← Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Supreme Court Limits Judge Shopping, Michael Dimino on the Left’s Push to Dismantle the Constitution, Gov. Newsom Sues Fox News, & Celebrities Oppose Trump's SNAP Regulations
00:34:30
Loading summary
Transcript20 lines
- [00:00]
Bill O'Reilly
Foreign.
- [00:13]
Michael Demiano
Here. Welcome to the no Spin news for Monday, June 30, 2025. Stand up for your country, especially this week. Fourth of July coming up on Friday. And I wrote a column yesterday, Sunday, and I do that every week on, on bill o'reilly.com saying what does the government owe you? Government owes you stuff. And me, I'm included in the you, the universal you does not owe you a living, by the way. Okay. By the way, I'm sorry. I saw that. That's a cliche. It does not owe you a living. Anyway, I hope you read the column. It's a good Fourth of July column. President Trump has some momentum building and that is going to cause a lot of angst for the Trump haters on this fourth. It's also the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. Now on Friday, Supreme Court ruled against judge shopping. What is this? So when Donald Trump got into office, and this is the message of the day on billoriley.com which is different from the column, okay, Donald Trump got into office, he wrote a bunch of executive orders trying to overturn the Biden executive orders of four years ago. When Biden opened the border and did all that, Republicans did not challenge a lot of that in federal court. They groused about it and complained about it, but they didn't go around and try to undermine executive orders en masse. That's not what they did. Democrats did it. So the Democrats would go to Washington state or Massachusetts or California or one of those, find a judge they knew would rule in a liberal way against Trump, and then they slap on a national injunction so some pinhead judge in Sacramento could stop an entire executive order for the entire country. Now, I knew this was insane and so did you. I'm sure you did. Here's what I said on June 4, Go. So the founding Father said we're going to give the president the power to issue executive orders to protect the people and the people's treasury, not to abuse the people. That's what executive orders are supposed to be. Now, they are subject to review from the judiciary. But now that's being abused to the highest level in our history. And Supreme Court has to rule on it. And they, I assume they will this month because after the end of June, they take three months off. I assume that they're going to rule and knock this crazy stuff out to some extent. Hello, Nostradamus, that's me. But it wasn't a hard prediction. Okay. But everything I said came true on Friday, 6:3 ruling. Okay, the justice had limited the use of nationwide injunctions. Okay? They said that if you're a judge and somebody comes and files a petition, you can hear that case, the single case, if the person's in your jurisdiction, but you can't issue a national pause or anything else. So the left went crazy. And the three liberal judges. And look, I'm not going to disparage the liberal judges because there are conservative judges and they vote ideology sometimes, too. But the liberal judges had no constitutional basis. So here's what Amy Comey Barrett Supreme Court justice who ruled the majority opinion wrote the majority opinion I should see. Here's what she said. Quote, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. All right, so Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by Biden, is probably more liberal than Sotomayor, definitely more than Kagan. And she would, you know, okay, you can't stop this and all that. And the six other judges said, this is crazy. That's not what the founders had in mind, and certainly it isn't. All right? But Judge Jackson doesn't care because she views her job as advancing a cause, a liberal cause. But again, some conservatives feel that way, too, in my opinion, my humble opinion. All right, this is an ongoing battle over the Constitution being used for political purposes. But there's no doubt it was in this case now on cable tv, which has sunk into the morass I don't think it'll ever come out of, was predictable. Go.
- [05:27]
Bill O'Reilly
I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter, and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer. And I just want to quote it because I think she was right when she said it. It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks. Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that, of course, when we had a Democratic president. Now, she voted against the decision on Friday. Just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks.
- [05:52]
Michael Demiano
What the Supreme Court has done, and again, stacked largely by these Trump appointees, is ceding their power under the Constitution, in fact, their responsibility as a judicial branch. They're ceding that to Donald Trump, who is a lawless president. Oh, what a bunch of bull that is. Now, the original executive order that sparked all this was President Trump's intention to say, no more birthright. Okay? So if you are born here, you are not automatically a Citizen. That's what President Trump wanted to do. Now, the Supreme Court did not rule on that, and I don't think they're going to rule in Trump's favor. Okay. It's clear in the Constitution that those words are there. If a person is born in the United States, that person is a citizen. Doesn't matter how they got here. Not a lot of. There's no footnotes. So Senator Van Hollen, who's, you know, about as far left as you get, he's going to be proved wrong, because I don't think the Supreme Court's going to knock that out of the Constitution. It may be possible they might attach a few things to for review of it. But anyway, that has been paused for 30 days. And since the court doesn't come back to late September, it'll, I think the pause will be extended. And that's a memo. Another ruling. On Friday, Montgomery County, Maryland, parents sued in federal court, saying, look, if the schools in Montgomery county are going to teach about gay stuff and they're going to promote LBGTQ stuff, then we want to kids to be out of the classroom because we don't believe that on religious grounds. Okay. And again, the justices ruled six, three, same thing, that, yeah, if you're a religious person who does not believe that the gay lifestyle is accepted by your religion, your kid doesn't have to listen to that. Common sense. Right. I believe so. They're not banning the lesson. They're giving the parents a right to take the kid out when that happens. Okay. So the left, of course, went nuts. Go.
- [08:26]
Bill O'Reilly
Right. Now, this looks like it affects only books with LGBTQ characters, but it very well might extend to science and evolution and, and all the other things that for some reason are up for debate in this day and age that, that are rooted in science and understanding. But it very well might upend what we think of as public education.
- [08:53]
Michael Demiano
Yeah, I'm not worried. Okay. I don't think you're going to be imposing evolution on the kids in the classroom. Both should be discussed, though. You know, why not, why not discuss the biblical point of view? Say, look, there are some fundamentalist religious people who believe Adam and Eve were there and they would, you know, the snake was chasing them around. There's nothing wrong with that. Okay. You don't say it's fact. I mean, but you know how it is. What this is all about, this ruling is all about, is there are many states, Maryland, at the top of the list, that want to impose liberal doctrine on the students. That's what they want. Okay, I guess there are some states that want to impose conservative doctrine, maybe Louisiana because they had the 10 commandment thing. But the liberal states are real active in this. Hey, Bill O'Reilly here. In my career, I have interviewed seven presidents, covered every major story of the last few decades. But I've never seen an opportunity like this one. President Trump's second term could mirror the economic boom of the 1920s, a time when unemployment hit 1.8%, stocks soared 265%. Ordinary Americans had their shot at real prosperity. That's why I've recorded a special presentation with renowned investment expert Alexander Green called the Rebirth of the American Dream. Alex will reveal how President Trump plans to slash regulations, cut taxes, bring manufacturing back to America, and unlock the AI driven tech boom. Plus, you will get details on six specific stocks that could soar during Trump's presidency. Please visit trumpsamericandream.com to watch our presentation now. All right, let's bring in a guy who's smarter than I am and he can tell me if I'm going wrong here. His name is Michael Demiano and he teaches at Widener University Law School, which is in Pennsylvania. First question, professor, about the judge shopping. It just seems to me that no matter what ideology you are, that you would know one judge just stopping the whole apparatus of executive orders is just blowing up the Constitution. Am I wrong?
- [11:27]
Bill O'Reilly
Well, you're absolutely right. Thank you very much for having me on, Bill. It's a pleasure to be here. But you're absolutely right in your description of the problem that having one district judge with the power to issue a universal nationwide injunction prevents other judges from getting involved in issuing opinions on the same issue. And usually the way that you get ultimate resolution of these issues is to have a bunch of cases in the lower courts, each focused on particular plaintiffs. And if there's a disagreement with those lower courts, then the appellate courts can sort out the disagreement. But we don't just pick one district judge as part of some kind of policy making strategy and let that judge impose an injunction on the entire country unless the Supreme Court gets involved on some kind of emergency basis.
- [12:19]
Michael Demiano
Okay, but the three liberal judges on the Supreme Court surely are intelligent enough to recognize the anarchy and chaos that would come if every party could judge shop on every presidential decision. Right. They're not stupid. Certainly true.
- [12:42]
Bill O'Reilly
Yes. And in fact, as your clip before me pointed out, Justice Kagan has already.
- [12:51]
Michael Demiano
Pointed out that problem during the Biden contradicted herself. So the only conclusion that fair minded people can come to is that at least three members of the Supreme Court don't care about the Constitution at all. They want to use their power at the nation's highest court to advance their liberal ideology. That's the only conclusion you can come to.
- [13:15]
Bill O'Reilly
I think what you have is a fundamental disagreement about judicial power. That what the liberal justices see as the role of the federal courts is solving injustice or declaring what the law is. They see the courts as this kind of institution just to get involved and stop illegality whenever they see it. That's not the way the federal courts are supposed to work. And the six justices in the majority correctly pointed out Justice Jackson's flawed understanding of the Constitution in that way. Federal courts are supposed to resolve disputes between parties who are affected by the litigation. And if it turns out that the plaintiff is right and what the government is doing is illegal or unconstitutional, then the district court should enter a remedy that solves that plaintiff's problem.
- [14:08]
Michael Demiano
Right. I mean, the ruling was right. But what disturbs me are these three justices. That's what disturbed me. They want to dismantle the Constitution. They want to dismantle it. Let's be honest about it. They know the anarchy and chaos that would be caused by judge shopping on every single presidential executive order. They understand that. They don't care. They're almost subversive when it comes to the Constitution of the United States. Last word.
- [14:45]
Bill O'Reilly
I think Justice Barrett had it exactly right when she said that Justice Jackson would impose an imperial judiciary. That's the. And I think that's what you're referring to when you're saying subvert the Constitution. You say judges are up here and everybody else has to follow what the judges say. That's not the original understanding of the Constitution.
- [15:03]
Michael Demiano
But I carry it further than that. These judges, justices are in business to advance a liberal ideology. They're using their position for politics, not to really analyze what the Founding Fathers had in mind. That's my point of view. Do you concur with that?
- [15:27]
Bill O'Reilly
I agree. I think that being an activist or a, what we call a result oriented judge is just about the worst thing that you can be on the court.
- [15:36]
Michael Demiano
Right. And they got three of them. Yeah.
- [15:39]
Bill O'Reilly
It seems to me that that's what. What was motivating them.
- [15:43]
Michael Demiano
Well, Sotomayor.
- [15:44]
Bill O'Reilly
Policy oriented.
- [15:45]
Michael Demiano
I know this for a fact. Sotomayor wants out. She's tired, she doesn't feel well, but she's hanging on because she doesn't want Trump to appoint the next judge. So we'll see how that evolves. Professor, thanks very much. Happy Fourth of July. We appreciate the help. All right, Governor Gavin Newsom suing Fox News. This is just bogus and I'll just explain why. So the governor is going to run for president in 2028, there's no doubt about it. And Kamala Harris will run for governor in two years. 26. Those things will happen. So Newsom is trying to get rally all of the Democrats behind him and he knows that many of them, perhaps most probably most, hate Fox News. So there was a phone call made. I guess Newsom called Trump, but I don't even know because I haven't seen a transcript or anything like that about the national guard in LA. This happened around June 6th. Okay. And Jesse Waters got the timeline wrong about the phone call, according to Newsom. No, I don't know, I haven't seen a transcript, so I don't like that. And then John Roberts, another Fox News guy, he called Newsom a liar or something like. Or Waters called him a liar and they called them names and they put disparage him. So Newsom said he was defamed. Number one, he's a public figure, so that's not going to fly anywhere. Number two, he's suing for 787 million in damages. All right? That's the exact number Dominion One against Fox. This is just ridiculous. So what's going to happen is it'll either be thrown out in summary judgment or Newsom will withdraw it. Now, I'd like to know who's paying for this, okay? And I'm going to work on that this week to find out who's paying the legal bills for this for Newsom. And I bet you it's a political action committee, you know, one of these Soros type places. Maybe not Soros, but you know how it is. But this is just a publicity stunt, okay? Not a stunt is a House oversight probe into Joe Biden's mental acuity that's advancing and it's fairly serious. So the committee has issued two subpoenas. Dr. Kevin O' Connor, who said, hey, Biden's fine mentally and physically. And now we know Biden has prostate cancer. Okay, Doctor, good luck. And Anthony Bernal, who is a senior advisor to First Lady Jill Biden. Those two men have been subpoenaed. They have to testify, testify before the committee or to be found in contempt of Congress. Now, they were asked to do so voluntarily. They refused. Okay? Others that are going to be asked to testify are Corrine Jean Pierre. Okay? Anita Dunn, Ron Klain, Jeff Zentz, Andrew Bates, Ian sams, all the big shots, and they want to get them under oath, the Republican congresspeople on the Oversight Committee and say, you know, because they could trap them. That's what they're trying to do with these people. Now, there's no doubt in my mind, and I wrote this fairly clearly in confronting the presidents, that Joe Biden was infirmed while he was president. I am 100% convinced of that based on the facts, based on what happened and more things are going to come out. But you should be aware that those things. Early July, O' Connor is supposed to be up July 9th. So right after the 4th of July, we're going to have all of this testimony, okay? There is a group, Feeding America, left wing group, but they're do gooders. I mean, I don't object to them. They want to get food into the hands of poor Americans. Pretty noble. I give money to food charities on Long Island. Anyway, they issued a letter, okay, objecting to any cuts whatsoever for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance. Snap. What? Snap. Food Stamps. Now, as everybody knows, the United States owes $36 trillion and it's going up at an astronomical rate every day. So the Trump administration is trying to get more stringent qualifications to get food stamps, to get Medicaid. That's what they're trying to do. Trying to, oh, imply oversight. It's a good thing because we can't keep wild spending like this in our lot. There are millions of layabouts who are gaming the system, getting free this, free that, and they could work. But why should. I am a heroin addict. I don't care. I don't want to work. All right? Now, three very high profile entertainers, Matt Damon, Scarlett Johansson, Sheryl Crow signed on to this letter, okay? I don't hold anything against these people. Here is the statement, all right? From that quote, ongoing high grocery costs mean food is out of reach for so many families. And many of our neighbors simply do not have enough to eat. They don't know where the next meal is coming from or if that meal will be enough to nourish and sustain them. Millions of people in this country, including an estimated 15.5 children and 7.2 seniors, rely on programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid to make ends meet. These programs make it possible for them to live more healthily and with dignity, in turn helping communities across America to thrive. This is the Feeding America statement that the movie stars and singer signed on to. That's not true. Okay? Now, you could debate it, but I live in Nassau County. I don't Know anybody starving here? No, county. And I have a house in Suffolk County. I don't know anybody starving there. Because every Catholic church on Long island has free food. I think everyone. And there are food banks all over the place. Okay? And if you qualify, you can get the government subsidy. But if you aren't looking for work, if you don't care to get a job and pay your own way, they're going to boot you. And it's okay with me, if you have dependent children, they're not going to boot you. Okay? So these movie stars, they live in a world not in a real world. They don't live in a real world. Are there people hungry? Are their kids hungry? Yeah, because their parents are irresponsible. Parents are taking all the money and all the stuff they get into, buying drugs or alcohol, whatever they're doing. But if you need food, you can get it. We're the most generous people on earth, okay? And all these new bill wants to do is put work requirements onto SNAP and Medicaid, and then they're telling the states, you cannot tax Medicaid North Carolina at the highest level anymore. You have to drop it to 3.5% because the federal government has to reimburse the states when they tax Medicaid services. Do you understand that? So the Trump administration goes, no, we're capping it at 3.5. They're not cutting it, all right? They don't want to be paying these astronomical reimbursements to the states. This is just logic. But the left runs with it and says, oh, they're cutting Medicaid. People won't have health, people won't have food. Because the Democratic Party does not want to cut 1 cent of out of the budget. They want to increase it. Did you know that in modern times, when a Democrat is president, federal spending is twice what it is when a Republican is president? Did you know that? And this big bill that Trump has, no Democrats going to vote for it now, one, because they don't want any oversight. They want to keep adding and adding and adding to the cost. And that's what socialism is. That's what it is. Now, does Matt Damon and Scarlet Johansson understand any of this? I don't know. They sign the letter. They have a perfect right to sign the letter. If I ran into them, I would be very polite and respectful. I might ask them, hey, you know, what's your objection to federal government saying to the state, you can't game the system by charging all this tax that we have to invert. Reverse. You know, reimburse you for. Can't do that. And I don't. I can guarantee you they wouldn't know what I was talking about. All right, update on the bill passed in the Senate, a procedural vote, 5149. Rand Paul, forget it. He's not going to vote for it. Thom Tillis, N.C. he doesn't like the tax cut that I just told you about. So Trump hammered him. Tillis knows he's going to lose in 26. So Tillis said, I surrender, I surrender. Tillis probably vote for that bill and I'm out running again. So Lara Trump's going to win that seat. Trump's daughter in law, right? Yeah. She'll win. You watch. I got it on tape. She'll run. She's a North Carolinian and she'll win until I see you a couple of other Republicans. But Trump will devastate them. Except for Rand Paul who's, you know, he's a different cat. As Dennis Miller used to say in Kentuckians, they like that independent kind of. He's not really a Republican, Paul. He's in isolation, you know. You know what he is. Okay, smart life. Now this hits home. My father at age 62 died from melanoma. All right, he was a son worshiper. Now his son, me, I don't like the sun. I was out on the beach and it was cloudy. I'm happy. So when you go to Ireland and you go to the beach, usually cloudy. I. That's a DNA thing. My father was in his son all the time. Loved it. And he died, you know, and he got nailed. When I was a teenager, I was a lifeguard water safety instructor for the town of Babylon on in Suffolk County, Long Island. And I was in the sun all the time because back then there wasn't any sun thing. Okay? There wasn't any warning, there wasn't any anything. And you had nitwits, remember this with the aluminum foil trying to reflect more sun into their face, the darker you could get. Remember those copper tone as the dog and the little kid? Now you got to really be careful. So smart life with a hundred thousand diagnosed with Melanova this year alone. That's the estimate from the American Cancer Society. All right? And it's far more than that. But people don't know they have it now. Every day I have this cream. I have to put this cream all over me. And my dermatologist, the best in the business. I can't tell you who he is, but the guy's really brilliant. I Mean, he's taking stuff off me every three months, you know, and you have to. Especially if you have blue eyes and fair skin, you have to. So that's smart life. You got to look at yourself and see if you got anything there that doesn't look good and go to the dermatologist, check it out. Should do that, you know, once you get over the age of 50, every year, we don't want you to do. What happened to my father should never have happened. Thailand says, no more pot. So in 2022, Thailand, which is a libertine society, said, okay, pot fine. Not so fine, because all the kids are smoking pot. So if you go to Bangkok, I don't recommend it. Bangkok, fascinating to me. I was there on assignment. Stayed at the best hotel in the world, the Oriental Hotel on the river there. What an unbelievable hotel that is. But Bangkok Vice, that's what they're selling there, Drugs, you know, you name it, they're selling it there. So. And then if you go to the beach, the Adam on Sea Phuket and all that there is to. I like Thailand. I like the people. But, boy, that society is rough. Anyway, the government of Thailand, which is a military dictatorship now, said, no more pot because the kids, the Thai kids are smoking and all over the place. That's Gap. It's happening here, too. The media suppresses that story. Stay in history. June 30, 1882, Charles J. Guiteau, hanged by the neck until dead. What did he do? 143 years ago, he killed, shot President James Garfield. Boy. And confronting the presidency, I think got the best reportage on this. And Garfield hung on for a long time, okay? And he finally died. Gruesome death. And Chester Arthur, the immortal Chester Arthur took over. Garfield was a Civil War hero. He's a good guy. And this guy Guiteau was a nut, as they all these assassins are. He's mentally ill, so he supported Garfield and he thought that Garfield should give him an ambassadorship in return for Guiteau's support. Okay? And then when he didn't get it, he stalked Garfield, who didn't have Secret Service protection to any extent at all. Where do you see it? That's why you should read that book. And he shot him and they hung him. That happened 143 years ago today. All right, I'm back with a final thought. Something that snuck up on me. AI in a moment. All right, here is a final thought of the day. So if you have ever ordered food from a restaurant, okay, you know how agonizing it can be. Now, I am loud. I speak clearly. And when I order anything, I speak doubly clearly. And I have the person read the order back to me because they get it wrong so much. I was on the phone with some lady at a seafood place in eastern Long Island. I had to say, madam, I just can't do it anymore. I mean, I've given you the order three times. You can't write it down. And literally, the woman could not write it down. Okay? So on Friday, I called to renew some prescriptions, and I didn't get a person. I got A.I. i got A.I. first time, and I'm going now. Wasn't complicated. I had the renewal number. I know my name, and I know where I live. Okay? So I got prompted by the AI it was a woman's voice, and I gave the information fairly slowly, but not ridiculous. First take, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And then I wanted to pick it up today, and it was there. So my conclusion is, and this is going to be everywhere, but this is the first time for me. But in a year from now, you're not going to have human beings answer the phone. You're going to have AI. But it worked, and that's all I care about. Okay? Now, are people going to lose jobs? Yes. And if you know someone who's marginal, they need to get a skill. They need to start to bear down. Because if you're working for an hourly wage and you're doing work like taking orders, whatever that's going okay, you got to look ahead. You got to know. And is it a good thing? It's a good thing for efficiency. Certainly. It was good thing for me to get this prescription so I didn't have to read it 18 times. But is it bad for marginal employees? And that includes kids trying to, you know, move it on up. But you gotta learn how to make a living, period. Can't be dependent on the government. Okay, so that was a worthwhile Monday program, and we appreciate your attention very much on our 300 radio stations and television all over the world. Thank you. I will be here tomorrow, and we'll see you then.