A (16:57)
So it's well said the job must be finished. And I'm not questioning whether or not Donald Trump understands that he has a very delicate political task ahead of him here. Gas prices are rising. That's undeniable. People see it, people feel it. Administration is definitely having a rough patch in the polls. A poll just this past weekend, or perhaps was on Friday, showed that Donald Trump has a 38% approval rating. I believe that was the Washington Post Ipsos poll, if I'm not mistaken. And that's not great. And the American people understandably, totally understandably want to focus on domestic issues. The point, though, is that the most powerful country in the world can walk and chew gum at the same time. And there is no purpose in spending this much money and this much political and economic and diplomatic capital unless you are actually going to finish the job on the job's own terms. And that is why we talk so much about what the actual job is, frankly, on its own terms. By the way, a somewhat related note, I saw that the White House is trying to host a meeting one week from today. So that'll be next Monday, May 11, between Benjamin Netanyahu, who of course is the prime minister of Israel, along with the president of Lebanon, who is Joseph Ayoun. So we've reported how there have been some meetings, at least two of note, over the past month, give or take, between the Israelis and the Lebanese, which are the first time that those two countries have met face to face in roughly 30 years, which is a really, really long time. And it's very encouraging that this is happening in the first place. It's very, very encouraging that Netanyahu and Ayoun, who was a Maronite Christian Lebanon is historically a roughly 3, 33 country, 1 3rd, 1 3rd, 13 3rd roughly 1 3rd Christian, roughly 1 3rd, Shiite Muslim, roughly 1 3rd Sunni Muslim. It's very complicated. But those religious divides are essentially part of their constitution. You have certain offices that can only go to certain groups there. The issue with Lebanon is that Lebanon is today essentially a fake country because Hezbollah really calls the shots. Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim jihadist organization and really just a proxy of Iran. The big update here and the fact that these Israeli Lebanese talks are apparently happening is because Iran is losing Lebanon as an outpost. They are. Hezbollah still exists, but they are are diminishing in clout seemingly by the day. And if the Lebanese government commits in earnest, which is a massive question, huge caveat there, like deep pause. Let's see if it happens. But if they actually commit in earnest to trying to root out Hezbollah, that's not just a victory for the people of Lebanon first and foremost. It is a huge victory for the region and a massive, massive loss to Iran. So we're Gonna have to go ahead and actually see whether that happens there. But keep your eye on that for now. Potentially next Monday, a massive meeting at the White House between Netanyahu and Ayoun of the countries of Israel and Lebanon respectively. Shifting gears to the American conversation. We spent a lot of time on last week's show talking about this landmark case at the United States Supreme Court when it comes to congressional redistricting. This is the case of Louisiana vs. Kai, if I'm pronouncing the name correctly and is a case dealing with the Voting Rights act of 1965. We're not gonna talk about the whole thing. Go back and listen to last week's show if you are so inclined there. Long story short, they basically say that racial gerrymandering is presumptively illegal because it violates the 14th amendment. Notwithstanding how some people have been trying to implement the Voting Rights act for some decades now. And the direct upshot of that, the direct direct upshot is that Louisiana, which was the plaintiff case in the actual Supreme Court case, they have to redraw their maps, which is why you had Jeff Landry, the governor immediately say they're going to push back their imminently forthcoming congressional primaries that are going to happen in just about two to three weeks or so to give a special session of the legislature enough time to draw new congressional maps to make sure that there are no so called majority minority districts, AKA artificially black majority districts where there shouldn't be. That they did so because they thought they were compliant with the law and but it turns out that they weren't. They actually were violating the 14th Amendment. Anyway, the update for you is not that Louisiana is pushing back. We reported that on last week's show. The update for you today is that there are more Southern states. And again, this is mostly, this is mostly a Southern phenomenon. There's a lot of these Southern states that have a majority white population but a sizable black population. And obviously for historical reasons, the south was the one that was engaging in horrific Jim Crow practices there. So they have been getting all sorts of special treatment when it comes to the Voting Rights act, that is to say the American south for many decades. But if these majority minority districts are done, so then you're gonna look at a lot of Southern states that have to redraw their maps because frankly, governors and lawmakers in the Southern states of both parties, that's how they've been interpreting the Voting Rights act for decades now. So the update for you is that two of these states, Alabama and Tennessee, have announced that they are calling special sessions of the legislature to redraw the congressional maps, to essentially try to comply with the Louisiana Supreme Court case, to actually say that these majority minority districts cannot exist. So we have this clip for you, I think we played on last week's show of Congressman Sewell of Alabama, who was just apoplectic about the Louisiana decision of the Supreme Court. Why? Because she's about to lose her job. That's literally the reason. Because she is artificially elected in one of these concocted majority majority minority districts in the black belt of Alabama. So a lot of this is just so cynical, as always, frankly, by many of the left wing Democrats there. This is playing out in real time and it's going to be a fun one to watch, folks. Another quick commercial break. Josh Hammer here. We'll be right back. So the registering process is a moving target because every state holds their primaries at a different date. Federal elections are unified. We have the one election in November, probably not as unified as it should be. That's why we have early voting, which is nonsensical. It really ought to be, in my opinion, should be just a federal clear federal law or perhaps if necessary, a constitutional amendment saying that this is election day and this is the only day. Heck, compromise. Let's compromise with the liberals. Have a constitutional amendment, call it a national election day. And in exchange for that, in exchange for no early voting other than dire circumstances, other than active service, military abroad, other than people who are just totally bedridden hospitals, you will always have dispensations from a general rule. But my proposal for years now has been this. Call it a constitutional amendment. Let's just formalize it in the most formal way possible there, Call it one election day, the presumption. Again, there are exceptions. The presumption is no early voting period. And then the flip side of that, to give the liberals a bit of a carrot and not just a stick, is, you name it, a national holiday. Everyone's got off work. National holiday, hooray. So what's your excuse? If it's a national holiday, what is your excuse for not getting your butt over to the polls? Not sure exists. Again, unless you're seriously, seriously ill and you're bedridden, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Anyway, point is, federal election, general election is November. That's fairly standard early voting now standing. But these state elections, these state primaries tend to be a moving target. The earliest ones are in March, meaning that they've already happened. So the Texas primary would happen. The latest Ones go all the way through August. Here in Florida, we have a very late primary all the way into August. So the effects of the Louisiana decision are going to be on a state by state basis. Louisiana, which is parts of the case. The reason that the court ruled now, as they did, was to give Louisiana enough time to actually follow the order and to redraw their maps in advance of their primary. Now, a lot of folks are coming really hard after Brian Kemp, the Republican governor of Georgia. And Brian Kemp. Your mileage may vary. He's generally fine. He's not affirmatively bad or anything. He's a little weaker than some of his colleagues. I wouldn't exactly say that he's a fire breather or anything like that. There was a generally socially conservative, generally pro business, pro free market kind of governor. There's nothing inherently wrong with him there. He's getting a lot of crap from certain people on my social media feed from certain people in Georgia, a lot of conservative activists in Georgia. He's getting a lot of crap right now for saying that he's not going to push back Georgia's primary, which is also in May, similar to Louisiana's. Here's the problem. The problem is that early voting has already started in Georgia. That's the problem. The governor does not have the authority to just delay a primary election once early voting has started. The issue is that early voting goes on as long as it does. Early voting is a mess. It is so, so, so terrible. I hate early voting with such a fiery passion. And if you have a problem, if you're a listener, a viewer watching in Georgia, your issue should be with the early voting statute. Your issue should not be with Brian Kemp, who I'm telling you does not actually have the legal authority to go ahead and unilaterally postpone this election once the early voting period has already started. By the way, Louisiana is also a named party to the suit. Therefore they are required. Alabama and Tennessee, the other states there, they have upcoming primaries. They have plenty of time. Similar to here in Florida. We had a special session up in Tallahassee just last week. DeSantis called that session. We now have a 24 to 4 map, not a 20 to 8 map. Again, it's a very state by state thing. The upshot, though, the upshot is that the effects of this, and again, Alabama and Tennessee are the two latest. The effects of this are going to be a huge boon, a huge boon for Republicans as we, as we get closer to the midterm elections this November, because you're gonna See the end of these majority minority districts, those seats add up. You're looking at potentially two new Republican seats in Louisiana, at least one in Alabama, one in Tennessee. You might be able to get rid of Jim Clyburn seat in South Carolina, Hank Johnson in Georgia. Well, again, Georgia's a little more complicated, as I just explained, but it's going to be a boon. It's going to be a boon. The effects of this redistricting. Frankly, it's entirely possible that this Supreme Court decision just saved Mike Johnson's speaker gavel come January 2027. In fact, if I had to place a wager right now, very hard to say because we are a few months away. And who knows, it could be a wave election where Democrats, God forbid, Democrats could definitely win 15, 20, 25 seats in the House. And that would be enough if it's that big of a wave to take over the gavel regardless of redistricting. But if reducing goes the way that I think it will, summing up all these various states there, I think Democrats probably could have a smaller wave election, something like a five to ten seat pickup, and probably still lose out on the gavel. So again, the devil's always in the details there. But for now, just bear in mind that this is really redounding and is really playing out to Republicans interests, not just when it comes to the effects of the Louisiana Supreme Court case there, but also just when it comes out to a lot of these other cases in general. So for instance, here in Florida, Florida decided to redistrict prior to the Supreme Court case. DeSantis is just awesome. That's basically what happened there. And Virginia, we had Ken Cuccinelli in the show last Thursday. He explains how the Supreme Court, Virginia, in his estimation as a former attorney general of the Old Dominion, he explained how the Supreme Court Virginia is likely likely to declare that the Virginia referendum is illegal because of all the various procedural irregularities there. So Virginia's attempts to grab four Democrat seats, this Abigail Spamberger paragraph, that's likely actually going to fail. Again, it's a little early to celebrate there, but it's entirely possible. So bear that in mind there. In any event, as I said, Mike Johnson is a very, very happy man if no one else. He's actually from Louisiana, so he has a lot of reason to celebrate there given that his state just won a big court case. But he himself is now likely to hold the speaker's gavel come January of 2027. So another huge domestic issue that is in the news and I Want to spend some time with this? This will take up definitely a decent chunk of the reindeer of today's show is Spirit Airlines going under. We covered it briefly on Friday. Spirit Airlines is actually a local company where I live in South Florida. They are headquartered in Broward County. Their home airport is Fort Lauderdale International Airport. I know exactly where Spirit Airlines is headquartered. Was headquartered, I guess technically in the past tense now. It's really not terribly far from where I live and from where many other people that you know who live in South Florida live. They had the iconic yellow planes. Spirit Airlines was a poorly managed company, and it was not just poorly managed due to the fact that they had all these crazy customers and these infamous Instagram videos. And trust me, they were infamous. I have been on five or fewer Spirit Airlines flights in my life. It's not exactly a pleasurable experience, to be honest with you. It was always a wildly entertaining experience standing at the ticket counter. But that's not actually why they were poorly managed. They were poorly managed just because they were literally poorly managed and they had multiple bankruptcies over the past few years. A lot of folks on the left are now saying that Spirit Airlines went under because of Donald Trump's war. If you want to get super conspiratorial because of Israel's war, because of just the war in general, the leftist claim against Iran, this is garbage. This is flaming, stinking garbage at that. As I just said, Spirit Airlines has declared bankruptcy numerous times just over the past few years. This happened before those multiple bankruptcy declarations happened before the war against Iran, before whatever fact there may or may not have been when it comes to rising jet fuel prices. Here's the catch. The catch is that Spirit Airlines had an escape hatch. They had it all planned out. They had an escape hatch whereby they were going to merge with JetBlue. Maybe. Maybe you've used JetBlue, maybe you haven't. I happen to actually personally be a big fan of JetBlue. I think some of their delays are a little worse, frankly, than other airlines, at least in my anecdotal experience. But the overall experience is very pleasant. Solid customer service, just generally favorable amenities. I happen to like JetBlue. So JetBlue and Spirit were trying to merge in 2024, and the Biden DOJ at the time said no. Merrick Garland was the Attorney General and Jonathan Cantor was the head of the antitrust division at doj. And they said no because they were essentially following the advice of Lina Khan. Lina Khan was the head of the Biden era ftc the Federal Trade Commission. So antitrust is complicated. Antitrust is divided between the DOJ's antitrust division. That's when you actually prosecute cases. Then for the more civil enforcement cases, then you have the ftc, which is this FDR new deal era agency called the Federal Trade Commission. It's currently headed by a wonderful lawyer by the name of Andrew Ferguson. Lina Khan is an ultra progressive who essentially operates under a big is bad theory of antitrust. Therefore, she saw this proposed merger between two fairly minor players in the airline industry and recommended to Kantor and Garland that they sue. They sued, the merger was blocked and the result, fast forward two years. Espirit Airlines is done and 17,000Americans are out of a job. Much more on this is a very, very important topic. You're not gonna get the full story elsewhere, but we will give it to you right here after a short commercial break. Stay with us. Welcome back. So Lita Khan, who was this hyper progressive, she basically was a well known law student. Yeah, really? She was a well known law student at Yale Law School and she published this law review article which I've read. I don't think it's necessarily as great as some people say it is, but okay. It was called Amazon's Antitrust Paradox. And what she was doing, Lena Khan, she was a law student, was she was making a play on a very, very, very famous article written decades ago by Bob Bork, a famous antitrust scholar turned into a failed Supreme Court nominee. Ronald Reagan nominated Bob Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987. That is when Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden tag teamed to Bork. Bob Bork. Yes. Look up Bork in the dictionary. B O R K has been turned into a verb in the modern Oxford or Merriam Webster dictionary. Basically means to spread the most slanderous, slanderous things imaginable about a fellow human being to discredit and harm the reputation. So Bob Bork was borked and failed to make it to the to the U.S. supreme Court. Which by the way is the reason that we have the modern era of highly contentious combative judicial nominations that we have today. It's literally due to Kennedy and Biden borking Bob Bork. That was 87 one year prior. 1986 was actually Anthony Scalia. So Reagan had nominees back to back years, 86 nominated nominees, Anthony Scalia. Scalia gets confirmed by a voice vote 98 to 0. Next year Bob Borick only gets 40 something votes, nearly 60 votes in opposition due to the slanderous campaign against misinformation from Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. Anyway, I digress. Before he was Ronald Reagan's failed Supreme Court nominee, Bob Bork was a very prominent antitrust scholar. He was primarily affiliated well with multiple institutions. Among them the law school that I attended, University of Chicago Law School. The University of Chicago Law School was the home of the law and economics movement which developed a different way of approaching questions of antitrust and frankly legal analysis in general, trying to imbue it with a more economic perspective. So Bob Bork wrote a very famous article decades ago called the Antitrust Paradox. And in it he developed what is known as the consumer welfare standard which is one way by which you assess whether or not a merger is competitive or anti competitive. The upshot, the upshot of the consumer welfare standard as proposed by Bob Bork. By the way, the standard was very quickly adopted like literally within like a year or two. It's shockingly shocking. It was literally adopted into the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. They actually said that the two relevant antitrust statutes, so the Sherman act of the 1890s and the Clayton act of decade and a half two decades later, that this is actually the correct way they said to interpret and enforce these statutes is using what Bob Bork called the consumer welfare standard. Consumer welfare standard basically says that a merger should be let through if it is efficient from an allocation of resource perspective. And here's the most important part, and whether or not it has a positive effect for prices for consumers. In other words, it does not have a cost increasing effect. There are a few problems with the consumer welfare standard to be sure. The main problem is that in the era of big tech, price minimization is not the only thing that we ought to care about when it comes to how to handle a proposed merger or acquisition. Think about things like Facebook, Meta, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter under the ancient regime of Jack Dorsey. Think about all the various other non price factors, ideology, censorship, dissemination of wokeism there, trying to censor narratives on vaccines or masks or 2020 election or this or that there. So what I have argued for years is that the consumer welfare standard is in theory fine, but you should one, Congress should pass a law to codify it so it's not just this judge made doctrine. And when you codify it, explain that consumer welfare is determined by other factors, not just price, but things like ideological suffocation or above all preserving a diversity of viewpoints. Because ideological diversity is the bread and butter. It is the mother's milk of a healthy and flourishing polity and body. Politicians. There's actually a bill proposed a few years ago by Mike Lee and Chuck Wressley that would do exactly that. Codify the standard, but expand the definition above just price minimization. That takes us back to Lina Khan. So in Lina Khan's Yale Law Journal article, the one, the one that went gangbusters on the left and started what is known as the new Brandeis movement of antitrust analysis, she basically said not only is the consumer welfare standard garbage insofar as it focuses only on price minimization, she said, but it's not worth saving at all. In fact, we should just ditch it in its entirety and adopt what again is now known as this neo Brandeisian approach to antitrust, which basically says big is bad. Which is a very fancy way of saying that if you have a merger and it makes the company bigger, it's bad and it should be opposed. Suffice to say this is a dramatically over simplistic view of antitrust. At the time of this proposed merger between JetBlue and Spirit, Spirit was on the brink of death. Already. You're talking about combining two airlines that are not even in the top four in the airline industry. You have the so called big four airlines of American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Airlines and Southwest Airlines. JetBlue is at best, depending on the year, at best. They are the fifth player most years. I think they're actually even below Alaska. So JetBlue is probably at best sixth in most years. Spirit is somewhere below that. They were along with Allegiant and various other minor budget options. Frontier Airlines, which is based at Denver, Colorado there. What exactly are you worried about? Lina Khan and Jonathan Cantor? What was the professed concern here? What was the concern exactly? In an industry like this, in theory, it makes Sense to allow JetBlue to better compete with the big guys when it comes to basic economics concepts, Econ 101 things like economies of scale, trying to provide a better experience for customers. So this is a very roundabout way of saying that we are here because of what the Joe Biden DOJ did, because what Merrick Garland did and what Jonathan Cantor and Jonathan Cantor actually did some good things. By the way, I'm not necessarily picking on Jonathan Cantor. He was the antitrust division head under Joe Biden. He kept up the Trump administration's lawsuits actually against Google, for instance, there. So Kantor did some good stuff in the big tech front for sure, but he was still overzealous. And this was an act of zealotry in prosecuting the JetBlue Spirit merger. And again, they did so because of the intellectual fezization of Lina Khan, a woman younger than I was, than I am, who was shockingly young when she was made the chair of the ftc. Unfortunately, you have a lot of folks on the right who take the antitrust populism too far. Again, I am populist enough to say that price should not be the only concern. We should care about ideology, viewpoint, diversity, etc. The ultra, ultra, ultra populous. I've heard JD Vance say that he is a big fan of Lina Khan. I've heard Josh Hawley say it there. This is wrong. Neobrandeisianism. Big is bad is a garbage view of antitrust. The old school price minimization is all that matters view is also wrong. There is a middle ground here and frankly, if the middle ground have been followed again, 70, 17,000Americans would not be out of a job today when it comes to Spirit Airlines going under. Sean Duffy was on Fox News talking about how this actually really is the end of Spirit Airlines. Here with Sean Duffy again.