Loading summary
Transcript21 lines
- [00:01]
Charles Barkley
Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into Sign up for your $1per month trial@shopify.com SpecialOffer the NBA Playoffs are here and I'm getting my best in on FanDuel. Talk to me Chuck GPT what do you know? All sorts of interesting stuff, even Charles Barkley's greatest fear. Hey, nobody needs to know that new customers bet $5 and get 200 in bonus bets if you win FanDuel America's number one sportsbook 21 plus in President select states must be first online real money wager $5 deposit required bonus issued is non withdrawable bonus bets that expires seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See full terms@fanduel.com Sportsbook Gambling Problem Call.
- [00:58]
Matt Plotkin
1-800-Gambler we have a major oral argument coming up this week before the United States Supreme Court on Donald Trump's executive order trying to eliminate the constitutional right of birthright citizenship. You see right here from April 17, 2025, when the Supreme Court announced that it would be holding oral argument on May 15. And sure enough, May 15 is here this week. Just take a look at this order. Consideration of the application for partial stay prepared presented to the Chief justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. Consideration of the application for partial stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. Consideration of the other application for partial stay presented to Justice Jackson and by her referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. The applications are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The applications are set for all argument at 10am on Thursday, May 15, 2025. You look at the three consolidated cases right there and one of those cases involves the State of New Jersey in their lawsuit defending the constitutional right of birthright citizenship. Something that we should know about this case, though is for what's happening before the Supreme Court at this stage, the Justice Department from the Trump regime is not asking the Court to weigh in on the legality of ending birthright citizenship just yet. Instead, the government wants the Court to put an end once and for all to nationw injunctions by District courts that have the effect of blocking presidential policies everywhere in the country is what the Trump regime is saying after they would just go to the Northern District of Texas when former President Biden was in office and get injunction after injunction to block things like student loan, debt forgiveness and expansions of rights and freedoms that Biden was trying to do. Just take a look right here at what Donald Trump just recently said about birthright citizenship in the United States Constitution and his belief by executive order, he can just eliminate it, which he can't. He has no clue what birthright citizenship is, where it's found in the Constitution. But watch him just run his mouth for a little bit. And then I want to bring in the attorney general from the state of New Jersey who is going to be leading the oral argument. The solicitor general from his office is going to be the person making the oral argument. But let's take a look at what Trump wrote in his mouth here.
- [03:21]
Unnamed Attorney General
Quickly. A short time ago, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in the case about ending birthright citizenship. How confident are you that the court will rule in your favor and allow that order to end birthright citizenship to go forward?
- [03:35]
Charles Barkley
Well, you're just telling me that for the first time, I am so happy. I think the case has been so misunderstood. That case, birthright citizenship, is about slavery. If you look at the details of it, the signings of it, everything else, that case is all about slavery. And if you view it from, from that standpoint, people understand it.
- [03:59]
Matt Plotkin
Let's bring in New Jersey Attorney General Matt Plotkin. Attorney General Plotkin. So we have something called the United States Constitution. Then Donald Trump, by executive order, not even a law, an executive order like birthright citizenship, it's about slavery or whatever he's saying right there. Your state kicked into high gear, filed one of the first lawsuits on this, and now you're in front of the Supreme Court. Tell us about the oral argument, what you expect and what this case is all about.
- [04:32]
Unnamed Attorney General
Well, first, thanks for having me. And, yeah, what the president said there and what he said, frankly, in his executive order at 8pm on the first day in office, trying to be the first president in 157 years to take the interpretation that he just said to rewrite the plain text of the 14th Amendment, that after a civil war, we came together as a nation and said never again are we going to debate whether babies born on US Soil are in fact entitled to the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. We settled that with the Civil War. And for a century and a half, the Supreme Court, and basically everyone in the United States understood that that was the way citizenship worked. And now we'll be leading the argument at the Supreme Court on behalf of a coalition of states that sued immediately. We were in court the next morning after he filed that order, because it affects us, it affects our residents, and it affects us as states. And think about this. You know, they want to say that in this phase, they want to say that citizenship is decided based on whether or not your state attorney general joined our suit. So for New Jersey, if you're a parent giving birth in South Jersey, well, a lot of those parents go to Philadelphia hospitals. And so Pennsylvania is not in our suit. So they would say that your citizenship is decided based on which hospital you go to for residents in our state. No one seriously thinks the Constitution works that way. It hasn't worked that way since the Civil War. And I'm confident we're going to prevail next week.
- [06:00]
Matt Plotkin
What do you think, though, about the procedural posture of this? Because, you know, the merits of the birthright citizenship issue, at least I think before the Supreme Court, is a little bit secondary to the nationwide injunction issue about whether a federal court sitting in one district can basically issue an overall injunction blocking actions throughout the nation. Now, former President Biden was in office. We see the Trump administration use this over and over and over again. Tell us, though, procedurally, is this case focused on the merits? Is it gonna get into the constitutional right of birthright citizenship? Or when we watch the oral argument, is it gonna be a little bit focused on nationwide injunctions and the merit there?
- [06:52]
Unnamed Attorney General
Well, again, I think you're right that there's been some hypocrisy in terms of when this administration does and doesn't like nationwide injunctions. But put aside that debate for a second. Our position here is clear. I don't see how you could consider whether this order should apply to every state without considering the merits of what we're talking about. I gave you the example earlier about the child being born in Philadelphia who lives in South Jersey. But just think about it for a second. I mean, we were talking earlier. You and I have both lived in different states. Most Americans have lived in different states throughout their lives, and people move in this country. So what this court would be saying, if in fact it's saying, no, it only applies this injunction right now, only applies to the states that are in this suit, meaning the states that have brought suit against the administration, then effectively, each state would be in a position and the residents of our state would be parsing through who's a citizen and who isn't, based on which state they live in at the time of their birth and potentially where they move to. No one seriously thinks the 14th Amendment or the constitutional rights of this nation apply to you based on which state you live in. But that's effectively the argument that the administration, the Trump administration is making to the court.
- [08:05]
Matt Plotkin
I want to switch topics and talk about these big law firms that have been capitulating. You know, I had Dean Chemerinsky right now, he's the dean of UC Berkeley on, and he's started UC Irvine a legend. He said, you know, that the profession in general should be ashamed of itself. I think was the words that he used for how some of these lawyers have been behaving, waving and capitulating for, for Donald Trump. We saw Justice Sotomayor come out and speak publicly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson saying, look, if you're not equipped to defend the Constitution and be courageous, then just like, don't be a lawyer, like, don't come into this profession. And to see, you know, Supreme Court justices outspoken like that is something, you know, I think worth noting as well. What's going on? What do you see, you know, here? What, what's, what's your views of it all?
- [09:02]
Unnamed Attorney General
Yeah, I think this is a look yourself in the mirror moment. As an attorney, do you stand for the things that we've said we stand for? Are you willing to uphold the oath that you took to uphold the Constitution and zealously advocate for your client, something that we are all obligated to do? And I've been very disappointed in what we, as attorneys general have collectively called a capitulation by some of the most powerful law firms to what are clearly, clearly illegal and unconstitutional orders issued by the President targeting lawyers for doing their job, targeting lawyers for taking cases and bringing their clients interest to court. And look, I'm the Attorney General of my state. I represent nine and a half million people. I am routinely on the other side of the table with lawyers, including some of the very law firms that I'm in court now standing up for and saying their right to zealously advocate for their clients cannot be then flipped on its head and have them targeted and have their business model targeted by an administration who doesn't like it. I would never even contemplate doing that as the Attorney General, much less actually implement it. And so this is bigger than just any one firm. This is about whether the attacks on the press, the attacks on universities, the attacks on people's right, their first Amendment right to go to court and advocate for their interests, whether those rights are going to stand. And if they don't, then we are clearly on the path to authoritarianism in this country. And so this is a really big fight. And I've very much been disappointed in some of my colleagues in the profession who have not recognized the significance of this moment and have instead put their own personal self interest ahead of the interest of this nation.
- [10:42]
Matt Plotkin
You mentioned universities as well, and you've seen different universities respond differently as well. We've seen some universities step up. We've seen some universities sign these ridiculous contracts in principle, giving the Trump regime who knows what they think they're giving them. But you know, with Trump, if you give him an inch, he takes much more than that. Talk to us about the efforts from your office. Also, though, just in general with education, Trump's attack on education, everything from trying to rip school lunches out of the mouths of children, you know, to gutting funding at universities, it's systemic at every level, a dismantling of education.
- [11:25]
Unnamed Attorney General
Yeah. This has been the most anti education, anti public education administration maybe in the history of this nation. Certainly incredibly hostile to what every American relies on. 85% of Americans send their kids to K through 12 public schools. And yet on Valentine's Day, literally, as I'm having dinner with my wife, we get a letter from the federal Department of Education saying if your school had a Black History Month event or a Lunar New Year event or Honored Martin Luther King Day, you can lose the entirety of your federal funding. So just think about that. You have parents of kids with special needs. If you're a parent of a kid with autism, this administration has said, if you have one of those events, which, by the way, the president had a Black History Month event in the Oval Office, and by the own terms of his own orders, he would lose federal funding for doing that. That parent of that kid with autism might lose the aid that they rely upon every day. Who takes care of their child. And at the university level, they have threatened to cripple institutions of higher education strictly for unrelated political purposes. I mean, threatening to revoke the entirety of NIH funding, which, by the way, ensures that people on clinical trials for cancer and Alzheimer's can get their treatments. I mean, raise your hand if you think the American public went to the polls last November to cap administrative fees for NIH grants. Nobody knows what that is. But the upshot is every university in America in red states and in blue states would be shut down overnight if the order that we Blocked was allowed to go into effect. So this is extreme. And again, it's part of a pattern of attacking critics of his universities, the press, lawyers, people who do their job, myself and other my colleagues in our coalition. But I know that there are a number of people who have still stood up like us and are not going to back down in the face of what are really authoritarian threats on our rights in this country.
- [13:19]
Matt Plotkin
You know, I try to focus our audience here. There's so much going on, it's sometimes like whack a mole. Right. We talked about executive orders on birthright citizenship. We talk about him gutting universities. We talked about him disappearing human beings to, you know, sea cotton El Salvador. When I spoke to Attorney General Bonta of California, we talked about Trump attacking things like the Japanese American Museum in Los Angeles to other museums throughout this, going after funding of museums. I've talked to lawyers about Trump gutting Smithsonian museums and taking artifacts out of the African American history. I mean, the libraries in New Jersey are one of his targets. I mean, he's gone for the, the libraries. You know, I mean, I just remember growing up library. Not to mention separately, you know, Trump fired the Librarian of Congress, which he doesn't have the ability to do. But, but talk to us about that. You had to get an injunction for him to stop gutting New Jersey libraries where people just want to read.
- [14:24]
Unnamed Attorney General
Yeah, libraries. NPR, PBS, and again, K through 12 schools, universities. And for me, as a chief law enforcement officer, let's not forget that he has also gone after law enforcement. A couple weeks ago, I came back from an interfaith event to a notice that millions of dollars of funding that puts cops on the streets were being illegally and immediately cut. So this has been an across the board attempt to use the federal government to weaponize the federal government against people, places, states, entities that he doesn't like based on however he decides to wake up that morning and whatever he decides to sign with that sharpie. And the constitution of this nation was put in place for a reason. They did not want a king. And this president, all of the things you're talking about has been him acting like a king. And it started on day one with birthright citizenship, and it has continued through the first hundred plus days of his administration. And so your point is, right, though it's hard for the public to keep up. It's sometimes it's hard for us. But he is making a bet that people won't care. He is making a bet that, yes, we're gonna lose some in court and he has lost in court. We have been successful in almost all of our cases, if not all of them. But he's making a bet that the public won't care that their rights are being threatened, that the principles enshrined in our nation's foundational document, whether it be the 14th amendment or any other issue we've taken up, that they don't care enough about it. And I think he's going to be wrong about that. I've seen it out there. And it's important that the public keeps following places like podcasts like yours and places that are reporting on this and giving them information in real time so they can be aware of what's happening, because it's unprecedented, it's alarming, and it is not consistent with how this nation is supposed to function.
- [16:19]
Matt Plotkin
Final question for you. You're the Attorney General of New Jersey. We've been hearing a lot about Newark Airport. You've posted about this as well. These Doge cuts to the faa, you know, have resulted in kind of massive delays there. And I know a lot of that's federal jurisdiction. You're the state Attorney General. But, you know, I don't know what it is you can do or what knowledge that you've been given, because it seems every time you have the Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, on, he's lying and claiming, oh, former President Biden did not give any infrastructure money, you know, for FAA safety. When you just look at it, I mean, you go to faa.gov you literally see what money was going for, for. For. For the use, you know, here. And he's always just blaming, blaming. It's like, look, we're well over 100 days into this administration. You need leaders to be leaders. And I think people are just worried with what they're hearing. So what can you tell us about what's going on in Newark Airport, and what should we know?
- [17:19]
Unnamed Attorney General
Yeah, you're right. Newark Airport is an incredibly important airport, not just for New Jersey, but for the entire nation. It's one of the busiest airports in the world. And I just wish this administration would start doing their jobs, stop pointing fingers, stop doing things for political purposes that are illegal, and do your jobs. And this is a great example of it. Now, I have no idea all of the people that they've cut through Doge and the faa, because they won't tell us. But we've taken Elon Musk to court. We were successful in getting him to stop stealing our personal data, our most sensitive data, which was, I think, the purpose of his whole exercise. And this is a great example. You cut people from the faa. You don't know what the impact is. We saw them cut nuclear regulators. We saw them cut people who make sure our planes land on time and sure enough they're not. And so I do hope that they start just doing their job, not doing what DOT is actually doing right now, which is illegal, which is trying to mandate immigration enforcement policies through coercive grant conditions that I'm sure we'll be seeing them in court on not too distant future. But let's be clear. The Department of Transportation is responsible and the FAA is responsible for making sure that our airports run on time. Stop pointing fingers, stop focusing on things that are outside of your mandate and get New Jerseyans and everybody else who flies through our airport to and from where they want to go on time and safely. That is what they expect when they go to the airport, not all this other nonsense.
- [18:52]
Matt Plotkin
Attorney General Matt Plotkin, thank you for joining us.
- [18:55]
Unnamed Attorney General
Thanks so much for having me.
- [18:56]
Matt Plotkin
And come back after the oral argument. I want that post game recap if you can.
- [19:01]
Unnamed Attorney General
I will. And we can talk about a Knicks win then too.
- [19:03]
Matt Plotkin
Sounds great. Everybody hit subscribe. Let's get to 5 million subscribers. Can't get enough Midas? Check out the Midas substack for ad free articles, reports, podcasts, daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski and more. Sign up for free now@midasplus.com.