Supreme Court will hear case on Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship

Supreme Court will hear case on Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship

Supreme Court will hear case on Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship. You can see some compromise here across the valley. Because if you can't do that, I'm thinking a lot of people can afford health care right now.

Now with the health care deadline at the end of the month, you know, no, I don't. I don't see it. I don't see it coming this year. Revenues are going up.

Yeah. Yeah. And what you have is Democratic politics at stake. The shutdown became a health care issue. They finally got an issue that was salient to voters that the Democratic Party had strengthened.

They doubled down on that power, and it got to them. The shutdown. The shutdown was something for them. Yes, it wasn't perceived that way by the public, and it didn't do anything policy-wise,

But it solidified their base and their position on health care. They want to double down on that strategy for an election year. They don't really want a solution.

They want to keep the problem going. Keeping the problem going is their political power, and increasing premiums is their political advantage. That's why House Republicans

And some Senate Republicans are working so hard to solve the premium question for a narrow group of the American people because of the political influence on it.

There's a lack of planning. The problem is they have plans, they have too many, and there's no coordination around any of them. That's the Republican response.

So they find themselves in this pretty desperate situation of trying to get enough party unity. They're not going to get everyone.

And I'm having a hard time seeing them get a bill out of the House and into the Senate. It's just a Republican vote. They need Democratic support.

Democrats just want to extend the current failed policy. But that's what they want to do. That's where their political power is all around them. But you're suggesting.

That they don't. In fact, you believe that Democrats are Machiavellian, that they want to see premiums increase so they can win back the House in the vote.

So they have a vote on health care, and they chose a three-year extension on their request. That's a greedy request. A one-year extension is enough.

That should be their offering, and victory should be their goal. But by compromise, can't it be a one-year extension? You start with what you want.

And you'll see it down from the request for about $800 billion for a three-year extension of the policy of keeping the government open for six weeks, which no Republican voted for.

Except for the Obamacare extension. And so it's still a very big request for them, but it shows that they actually want to keep this political term,

which is political as opposed to one year. That should be the last case for these negotiations. Well, I mean, it seems like I don't know what you think Republicans are going to bring to the House next week,

But there was a bill that was shot down yesterday. Gottheimer Kagan's bill would extend Obamacare subsidies by one year, and it would put new eligibility limits. That shouldn't be that hard,

right? I mean, can't this be a bill? It should be a bill, it should be a bill. It should be the last cap? Wouldn't it pass both houses? Yeah, but you have to have a coalition to do that.

And you don't have enough Democrats willing to come up with a Republican bill. No, no, no, no, so what do you think the speaker has up his sleeve?

Well, no, they have to do something that unites Republicans. That's their effort. That's always the goal outside the House. Bill Cassidy, more like Health Savings Accounts.

Yeah. Something that doesn't even resemble Obamacare and doesn't even solve the problem that we're facing next week. We come off the cliff in late December.

And I keep going, and then I'm shut down in late January. Oh, no, because the dynamics around a shutdown in an election year are different than what Democrats only experience.

Sotheby's is all about getting government funding now, and they'll move forward with it. They'll keep the health care issue, though.

So I think the thing that's clear to people is that premiums have actually quadrupled in some places. They just leave the rules in that rule.

Yeah, but that's 10 or 15 million people. That's a serious number. These are disproportionately red states. And there's an opportunity for state legislatures to fill those gaps.

It's not entirely up to the federal government to answer that. So it's not likely that it's a necessary disaster for people who will experience increased health care premiums,

Nor is it that these premiums increase the bottom line of their access to health care. Yes, sure, but that's how it's being interpreted. And so Republicans have a political problem.

The Democrats have a political problem, and it's a collision. And the reason there's no chance of compromise is because of the political importance of this issue. Right?

It's all a problem. The president called affordability a Democrat's job, which, you know, they're turning into commercials right now. What does that mean?

What it means is that the perception of the economy is largely driven by the conversation. Republicans think the economy is doing great, and Democrats say the economy is doing great.

So it has more of a political overlay than an economic overlay. And everything in our society has become very political over the last 20 years.

And so the slowness is the message that the Democratic Party is trying to drive through Election Day because that’s their path to victory in 2010. The slow economic recovery means

That John Boehner spent two years saying, Where are the jobs? A message that asks where the jobs that Republicans had in 2010 are at the end? And I think that’s the case.

As if things haven’t gone down in price since President Trump was reelected. There are going to be a lot of economic implications for this administration.

The tax bill, yes, the landing, the tariffs, and the tariff deal with China in the world. All of these things will have an economic benefit. It has to be that it has to accumulate over time.

And it really is up to the administration to show up, to provide the right regulatory relief, to clarify tax incentives and tariffs. And that’s how the economic engine turns.

And the American people can see the benefits of Republican economic policies. I can hear John Boehner right now, Mr. President, where are the jobs? And that’s the question the Fed is asking.

And we’ll ask next week. And so I have to join you on this, your financial services hat is here. Kevin Hastings is apparently the next Fed chair.

At least that’s what everyone in Washington seems to think. He’s at the top of the list, according to Bloomberg, and he’s on Fox News. Asked whether

It’s time to cut rates, some said, what the Fed did. The regional presidents they’re looking more and more like they’re leaning toward cutting rates,

which is for sure. And how much would you like it to be? You know, in the long run, we have to get to a much lower rate. If there is a consensus of about 25 basis points,

If it seems to be there, then I will take it. That 25 basis points cut in the bag. It is not in the bag, but I think that is where it ends. I think

There is still a tussle for the governors to be on the Board of Governors. Look, the Open Markets Committee is disproportionately appointed by President Biden.

That still has an impact on the Fed's decision-making. The president needs his appointees on the Federal Reserve Board. There is nothing in the bag. Look,

I mean, there is still drama to be had. And so I think there is a lot, a lot of respect for Kevin Hastings in the first term of the president, and to bring him back to a higher level in the second term.

And I think Kevin Hast has proven himself as a very good voice for President Trump's economic policies. I think he has the qualifications to be the head of the Federal Reserve, a very important decision.

And he has the qualities necessary to build consensus on the Open Markets Committee, which is actually how it's done. You have to get all that information from your committee members.

And so I think he's definitely on the short list. I think that's being confirmed, and he should confirm to the markets that.

Someone of his caliber is on that short list. So you think he's a good choice? Do you share the President's I wouldn't say disappointment in Jay Powell?

Look, I got a different perspective on Chairman Powell. I think he's been given a very difficult set of circumstances, and he's done a very good dance in the midst of the threat of the music being cut off.

Right. And I think he's going to prove to be a successful Fed chair who has maintained the independence of the Fed in a very complicated time when we've had a lot of headwinds across the board.

Congressman, you have to be careful about the Supreme Court reviewing President Trump's rollback of birthright citizenship. Did you see it coming? Yes. This is something

That is not settled law. The president's perspective here sets the law, not whether the president has broad authority to make that determination.

The definition of citizenship in our country has been litigated for generations. It's built on a set of rights for the American people, based on the foundation of birth to natural death.

And those decisions have consequences. So you shouldn't let one branch of government decide that. The courts always have to step in and decide on the president's ability to clarify.

No, look, I think birthright citizenship has been an issue in the United States from the beginning. And we don't judge people based on the good or bad qualities of their parents, their parents, their parents, or where they're from

And it has made us a special and distinguished nation from any of the European powers or any of the Asian powers based on how we treat citizens,

How we treat citizens here in the United States the utmost importance. We respect that it's not just something that's been given to you, but the story of America and who we are.

So you can't just make a quick administrative change to a body of law that, you know, in many cases is 200 years old and runs on our foundation.

That was a good answer. I'd be curious to know what happens here. We only have a minute left. I'll just throw it at you.

Finally, as we look ahead here with the President, by the way, receiving the Peace Prize today. Should the House of Representatives, Congress, have any say in the President's military action in the Caribbean?

Under the War Powers Act, they would inevitably have a vote on that. I think what President ISS is doing is within the right law and due process.

Yes. When you have this infiltration from the south and the movement of drugs is happening in a concrete way and in some cases supported by nation-state actors,

For them to take military action, ethnicity is a legitimate thing. It's a clear signal to stop the flow of drugs from the south, just like we have a clear signal that China will stop the flow of fentanyl.