SHOCK: Supreme Court Gets Something RIGHT | The Kyle Kulinski Show

so just the other day we did a segment on this show and I titled it the Supreme Court is effed now why why did I do that segment why is that my opinion because uh the approval rating of the Supreme Court at the moment is literally at an all-time low all time all time so it's a it's 29 in one poll that's abysmal 31 is their

high in a separate poll and look usually when you talk about the Supreme Court it actually has this Aura of seriousness that other branches of the government don't have but now they've just destroyed that why because they're deeply political actors they are activist judges and they're basically ruling in accordance with their own personal philosophies and dressing it up in fake legal arguments and so the Public's

they made their bed now they're going to sleep in it another thing is there's all these corruption cases that come in front of them one involving Andrew Cuomo's age recently and the Supreme Court was like corruption schmorruption this doesn't hit our quid pro quo bar so uh we're okay with corruption in this instance there's been a number of cases where they come to that conclusion so

they're losing all legitimacy I stand by everything I said in that segment however I could not see this coming it looks like the Supreme Court has now made at least two decisions um to sort of ameliorate the damage and hold on to their legitimacy now let me be clear I nor anybody else saw this coming this decision that they just made but it is a very

positive decision okay so here's what they say in democracy docket they say U.S Supreme Court rejects What's called the independent state legislature theory in Moore versus Harper on Tuesday June 27th the U.S Supreme Court issued a six to three decision in the landmark case Moore versus Harper with a majority of the Court ruling to reject the radical independent state legislature Theory I'm gonna explain what that

is in just a second in the pro-democracy opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts the Court held that the elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent Authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding Federal elections and does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review Roberts was joined by Sotomayor Elena Kagan Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett and katanji brown Jackson

so you have Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are conservative justices as is Roberts and they joined with katanji brown Jackson Elena Kagan and Sony shot of Mayor to say yeah we're going to be more pro-democracy in this instance justices Clarence Thomas Neil gorsets and Samuel Alito dissented so okay let me explain what's going on here this case involves the North Carolina State Legislature and state

courts what the legislature is saying is hey man if you read the Constitution it's the the state legislative bodies that have basically unlimited power to set the rules of an election so that includes gerrymandering for example that includes if we happen to not like the outcome of how the people voted since we effectively have been vested with all of the powers to determine what happens with

elections we can throw it out if we want so we can say oh the public voter for this person we disagree as the state legislature the Republican state legislature we're going to say the other person won now the reason why this was terrifying is because if they ruled the other way guys make no mistake about it the Republicans have been getting more and more Brazen with

how anti-democracy they are and I have no doubt that in some states they would have been like we're going to reverse the decision because we want to if they feel tremendous pressure from somebody like Donald Trump from a republican Administration um if it becomes a partisan litmus test on the right that no we actually won the election and you need to get us to that point

they might just throw out the results of a democratic election and say look this constitution says the state legislature determines the rules and regulations around the election so we can gerrymander whoever we want and we can throw out the result if need be now in this instance it was North the North Carolina state courts that were like well hold on now hold on now you guys

don't have the uh the independent and exclusive right to do whatever you want regarding Federal elections you like the exclusive right so you guys had the last say the people don't have a say the course don't have to say so basically the courts were like uh we disagree and so we give ourselves the power of judicial review at the state level to say you're not carrying

this out in a fair way in a legal way in a constitutional way so this came to the Supreme Court and again the fear was that since it's a very right-wing Supreme Court they would say you know what um we're going to interpret the Constitution as meaning it is the state legislatures that get to determine everything about elections and we're basically going to take power away

from the courts and let the state legislatures make their own their own conclusions and decisions but the court didn't do that in fact the court did quite the opposite they they upheld the idea of judicial review at the state level overseeing elections but also by extension they upheld um the federal courts and the Supreme Court and their ability to do judicial review when it comes to

elections so in other words if they if they think there's funny business going on and um the the State Legislative legislature is acting in an unfair way they can step in and say that's not legal that's not constitutional you're wrong and we're overturning your result so look make no mistake about it in no uncertain terms this was the correct decision what's crazy is that there were

three people that disagreed Clarence Thomas which is no surprise he's wrong about basically everything Neil Gorsuch I'm kind of surprised by that but not really um and then Samuel Alito I mean this decision is it's a decision to effectively destroy democracy they're okay with destroying democracy and my guess is their argument would be if you do a literal reading the originalist interpretation of the Constitution it

does say that the you know the state legislatures the states decide what goes on with elections so we're going to go ahead and let them decide it but you know the other people are arguing but if you're gerrymandering in a way that's unfair right if you're just overturning the will of the people no that's not okay that's not fair that's not just that overrides the idea

of one person one vote and so we're not going to allow it so we're not going to allow it so thank God they made this decision and this is also this also comes after they recently made another decision where they said no the gerrymandering here is racist it is biased in favor of Republicans and against Democrats and so you need to redraw the lines on that

map so so that's two decisions in a very short time frame that was like okay they're trying to gain back some of their legitimacy I talked to Crystal about this that's her Theory she says look uh John Roberts is not an idiot I might disagree with him politically um but he's not an idiot and he knows that the court is on the ropes in terms of

the perception from the American public and how far they can push it and so this is them saying okay yeah maybe we overreached in some instances and maybe we did things that are super unpopular and our approval rating is all the way down in 29 now but let's go ahead and make up for that just a touch and uh do a decision that is correct now

by the way um so this was the biggest case don't get it twisted uh of the day and we're going to get more cases coming out soon and by the way I'm sure a number of them are going to be like horrifically wrong decisions and we'll talk about them when we get those decisions like the student loan debt case there looks like they'll likely throw that

out I don't know we'll see we'll see but we'll talk about those cases when they come there was one other case that they did which I wanted to share with you as well because I actually think they got this one uh correct also so this was in The Washington Post Supreme Court says a conviction for online threats violated the first amendment by the way I don't

they're not that's not like a fair headline you'll see in a minute what I'm talking about prosecutors must show that a person responsible for threats understood the threatening nature of that speech justices say so this was a First Amendment case let me give you some of the specifics the supreme court on Tuesday reversed the conviction of a man who made extensive online threats to a stranger

saying Free Speech protections require prosecutors to prove the stalker was aware of the threatening nature of his Communications in a seven to two ruling with Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority the court emphasized that true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment that's an important Point true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment but to guard against a chilling

effect on non-threatening speech the majority said states must prove that a criminal defendant has quote consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his Communications would be viewed as threatening violence Justice Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett dissented that's interesting that's interesting uh with Barrett writing that the standard set by the court on Thursday gives preferential treatment to a broader range of threatening speech and makes it more

difficult for law enforcement to address actual threats I disagree with um her categorization of that and you'll see why in a second quote a delusional speaker May lack awareness of the threatening nature of her speech a DV speaker May strategically disclaim such awareness and the lucky speaker may leave behind no evidence of mental state for the government to use against her Barrett wrote the course decision

thus sweeps much further than it lets on the case concerned a Colorado law used used to convict Billy Raymond counterman of stalking and causing quote emotional distress to Cole's Whalen a singer-songwriter he had never met counterman who had previously been convicted of making threats to others served four years in prison in the Whalen case that's a long time man the Court's interest involved the question of

when statements especially those made online can be considered true threats not protected by the First Amendment counterman contended the state must show that the speaker intends the message to be threatening Colorado backed by the justice department and a majority of States says it should be enough that a reasonable recipient feel that physical harm could be imminent on the basis of the context of the circumstances the

case returns to the lower courts where prosecutors could decide to retry the matter under the new standards set by the Supreme Court's decision so let me go on I just want to give you uh the messages that we have so again basic facts of the case you have somebody who's basically repeatedly harassing a singer and songwriter okay here's what they say Waylon eventually saw that's the

singer-songwriter eventually sought help from a lawyer who who researched counterman that's the guy who's doing the threads background and told her of his previous convictions quote I was already scared but then I was terrified Wayland said in the interview I thought why did I wait so long among the messages presented at counterman's trial quote so these are the threatening messages I'm currently unsupervised I know it

freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless another one is f off permanently another one is you're not being good for human relations you're not being good for human relations die don't need you so when you look at those messages and my guess is since they're these are the ones they're presenting in the article these are probably the scariest of the messages when you look

at these messages they are scary but you got to keep it real what is illegal speech under the Constitution is libel slander defamation and direct threats of violence and you know maybe a handful of other things the question is does this constitute a direct threat of violence and I think the court got it right I don't think it does and the fear for many of the

justices which again I think is true is if we were to rule uh you know guilty in this case for this guy then that does leave a chilling effect on speech because I don't know if you guys ever been on the Internet it's like this is a random Tuesday on the internet now by the way I'm not saying it's good but look as somebody who's been

the recipient of a lot of stuff exactly like this I don't think people who do vague things like this even though it's bad even though it's wrong even though it's it's arguably unethical they don't deserve four years in prison over something like this this is called trolling this is called posting now if it was a direct threat of violence I'm coming to kill you and you're

not gonna know when it when it it hits but it's gonna that's a different scenario that is lock them up right that is a direct threat of violence usually even direct threats of violence get more specific than that you know like I know where you live here's your address watch out like those are direct threats of violence this is a little too vague I'm currently unsupervised

I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless F off permanently you're not being good for human relations die don't need you it's just not your it's just not direct enough and so um look the guy already spent four years in in jail anyway so there's already been I think uh Hefty punishment for it and I think the Supreme Court got it right

um you got to be careful when when treading the line on freedom of speech because if this standard is set I got news for you there would be Millions more people in prison based on just posting online and trolling online and again I'm not condoning this it's not a good thing as somebody who's been a victim of stuff like this I understand why somebody would want

to um you know take action and and and stop it and snuff this out I get it 100 but the lines are actually very clear direct threats of violence libel slander defamation maybe a handful of other things I'd be fine with adding doxing to that list because that is threatening by its very nature right um but this just doesn't cross that line so this is the

Supreme Court yet again upholding um the idea of freedom of speech and I do think that if this was a little more specific he would have gone down and I would have been fine with that but I think they made the right decision especially since you already spent four years behind bars but that's two decisions from the Supreme Court in a very brief time frame where

I'm shocked they actually got it right but we'll see buckle up because we got more decisions coming out and my tune will probably change almost certainly it'll change within the next uh you know week or so because oh if they make the wrong decision on the student loan debt stuff if they make the wrong decision on some of the other stuff yet again we're back to

devastating and their approval rating will remain around 29 but by the way here's the final final point I'm still definitely of the opinion you got to use Court stripping so you know the the legislative branch needs to say we're not allowing the court to rule on X Y and Z I'm definitely in favor of that the constitution allows for what's called Court tripping or judicial stripping

um I'm definitely in favor of packing the court I'm definitely in favor of term limits I'm in favor of a number of ways to put the court back in check because it is true right now they're judicial supremacists and their judicial tyrants I just happen to agree with two of the decisions that they just um you know made here but this one is the most important

super important pro-democracy decision um and then this one right here is just upholding the tradition of uh Free Speech case law in this country which is a good thing but we'll see what happens moving forward hey y'all do me a favor and like And subscribe it helps out big time in the algorithm click the Bell as well for notifications when videos Drop and watch that video

on screen right now you know you want to