Shownotes Transcript
This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Cybersecurity Awareness Month is still going strong, and LifeLock is here with a message about phishing, the scam cybercriminals use to trick victims into allowing access to their devices so they can steal their personal info. Being aware of phishing scams is one way to help protect yourself. For comprehensive identity theft protection, there's LifeLock. Start protecting your identity today with a 30-day free trial at LifeLock.com slash podcast.
RYAN CHILCOTE: Saturday, October 12, 2024. I'm Ryan Schmelz. The devastation continues after Hurricane Milton makes landfall. Now the Biden administration is turning to Congress for help, as some Republican lawmakers criticize FEMA's response. REP. JOHN BARRASSO : But they should have the money, you know, right away to deal with this, and that includes shelter.
food, medicine, transportation, rescues, et cetera. Rebuilding, that's going to be a much bigger bill that they're gonna have to do probably at the end of the year. - I'm Jared Halpern. Justices are again sitting at the Supreme Court for a term that will see challenges to capital punishment, gun regulations, and gender transition surgeries. Election-related cases are also looming for the courts. - We have at least seven states that are swing states that are expected to be quite close.
That's going to be something of a nightmare in terms of those of us covering the legal challenges. This is the Fox News Rundown from Washington.
The calls for Congress to return from October recess to address not one, but two devastating hurricanes continues to grow. This week, Florida Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna says she spoke directly with President Biden, and Luna says the president is supportive of a plan to provide $15 billion in funding to FEMA for just hurricane victims.
Luna also says she spoke with House Speaker Mike Johnson, but tells Fox News she thinks some lawmakers are thinking politics and not the hurricane. I think if you are not in an impacted state, I think absolutely people are focused on the election. I think that if you are in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, I think that you're focusing on what just happened.
President Biden has warned that FEMA will struggle to finish hurricane season without any type of help from Congress. I think the Congress should be coming back and moving on emergency needs immediately. And they're going to have to come back after the election as well. This is going to be a long haul for total rebuilding.
It's going to take several billion dollars. JOHN YANG: This comes as the Biden administration faces criticism over its response to the hurricane, with House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer pushing for a hearing involving FEMA Director Deanne Criswell in November.
What can we expect and what does a possible aid package look like? Well, it was interesting to hear Deanne Criswell, the FEMA administrator, talk about she's trying to understand the burn rate for the money that's going out the door in response to this. Chad Pergram is Fox's senior congressional correspondent. You know, Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of Homeland Security, he kind of stepped in it a little bit where he indicated that they are out of money, which they aren't.
There was a lot of nuance in what he had said, saying that they would need more money before the end of the hurricane season. Well, the hurricane season ends on the 30th of November.
Congress kind of front-loaded $20 billion in change to FEMA to respond to immediate needs right before they left for the recess here to campaign in October and early November. That was part of the interim spending deal to keep the government open at the end of September. And so even if you had a very high burn rate, it's probably unlikely that you would be able to go through $20 billion in change.
Now, House Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated, and he was in North Carolina this week surveying some of the damage in western North Carolina there, that he thought that Congress would not need to return, again, because you can't burn through that money that fast, but said that only 1%
of the money had been spent so far. And I talked to a source in the speaker's office and I said, do you expect that to be high, low? And nobody really knows. It sounds low, and I'll underscore sounds, but you don't really know. And so one of the things that we're trying to figure out here too are what have been typical and customary burn rates for big storms. But they should have the money right away to deal with this. And that includes shelter,
Food, medicine, transportation, rescues, etc. Rebuilding, that's going to be a much bigger bill that they're going to have to do probably at the end of the year, probably into early next year, probably two or three tranches, especially considering the severity of these storms.
Now, Ryan, the one thing that they'll have to do probably is reload that FEMA fund right when they get back in the middle of November. And then the other things that are the $64,000 questions is what do they do for the Small Business Administration Loan Program? The SBA has signaled that it's out of money.
And Roger Williams, who's the chair of the committee, indicated to me he said that was not what the administrator had signaled to him when they were talking before these storms just a couple of weeks ago with a hearing. And also the National Flood Insurance Program.
You could see tens of billions of dollars going out the door there. They have about $5 billion in their fund right now. There are 1.7 million flood insurance policies in the state of Florida alone and more than 2 million in North Carolina. And lawmakers have always just struggled with dealing with the flood insurance program. Do they just send them money? Do they cancel their debt?
Do they allow them to go into arrears more? There are limits in how much debt they can carry. We just don't know how they're going to tackle that. I will tell you, though, historically, it's not very sexy, but it's very important. But dealing with that flood insurance program has been a real hornet's nest here on Capitol Hill, Ryan.
And some of the sources I've talked to, too, have said that, you know, when it comes to rebuilding, actually, those small business loans might be one of the most, if not the most important thing when it comes to getting a state back up and running because of how, you know, obviously the economic impacts, but also just to get, you know, these folks back on their feet so that these impactors,
impacts of these hurricanes don't have a long-term and long-lasting economic burden that they're already going to have just from the damage that's being caused? You know, it's little things. People will look at, say, the roof being torn off at the baseball stadium, Tropicana Field. How do they fix that? Okay, well, that's big business. That's Major League Baseball. I don't know how they will handle that. But it's the smaller things, coffee shops. You have a
tire service, you have a tractor supply company, you have a pet store. Just imagine all of these small businesses and what they deal with and what they already qualify for with small business loans. And just to get people back in the door, that takes time because people aren't going to be spending on that. I could see maybe in the tractor supply area, but a cup of coffee or a donut shop
Maybe that's an essential need to some people because, hey, they're out trying to rebuild their house. So that's a typical place. But maybe since they don't have a job right away, they don't go to the donut shop every morning like they used to. That's a harder thing to figure. And that's why it's so hard just not to rebuild those businesses, but also kind of make them whole for the time period where there weren't people coming in and the general foot traffic that you would have under conventional circumstances.
And if we can get into what this package that Congress could be looking at when they get back is going to look like, obviously, we're going to have the Disaster Relief Fund potentially replenished. We're also going to see a number of other programs that we just talked about getting replenished. But it's what's interesting is that you're going to have a lot of fiscal hawks who are going to be involved with this because a lot of them are having districts that are getting wrecked right now. I think that Greg Stubbe down in Florida, you know,
Rick Scott and Marco Rubio considered to be fiscal hawks. And there's always been this talk about maybe having a way to pay for, you know, these supplemental packages. But, you know, I think you've talked to sources and I've got similar sources saying the same thing. The chances of Congress actually having a pay for in this is very slim. Yeah, simply because if you say, OK, we're going to take away from some other program somewhere, that's going to be important to some of the lawmaker. And then they won't vote for the overall bill.
I will say that members generally tend to come together from both sides of the aisle when they have a big crisis like this. But you're going to have some of these Republican members, you know, who have been very critical of federal spending, suddenly wanting hat in hand. Byron Donalds, the Republican from Florida, was on our air the other day and said, you know, some of these are just pet projects. Well, they're pet projects, yes, but it's a pet project that, you know, you need votes, you know, to take the money away from that.
And Ryan, as we have seen historically throughout this Congress, the Republicans in the House of Representatives cannot move spending bills at all on their own. They have this narrow majority, four or five seats depending on the day, and they're going to need Democratic help. And they're going to come in and say, yeah, you know, if you cut that thing, you know, we get disaster relief. It's not going to work that way. And it never has. And that's why it's going to be so challenging. I'm not saying that's good.
As one source said to me, this will all go on the federal credit card, which what does that mean? It means that, you know, you and me and everybody else owes a little bit more because they're not going to turn down this disaster aid. I thought it was very interesting in 2012 after Superstorm Sandy. And this is where the geography and the politics of these natural disasters is very interesting. Where did it hit?
mostly in the Northeast. Those are Democratic areas. At the time, we had a Democratic president. So New Jersey, New York City got really torn up. Vermont has some very leftist tendencies, has a socialist who's the independent senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, etc. You had Republicans from the South who, they sure wanted hurricane money, but they did not deign to help New York City and other places. I remember Pete King,
who was the former Republican congressman, his district was on Long Island just outside of New York City, and said, "Oh, this is just some bailout for New York." And I remember the other thing, you had these
very deep-pocketed Republican donors, these are the Wall Street types, who basically said to Eric Cantor, who was the majority leader in the House of Representatives at the time, said, "Don't come to us if this is going to be wanting money, if you're not going to help us out in our region after that storm." This is where the politics and, in that case, the geography of these natural disasters gets really interesting. In fact, I noted finally when they did pass
money for the Superstorm Sandy bill, which was actually into 2013, if you looked at the voting matrix about people who voted for the bill, you had a smaller percentage of Republicans in the House who voted for it.
But you had Republicans in the Northeast because it was their district, okay, Pennsylvania, some other places, New Jersey. And then you had people from the Gulf Coast, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Texas. Why? Because they're used to hurricanes. And they didn't want to have people looking askance at them again when there was a hurricane that came to their district and said, oh, no, no, the New York people wouldn't vote for it. So this is where this gets very tricky.
Yeah, and I had somebody say to me this week, you know, if you're from the South, you have to vote for these bills because you're next. We just don't know when it's going to happen, but it will happen to you if you're in a Southern district that your area is going to be hit by some natural disaster at some point. So, and I think if we can move on to maybe some of the other politics behind this, obviously, feedback.
FEMA is facing a ton of criticism. Homeland Security facing a significant amount of criticism from Republicans, too, as is the Biden administration in general. What do you make of some of the criticisms that have been levied at them when it comes to accusations that they've lacked preparedness or that they're not on the ground in the right places at the right time? You know, it's hard to read right now. And the only thing we can do is let history be our guide. You know, I was reminded because I was looking at a clip
from September 2nd of 2005. This was after Hurricane Sandy. I was looking at a clip the other day, and this was from September 2nd of 2005 after you had Hurricane Katrina completely tear up the Gulf Coast.
And the amazing thing to me was that you had then President George W. Bush come out and was commending, of course, the FEMA director, Michael Brown. There was the famous line, doing a great job, Brownie. And in fact, President Biden used almost the same language when he was addressing D.N. Criswell, who is the FEMA administrator now. And I'm like, if I were advising the White House, I would say just stay away from any language like that, because if it goes south, you have a problem.
And we don't know. There are so many untold stories. To this day, people are saying, "We don't know just how high this death toll is going to go in North Carolina." There's people that they still have not reached down in the Dells and the Hollers, that they just don't know in Western North Carolina.
they can't get to. Probably is going to be the same case to some degree in Florida. It's a little more of a populated place, but you just don't know. And it's hard to assess. It took a little bit of time to understand just how poor the federal and to some degree the state response was in Louisiana.
after Hurricane Katrina. Could you have a similar situation this time around? We just don't know. It's hard to say. And that's where I think there's going to be a lot of congressional investigations. And as journalists, we have to be mindful of, is somebody just doing this to stick it to the Biden-Harris administration because we have an election in just about three and a half weeks? Right. And I think one thing that a source was pointing out to me this week is that
It's hard to gauge the FEMA response in this situation because in some of these cases, especially with Helene, these are areas that are not used to getting hit by hurricanes. So if you take a place like Asheville, North Carolina, you know, this is somewhere where even the most experienced hurricane responders have never seen a hurricane like this impacted
a region like this one. And local officials there have also never had a hurricane like this impact that area. So the response is just so different and so unprecedented for so many of them because of how unique Helene was.
Yeah, and every storm is different. Talking to some people who I know who have been in Florida, they have talked about it wasn't so much the water that came in, but it was the tornadoes associated with the storm. And so, you know, you have this massive tornado outbreak, which is a subproduct of the storm here. Well, OK, that's going to cause different types of damage.
You might not have, you know, like the Lower Ninth Ward or something in New Orleans that was waterlogged for days after Katrina, but you have home after home after home conceivably destroyed because of a swath of tornadoes. Those are the things we're still trying to assess.
Right. And so James Comer, the Oversight Committee chairman, Republican, is going to push to have the FEMA director testify before Congress, likely in November when the storm has blown by and we're kind of not dealing with the immediate aftermath of that anymore. Do you expect more investigations like this to go on? And what do you think the focus is going to be there in terms of what Comer is going to try to do? Because you had an exclusive with him.
Yeah, I think that we will have a lot of investigations on this. And even if control of the Congress flips, the Senate looks like it might flip toward the Republicans. The House control there is completely up in the air. Nobody can really tell you that. But I would expect these investigations to continue regardless. And if you have a new administration, certainly they want to say, all right, we're going to do things better.
and this was the set of mistakes made by the previous administration. This demonstrates that they weren't with it to start with. This is why you guys elected us. So we have to demonstrate that we're better qualified here. Those are the things you're going to look at. And again,
Is it heads roll? Do we find out something so catastrophic that they were so ill prepared that nobody could get a helicopter or a boat or something in? Or you had these people who just absolutely should have been rescued and they weren't. And there was some bureaucratic reason. I just don't know. But those are the types of things that we would look for. And again, it is just still even with Helene in North Carolina, it is too early to assess that.
And one thing that was interesting to me, Chad, before we wrap up on this topic was I had a GOP source point out that they would like to see in some of these hearings and these investigations maybe focus on FEMA reform. So something that maybe not might not be political, which is more so fixing the system. So it makes it easier for FEMA to get into these places earlier, get these assessments done, get resources to these communities quicker. Have you heard anything about
uh... potential female reform to and is that something you've heard in the past
I could only imagine that people will try to work on that. You know, they really kind of plussed up FEMA in the early administration of former President Clinton in 1993 because the administration of President George W. Bush had been caught a little bit flat footed after Hurricane Andrew in southern Florida in 1992, just before the election, I might add. And so that was something that Bill Clinton said, I'm not going to get hit on this and we're going to have a better organized FEMA.
Yes, that would take legislation. They would have to rejigger that. You have to have an agreement, probably a bipartisan agreement. You have to have something that can get through the Senate as well and get 60 votes. Yes. The one thing I have heard about, though, Ryan, is that there's been a number of people saying we need to overall...
address how we deal with these storms. You know, Dean Criswell said, we have so many big storms that come now. They are so severe. There are such catastrophic damage in the wake of these storms. And we have to address that. So maybe the funding mechanisms
of how we handle this needs to be recalibrated completely. That could go into potential FEMA reform. Maybe the idea about how we handle the flood insurance program needs to be changed because obviously, you know, these Band-Aid fixes aren't working. The Small Business Administration, the same thing. So you could see maybe if there is the political will, a political recalibration of this stuff, because maybe the model that we used to have just doesn't work anymore.
And one last thing. We should probably clear up this accusation that has been going around that –
FEMA has been using funds on illegal immigrants. Now, from what it looks like is that they do have a fund that deals with that issue and is used to address the migrant crisis, but there's no evidence, and I believe Comer confirmed this to you, that there's no evidence that they have that FEMA has taken money from the disaster relief fund and used it to deal with the migrant crisis. Well, Comer raised an interesting issue. He says, you know, he kind of wanted, maybe not his term, but an audit.
FEMA, because, and DHS for that matter, which FEMA is part of the Department of Homeland Security. He said, because nobody can really direct you to, and he said, I don't think any member of Congress in the House or the Senate can say, this is where the money that we send to DHS goes.
Okay, fair criticism. I think that that's relevant. But this past week, I got a memo from Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee. That's the panel that deals with handing out the money. And this was a memo from House Republicans, even though some of their members have been out saying, oh, no, no, they've co-mingled these funds and they've sent money to illegal migrants, etc., but not dealing with the storm.
And as I say, this was only muddied the waters in the remarks from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who wasn't crystal clear about this stuff. And plus, you know, the Republicans, this is not a newsflash, like this ticket to Alejandro Mayorkas. They don't like how he's handled the border. He was the first cabinet secretary impeached since the 1870s. OK, fine. But the idea that this memo said there are funds that go to this shelter and services program.
that is under DHS, but that money is not disaster relief. They are not commingled. And just the fact that the Republicans put that out. I had somebody on the left reach out to me and say, after I put it on X, and said, just to be clear, this was the majority, meaning the Republicans. And I said, yes, because they were like, wow. But this is some of the stuff where you've had Republican members now having to truth squad
themselves to some degree. Chuck Edwards, the congressman from Western North Carolina, put out this fact sheet. No, they were not trying to, they didn't engineer the storm through seeding of the clouds so that they could get to these rare minerals underneath of chimney rock. No, they weren't trying to get, you know, trying to stick it to Western North Carolina because it's more Republican. And he said, I have
chased down every single rabbit hole to see if there was anything to any of these theories and they're absolutely not true. And that's remarkable that you have to have a member of Congress put out kind of a fact sheet
like that, but sometimes we operate in a post-factual world. Yeah. And I mean, just to give an example, you had Carlos Jimenez, the Republican congressman from the Miami area, actually respond to a tweet that Marjorie Taylor Greene had where she said that we can control the weather and he said that she needs to get her head examined. So that's kind of some of the back and forth that you're seeing right now. But Chad, really appreciate it. Thank you so much as always. Of course. My pleasure. Thank you.
This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Cybersecurity Awareness Month is still going strong, and LifeLock is here with a message about phishing, the scam cybercriminals use to trick victims into allowing access to their devices so they can steal their personal info. Being aware of phishing scams is one way to help protect yourself. For comprehensive identity theft protection, there's LifeLock. Start protecting your identity today with a 30-day free trial at LifeLock.com slash podcast. Thank you.
The first Monday in October has come and gone, and you know what that means, right? You guessed it. The U.S. Supreme Court is back in session. Between now and the end of June, we expect arguments, orders, and opinions on a host of thorny constitutional questions over the role of the federal government to regulate firearms, the use of the death penalty, and if states can restrict access to gender-affirming surgeries for minors.
Of course, it's also an election year, and we do not need to look very far back in the history to see examples of the justices getting pulled in the partisan fights over ballots and access to the polls. Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at the George Washington University School of Law and a Fox News contributor, expects history to repeat itself this year. I think there is a real chance of that. You know, I've covered...
I think the last five presidential elections for NBC, CBS and Fox at various times, in all of those elections, we had lingering election issues. Now, most of them dissipated fairly quickly. For example, when John Kerry lost.
We were uncertain whether there would be a substantial challenge in that case involving Ohio. And ultimately, I think to the surprise of his own staff, John Kerry said, we're not going to make any challenges. Of course, both Democrats and Republicans have challenged these results, including certification in Congress. The expectation is
is that we will have a number of core challenges. This could prove to be one of the closest elections in history. Also, we have even Democratic members like Raskin and others saying that they're not committed to accepting certification unless they're satisfied that there was a free and fair election. So I think that in an age of rage, you have to expect challenges.
We would like the legitimate. I mean, what, though, would like would be the legitimate legal issues that like the Supreme Court might have to decide in like an election that's as close as this is expected to be, I guess. Well, what we're anticipating in any presidential election is that your first round of elections.
challenges will occur obviously leading up to the election, changes, election rules, sufficiency of ballot production, those we've seen in every election and we've already seen some of them occur this year.
Then during the election, you will have litigation over keeping polling places open, the availability of balloting. Again, those have occurred in all five presidential elections I've covered, and I expect they are going to be the case here, particularly if we have a large showing. And then after the election, you will have challenges to allegations of
voting improprieties or irregularities. What's different about this election, with the possible exception of 2020, is that we have at least seven states that are swing states that are expected to be quite close.
That's going to be something of a nightmare in terms of those of us covering the legal challenges. We try to keep track of those challenges as they develop, but with seven swing states within the margin of error,
We expect that there's going to be challenges in some, if not all of those states. A lot of this, of course, depends on what happens. You know, in 2016, I was covering that election for Fox.
And all of the expectations were that Hillary would be declared the winner early on that evening. And I was in the green room when those early exit polling numbers came in. And Fox did an amazing job. They picked five or six districts that were right on the money. And so we got data
That left many of us surprised, even those that thought that Trump could win. And by the end of the night, there really wasn't a plausible path for Hillary Clinton. But Hillary Clinton did not concede that night, which many of us consider to be odd, because of all the elections that I've covered, I thought that one really didn't have any legs to any challenges that she could mount. But as you know, she waited till the next day and then she conceded.
I think I was curious, too. I mean, you look at 2020 and Trump is still not really conceded. But at any rate, I mean, those were cases, too, that the Supreme Court kind of had to get involved with. Right. And a lot of it had to do with kind of how state legislatures handled voting during covid and things like that. Do those issues still present challenges that could rise to the level of the Supreme Court?
Yes. And the thing is, the court is going to be pulled in on this election because of the fixed dates that
that control the ultimate selection of the president. So the first round of dates will be the state certification. And we saw that, uh, in obviously the Bush and Gore campaigns, uh, and, um, that kept us busy for a month. And that went back and forth to the courts, uh,
But you have that deadline of when these secretaries of state have to certify on their end. Then you have the federal certification. And we, of course, had the controversy over that and, of course, the riot on January 6th. So there's a very good chance that the Supreme Court could be pulled into this. They are not eager in any election to do that. The court is an institution.
is still recovering from Bush v. Gore. Many of the justices wrote about that. The court does not like to be in this position. And the fallout after Bush v. Gore, not surprisingly, was really rather intense and heated. And the court's integrity was under attack.
In many ways, John Roberts inherited that and had to really try to regain some of that view. And obviously, that's only been limited in his success. Roberts is the ultimate institutionalist.
He inherited a court that was already in the middle of, I'm not just talking about Bush v. Gore, but already being pulled into our deep political divisions. As an institutionalist, he really does not want the court in that position. And time and time again, he has tried to find a middle road, a compromise to try to avoid that.
But sometimes that cup can't move from your lips. And I think that the chief knows that. Let me ask about this term. We've had one, I guess, I want to call it a blockbuster case, but a significant case as it relates to firearm regulation. Not really a Second Amendment case, I guess, per se. But did you get a sense watching arguments, listening to arguments in these ghost guns cases?
It seems to me just one of those, again, situations where Congress writes these rules, these laws, technology kind of gets ahead of it, and then the Supreme Court has to decide what to do. Is that kind of the gist of what the court's trying to figure out here with ghost guns? Yeah, I think that that's accurate. Garland versus Vanderstock was an interesting argument because, indeed, it really turns on statutory and regulatory interpretations.
And these justices have strong and established views. Some of them allow for greater room at the elbows in interpreting laws like this, and many are much more textualist. So it is driven by more of the role of interpretation of the courts. And then you have, however, this sort of really fascinating problem. I mean, even people who support the Second Amendment recognize that ghost guns predatory
present a challenge for the ATF. There's been more than 19,000 ghost guns seized at crime scenes in 2021. That's a fantastically high number. And these are guns that lack the ability to track them through serial numbers, etc.,
I expect that some of the justices are sympathetic, but it really comes down to whose job is this? You know, many of the justices really push back when they're asked to essentially perfect justice.
federal law, to update federal law. That's really not their job. This is a very divisive issue, and they prefer the political branches to resolve them. Otherwise, everyone comes to the court and says, time to update, and they don't want to go to Congress.
That's a good point. Yeah, it's going to come down, I think, to whether or not they think Congress needs to fix the laws and update the laws that they write. Let me finish with this, just kind of as you look forward to the term ahead. Are there big cases you're looking at? I am always curious if the issue of abortion is going to reach the court again, obviously, after overturning of Roe. States have kind of
done a lot of different things as it relates to abortion restrictions. And are any of those like now ripe for another look from the Supreme Court? Well, yes. I mean, we are looking at some cases that are beginning to pop up. There's a couple of very interesting cases dealing with IVF. We just had a case that was turned down by
by the Supreme Court with regard to an Alabama fertility clinic where you had the destruction of embryos. But in Alabama, embryos are treated as unborn children. And I was a bit surprised that the court turned that one down, but it did get it out of this very sensitive area. And I do think that justices are going to try to reduce the temperature as much as they can because they know that it's going to be turned up
as they get close to the election. So I'm not too sure they're that eager to pick up new cases that are going to be controversial. The case that I actually am sort of watching more closely
is United States versus Scametti, which is an equal protection case out of Tennessee dealing with puberty blockers and transgender surgeries for minors. And so this is going to be a test. There are 22 states that have measures banning medical intervention for minors. Generally, the public polling is in favor of those laws.
But the court is going to have to weigh in on this. And I think that one really has the legs to be very significant to see how they answer that question. The question is whether or not states can put those laws in place, whether or not they violate parental rights.
That's right. I mean, so at issue here is not whether you can have transgender surgeries or have blockers, but whether you can do that for very young children or minors. And there is this movement that's picking up across the country. You have almost half the states already saying we don't want that. We think that you have to wait till people are at a certain age before they elect to take procedures that could be
have significant impacts on their lives. And the court is going to have to weigh in on that in reviewing the Tennessee law. It will be a term to watch. And as you point out, there could be some unexpected challenges that the court takes up to as it relates to, obviously, the election next month. So we'll have these conversations certainly between now and then and afterwards as well. Jonathan Turley, appreciate the analysis as always, sir. It's a great pleasure. Thank you.
Oh, it's such a clutch off-season pickup, Dave. I was worried we'd bring back the same team. I meant those blackout motorized shades. Blinds.com made it crazy affordable to replace our old blinds. Hard to install? No, it's easy. I installed these and then got some from my mom. She talked to a design consultant for free and scheduled a professional measure and install. Hall of Fame's son? They're the number one online retailer of custom window coverings in the world. Blinds.com is the GOAT!
Shop blinds.com right now and get up to 45% off select styles. Rules and restrictions may apply. For having me on.
Tomorrow on the Fox News Rundown from Washington, our in-depth reporting on the battleground states continues with a focus on Georgia. Can Democrats keep up a recent winning streak there? And both Vice President Harris and former President Trump are plotting out media strategies to hit key constituencies in the campaign's closing weeks. We'll look at who both candidates still need to reach.
Until then, thanks for listening. I'm Jared Halpert. This is the Fox News Rundown from Washington. Stay up to date by subscribing to this podcast at foxnewspodcasts.com. Listen ad-free on Fox News Podcasts Plus on Apple Podcasts. And Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on Amazon Music. And for up-to-the-minute news, go to foxnews.com.
This is Jimmy Fallon inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at foxacrossamerica.com.