receive medicare and medicaid funding. after the cases came to the supreme court in december on a an emergency basis, the justices opted to expedite the cases for oral argument on whether the mandates shall remain in place while the challenges proceed in the lower courts. here to break it all down is jonathan turl yrgs, george washingsington university law professor. professor turly, what is the most significant take away? let s start first with the osha ruling involving the businesses. well, ultimately the big ticket mandate, that 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 dinot see the authority in this agency to require national mandates.
strong precedent against their own office. laura: well, the house ruling is going to @ to the add to the wees of these hospitals who are really struggling as a tangential and very important effect. great to talk to you as always, professor turly. while blue states push these ridiculous mandates my next guest is in empowering his constituents by putting money back in their pockets. joining me now, pete ricket. governor, your state, i was so happy to read this on a day where i was just like look looking at these mandates building up oaive the country. i was so happy tosy that your state ran a huge surplus, and you have an interesting idea about what to do with it. explain. yeah, it s pretty radical. the money is not my money. it s not my agency s money. it s not the legislature s
minority because they understood that he was going to testify differently than the other three, which he did. so he gave republicans maybe not so much in the house but later in the senate potential road map for things that they can say about the why they re not ready to say yes on impeaching the president of the united states about moving too fast, other issues not on substance but more about process, and his read of how impeachment should go constitutionally. one of the arguments professor turly has mad and we had him on the show for years is that there is not enough evidence. democrats then say there is not enough evidence if there is not enough evidence is because the white house has successfully not given over documents and witnesses. well that s true. and listen, i thought that the republicans made some gains on arguments about fairness. and they re not being treated fairly. i thought it was a mistake, a symbolic mistake to have three lawyers out there for the democrats and
is respected and not a supporter of the president. he said basically because of how grave a charge impeachment is, you know, why not give the inquiry more time why not at least try to get the additional evidence that s been withheld. well and professor turly, perfect world, the president is an honest broker and he would not invoked an upcoming election where the clock is running. and would abide by court rulings. he is neither of those. we have overwhelming evidence right now. and it would be nice to have more evidence. but we can t assume the president would follow a supreme court order. he has never said oh if this goes to the courts i ll follow the courts. and most of the matters that professor turly is referring to it s settled precedent in the supreme court. they decided in u.s. v nixon case there are limits to executive privilege. it seems it s a delay tactic by the president. and we have a duty to protect an upcoming election.
in his testimony law professor jonathan turly criticized congress for what he called a facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president. there is of course a reason the record is incomplete, as we said before. the president want to do that way. acting chief of staff mick muffle yes and don mcgahn refused to it testify. john bolt isn t not talking more is rudy giuliani. and then there are the documents the white house has refused to turn over any including briefing feerls for the trump zelensky phone call and staff notes relating to it. they did release a summary of the call. the august 15th presidential decision memo prepared by alexander veinman. and staff summaries and conclusions from ukraine meetings, a white house review of the aid freeze revealing according to the washington post empties to craft an after the fact justification for it. also withhold called records before gordon sondland, emails