RADIOJune 14, 2022

This SCOTUS case could MASSIVELY alter far-left strategy

It’s decision time for the U.S. Supreme Court, with 29 opinions expected to be delivered from the SCOTUS justices in the next few weeks. No major decisions (like Roe v. Wade for example) have been announced yet, but there is one case that Glenn says could ‘change everything.’ Glenn and Stu discuss the climate change case that centers on the EPA’s authority, and they explain how it could drastically alter the far-left’s current strategy to use powerful, federal agencies to bypass Congress.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We are so glad you're here. It is Monday. And we have some Supreme Court hearings -- or, opinions come out. So far, nothing real controversial or real important. I mean, they're -- they're all important. It's just an honor to be nominated to be an opinion of the Supreme Court.

(laughter)

GLENN: But nothing that is controversial. That we know of. So far. Has the fourth one come down yet?

STU: Yeah. We have on an Alito opinion. Everybody get excited. It's in the Garland versus Gonzalez case. So not the Dobbs case, that would affect Roe vs. Wade. Which is kind of the Alito case we're looking for.

GLENN: So the Gonzalez case?

STU: Yeah. Huge one. So immigration law again.

GLENN: What was -- wait a minute. This was the immigration law one?

STU: Not the one about the remain in Mexico provision, which is one of the bigger cases that we're looking for in this session. However, it's not that one. We're getting multiple other unrelated immigration law decisions. Which, again, there's 29 of these. The American people, generally speaking, care -- care about maybe five or six of them. We talked about the abortion one. Which is obviously the biggest ticket. The gun -- the Second Amendment case, we talked about as well, which is another big ticket item. There's a big climate change one, decision that we expect here soon. Which is about whether the federal government. This is a big one. If you want to go back and listen to Glenn's interview with Mike Lee, you guys probably hit on this, certainly concept. I do remember that. But I don't know if you mentioned this one specifically. But basically, the idea is, do these administrative agencies get to make up all of these rules, or does Congress have to do it? And, of course, Congress has to do it. We've just developed this new policy, to say, what if Congress makes the decision? And they say, our decision is that the administrative hedge to make all these decisions for us. And that's the way our countries run right now.

GLENN: This is game-changing. If the Supreme Court comes out, it's my understanding, you know, we should have Mike Lee on every day this week. Just have him in reserve just in case. But it's my understanding that if the Supreme Court says they can't just fiddle with this. That laws have to be made by Congress. And I don't know how the constitutional Supreme Court wouldn't find that, seeing as though it actually says in the Constitution, those words. That Congress makes the laws. Not the administration. If that happens. That changes everything. Really, truly, everything.

STU: Yeah. It's like, you know, if somebody said -- you know, our overlords said, Stu, you have to make a decision. And I said, I will make the decision. And my decision is Glenn should decide. That is obviously not the --

GLENN: I've been in meetings. I believe I've been in meetings, where that has been happened.

STU: We're not -- we're not affected by the Constitution at this company. I can do whatever I want.

GLENN: We're not. Stu, I need a decision from you. My decision is, Glenn, that you are to make that decision. Oh, thank you. Okay. Good.

STU: I just learned from the government. But that's obviously a problem. And when it comes to climate in this particular case, it's about whether these administrations. Like the EPA can put all these restrictions on power plants, in -- en masse. Like, basically, oh, all these power plants have all this rule. Instead of actually regulating each individual one. This would be a huge knock in the way leftist activists would make changes based on their climate change theories. So that is a big one.

GLENN: And it -- yeah. It also would go to, for instance, can the CDC. Was it the CDC that just said, everybody has to wear masks. No. You don't have the right to do that. You don't make those kinds of laws. Was it the CDC? Or, which one?

STU: Technically, they didn't say that. They had a recommendation that said that. Because we are protected. Because we have a structure of government, that protects us from agencies making those sorts of regulations on their own. They can't just put a national regulation to enforce masks. If you go back and look at the details. Even of the shutdowns, Glenn. I mean, the shutdowns -- everybody remembers a shutdown as this big federal shutdown. They remember Donald Trump in front of the country saying, 15 days to slow the spread. Everybody remembers that press conference. But at no point, was there of law behind every state you need to shut down. And you remember states like -- like South Dakota. And Iowa. Not doing it. They didn't -- they didn't do that. A lot of people decided to stay home, on their own. But there was not a nationwide shutdown at any point during the pandemic. That actually didn't happen. And so that's because of the structure of our country. Right? That is foundational to why we've been a success. Because these states are able to do different things, whether we like them or not. And so the left would love this to be centralized. They just, of course, don't have that right.

GLENN: If you remember, however, when it comes to Obamacare, do you remember reading that? Because that's the one bill where I think we all read all 3,000 pages or whatever. Oh, my gosh. And do you remember how many times almost on every page, it said, the secretary shall make the laws or the rulings on X, Y, and Z.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the reason why Congress has done this, is because they want to go, it's not us. It's not us. We didn't make that law. I don't have any control over that law. And our Founders -- the one thing they did miss is they thought that human beings, because this is the way it normally works. Human beings would claw for power. And so they think and broke the powers up, between these three branches. Thinking, that they would never give away their power to the Supreme Court. Or to the administration. The administration would never give it to Congress or the Supreme Court. But they're all such weasels, that they don't want to actually do anything. They don't want to make any hard decisions. And so they're all like, yeah. Let some faceless, nameless bureaucrat, that's never been elected to dogcatcher. Let him make the decision. That way, we can go, I don't know who made that decision. That's weird. We didn't make it. It was somebody in the EPA. You'll never know their name. Okay. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

STU: Yeah. No. It's not. You're supposed to be able to hold people accountable for the terrible things that they do. This is something the government does all the time. Unfortunately, no matter what this ruling is, it will not unwind all that craziness. It will at least limit the environmental activist sort of agenda, on this approach. And that would -- that would be certainly positive. It does look like, we will not get the huge, big ticket cases, today.

GLENN: I wouldn't think we would.

STU: Yeah. It would have been very surprising, if we did get that. It does not look like -- it looks like there will be one more coming down. But it will not be one of the big ones. So I think we'll get more decisions on Wednesday this week. Who honestly would know though?

GLENN: Yeah. We do.

STU: I feel like they changed these rules every ten seconds. As you point out, in the case of Obamacare, which also broke in the middle of the show. Every news agency, reported that wrong, when that happened. If you were listening to any radio show. Any news broadcast. You thought initially Obamacare was completely overturned. And I -- we were the only ones who actually got that right when it happened. Because everybody was --

GLENN: We were like, wait a minute. Hold on just a second.

STU: Yeah. They skipped to the bottom. And looked at the names. And were like, okay. It must be this. And we went through that, as quick as possible, live on the air. And say, wait a minute. That's not what this says. Everybody is reporting, it got overturned. It didn't. The Medicare point of that, was kind of a false, you know, was a juke to one side. And everyone bought that. And wound up flat on their face that day.

GLENN: Well, also, I think we learned our lesson. If John Roberts wrote the decision. It doesn't mean it went for the conservatives. You better spend a lot of time, looking at every word, that he wrote. I just made the same mistake, kind of. I said, oh, it's Amy Coney Barrett. And so it must be for the -- the -- the conservatives. That's not always true. And that's what people do real quick, while they're on the air, like I did. But hopefully, she's pretty solid. John Roberts, I -- I mean, he's even -- is he anything other than a politician, at this point? I wouldn't call him a liberal. I wouldn't call him a conservative. I would call him a politician.

STU: It seems to be what he sees his job as. He sees his job as head PR operative for the Supreme Court. Like, how do we make people like us more? How do we keep our reputation strong? Well, how about just looking at the damn Constitution, and making an honest decision.

GLENN: Right. During the podcast with Mike Lee. We talked about that. And he said, John Roberts is a direct product of the FDR packing the courts. He said, the chief justice at the time, that was a constitutionalist. And was voting for the Constitution, he said, he suddenly started voting with the administration. And he was doing it, because he didn't want anymore attacks on the Supreme Court. He thought that that would hurt things. And that is exactly what, you know, he -- John Roberts is a legacy. He is sitting as the guy running the Supreme Court. And he feels his job is to make sure that nobody attacks the institution even more. And I will tell you, the way to get attacked, the way to discredit the institution, is to start veering from your path constitutionally. And that was the really big problem with -- with Obamacare's decision. He actually rewrote the law from the bench. The -- the best that the Supreme Court can do, is say, look, this is wrong. And if it was written this way, it wouldn't be. And then send it back to Congress. Basically telling them, wink, wink, nod, nod. You know, we -- we -- we can't pass this. But you can change this, this, and this. It's like, you know, you're turning in a test paper, and the teacher says, yeah. You know, if you just would have answer this had way on this question, this question, and this question. You would have had an A. You know, if you want to resubmit it, you could. That's what John Roberts did. No. I'm sorry. That's usually what they will do. John Roberts actually just changed the answers on the test. He just changed the law, and rewrote it. Absolutely unconstitutional. All right. Back in just a second, with more.

Could passengers have SAVED Iryna Zarutska?

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado on Overcoming Grief in Dark Times | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 266

Disclaimer: This episode was filmed prior to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. But Glenn believes Max's message is needed now more than ever.
The political world is divided, constantly at war with itself. In many ways, our own lives are not much different. Why do we constantly focus on the negative? Why are we in pain? Where is God amid our anxiety and fear? Why can’t we ever seem to change? Pastor Max Lucado has found the solution: Stop thinking like that! It may seem easier said than done, but Max joins Glenn Beck to unpack the three tools he describes in his new book, “Tame Your Thoughts,” that make it easy for us to reset the way we think back to God’s factory settings. In this much-needed conversation, Max and Glenn tackle everything from feeling doubt as a parent to facing unfair hardships to ... UFOs?! Plus, Max shares what he recently got tattooed on his arm.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Are Demonic Forces to Blame for Charlie Kirk, Minnesota & Charlotte Killings?

This week has seen some of the most heinous actions in recent memory. Glenn has been discussing the growth of evil in our society, and with the assassination of civil rights leader Charlie Kirk, the recent transgender shooter who took the lives of two children at a Catholic school, and the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, how can we make sense of all this evil? On today's Friday Exclusive, Glenn speaks with BlazeTV host of "Strange Encounters" Rick Burgess to discuss the demon-possessed transgender shooter and the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk. Rick breaks down the reality of demon possession and how individuals wind up possessed. Rick and Glenn also discuss the dangers of the grotesque things we see online and in movies, TV shows, and video games on a daily basis. Rick warns that when we allow our minds to be altered by substances like drugs or alcohol, it opens a door for the enemy to take control. A supernatural war is waging in our society, and it’s a Christian’s job to fight this war. Glenn and Rick remind Christians of what their first citizenship is.