High Court Slaps Down EPA Commies

the other having to do with the EPA. So it's bad news, good news, bad news on the border and the continued lawlessest of the Bide administration will be what we face now. And then good news when it comes to the EPA and creating some roadblocks within the administrative state to harassing us to save the environment or whatever. Plus a horrific shooting in New York City getting more attention from everybody now for the crime issues that this city faces, and also all cities across the country with

Democrats in control face. We will discuss all of it. Every want to invest in real estate, but did another time or expertise to do it on your own. That's how I felt until I met my friends at done for your real estate? Now I'm a real estate investor. They turned me into a real estate investor. I've bought multiple homes we've done for your real estate and it's worked out so well for me already. I've seen considerable,

considerable value increases in those homes. Only been a couple of years and I'm getting free cash flow every month. It's a great system. It's stable, it's long term, it's proven. Check them out yourself. They'll talk you through every take you through every step of the process too, from figuring out what part of the country you want to be investing in the real estate market, getting you a broker, a mortgage, a management company, and a tenant in play,

step by step by step it works. Gonna done for you Buck dot com. To see how this works. That's done for you, Buck dot Com again, done for you, Buck dot Com. I we'll start with the the bad news on the Supreme Court front. I thought we were going to get two wins today. I'm sorry that that is not the case. I was hoping didn't work out that way. So here's the situation. The Biden administration came in and said we're going to end the Remain in

Mexico program. You remember, Remain in Mexico was what the Trump administration set up when there were those migrant surges, illegal immigrants coming into the country, and what Remain in Mexico says is you can come to America enter illegally claim what they called defensive asylum, meaning that you say, okay, fine, I shouldn't be here, but I need asylum, I need your help, and then you're supposed to have your claim adjudicated, meaning is it true, is it valid? Are you really

an asylum seeker? Are you just skipping the immigration line, breaking the law in the process. Remain in Mexico says, okay, you get to stay in Mexico while you wait for your turn to be called for your asylum hearing in America. Totally fair due process for illegal migrants under the circumstances.

Of course, they don't want that because they aren't legitimate asylum seekers, and they usually under the Biden administration, are just released into the US interior, never to be seen or heard from again by the federal government more than half of cases, and effectively they're good to go. They are now getting to live in America. They've skipped the

whole immigration system. And this is why we have a couple one hundred thousand illegal migrants a month coming into this country, right, That's why the numbers are so high. So Missouri and Texas challenge the Biden administration ending the Remain in Mexico program on the grounds that it violated the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, boiling down about a sixty page decision into a couple

of minutes here I read it this morning. There's a lot of back and forth over over what the whether the administrative procedures were properly followed the Biden administration change during the initial the initial objection in the legal process by Missouri and Texas, at first they just said they weren't adding new people on the program. Then they said which essentially meant they weren't going to use the program, but it would still exist. And then they said, we're

just going to scrap the program. So they changed the game to alter the way this would go through the courts. And basically it all comes down to the statute in the Immigration Naturalization Act about the wording which says, either you detain somebody who enters illegally or they're held in a or they may or shall be held. And that's what it all comes down to. In a third in a third party country pending adjudication, or they have to

be removed to a third a third country. So the fi for decision came down unfortunately having on Roberts joined the Libs on this. I don't know. Roberts must be having having sad feelings and wants a nice word written about him in the New York Times, and so what they said is no, they are able to do this. Now. I'm gonna tell you this is a This is a

close call from the statutory language perspective. I obviously think that Alito and Thomas and Gorsitch are correct and Amy Coney Barrett are correct in this, but it's it's not a totally cut dry It's not like overturning Roe v. Wade, which was illegal and ethical monstrosity. This one is kind of down in the weeds. But here's why it matters.

The Biden administration now gets its way, which means scrapping or made in Mexico, which means that they are going to essentially ignore the law what it comes to expelling people who come into the country illegally and don't show up for their hearings. And they don't want this to change. They want this to be a situation of continued illegal immigration into the country. They want this to be a situation where you have people who are flooding over the border.

And it's because the Democrats ideologically believe in this and also politically they think they will in the aggregate overall the long term, they will benefit from this mass illegal migration, which people keep saying, Oh, it's it's this is just about Latino or Hispanic illegal igration. That's not true. There are almost one hundred countries that have had four nationals who have been detained at the border for illegal entry.

People are entering from Vietnam, people are entering from West Africa, people are entering from all over the planet basically, So that's that's another component of this. This is an open door into the country through illegal means. And they I didn't team doesn't want it to stop. So legal immigration is going to keep going exactly as it's not going to get any any better. The other decision, so that was the loss, but you should just know what happened there.

The other decision that I think is important, well, it is important obviously is the EPA. And here's what happened there. The Supreme Court has now the way that CNN writes this. For example, Supreme Court curbs EPA's ability to fight climate change. Turns out that's not actually what well. I don't believe the climate change is the threat that they think it is, so that's why I wouldn't have that as a headline. But here's the basics. So we're all on the same page.

To regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, the Supreme Court said, look, you can't do this. The ruling was six three. John Roberts actually wrote the conservative majority opinion. Three libs on the Court dissented. Roberts that quote, our president council skepticism towards EPA's claim that the law empowers it to devise carbon emission caps based on a generation shifting approach under our precedence, this is a major questions case.

There's little reason I think Congress assigns such decisions to the agency. Essentially, this is saying, hey, these federal three letter agencies don't get to just make up laws and enforce them. Laws are written by Congress. So when you're going to be having a sweeping, a sweeping regulation like this, it should come from Congress, and it can't just be the administrative state deciding for itself that they can do this,

and here you go. Here's you know, administrative law, by the way, is an awful thing, and the administrative state is the I think the biggest threat to Americans. Americans safety, health, and freedom from their own government in this country. COVID was an administrative state issue in so many ways. And the way they did it was the CDC was essentially delegated by the executive branch decision making authority that then the executive branch said, well, they're just advisory at the CDC,

so it's not our fault. And the CDC said, well, we're just advisory. It's the executive branch. And you say, well, who do we hold responsible for these moronic fauci decisions? You know, who's actually supposed to be the one that we get angry when they're wrong on this stuff? Well, it's not clear. It's a big Kafka esque bureaucracy. Who do you go to complain to. Nobody knows and nobody cares.

You know, are they going to ruin your business, They're going to destroy your freedom, They're gonna take away your right to breathe freely on an airplane. You name it so many things. The administrative state is a monstrosity and the most anti freedom, the most anti freedom threat we have from with in our own government. Other than the Kamis who have overrun the Democrat Party, they're bad too. If your job requires you to wear a suit and tie,

you're gonna need a comfortable pair of dress shoes. Trust me, I've got the shoes and the brand name. It's Wolf and Shepherd. I owned three pairs of them. This is the dress shoe made and worn initially by athletes. Before it, guys like you and me made the discovery. I've been wearing Wolf and Shepherd shoes for years. They make you look slick, you look good, you look stylish, but your feet feel like they're wearing sneakers. So your feet are

so comfortable, you're not gonna get tired. You're not gonna get blisters or have your toes getting pinched into some loafer. Wolf and Shepherd shoes are amazing. I've got three pairs. Whenever I've got to wear shoes that look nice, I wear Wolf and Shepherd. Can encourage you know, if you get a pair for yourself once they're a part of your wardrobe and routine. You're gonna feel the same way about them. I do better footwear for the workday. See

what I'm talking about. Wolf and Shepherd dot com. Don't worry about a promo code. Just find what's right for you wolfin Shepherd dot com. That's Wolf and Shepherd H E P H E r d dot com. Go check it out today. So there was this heinous shooting on the Upper east Side. I grew up on the Upper east Side of Manhattan, so I know the neighborhood honestly, like the back of my hand. I know it very very well, and it's rare that you would have this,

and it was according to police. Now, it was an execution style shooting and it had to do with a longstanding domestic abuser tracking down the mother of his child and killing her on the street. It's horrific And when you look at the background to this story, there were multiple attempts made to get the police involved previously that he was harassing, threatening, abusive, and the police didn't make

any arrest. The mother of this woman who was murdered has said that she believes that the City of New York failed to protect her daughter. And this is really striking a chord because for so many people, New York

has become more dangerous. There was just a story yesterday about restaurants and bars in what had traditionally been low crime areas having to hire not bouncers to check who's coming in, just security guard for the street outside of the establishment, because there are so many aggressive vagrants who often will who are often involved when there are assaults in those and there are people who are just praying on their fellow New Yorkers by robbing them, by attacking them.

And everyone's really just sick of this in this city and in so many other cities across the country. And I'm here to tell you, we know what the template is to stop this. We know what the plan is. If they want to use the playbook, they could to bring down all of this crime, but they would have to go back on some very central Democrat ideas, namely the ending of mass incarceration, the abandonment of this notion that your first concern with law enforcement is systemic racism.

All of these very central Democrat ideas, particularly aftermath of George Floyd's killing in the BLM movement and the Democrat Progressive Prosecutor project that came along with all this. They decided, it's very straightforward, let's make crime less illegal and let's punish. Let's punish criminals less and see what happens. Well, we've seen what happens. We are seeing what happens. And that's

why this focus is tremendous. Focus they have on guns just goes to show you that they don't care what worked in the past, because it was about getting the criminals off the streets before. Eric Adams here is once he spoke about the shooting last night, the Mayor of New York. Here's what he says about the situation of targeting first and foremost firearm and it doesn't matter if you are on the Upper East Side or East New

York Brooklyn. Of a saturation of guns endangerous people, they repeatedly leave our criminal justice system to continue actions like this. It is what's making the New York City Police Department and other law enforcement agencies here in New York, across the country and across the country of difficult to fight this issue. No, it's actually not the case that it's just the guns. There have been periods in New York where there are far more guns and there was not

necessarily a lot more crime. If we're talking now, are we talking about legal or illegal guns? Well, what are we talking about? And they estimate, I believe that there are over a million firearms in New York City in circulation. Think about that, over a million just in New York City and they maybe take five to ten thousand a

year off the streets in total. So there are hundreds of thousands of guns still in circulation, and you have a few hund hundred something like four hundred homicides it was four hundred and eighty eight in twenty twenty one, and you have a few thousand people who are shot. So look at the numbers, look at the math. Is it really possible that by focusing on the guns you're going to stop this? No, you've focused on the criminals. But that means Democrats need to stop with this soft

on crime madness. Let's take back our cities. As if for the Buck Show at eighteen, thanks for rolling more Tomorrow She'll tie