you know, are some of these rules of the Constitution, these pieces of the Constitution sort of a rule for all time, or are they very specific? You know, so if you have a law that says there's no theft, but microwaves didn't exist, but you get your microwave stolen. Well, it's still a good general rule. I mean, right, These are the things they bring up over there, Right. I love their analogies over there. That was great. But, but I mean, it's true, right? So like, is that a universal rule? So of course, from the other side they're saying, well, look, in the 1890-90s, we still obviously had some children of slaves at that point, but you know, we're looking forward into the next century where this won't be. And in that case, they said, ironically enough, per the clip you guys just played, it was an issue of somebody who was a Chinese national, because at the time, under the current laws that were in place at that time, Chinese immigrants could not become citizens. They were restricted from becoming citizens. So the argument was, could their child become a citizen? And at the time they said, yes, the 14th amendment guarantees that. But the question there course was, well, what, what qualifies the parents? And the discussion was around the parents and their domicile and their allegiances. And that's what we heard a bunch about in the argument yesterday.

[Jack Armstrong]

Right. The question of domicile, meaning where do you live, where is your home? Is such a different question now than it was then. I mean, I could on a whim be in London tonight, stay there for a couple of weeks, you know, with my pregnant wife, and we could give birth in London because I think London's cool, and then fly back. So all of this was unimaginable. What is? So the whole question of what does domicile mean? Was pretty key, wasn't it?

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Oh, yes, yeah. It got mentioned dozens, if not 100 times yesterday. And it was interesting because we saw even some of the more left leaning judges questioning Trump's opposing counsel at the ACLU saying, you know, I don't think they mentioned domicile so often just for fun, you know, how are you going to get around this problem? And it was a more difficult question for them. The way they would turn on that, of course, is to say, well, the question has never been about the parents. It has always just been about following the soil. If you are here and you are born here, that's how it goes. Of course, on the other side, you know, John Sauer and the administration would say, well, look, in other cases, we've drawn out certain exceptions, as if those are just always assumed. So things like diplomats, children, or if somebody's born on Indian land or of Indian parents of tribal land. These are always the exceptions that have been drawn out. So why wouldn't we kind of come to the next conclusion and say, well, this is yet another example because things have changed. But of course, that led to probably the best line of the oral argument where John Sauer said, it's a whole new world. And John Roberts replied, it's a new world, but the same Constitution. So that's where I think they're gonna have a lot of trouble.

[Joe Getty]

Okay, fine. So if we want the result of people can't just have babies in the United States and they're automatically US Citizens, how do you get there? Right?

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

So that's kind of what will be interesting to see, how the court comes down here. I mean, I think depending on how they want to break down their opinion, I think you'd probably have a 90 saying, well, this can't be done by executive order, no matter if you like it or not. Okay, say, well, is the door open for legislation to say, look, we can draw some exceptions here. It is not a pure guarantee. It is not just simply we follow the soil. You are here and you're born. It's obviously not true. Now, we talk about these situations like diplomat children, right? So, well, it's not universal as it is. But now, how much can you actually limit that universality? Are the exceptions that we've already found the only ones? Can Congress continue that probably wouldn't be on point for this case. But if somebody wanted to write a concurrent, somebody like in Alito that seemed to be leaning towards the President position but maybe not fully, there could always write a concurrence saying, look, I think the door is open if there were some actual law made around this. So that's one possibility. Who knows if that could happen? But that seems to be the opening that could exist here.

[Jack Armstrong]

Joe, why don't you count on Congress and I'll count on the Easter buddy, and we'll see who gets satisfied first. Joe Lupino, Esposito from the PLF is online. Go ahead, Joe.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

I was gonna say, I mean, that is one of the biggest issues at plf. We talk a lot about separation of powers and who has the right role of doing these things. And that's always the issue. It's like, well, Congress could do its job. I know it's a lot to say that, but technically that's the way they have it set up. So that is really the essential problem that keeps up in a number of issues, not just in immigration.

[Joe Getty]

I was interested to read that there are quite a few countries like the UK that did away with this a while back for a variety of reasons. So it's not like it's a crazy idea.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

No, I mean, again, as a policy matter, I think that is definitely an open question. Do we want to do that? And just not knowing offhand if their Constitution or otherwise had said, you know, something that guaranteed it. Obviously it's a higher threshold. If the court does find that it is in the Constitution, then I would have to be a higher threshold of actually getting an amendment, which talk about impossible, that that's impossible. So that would be a much harder slog. But if they leave the opening because of the handful of exceptions, that's something they can do because, I mean, politically, I'm not sure how popular it is, but it probably would be very popular. And it seems to be popular in areas in Europe where this is the case.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

At the very least, you could outlaw just outright birth, tourism, citizenship. But so a more general question. There's this ludicrous narrative frequently in a lot of the mainstream media saying that, you know, there's this six to three conservative deadlock and when so many of the cases are in really interesting combinations,

[Joe Getty]

they out of control MAGA court.

[Jack Armstrong]

That's right. Yeah. That's ridiculous. How would you describe the six conservative justices and their overlap of agreement and disagreement?

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Yeah, you know, I think most analysis now actually puts it more as like a 3, 3, 3 court. Right. So obviously you have the three liberal justices, then you have Kavanaugh, Roberts and Barrett in one camp and then the other three conservatives in the other. But even so, you have a number of cases that are perhaps a little bit more libertarian leaning, where you'll see Gorsuch and Alito and Thomas, sorry, Gorsuch on one side and Alito and Thomas on the other side on a number of cases. So that's often how things can split, particularly in, like, criminal law cases. Alito is almost never going to be on the same side as Gorsuch, barring it being a 90 decision. So those are some of those rare examples where you see that pop up. But again, even just this week we've seen where the liberal justices are siding with the conservatives. The case in California regarding conversion therapy, you only had one dissent from Justice Jackson and frankly, kind of a slap down from Justice Kagan and her concurrence, saying, I don't, you know, in so many words, I'm not quite sure what she's talking about. It was pretty interesting to see that.

[Joe Getty]

So this leads me to, and I know the answer to this question, but I want to hear you say, does it drive you nuts, the mainstream media coverage of all these cases? Because it seems to me like whenever I look into a decision, the general headline around it isn't even close to the reason they decided it one way or the other.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

No, you're exactly right. It's. It's very frustrating. We see this all the time and it seems like the media often wants to only talk about the cases when they are 5, 4 and 6 3. I mean, door. Like that makes it more exciting. If it's 9 0, I guess the issue wasn't that great. But sometimes those opinions where they are 81 or 7 to 90 are really important to look at because those are the ones where you should really kind of zoom in and say, well, this is the thing where everybody can agree. This is where the law is at. Like, this thing should not be a controversy. So when it comes to, like, again, just using this week's example, the conversion therapy case, there's not a ton of debate here on whether or not that was a good idea. Justice Jackson notwithstanding, you know, you had sort of an idiot coming along on this. I wouldn't say that because we have cases in front of the court. So.

[Jack Armstrong]

Enough said, Joe, enough. Well put. Joe Lupino Esposito of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Hey, Joe, we're kind of up against a break and let's talk again. Outstanding job. Love the conversation. As usual. Everybody we talk to from the Pacific Legal foundation is terrific. Thanks, Joe.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Joe. And thank you.

[Joe Getty]

Oh, Hanson, the goldest of gold stars for him. Oh, love it. He rolls. Asia's wonderful when he rolls with the silliness, which I really appreciated.

[Jack Armstrong]

Roll with it.

[Joe Getty]

Is she an idiot? I wouldn't say that because we have

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

cases before the court now.

[Jack Armstrong]

I cut him off. He was about to make clear. And she is a learned justice, and her credentials are fabulous.

[Joe Getty]

Was he about to say that?

[Jack Armstrong]

As far as you know? He was, yes. I want to. I do not want to damage the man's career.

[Joe Getty]

See, I'm not a lawyer for your chuckles. I'm not a lawyer. And I. So this stuff drives me crazy. And I understand why it's gotta be this way, but I just want, you know, just things we all agree on for the most part. It shouldn't be able to just show up in the United States and have a baby and you get all the rights of a US Citizen. So let's just make that happen somehow. But I realize you can't run a system that way.

[Jack Armstrong]

Well, you can run a congress that way. They can write that law. They just don't do anything but fundraise and tweet. Well, it worked pretty well for 250 years. It was a decent enough run. All right. Stick around. Much more to come.

[Show Announcer]

Armstrong and Getty.

[Jack Armstrong]

NASA launched his first crewed mission to

[Joe Getty]

the moon in 53 years.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yep. The rocket launched from Cape Canaveral, did

[Joe Getty]

a quick flyby over Kid Rock's house, and then headed for the moon. Oh, wow.

[Space Mission Commentator]

The four astronauts on board are Commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, Mission Specialist Christina Cook, and Canadian Space Agency Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen.

[Jack Armstrong]

Wait.

[Space Mission Commentator]

Hold on.

[Joe Getty]

Wait, wait.

[Space Mission Commentator]

That isn't right. I don't see Katy Perry in there. Is it really a space mission? If Jeff Bezos hasn't welded a terrified Gayle King into a metal tube.

[Joe Getty]

Ah.

[Jack Armstrong]

Why is there a Canadian on our spaceship?

[Joe Getty]

So, yesterday I announced breaking Fleetwood Mac news in that a stalker had thrown some sort of liquid substance at guitar player Lindsey Graham, who was an old man at this point.

[Jack Armstrong]

Lindsey Buckingham.

[Joe Getty]

Lindsey. Lindsey Graham. Why don't you say yesterday I did that, too?

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

Yeah, yesterday.

[Joe Getty]

And Lindsey Graham did not sing go your own way. Lindsey Buckingham did.

[Jack Armstrong]

Lindsey Buckingham is not a probably closeted South Carolina senator.

[Joe Getty]

He is a very heterosexual. As he got with the young Stevie Nicks. Lindsay Buckingham. Anyway, so this happened on the Santa Monica pier, Los Angeles. And this crazy woman. So you want to be famous, do you? She's 54 years old. She's convinced that Lindsey Buckingham is her dad. And apparently authorities have gone through it well enough to determine she's not. Because this has happened over and over again. She's been stalking this poor guy for a long, long time. She threw.

[Jack Armstrong]

Even if it is your dad, don't be throwing mystery substances and liquids on your dad. It's rude.

[Joe Getty]

It's a Good point. The police are aware of her. Lindsey Buckingham is very aware of her. She tossed a known unknown substance at him and ran off. The Los Angeles Police Department confirmed that the attack happen. Buckingham has three children with his wife, and they go through that whole thing here in this article. But this woman, the accused stalker, first began interacting with Lindsey Buckingham five years ago when she started calling the musician and his wife dozens of times, leaving long messages claiming to be his daughter. Wonder how she got his number? That would be. You'd start off being annoyed, and then pretty soon you'd start to get frightened.

[Joe Lupino Esposito]

And

[Joe Getty]

she just kept calling, leaving long, rambling messages.

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh, and if I'd been a touring musician for many years, I'd start off thinking, boy, you're how old you're. Let's see, that was the Tusk tour.

[Joe Getty]

During this initial period, she also threatened to kill the family, blamed Lindsey Buckingham for facial deformities, deformities she suffered as a child and demanded money. In 2022, LAPD officially instructed her to cease contact with the family. She stopped messaging them, but secretly continued to contact Lindsey Buckingham's adult son, went after him. The harassment intensified in 2024 when she set Buckingham a photo collage of their faces, followed by showing up at his home. You know, you get a picture of, here's everybody in your family. You know that, what kind of threat that is. She swatted the family in 2024, making a false 911 report that led to Lindsey Buckingham being handcuffed and led from his home. Oh, until they figured out what was going on. Then he got a permanent restraining order against her. I didn't know that was a thing. A permanent restraining order. She can't come near him for the rest of his life. And that's what she was in violation of the other day. Apparently, she lives in her car somewhere. They haven't found her. Wow. Would that suck?

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh, there's no reasoning with a crazy person.

[Joe Getty]

Now, I do assume, because it doesn't say anything in there, that with all of these different incidents occurring, they've determined that her claim is not real.

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh, yeah, I think. Yeah, you would check that box, because

[Joe Getty]

as you said, you're a one of the most famous rock stars on planet Earth. She'd have been born in the 70s. There has to be at least the chance.

[Jack Armstrong]

Conceivably, in a moment of weakness.

[Joe Getty]

Exactly.

[Jack Armstrong]

You found yourself that you're highly embarrassed

[Joe Getty]

about and ashamed of.

[Jack Armstrong]

Terrible. It was a lapse, yes. But it does happen. From what I'm told, anyway. Yeah. How how troubling. Oh, speaking of crazy people in la. Next hour. Maybe you don't get next hour. You got to subscribe to the podcast Armstrong and Getty on Demand. You remember the subterranean sewer junkies in la? Well, the woman who was featured on that news report, her family's come out and made a powerful statement. What they said will shock you. Okay, stay with us or come back

[Joe Getty]

and then you're going to explain the whole China versus US space race. I'm into that.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. Yeah. This is a serious, serious thing and

[Joe Getty]

gets no attention around the why we're going to the moon.

[Jack Armstrong]

We're not a serious country.

[Joe Getty]

That's, that's the entire point of why we're going to the moon.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yes.

[Joe Getty]

Is the, is the military race with China.

[Jack Armstrong]

Nobody's obliterated from the moon by China. Yeah.

[Joe Getty]

If you missed that, get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on Demand.

[Show Announcer]

Armstrong and Gettysburg.