Barrett and Roberts Side with Libs at SCOTUS, Woke Wiener Harassed, and "Supergirl" Bombs, with Mike Davis and Stu Burguiere | Ep. 1349

The Megyn Kelly Show

The Megyn Kelly Show critiques a Supreme Court decision upholding Mississippi's post-election ballot counting law, blaming Justices Barrett and Roberts for siding with liberals. The episode also covers conflicting ruling

Key takeaways

• Barrett and Roberts sided with liberals on election law

Transcript preview

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Serious XM channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly show. Happy Monday on a very busy news day. Man, the hits are coming from the US Supreme Court. Steuber gear will be with us shortly, but we begin with the breaking news out of the high court and a truly surprising decision. The justice is in a five-four, decision upholding a Mississippi law. Already it's weird because the Trump administration is on the other side of a Mississippi law which you would already expect that those two things would be aligned the Trump administration and a Mississippi law but they weren't. The Republican National Committee actually brought this suit and then the Trump administration got involved because it involves what is the question of what does election day mean? When can one vote when the law says election day is this particular day. two months after like in California where it seems as long as you can convince them that your ballot may even have your own handwriting on it saying I swear this is being postmarked on election day it can be counted for days and weeks thereafter or does it have to be the day of does that ballot have to be received the day of the election and the Trump administration and the RNC have lost and this is big this is this is I'm sorry to say this but this is a massive gift to Democrats. I mean, look, what was at issue here was they were postmarked by election day, Mississippi, that's what the law says, and received by state election officials within five business days. But can you ever remember a case in which ballots came in after election day and it helped the Republicans? I can't remember a single instance of that. It always helps the Democrats, gee, so strange how that works out. And it's one of those things where Republicans can't prove it, but they smell a rat, like in California and the mayoral race. And the Democrats, I think, have gotten very clever about manipulating this system in a way that magically tips the balance their way. Where like Nithi Raman, who was... in last position out there in that mayoral race suddenly surged to first in jurisdictions that she had been trailing in she was down in single digits and now suddenly wins them thanks to that mail and vote guess her her voters were just awfully silent about their love and support for her prior to the election day or could it have been shenanigans by these paid Democrat operatives exploiting the homeless and others to make sure that ballots came in late. And out there the rules are so loose on postmarks and so on. Literally they're saying if you just write the date on the envelope and you write, you know, Tuesday, November, whatever, or whatever the election day was out there, it's accepted. Here's what happened in this case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee. She's supposed to be one of ours. Why do ours, why are they always so wiggly? Honestly, like the Libs, you can take it to the bank, Kagan, S, Sotomayor, Sotomayor, Sotomayor, Sotomayor, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan, Kagan. Shea Brown Jackson, Kagan. Sheaumjantinjantinjantin'i brown Jackson, she's their commitment to their side. They never abandon their side. Only in the most obvious cases where like they, I mean they just get killed if they didn't in terms of the you know blowback, the rhetorical blowback, but they stick together. Amy Coney Barrett is a turncoat. She's constantly siding with the left. John Roberts obviously and he is pursuing the wrong agenda as Chief Justice. You know he's an institutional estimate to protect the Supreme Court. That's not your job. That's not your job in the actual decision-making? I can see in protecting the Supreme Court's reputation standing up for justices who are under attack, you know threatened physically, but you change your vote for that? I don't know that that's what he did here, but it's definitely what he did in upholding Obamacare. So those two, you know, we're supposed to have six three conservatives, and today we only had four conservatives, and that's how we lost. to the liberal side and Barrett even wrote the court's majority opinion Mississippi's a red state but the decision is expected to have a major impact more than anywhere in Democrat heavy states whose elected officials often encourage residents to vote by mail which in turn causes votes to still be counted days if not weeks after the election's over. Case in point California as I mentioned with the Spencer Pratt situation there. the state Republican Party, various individuals as well, had filed the initial lawsuit and the case was combined with a similar lawsuit from the Libertarian Party of Mississippi. The plaintiffs arguing that the federal law defines an election as the day by which ballots must both be cast and received, meaning absentee votes received after election day should not be counted. This just seems so basic. But the majority at the high court disagreed. With Barrett writing, quote, election day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward. Justice Alito, a true conservative writing a blistering dissent, quote, not only is today's decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent, it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences. The majority's holding a slurry of troubling election law questions and risks further undermining America's confidence in election integrity. Boy does he get it. Alito during oral arguments appearing to make the case that election day should as every other quote day with a capital D we have be considered one single day. We have lots of phrases that involve two words the last of which Day, Labor Day Memorial Day, George Washington's birthday, Independence Day, Birthday, and Election Day, and they're all particular days. So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase Election Day, I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place and or almost everything. And then we have three points in time. 1874, 1872, 1914. And we can ask, what would people have thought on those days is meant by this phrase election day? Well, unfortunately, didn't go his way. Those years that Justice Alito listed there are the years the federal election laws at issue and the case became law. According to the New York Times, there are similar absentee ballot laws in at least 18 other states and territories, including 2026 battleground districts in Nevada and California. me now for reaction is the Article 3 Project founder and President Mike Davis. When you signed your insurance policy for some brokers that's the finish line. Handshake, commission, done. Then you may not hear from them again until it's time for renewal, in which case they're your best friend once again. Your business runs all year, however, and so do the gaps and the risk. And that's why I want to tell you about super sure. If your company has more than 25 employees, whether you are the owner, the CFO or an HR manager, it can be too complex to just buy a policy online. SuperSure is the super agency built for you, licensed in every state for your business insurance and employee benefits with year-round support for you and your team. At superSure.com you can access tools like fine print facts which translates your current policy into plain English so you see what's covered and what's not. Plus a business value calculator so you can estimate what your business is worth and know what's worth and know what's actually needs protecting. Go to super sure.com slash Megan one super agency one powerful platform all your policies in one place go to super sure dot com slash Megan paid for by super sure insurance agency LLC a licensed insurance agency Mike great to see you of course Alito did the right thing but Barrett and Roberts turncoats on a really important one. with today's Supreme Court rulings is election day does not mean election day the president has the article two power to fire ftc. Commissioners but somehow he does not have the article two power to fire governors on the federal reserve board of governors because apparently we have a fourth branch of government. I mean it's just incoherents per usual coming out of the Supreme Court of the United States. We had rulings several days ago where the president can end temporary protected status for Haitians who came here 16 years ago after an earthquake and Syrians who came here 14 years ago after civil unrest. But what that and then we could also, the Supreme Court also said we can ensure that we keep asylum seekers out of of our country by stopping them before they get to the border. You can only claim asylum once you're in the United States. But you watch, Megan, tomorrow, I guarantee you the Supreme Court is going to rule that birthright, we somehow gave birthright citizenship to Chinese birth tourists when we fought a civil war. Yeah, I know, they're all over the board. Do you know what I'm saying? When the Libs have the majority on the Supreme Court, this doesn't happen to that. them. The liberal justices know why they're there and they behave accordingly. They vote accordingly. It's only the Republicans who become the wishy-washy institutionalists or the crossover of votes, whether it's a Kennedy or an O'Connor or a suitor who completely jumped to the other side. And now we've got Barrett and Roberts. It's very annoying, especially in a case like the Mississippi one where now we're talking about whether we can ever trust election results because post-COVID the Democrats are really enamored with this mail-in balloting thing. Yeah, we're gonna have this the effect of this Supreme Court ruling written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Professor Barrett, is we're gonna have third world elections. Election day does not mean election day. It means on election day when Democrats figure out how many votes they're behinds, they're gonna be able to go find those votes, fill out ballots, have their postal workers, postmark those ballots, and then apparently election day under Barrett's rationale is the number of days it takes for Democrats to steal the election. Yeah, that's how it feels. And I like, now it's not just going to be Mississippi because it's going to be any state that allows the mail-in ballots that as long as they're postmarked by election day that they can be. received and counted, you know, what, we're talking five days in the Mississippi case, but potentially much longer beyond that. Here is, we just got reaction from the White House on this standby. Hold on, where is it? Let me grab it. The President, I thought I screened grabbed it. Yeah, wait, does this it? Yeah. The Cook lawsuit, oh, that's actually a different one. Okay, that's on the Lisa Cook. We'll get to that in a second. okay I can't find it. So in any event that's bad news out of Mississippi. Then you made a reference to a pair of other decisions that came out today and they involve two federal firings that Trump affected. One was of Lisa Cook who is a member of the Board of Governors on the Federal Reserve the audience may remember she was accused of having lied in her mortgage applications in a way that was deeply troubling and she got as a result of it and she filed a lawsuit saying you can't fire me for stuff I may or may not have done prior to being nominated for this role and like as if you know whoops you found out that I committed you know some felony larceny when I was 25 that should no longer be relevant when you're elevating me to an important position of trust she was trying to argue it happened so long in the distant past and no one raised it no one caught me when I was applying for this job that you can't ever raise it. That was basically her argument and whether she actually did it is still in dispute too. Though it seems pretty clear to me based on what we reviewed. In any event, today the high court said, well, look, the Fed is an independent body and the president's ability to mess with who's on it, who's on that board of governors, is more limited than his powers are across other federal agencies. Though they did not say he can never fire her. they just said he can't fire her during the pendency of her lawsuit. So she is not done yet. She has not won. She won temporarily and their fight is going to go on and he could still win that. But he did get a big victory in his attempt to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who was on the Federal Trade Commission. And the court Mike held that the president's powers to fire executives at these so-called independent agencies. agencies, whether it's the FTC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the NLRB, that's the Labor Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Consumer Protection Bureau, all these things, is much greater than many people thought, because it views these as essentially executive agencies, and he's the chief executive. And the left is already freaking out about this saying, these are oversight, watch dog types. You know, President Trump's going to go, nuts like this president in particular and Sotomayor basically said that from the bench today like forget it there's nobody to oversee the president anymore he can do whatever the hell he wants at any one of these oversight agencies and no one will be watching him so your thoughts on that pair of rulings the Lisa Cook and the Rebecca Kelly Slaughter well it's it's very chief justice would release these rulings at the same time today you release one ruling where Rebecca Slaughter and the Supreme Court says that's okay and Conservatives are very happy the Supreme Court overturned Humphrey's executor, the Supreme Court ruling from the 1930s that said essentially the president can't fire people who work in the executive branch unless he had a good cause. The Supreme Court got rid of that which is a good thing. Six to three, the six conservatives found their way to stay in line for once. But then we have this other ruling with the Federal Reserve. board governor Lisa Cook where somehow she's she's that she has special status under our Constitution I I remember reading article one of the Constitution that creates Congress in the legislative power article two that creates the president his executive power article three that creates the supreme court the lower federal courts in their judicial power i guess we miss Megan when we went to law school this separate part of the constitution that creates the fourth branch of government called the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And it's really, really, really hard for the President of the United States to fire anyone on this Federal Reserve Board of Governors. That was a five to four decision that apparently the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is separate from the executive branch. Apparently, the President doesn't have the Article 2 power to fire the Federal Reserve Governors, but he does have the power to fire the FTC another independent so-so-called Government. independent commissioners it's it's a headscratcher but you had the chief justice write that opinion justice Kavanaugh joined that opinion which surprised me and it was a five to four decision with professor Barrett. Another Trump appointee yeah professor Barrett joined the the constitutional's I will just say that my former boss Neil Gorsuch did not screw us today so I'm quite pleased about that but I do think that we're gonna get screwed tomorrow on birthright citizenship I presume we'll talk about that Yes, so no it is disturbing because the court has basically accepted a legal fiction about the Fed that it's like we have the Constitution we have the articles you know you got article one the Congress article two the presidency and article three the judges where does the Fed sit it's got to be underneath one of those like it all these executive agencies are technically we understood under the president's in Article 2. So if the Fed's not there, where is it? Well, make it, it's power over it. It's in this magical Article 7. It's in this special place with the Sacred Cows in Washington, D.C. You have the Kennedy Center, you have the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and you have August recess, the three Sacred Cows of Washington that no one can touch. So that's it. Obviously, I'm joking. I mean, you're exactly right that the Supreme Court is essentially saying, the executive power under Article 2 to fire everyone in the federal government, in the executive branch, including these FTC commissioners for any reason he wants, or no reason under Article 2, the power to hire and fire. But apparently Article 2 does not include the Federal Reserve Board of Governor. So what is it? I would ask that to the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh, what is the Federal Reserve? If the President doesn't have the President, power to fire the governors, is this special committee of the Supreme Court, this Federal Reserve Board of Governors? Is it a legislative committee? I'm just scratching in my head to figure out what the hell this Federal Reserve Board of Governors is. I was just talking a friend of mine who had back surgery and they had to do like fusions and all sort of the weird things that happened into your back. And there had been a piece of bone that was like floating around in the spinal fluid, just randomly floating. I don't know what happened to it, but they had to take it to take it out and remove it out and remove it out and remove it out and remove it. the Supreme Court is treating the Fed. It's not connected to anything. It just floats on its own, you know, running around doing damage in this, and no one can remove it. No one can touch it because there's nothing that it was or ever will be a part of. That doesn't make any sense. But I do think that Lisa Cook, it's still on. He's still going to go for her because it just said you can't fire her during the pendency of this lawsuit. He's not done with her. Here is how the president. Here is how the president responded lawsuit having to do with her suitability and sitting on the board of the Federal Reserve was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis. We will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the welfare of the USA. Thank you for your attention to this matter. And by the way my team did send me his comment on Mississippi and what election day means. Here's it's very long I'll read it to impart. In light of the tremendous loss in the Supreme Court today regarding voters rights, people's in quotes votes meaning president Trump has questions about whether these are real votes that come in after the day are allowed to be counted long after an election's over it's more important than ever to pass the save america act one all voters must show up ford or id to all voters must show proof of citizenship three no mail in ballots except for illness disability military deployment or travel there's no excuse for a politician or otherwise to be against the above three requirements there is only one reason to oppose cheating the house the house the house the house of representatives the house this vital act three times the US Senate seems unable to do so in a time when there is a powerful communist movement taking place in our country one more dangerous than World War one to Pearl Harbor or September 11th all Democrats and our five Republican Senate holdouts Murkowski Collins Tillis Cassidy and McConnell must vote to save our country there can be no more excuses those are the senators who are saying no on the save act not just on getting it a vote but on the actual act itself they are prepared to vote, no, they don't like the Save Act. And then, no, I don't, I don't know what can be done to preserve integrity at the ballot box without the Save Act and now with this lawsuit, with this Supreme Court decision. Back to Lisa Cook and this Rebecca Slaughter and this pair of decisions, Mike. Something extraordinary happened on the Supreme Court bench. Soda Meyer was very angry over the slaughter decision. Again, that's the one in which the court said. he does have the ability to fire these executives at these so-called independent agencies, these agencies that I just listed, though they didn't limit them. There's some 18 of them and basically Trump can fire executives at all of them now and the next president can too. And they essentially overruled this case called Humphrey's executor that had allowed that and the court said, no, they're not like the floating piece of bone. They're connected to the spinal column and Trump rules that. P. Oed, she dissented, and this is the New York Times reporter who was in the courtroom writing, one of the most notable moments was her dissent when she criticized the court for extending its quote, maximalist view of presidential power. She spoke firmly, often extending a look to Chief Justice Roberts, who delivered the majority opinion, which in this case went against the Libs. He did not meet her gaze. As the minutes went on, she began to stumble over her words. As Sotomayor asserted that quote, The one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow and quote her fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan seated several chairs to her left looked overcome with emotion What is it with these you know the hands up there like oh I'm distraught I'm distraught I'm you know pointed barbs about President Trump the man and overwrought? I would say this to justice Sotomayor. Look, does she think that we should have these executive branch bureaucrats not report to the duly elected president of the United States? We should just have the Tony Fauchies of the world, just do whatever the hell they want and there's no Democrats accountability ever. The reason the liberals wanted Humphrey's executor, this Wilsonian... mess of government is because the liberals control the federal government. These career bureaucrats who work in the executive branch are overwhelmingly liberals or even worse, Marxist, socialist, communist, right? And so we're just supposed to defer to these so-called experts who are unelected and unaccountable to anyone, including the American people through our duly elected president. We have something that's called elections to just. as Sotomayor and the other liberal hens. And if they don't like what the president is doing with his executive branch, A, we don't have to give the executive branch bureaucrats as much power as we do. And B, we can throw out the president and put in a new party to run it, how the American people wanted to run it. We just did this, for example, with immigration. their vote on election day for their vote on the high court. They're two different things and they have less power than they'd like. I want to ask you a question not about the Supreme Court today, although just to reiterate what you said tomorrow is the last day of opinions for the Supreme Court this term and we know then that we're going to be getting at least, well we're definitely going to be getting the remaining four opinions, two of which are the biggest opinions of the term. whether President Trump has the right to say the birth right citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment does not does not apply to birth right tourists who come over here from China have their babies here and then declare that they're American citizens with all the same rights you and I have and our kids have and the other is whether states can ban the participation of so-called trans-athletes in girls sports do they have the right it's it won't even if it goes our way it's not going to ban that practice in 50-state It's just a question of whether those more conservative leaning states have said we're not going to allow this Have the right to say we're not going to allow this and I think that'll go our way and I agree with you a birthright citizenship will not But I want to ask you about something else in the news that's that relates to one of your favorite issues and