Is it fair to distribute electoral college votes and congressional seats by counting all people, not just citizens? Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., is suing the federal government because he thinks Alabama will be hurt because of the current methodology of the census. We also cover these stories:•The Trump administration announces new asylum rules.•President Trump defends his "go back" tweets, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemns him. •Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley call on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate social media companies' practices.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
Today's episode features a grab-bag of stories that have been making the rounds, including the recent ruling out of the Second Circuit regarding Donald Trump's use of Twitter, a setback for our buddy Brian Frosh's efforts to enforce the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and an update on the real-word consequences of the Janus v. AFSCME decision we decry so much around here.
We begin with the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump, which established that a government official may convert a social media platform such as Twitter into a "limited use public forum," from which he may not block users on the basis of the political content of their speech -- i.e., viewpoint discrimination. Almost no one understands this decision; we'll make sure you're one of the lucky ones who do!
Then, it's time for a breakdown of the 4th Circuit's ruling in In re Trump, which directs the lower court to dismiss the lawsuit (and pending discovery) against Trump in the lawsuit brought by Maryland and D.C. alleging violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Find out what this case is all about, whether the outcome is reasonable, and what's next.
After that, it's time for a quick look at the real-world implications of the Janus v. AFSCME decision allowing public-sector union employees to withhold a portion of their dues otherwise allocated for administrative duties under... some crazy right-wing theory that something something something, because Sam Alito knows diminishing the power of unions will hurt Democrats. But what else did that decision do? Listen and find out!
After all that, it's time for the most controversial #TTTBE yet, in which we discover the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam (regarding larceny and robbery) ... or do we? You won't want to miss this one!
In the interview, Jason Zinoman, who writes about the New York Times, thinks the late-night shows need to return to the playful cruelty they once had. He and Mike talk about the current state of things, David Letterman’s reign, and why even Letterman seems to have lost his teeth on his new show.
In the Spiel, Trump and tweets about the Congress squad.
Eric talks with Ed O’Bannon, a former professional basketball player whose landmark lawsuit forced a national conversation on whether the NCAA should pay college athletes. It’s a conversation with massive implications for the thousands of unpaid Black athletes whose work makes millions of dollars for their colleges. Strangely, all this started with a video game.
The President tells four Democratic Congresswomen of color to go back to the countries where they came from, House Democrats continue their intraparty feud, and Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders debate their health care plans. Then Politico’s Tim Alberta talks to Jon F. about his new book on how Donald Trump took over the Republican Party.
House Democrats are poised to pass a $15 minimum wage this week—a policy that’s become more and more mainstream within the Democratic Party. But would it actually help workers? What effect would it have on the economy? And what effect has it already had in places where it’s been tried? We ask those questions and more in today's conversation with Rachel Greszler, a labor expert at The Heritage Foundation. Plus: The Netflix series "13 Reasons Why" removes a controversial scene depicting teen suicide. We discuss.We also cover these stories:-President Trump denies racism in weekend tweets, while Republican offer divided response-Justice Department decides not to bring civil rights charge against New York police officer in death of Eric Garner-Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduces bills aimed at reining in college tuition and student loan debtThe Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
On June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court decided North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, a case considering the ability of states to tax trust income for in-state beneficiaries even when these beneficiaries do not receive any distributions. About thirty years ago, Joseph Lee Rice II formed a trust for the benefit of his children and their families. The trust was formed in New York State and governed by New York law, as well as administered by a trustee who is a New York resident. Kimberley Rice Kaestner moved to North Carolina in 1997 and claimed residency from 2005-2008. After the move, the trustee opted to divide Rice’s initial trust into three separate subtrusts while still maintaining control of all three trusts. The trust at issue in this case is the Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust (“Kaestner Trust”), which North Carolina sought to tax on the grounds that it “is for the benefit of” North Carolina residents. North Carolina taxed the trust for tax years 2005-2008, levying a bill of more than $1.3 million. The trustee paid the tax under protest and sued North Carolina in state court, arguing that the tax as applied to the Kaestner Trust violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kaestner had received no income from the trust during the years in question, the trust was governed by New York law, and the trustee did not live in North Carolina. The state courts ruled in favor of Kaestner, and the State of North Carolina obtained a grant of certiorari. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that “the presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it.” Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Gorsuch. To discuss the case, we have Jon Urick, Senior Counsel for Litigation at the US Chamber Litigation Center.
Chinese tech company Huawei is widely perceived to pose a threat to US national security. Considering the high costs of mitigating that threat the way US policy makers seem to be demanding, the US public first should be convinced that the threat is dire and that the prescribed measures are necessary. Dan Ikenson comments.
Chinese tech company Huawei is widely perceived to pose a threat to US national security. Considering the high costs of mitigating that threat the way US policy makers seem to be demanding, the US public first should be convinced that the threat is dire and that the prescribed measures are necessary. Dan Ikenson comments.
There was little evidence this weekend of the widespread immigration raids long promised by President Donald Trump. But his campaign of sowing fear seems to be working. Many of China’s infrastructure projects in Africa have been costly flops, and China is tightening its purse strings. Also, Colombia’s centuries-old ceremonies under the influence of a hallucinogenic brew are bringing in tourists and new problems.
