Headline Updates

Supreme Court and Birthright Citizenship, Sham Peace Talks, Gig Industry Backs Big Beautiful Bill

• Ranting Politics • Season 1 • Episode 166

Share episode

America's judicial system faces a constitutional showdown as the Supreme Court debates whether single federal judges can block presidential actions nationwide, focusing on Trump's birthright citizenship order rather than its actual merits. Politics crosses ideological lines as justices from both conservative and liberal wings express frustration about the proliferation of nationwide injunctions, with Trump facing 64 such injunctions during his first term compared to far fewer for previous presidents.

• Supreme Court justices debating whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions against presidential actions
• Elena Kagan questioning how to stop potentially illegal executive orders without nationwide injunctions
• Trump administration fighting against injunctions from judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state
• Zelensky criticizing Putin for sending a low-level delegation to peace talks in Turkey
• Ukraine pushing for implementation of a US-proposed 30-day ceasefire
• Uber and DoorDash publicly supporting Trump's no-tax-on-tips proposal
• 40,000 DoorDash workers lobbying lawmakers to support the tax break
• House Ways and Means Committee approving Trump's budget bill after an all-night session

Follow us on X at RantingRP and catch full episodes on YouTube, Spotify, iHeartRadio, and Apple Podcasts. For articles, extended commentary, and all our previous episodes, head over to RantingPolitics.com.

Source Credits:


https://nypost.com/2025/05/15/us-news/supreme-court-agonizes-over-whether-lower-courts-can-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order/ https://nypost.com/2025/05/15/world-news/zelensky-slams-unserious-putin-over-peace-talk-snub/ https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/gig-economy-titans-uber-doordash-back-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-capitol-hill-push 

Send us a text

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ranting-politics/id1677427078
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2rFqmUhX6ReG2s2DX824Rk?si=b450dbea7a5a4dce
X/Twitter: @rantingRP
YouTube: @RantingPolitics
Website: www.RantingPolitics.com


This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only. All information should be verified and treated as an opinion.
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This show may use copyrighted material that is made available for commentary and educational purposes only. This constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. Section 106A-117 of the US copyright law.

Speaker 1:

Hello America, joc, here with your ranting politics headline updates, where we are diving into today's most explosive political stories that you need to know about Coming up. The Supreme Court is having a full-on legal wrestling match over Trump's birthright citizenship order. Justices are split on whether lower courts can block presidential moves with nationwide injunctions. It's constitutional drama at its finest. Also on deck, zelensky is calling Putin out for his no show at peace talks in Turkey. When you send your aid instead of showing up yourself, that's what we call a diplomatic burn. And the gig economy's biggest players, uber and DoorDash, are jumping on the Trump train backing his no tax on tips proposal. Service workers, your gratuities might be getting a whole lot sweeter If you're just tuning in for the first time. Welcome to America's fastest growing daily news rundown, designed specifically for your commute run or coffee time. Stick around for all this and more in your daily dose of unfiltered news and common sense commentary. This is Ranting Politics Headline Updates.

Speaker 1:

The Supreme Court justices were practically tying themselves in knots yesterday during a marathon two-and-a-half-hour session debating Trump's birthright citizenship order. But here's the kicker they barely touched the actual citizenship issue. Instead, they obsessed over whether a single federal judge should have the power to block presidential actions nationwide. According to reporting from the New York Post, the Trump administration is fighting against three separate injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, massachusetts and Washington state. These injunctions have kept Trump's day one executive order, which would end automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants born in the US, from taking effect. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan cut right to the heart of the matter, asking there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions. But if one thinks that it's quite clear that the executive order is illegal, how does one get to that result without the possibility of a nationwide injunction? That's the million-dollar question hanging over this case. What's fascinating is how this issue crosses ideological lines. Conservative heavyweights like Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have been just as frustrated as liberal justice Katonji Brown Jackson about lower courts throwing around these sweeping injunctions like confetti. The numbers tell a revealing story. The Harvard Law Review tallied at least 64 national injunctions against Trump during his first term, compared to just 6 against Bush, 12 against Obama and 14 against Biden during their entire presidencies. Trump's lawyer, joshua Sauer, called it a bipartisan problem spanning five presidential administrations. Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn't hold back either, pointing out that these district judges aren't just throwing these universal injunctions, they are finding these actions illegal because they're exceeding existing authority, and oftentimes we are too.

Speaker 1:

The debate got particularly spicy when Justice Sonia Sotomayor posed a hypothetical. You claim there is absolutely no constitutional way to stop a president from an unconstitutional act A clearly, indisputably unconstitutional taking every gun from every citizen. We couldn't stop it. That's when things got real. Amy Coney Barrett emerged as a potential swing vote, seeming stunned when the Trump team suggested they might not always follow circuit court precedents. Meanwhile, clarence Thomas reminded everyone that we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions. The case is expected to be decided by the end of June, potentially reshaping how the judicial branch can check executive power. Whatever the court decides will have massive implications for presidential authority for generations to come.

Speaker 1:

The Trump administration is fighting an uphill battle against what they view as judicial overreach. Their legal team, led by Joshua Sauer, is challenging three separate injunctions that have effectively frozen Trump's controversial executive order on birthright citizenship before it could even take effect. The core of their argument is pretty straightforward they believe that nationwide injunctions from single district judges fundamentally exceed the judicial power granted in Article 3 of the Constitution. According to Sauer, these injunctions should only address the specific injury to the complaining party, not block policies for the entire country. During the Supreme Court hearing, sauer hammered home that these universal injunctions create a legal free-for-all where opponents of any administration can engage in what he called rampant forum shopping, essentially picking judicial venues most likely to be sympathetic to their case. He warned that this forces judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions with nationwide consequences. On the flip side, Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing the 22 states challenging Trump's order, made an equally compelling counter-argument. He laid out a three-pronged test to determine when universal injunctions might be appropriate, focusing on the practicality of alternative remedies, congressional authorization and alternative forms of non-party relief. Feigenbaum didn't mince words about what's at stake, warning of unprecedented chaos on the ground if Trump's order were allowed to stand. The states argue they would suffer significant pocketbook and sovereign harms without broad injunctive relief. What makes this case particularly thorny is that many legal experts consider Trump's birthright citizenship order to be on exceptionally shaky legal ground, putting the court in the awkward position of potentially limiting judicial checks on executive power at the exact moment when such checks might be most necessary.

Speaker 1:

This case represents a critical inflection point in the ongoing power struggle between the executive and judicial branches, in the ongoing power struggle between the executive and judicial branches. When the Supreme Court issues its final ruling by June, it could fundamentally reshape how presidential authority is checked, or not checked, by the courts for generations to come. The justices appear to recognize the gravity of their decision. Justice Clarence Thomas, known for his originalist interpretation of the Constitution, made his position clear with his observation that we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions. His statement reflects a conservative view that the recent proliferation of nationwide injunctions represents a modern judicial overreach rather than a necessary constitutional safeguard.

Speaker 1:

What really raised eyebrows during the hearing was the exchange between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the Trump administration's attorney. Barrett, typically aligned with the court's conservative wing, appeared genuinely shocked when Sauer suggested the administration might selectively ignore circuit court precedents they disagree with. Did I understand you correctly? She asked incredulously that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a second circuit precedent, say in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion? Sauer's tepid response that generally we follow precedent did little to alleviate concerns about executive overreach. No-transcript. Lower courts issued at least 64 national injunctions against Trump during his first term, compared to just six against George W Bush, 12 against Obama and 14 against Biden during their entire presidencies. Chief Justice Roberts seemed to acknowledge the need for balance, suggesting the Supreme Court itself could help address these problems by acting expeditiously on such disputes. These problems, by acting expeditiously on such disputes.

Speaker 1:

Well, in the latest diplomatic drama, ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky isn't holding back his frustration after Russian President Vladimir Putin pulled a classic no-show at Thursday's peace talks in Turkey. Instead of showing up himself, putin sent his aide, vladimir Medinsky, his former culture minister, who, let's remember, once tried to negotiate Kyiv's surrender in the early days of the war. Talk about sending a message. After we understood the level of the Russian delegation, we saw that they, unfortunately, are very unserious about real negotiations, zelensky told reporters in Ankara, pointing out that it was actually Putin who initially called for these talks just last Saturday. So much for following through.

Speaker 1:

In response to Russia's downgraded delegation, zelensky made a similar move, dispatching Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustam Umarov rather than attending personally. This diplomatic tit-for-tat marks the first time Ukraine and Russia have engaged in formal discussions since 2022, though not exactly at the level anyone hoped for. Taking to social media, zelensky didn't mince words. Russia once again demonstrated that it does not intend to end the war, having sent a delegation of rather low-level representatives. Moreover, such a Russian approach is a sign of disrespect toward the world and all partners. He followed this with a clear demand we expect a clear and strong response from partners.

Speaker 1:

Medinsky tried to save face upon arriving in Istanbul, posting to Telegram that the Russian delegation is representing Putin and committed to carrying out serious and professional work. But Zelensky called the whole thing theatrical, openly questioning whether Medinsky has any actual authority to make decisions. As he pointedly noted, we all know who actually makes decisions in Russia. So what exactly are the Ukrainians hoping to accomplish with these talks? Despite the downgraded delegations, ukraine has a clear agenda. They're pushing for the implementation of a US-proposed 30-day ceasefire. This would be the first real pause in hostilities since Russia's full-scale invasion began more than three years ago. It's not much, but at this point, any respite from the constant bombardment would be welcome for Ukrainian civilians.

Speaker 1:

Zelensky isn't just asking nicely either. He's calling on the United States, european allies and even nations from the global south to ramp up sanctions against Russia if Putin refuses to agree to this modest pause in the fighting. It's a strategic move that puts additional international pressure on Moscow, while highlighting their unwillingness to take even small steps toward de-escalation. The real problem, according to Zelensky, is that Putin's representative likely doesn't have the authority to make any meaningful agreements, it is essential to understand the level of the Russian delegation, what mandate they hold and whether they are authorized to make any decisions at all. Zelensky posted, before delivering the diplomatic equivalent of an eye roll, by adding because we all know who actually makes decisions in Russia. The theatrical nature of Russia's approach has Ukraine justifiably skeptical. This ceasefire push appears to be less about Ukraine believing real progress will happen and more about exposing Russia's lack of serious commitment to peace. By showing up ready to discuss concrete measures while Russia sends lower-level officials, zelensky is winning the diplomatic optics battle, even if the actual talks yield little tangible progress.

Speaker 1:

The gig economy giants are lining up behind Trump's tax plan folks. Uber and DoorDash are going all in supporting the no-tax-on-tips provision in what Trump has dubbed his big, beautiful budget bill. This is a major endorsement from two companies that collectively employ millions of gig workers across America. Uber's CEO, dara Khosrowshahi, didn't hold back his enthusiasm on social media, where he publicly thanked President Trump and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith for championing this policy. In his post, khosrowshahi specifically highlighted that the legislation would benefit all tipped workers, no matter how they work an important distinction that would extend tax benefits to rideshare drivers and delivery workers, not just traditional restaurant servers. Thanks to POTUS and Representative Jason Smith for backing all tipped workers, no matter how they work. Khosrowshahi wrote let's get this done Simple, direct and clearly aligning his massive company with Trump's economic policy.

Speaker 1:

Not to be outdone, doordash co-founder Tony Hsu took things a step further by orchestrating a significant grassroots lobbying effort. Hsu shared a photo on social media showing DoorDash drivers, known as Dashers, gathered on the steps of the Capitol building in Washington. According to Hsu, an impressive 40,000 DoorDash workers have been advocating to lawmakers in various ways, pushing them to pass what they're calling a tax break on their hard-earned tips. Hsu praised the House's budget bill as an important step in making no tax on tips a reality. This is no small thing. When you have tens of thousands of workers actively lobbying for legislation. It can significantly influence representatives who know these are voters in their districts.

Speaker 1:

The timing couldn't be better for Trump's policy proposal, initially floating this idea back in June 2024,. The no tax on tips plan has proven exceptionally popular with service industry workers. What started as a campaign promise is now working its way through Congress with serious momentum and corporate backing from some of the largest employers in the gig economy space. Talk about a legislative marathon. The House Ways and Means Committee just wrapped up what can only be described as a political endurance test, pulling an all-night session that literally had lawmakers from both parties nodding off at the dais. Despite the late-night yawns and coffee-fueled debates, the committee ultimately approved Trump's big, beautiful budget bill on a strictly party-line vote of 26-19. This wasn't your typical committee meeting. We're talking about a true overnight session where members push through until dawn debating and shooting down several Democratic amendments along the way. By the time they finally called the vote, at least one Republican and one Democrat had been caught catching some shut-eye right there in the committee room. Politics may divide them, but apparently the need for sleep unites lawmakers across the aisle.

Speaker 1:

The centerpiece of the bill that's generating the most buzz continues to be the no-tax-on-tips provision that Trump first introduced back in June 2024. When Trump initially floated this idea, he made it clear who he was targeting For those hotel workers and people that get tips. You're going to be very happy Because when I get to office, we are not going to charge taxes on tips. This policy proposal has struck a particularly strong chord with service industry workers across the country. Las Vegas rideshare drivers have been especially vocal in their support, with Fox Business reporting that even some registered Democrats driving for Uber near the MGM Grand have indicated they'll cross party lines to vote for Trump specifically because of this policy. As one Vegas driver put it to Fox News Digital, the policy would make a significant difference in their take-home pay, calling Trump's plan awesome, even as then-Vice President Harris held a campaign rally just across town. It's exactly the kind of kitchen table economic issue that resonates beyond traditional partisan divides.

Speaker 1:

Well, that's a wrap for today's Ranting Politics headline updates. Thanks for hanging with me through our deep dive into the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship debates, zelensky calling out Putin's peace talk theatrics and the gig economy giants throwing their weight behind Trump's no tax on tips plan. Whether you're commuting, working out or just trying to make sense of the political circus, I hope this breakdown gave you something to think about and maybe even a chuckle or two along the way. If you're hungry for more political rants and rapid-fire analysis, follow us on X at RantingRP. You can also catch full episodes on YouTube, spotify, iheartradio and Apple Podcasts. For articles, extended commentary and all our previous episodes, head over to RantingPoliticscom. This is JOC signing off and thank you, our loyal listeners, for choosing Ranting Politics Headline Updates. We'll be back soon with the updates you need to navigate these interesting times. Remember we don't align with a political party. We align with you, the American citizen. Until then, stay tuned, stay informed and, as always, stay free. Thank you, thank you.