0 outrageous life of zero experience hunter >> sean: you've heard about the outrageous zero life of hunter biden but another side of the story is about to be revealed. his wife writing a telling-all story, it will be released sometime this summer. we'll have the details. thanks for being with us. let not your heart be troubled. good news, laura ingraham. >> laura: i was thinking about poor rich hunter biden. you want to know what my thoughts are right now? >> sean: a hundred percent. >> laura: what he's doing seeing his father's political fortunes begin to dwindle pretty quickly, he's painting with his mouth, with his toes, with his hands. he's painting as fast as he can. there is like not enough things he can find to paint. once this stuff drops you won't be able to give that stuff away on canal street that stuff won't be moving. >> sean: by the way, you know what else he's doing? probably calling putin president in chief. make more deals. >> laura: let's get it going. quick. quick. quick. awesome show, as always, hannity. i'm laura ingraham. this is "the ingraham angle" from washington. joe biden had, i think, one of the worst weeks of any president since maybe watergate. today the supreme court stomped on his signature vaccine mandate for big businesses. exactly what we warned them would happen. and owed the american people stomped their feet in that poll. this week, race baiting, that it would justify doing away with the massive takeover of our elections and he thought this would pressure senators manchin, but once again, badly miscalculated and got stomped. >> demands to eliminate this fresh hold from which party holds the fleeting majority amounts to a group of people separated on two sides of a canyon shouting that solution to their colleagues. i understand. there is someone on both sides of the aisle that prefer that outcome but i do not. >> laura: how embarrassing for biden. think about this. this was made on the same day that he made a trip to capitol hill. that speech, and, he had this, you know, urgency to move to kill the filibuster. let's face it, when you're at 33% in the polls like joe biden is, hello, you've lost your influence so without drastic changes, you're basically a lame duck. and you can see where this is all headed. congress is just going to start governing the country themselves. and if they are smart, senator chuck schumer, senator mark warner, other big committee chairs, would do it kind of an informal intervention to try to stabilize things over there at the white house. this sure as heck can't go on for another three years, can it? since the filibuster is not going to break, since they are going to need 60 votes for any big legislation they want to pass democrats will have to work with senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, and after they come to a compromise, if they come to a compromise, they are then going to have to go to biden and he's essentially going to be told what the laws are going to be. i hope ron understands that he's the chief-of-staff. now, it's pathetic. it's not the way it's supposed to work but that's where we are. biden's undoing began when he allowed himself to get dragged to the left. another thing we predicted last year. he's too weak to stand up to the left last year. he was more interested in pleasing the "washington post" and msnbc than doing right by americans. and so what happened is the left jumped in there and they tried to seize the moment. or so they they dismissed concerns about inflation, and then they sent out more government checks. made it all worse. got caught off-guard by omicron. they failed to push fauci to the sidelines and they continue to let the unions dictate policy for our kids. in chicago public schools students were finally allowed back into the classroom yesterday, but in some cases to schools where dozens of teachers were out leaving kids to report to auditoriums and sometimes taking classes online with their teachers working remotely. >> so if it's not the criminals carjacking you in chicago it's unions highjacking education. it's a travesty. biden's allies in minneapolis are working to kill the restaurant businesses there. the restaurants and businesses there by announcing an idiotic vaccine mandate for all patrons. they are joining other big democrat run cities like new york and l.a. that are doing the same thing. what's the result going to be? fewer workers. fewer customers. fewer visitors. to these once great cities. and since vaccination doesn't protect you from get or transmitting the virus these mandates make literally zero scientific sense. at this point they just have to be meant for control. now, they didn't care about the virus when blm was rampaging through their towns and cities so why suddenly care about it now? they didn't turn back migrants at our border who had no vax records and didn't have masks on but american citizens who refuse to bow down, they are now harassed an marginalized. so the question is what's really going on here? could this lead to the creation of databases of noncompliant americans? if democrat mayors have their way could they try to borrow the unvaxed access to public transportation? what about state employment? other benefits? and how long can these emergency powers be invoked before they become unconstitutional power grabs? for such drastic measures, congress or state legislatures should have to pass actual laws. but most prefer it this way, where, you know, they don't have to pass any laws because then these elected officials have to take no responsibility. it's for the health and safety of everybody. it's an emergency. that's what they say. well, it's bull. can america really take three more years of this? now, as i mentioned moments ago the supreme court just handed down a huge victory to the pro freedom crowd issuing a stay against the osha mandate. upholding the stay. however, court did not block the vax mandate for healthcare workers at facilities that receive medicare and medicaid funding, but this is important to remember. after the cases came to the supreme court in december on an emergency basis, the justices opted to expedite the cases for oral argument on whether the mandates can remain in place while the challenges proceed in the lower courts. here to break it all down is jonathan turley, george washington university law professor and contributor. let's start first with the osha ruling involving the businesses. >> well, that was really the big ticket mandate. that's the one that affected about 80 million workers, and the result was a major loss to the biden administration. this was one of the key pillars of the administration's pandemic policies, but the court made short work over it because they did not see the authority in this agency to require national mandates. the chief witness used against the administration was president biden's own chief-of-staff, ron -- during the oral argument. a number of the justices quoted him saying that this was a "workaround." putting limits on the president's authority. so that didn't go over well, you know. they couldn't get the authority from congress. they found out that the president couldn't order it directly and then they publicly announced they found a workaround. the court said, you really didn't. the workaround won't work. you have to show us direct constitutional authority, and in many ways, while everyone talks about democracy and they are using it as a weaponized political slogan, this really ultimately is about democracy. what the supreme court was saying is that this is a question that belongs in the legislature for the people's representatives to decide. not some agency. >> laura: and justice thomas, in his dissent on the kind of companion case involving the healthcare workers, that was, you know, significant. four justices. so brett kavanaugh voted with the chief justice and the per curiam majority opinion upholding the mandates for the healthcare workers, but justice thomas wrote vaccine mandates also fall squarely within a state's police power and until now only rarely have been a tool of the federal government. if congress had wanted to grant cms authority to impose a nationwide vax mandate and consequently alter the state-federal balance it would have said so clearly. it did not. professor, did he have it right? >> well, this was a real close shave. they came within one vote of losing both cases, and this is the outcome that some of us predicted because you could tell that kavanaugh and roberts did not feel as strongly about this case. one of the reasons is that this was what's called conditional federal spending. that, in their view, congress gave these facilities money, and they can require a health protection, as a result. and they felt it was close enough. but ultimately, i think what's happening here with the administration is they are adding to a rather long list of losses in fall court. they lost the moratorium on evictions. they were repeatedly found to have engaged in racial discrimination in the use of federal farm funds. they lost on immigration policies. these are all very significant losses for any administration, and i think it shows a bit of a reckless attitude -- >> laura: a radicalism. they go as radical as possible. they twist arms to get stuff done and then the court has to come in and say not so fast. i mean, this is what's happened on multiple occasions as you just said. i just want to get back to one thing because gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion in the osha case. he said osha arguably not even the agency associated with public health and in rare instances when congress has sought to do vaccinations, they have done so. did he nail that? he also went on to say who should decide how to respond to the pandemic? the states and congress, he said. that's really the rub here given how -- given how the science is changing on vaccines, health, safety, who can transmit. who gets infected. this is almost moot now given what we know now about omicron. >> i think that gorsuch concurrence is the one that has the legs of all the material that was written by the court. it has likely the greatest lasting power. gorsuch, i testified at his confirmation in favor of his confirmation, and one of the things i noted was that he was an outspoken critic of chevron, and he had very developed and deep understandings of the role of agencies and how they are usurping apartheid a three branch system. this opinion really brought all of that to the forefront. in my view it was gorsuch's shot across the bow on cases like chevron, and to say that we need to bring agencies back under the control of congress, so that they do not become a fourth branch of government. >> laura: a lot of americans, who aren't in the weeds of administrative law, professor, don't know how much power these agencies, independent or otherwise, have over their lives, and language that's turned into a rule with no notice of public comment as they didn't have here, has an effect over 85 million american workers, and that was gorsuch's point. this should be done by congress and the states, not by nine supreme court justices, and certainly not by a bureaucrat over at osha. >> right. i think that's very true, and, you know, it was also, this is a case of -- a bad case making bad law for the administration, good law for those who want to restrict agencies. people have to understand that each of these berglundners court are creating law against the office that the president holds. that's why past administrations have been really quite leery of about litigating these issues on the edges of presidential power, because they didn't want, not only a loss for their own administration but to binds future presidents. that's why this is so reckless, is that they are taking very weak arguments and creating really strong precedent against their own office. >> laura: the healthcare ruling, professor, will add to the woes of these hospitals who can't keep staff and are really, really struggling. that also has a tangential and very important effect. great to talk to you tonight as always professor turley. while blue states pushing these ridiculous mandates and restrictions my next guest is empowering his constituents by putting money back in their pockets. what is that concept? joining us now nebraska governor pete -- governor, your state, i was so happy to read this on a day when i was just like looking at these mandates building up over the country. i was so happy to see that your state ran a huge surplus and you have an interesting idea about what to do with it. explain. >> yes, it's pretty radical. the money is not my money. it's not my agency's money. it's not the legislature's money. it's the people's money and when we have revenues that are in excess of what we need to fund our state government operations, we need to give it back to the people, and that's what i talk about in my state of the state address, when i proposed a number of tax cut proposals and pointed out what a surplus we had, how much we had in our tax reserve fund, and why we needed to give that money to the people who gave us the money in the first place. >> laura: when you see these insane mandates being rolled out across the country, and these cities, you remember as a kid visiting -- these are great american cities, and they are being destroyed from within. one after the other. i know you don't take -- your competitor as a former governor in a nice way, this has to being a -- be agonizing for you because you know it can work well. >> nebraska doesn't need to be mandated to do the right thing. we ask them to do the right thing and they just did it. nebraska scored the best of any of the states with regard to the pandemic without doing mandates or lockdowns. and that's in contrast to what you see is going on in these different cities. you know, you made the comment earlier about the vaccines. now that we know the vaccines don't really prevent you from getting the virus or transmitting the virus in a sense they are just another form of treatment so we ought to be thinking about how we manage the virus and not be mandating vaccines or having vaccine cards that you have to show to get in. it makes no scientific sense. >> laura: by the way, giving money back to the people certainly can help alleviate some of the inflation we're seeing out there but the biden team, governor, is still denying this. here's his chief economic adviser. >> we start by looking at this month's data and getting a little bit under the hood. i welcome the deceleration from october and never and that was driven by a reduction in energy prices principally gasoline prices which is good news, and particularly food at the grocery store that reflects some progress. >> laura: a reduction in the rate of increase in food costs. i thought i had heard a lot but that kind of takes the cake and cake is more expensive, too. >> that's one of the problems with president biden. he's been isolated, he doesn't talk to normal people. if he got out and talked to people who are paying $12 for lunch a day instead of $8 a day or they see gas prices are up over a dollar a gallon, he would know how much that impacts ordinary american lives. this inflation is not transitory, and it's something that is just going to be so corrosive to the average american household and they are doing nothing to stop it. >> laura: governor, would you hire any of these top economic advisers, treasury first-degrees, white house officials, would you hire any of them in any of your old companies at any level give and what their performance has been? >> no, absolutely not. that's one of the challenges. i have seen other economists speak. they talk on the theoretical, try to wave away inflation saying it's not that big of a deal. they are very disconnected from real-life and what real people are going through. if you want to succeed and accomplish something you have to get to people living in the real world and are used to getting things done. >> laura: governor, congratulations on nebraska's record on all of this. bide isn't the president of the united states, but you wouldn't know it given some of the rhetoric that he's been spewing of late. in moments, my angle explains how this not only represents the real threat to america but also emboldens our adversary, senator tom cotton, his reaction next.