Talkin’ Liberty is the segment of Liberty Nation Radio where Tim Donner and Scott D. Cosenza focus on a few of the week’s stories affecting our liberty that deserve a little more focus or may have been overlooked in part or whole. Here is the latest episode where we discuss a trio of issues at at the Supreme Court. You may listen here.
Tim: The Supreme Court is now in session. We've got three major issues or cases to discuss though they haven't been decided upon yet. And the first of those is a new order issued in the travel ban case. It's not actually a decision by the court so much as an order issued by them, yes?
Scott: Yes, Tim, this concerns the back and forth that has gone on with Trump's attempt to exercise control over who may enter the country pursuant to his authority under the Constitution as our chief executive. And the attempts by many groups to thwart that attempt.
Tim: I mean that right, not the right but the power, is pretty much unambiguous, is it not?
Scott: It's funny, before this controversy became evident, it seemed to be. It certainly was under President Obama’s presidency when he did all manner of restrictions without so much as anybody saying a peep. But listen, I'm happy for the fight if they want to have it. What I think is not appropriate and what was deleterious to the body politic and to America and American's lives is the issuing of so many temporary restraining orders and injunctions by lower court judges. These are judges at the trial court level, the very sort of ... And I don't mean low like they're lowly, but the lowest level of the federal courts. They're the district courts.
So a number of those judges issued bans on the enforcement of these travel rules and then the Trump administration has gone to court to try to get those bans overruled and then the fight became about those bans themselves, those injunctions themselves, and that's what we have here from the court this week. And they've said that we're not going to have anymore banning of the policies that the Trump administration has put into place. You can litigate those policies, and in fact those policies are being litigated in the courts and the courts will come to a conclusion about whether or not Trump's attempt to regulate entry into the country in the manner that he has is constitutional or not. But until the courts rule on that ultimate question, we're not going to suspend their ability to enforce the law presently.
And what that shows, Tim, is a indication that it will be held to be constitutional. And also that the lower court orders were improper. And it's disappointing. We've talked in the past before about most of these being enacted by Obama appointees, and with all else that goes on in the world about the Obama administration and its officials trying to thwart Trump administration efforts, and not necessarily in democratic ways. I think this is part of that troubling trend, and I salute the court and it was a seven to two ruling. In other words seven of the justices agreed with the issuance of these orders and two did not, Ginsburg and Sotomayor I believe.
Tim: So it was two of these so called leftists or progressive members of the Supreme Court actually voted along with the five constitutionalists.
Scott: Yes, that's exactly right. In any case the court also said that they would not accept any orders from the appellate court in this case. In other words, right now it's at the district court level. When appellate courts rule on the matter, it said, "We're not even going to let you enforce that law. What we're going to do is wait and see after the appellate courts rule, whoever loses may then apply to the Supreme Court to have it heard there"-
Tim: It certainly will.
Scott: "And we will wait until that happens, and the result of that to decide what rules we're going to allow." So I think it's great because it eliminates the back and forth. Let the cases be heard in the courts and let it play out. But in the meantime, let's have a little stability with the rules about getting into this country. Especially from places like Yemen where-
Tim: Places that were placed on the warning list, the danger list, by the Obama administration. Scott, this is a teachable moment, again, for American's about the Constitution. And an answer to the question of whether any federal judge anywhere can usurp the power of the executive. Even in situations like this where the President has clear authority, almost a shocking level of authority when it comes to immigration.
Scott: He does have a shocking level of authority when it comes to non-citizens who wish to travel to the United States.
Tim: Alright, we’ve got to get through a couple more of these that are important. The now famed Masterpiece Cake Shop versus the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The baker who doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, and Colorado says you have to.
Scott: Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, he describes himself as a quote cake artist. He's a Christian whose faith compels him to close his business on Sundays, refuses to design custom cakes that conflict with his religious beliefs, including any cake that contains alcohol. He won't bake a Halloween themed cake because he believes it conflicts with his religious beliefs. He won't bake a cake that celebrates divorce or same sex marriages.
Now Charlie Craig and David Mullins are homosexual cry bullies who want everyone else to do as they please, or the state should smash them. And they wanted Mr. Phillips to bake them a cake for their wedding, and he declined consistent with his religious beliefs, and they think that the government should compel him to do it or take his stuff and then turn it over to them. It's a fascinating case of whether or not a public accommodation includes the heartfelt artistic renderings and whether or not that is in fact what is going on here.
So if you own, for instance Tim, a large hotel, you can't discriminate against people who come to your hotel on certain bases, including in Colorado, there sexual preference. You couldn't discriminate against a gay couple. But if you had a room for rent in your own home, because of the level of intimacy that's required, you may be able to discriminate against some of those characteristics. It's about whether or not this is a public accommodation and about whether that public accommodation infringes on the free speech rights of Mr. Phillips.
Tim: Really the key word in what you just said there was artistic. Because most people aren't aware, because of course of mainstream media's not going to tell them that, that this baker would've gladly sold any of the already available goods from existing inventory to this gay couple, of any of the cakes in the window-
Scott: Certainly. He's not one of these bigot horrible Phelps family people who screams against homosexuals, he just says I can't decorate it for you because it conflicts with my thing. Go ahead and buy one of the 42 cakes that are out there, buy as many cupcakes and whatever, but I can't ... it's a violation of my -
Tim: The same way he would likely say, if a couple of Nazis came in and wanted to put a cake together with a swastika, he and probably most bakers would say I'm not going to.
Scott: You'd hope so.
Tim: I'm not going to participate in the artistic preparation of that cake. It's very different than whether you sell something from your existing inventory.
Now those two cases, the travel ban case, the gay wedding cake issue, have received a good deal of attention. Not as much as has been dedicated to the case before the Supreme Court on sports wagering and your beloved state of New Jersey.
Scott: Indeed. So current federal law prohibits sports wagering, prohibits states from allowing sports wagering except for Las Vegas. And Nevada, Delaware and I think one other state had a sort of weird sports wagering lottery that wasn't like what you and I would consider to be actual sports wagering. Giants are going to win, give me 50 bucks on them.
So New Jersey made noises that they were going to maybe legalize sports wagering. Years ago when only two states had casino gambling it was Nevada and New Jersey. Atlantic City and Vegas was basically where you could gamble, and they wanted to have some more revenue come in so they made noises like they might ... The various aspects aligned against that. Namely Las Vegas casinos and other factors, they passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, and that was sponsored by Dennis DeConcini and cosponsored by the Gambino, Lucchese and Genovese families. So much is -
Tim: Nice Irish families.
Scott: So much is spent on illegal gambling, this is the life blood of so much organized crime in this country. In fact, during that ... And the reason that it's called Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act is because the enriching Las Vegas casino owners even more act was already taken I suppose. Because that's what it was about. It's about controlling the marketplace so that if you're a marketplace participant and you can use the law to prevent others from entering the marketplace, well you're in the tall cotton at that point.
So then NBA commissioner David Stern testified in '92, it was a parade of like, "Oh, it's all going to collapse our sports, and amateur sports." Well the flip side of that is by 2014, Tim, then NBA commissioner Silver wrote an op-ed in the New York Times asking for it to be made legal because so many of the problems of the illegality had by then made themselves just so present, they couldn't be ignored. Including the NBA scandal, I think it was 2007 with Donaghy and other refs who were shaving points for gamblers. And if it's actually public, or some public knowledge about the money being spent, those things are more able to be detected. So in effect, in that op-ed, Silver said it was a $400 billion economy, the underground sports book.
Vegas I think it was last year took in about $5.2 billion in legal bets. If the underground sports book is worth $400 billion, you can imagine the pressure of that. And also the factors that so many ... That's a ton of dough, this underground economy. And it's feeding those organized crime families.
So that's sort of a practical argument, let's get to the constitutional argument. The constitutional argument is, "Hey, how come Vegas can do it and we can't. You can't tell us what we can and can't do. We're a state, you're the federal government." That's the nuts and bolts of the argument. I think that it is plain that if Nevada's allowed to do it, then New Jersey and Delaware and Texas and every other state is allowed to do it. We'll see if the Court agrees.
Tim: The new slogan could be, What happens in Vegas stays in New Jersey. Thank you, Scott.
Scott: Thanks, Tim.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
