Mail-In Ballots, the Supreme Court, and Election Integrity

0:00This week at Vons and Albertsons, USDA Choice Tri-Tip Rost untrimmed are 599 per pound, limit 4 roasts with membership wear applicable, and medium-ripe Hassovicados are 99 cents each, with membership wear applicable. Plus Kellogg cereals 8.8 to 16.1 ounces, selected varieties, or peppered farm goldfish, 5.9 to 8 ounces, are 190.9 each when you buy three. Limit 3 offers with membership wear applicable. Visit VonsorAlbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save. Attention, you're listening to the Todd Huff Show, America's Home for Conservative,

1:05not bitter talk and education. Be advised the content of this program has been documented to prevent and even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lean to the right. And now, coming to you from the full suite Wealth Studios, here's your conservative, but not bitter host Todd Huff. All right, my friends, I want to talk about this Supreme Court decision yesterday that basically said that the proposed ruling or the rule change that the Trump administration had presented is not going to be implemented for the 2026 elections, the midterms here that start in what, seven weeks now I guess. So I want to talk about the rationale of this. I want to talk about what

2:09justice Samuel Alito has come out and speculated might have been part of the, well, the response from the liberal justices on the United States Supreme Court in an effort to thwart this rule from taking effect. That's what I want to talk about here today. My friends make no mistake. This is a, you know, it's interesting to me how people want to frame these things. This is a loss for Trump. This is a loss for the administration. I think that this is a loss for the American people to be quite honest. There's no doubt that there are problems with voting by mail. There are no doubts that there is no doubt that there are things that the federal government can do, including these, these sorts of rule changes that are under the authority of the United States Postal Service in this particular case, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito explain a little bit

3:14of this. Anyway, I want to get into that today. My friends, thank you for tuning in. If you want to get the, all the full scoop of what we talk about here on this program, things that we don't get to as deeply as we can. Well, we don't get to them as deeply on the podcast, the podcast as we do in the inner circle. You want to see the articles and the links to the things that I talk about. If you want the digital shareable version to help people hear this program and read about it, they want to read it instead of listening. I'm asking you to join the inner circle. I mean, the world to me is we seek to grow this, this community and this movement, this movement of conservatives pushing back to save this great nation from the lunatics on the left and other forces candidly inside this country, who are seeking to change this nation as founded.

4:14Join the inner circles totally free. You can do that on our website, tothuffshow.com or you can text the word join to 317-785-1030. Either way, my friends, welcome to the inner circle. It's free. You can cancel at any time. There's a lot of confusion out there about cratum. You've probably heard the headlines and most of those headlines are based on synthetic garbage that isn't even stories about real cratum at all. Real cratum is natural. It's tested. It's handled with care. That's exactly what you get from Christopher's organic botanicals. They are a family run company. They partnered directly with farmers in Indonesia. Every batch is tested. My friends, no chemicals, no fillers, no shortcuts. This is a trusted herbal option that has been used for generations. It is a real alternative for people looking for something that doesn't come with a warning label as long as a CVS receipt. Start with their creative starter pack,

5:15coupon code tothuffsaves10% off your first order, visit Christopher's organic botanicals.com, Christopher's organic botanicals.com, truth, tradition, transparency. Okay, that said, let's jump into let's jump into an update. This story here regarding the United States Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court did not, let's talk about what they did and did not do. They did not permanently strike down the Trump administration's postal service rule. Instead, what the court did was reject the Trump administration's emergency request to enforce the rule in time for the 2026 elections. That means since the so you go back to the previous courts ruling, which the lower court had ruled that there was a nationwide preliminary injunction in place, meaning that the

6:16postal service could not do anything unless or until the court system ruled that they could. And so the Supreme Court by rejecting the administration's request to enforce the rule, the court is basically fell back to the ruling and said that injunction is in place. Nothing can be done. So the vote is effectively a seven to decision with the two justices who dissent, who disagree with the decision of the majority here are justices, Samuel, Alito, and Clarence Thomas that they publicly dissented. So a couple of words about that. Number one, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, its current makeup, its current makeup has three left wing judges. And let me, let me take even a half step back. I know I've gone through this before with you, but it matters a lot. I want to be clear. And this might surprise some people who,

7:22I don't know, haven't listened to this program long who assume they think they know what I'm going to say on certain things, but I don't want the court. It shouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter. If the court has conservative judges of conservative opinion or judges of liberal opinion, if, and this is a big if that, that is theoretical because this doesn't happen in the real world when there are activist judges out there. And I want to explain the difference, but it's, it's not the ideology of the judge that matters when it comes to political ideology. It's their judicial philosophy. So when I say that the court has three leftist judges, really, if you want to get down to it, what I'm suggesting, what I'm claiming, what I'm arguing is that the court has three liberal activist judges. Now, what does that mean? That means, first of all,

8:23we have to understand the framework of the Constitution of the United States of America. We have three branches of government in spite of the fact that the Democratic Socialists of America, like Hassan Pikeger says he wants to wipe his backside with the Constitution of the United States of America. We've got leaders in the Democratic Socialists of America saying that they want, that they understand the Constitution, stands in the way of what they want, which is, of course, more political power and what they want when they get that power is contrary to how this nation was founded. They understand that in order to implement their crazy and insane ideas, they're going to have to probably not just amend the U.S. Constitution. They're going to have to totally remove it and install something else, a new government, my friends. So remind me again, it's, it's just bizarre to me. I encountered some comments of, of lunatics on Facebook,

9:25because I stated this yesterday on the program about the Democrat Socialists of America hating the Constitution, the left hating the Constitution of the United States, wanting something in place that's not the Constitution. Hating this nation is founded, which I stand firmly by. I've said that on this program for many, many years now. I think it's demonstrably true. I think it's undeniable, it's true to be quite honest. They're out there openly arguing for it. Anyway, it's amazing to me that just the immediate knee jerk reaction will Trump is assaulting the first whatever they list amendments that Trump is assaulting. You can make the case that any president or member of Congress or I guess activist group out there, regular citizen, hates or is finding against certain amendments to the Constitution. There's time, time to time, and administration, this goes for all administrations. They, they push the line on certain things because they want

10:25to get something done and sometimes they'll lose in court. Doesn't mean that they're trying to overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America. It means that they think they have an argument that, that when looked at in its totality, justice is on the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution and statute would side with them and say in this case, for example, we just saw yesterday seven Republicans joins Democrats in the House to limit President Trump's war powers. This is something that Congress absolutely has the prerogative of doing. We might not agree that it's a good piece of legislation that it's not someone may disagree whether or not it is a justifiable or just politically speaking or read just from a common sense level that it shouldn't be something that we do at this particular junction in this conflict and so forth. Others can make the case that it is. That's fine. It's a political thing. But Congress clearly has the the authority to do that. Trump, the president also has the authority to use the the military,

11:30especially in short term situations, has the commander in chief, has laid out in the U.S. Constitution. And so there's tension there. There's friction there, right? And it takes some understanding and some discussion, sometimes court cases to determine which in a particular instance, which prevails. Congressional authority to, as members of Congress, to be able to keep the president's powers in check or the president's powers to use the military as the commander in chief. It's there's some intentional friction there. And I think there's also some practical realities. Sometime, Congress, for example, obviously has the power to declare war. They don't declare war. Then what if anything can the president do? I don't want to make this entire episode about this particular issue. I want to keep it on the Supreme Court ruling about these mail and ballots. But what I'm saying is what I'm trying to paint this picture is is to say that there are just

12:35because there are legitimate disagreements about the practical application of the Constitution and statutes to a particular set of circumstances. It doesn't mean someone wants to overthrow the Constitution. Now, I think you could certainly make the case that people on say the political left hate the Second Amendment. They hate it. They don't like guns. They think you should go out there and round them up and declare guns to be illegal. And suddenly there would be no more homicides in the United States of America. The left views the gun as the problem. The conservative understands that it's not the gun who kills people. It's people who kill people using guns sometimes using hammers sometimes using automobiles sometimes using bombs sometimes using knives and other equipment other tools sometimes using their bare hands. Sometimes I look you can go on and on here. Reminds me of the allegation AOC made the other day,

13:36claiming that there were modern day lynchings going on. And then of course when the specifics came out about the recent cases of people who had been hanged the vast majority of them were suicides, which meant that they weren't killed by another person the corner rule that they were killed by themselves. And that's terrible. It's terrible to loss of life. But again, there's political narratives that come from these things and we need to separate political philosophy and the arguments out there about whether a certain amendment is good or it's being abused or any of those sorts of things, which of course I stand firmly behind the Bill of Rights, the newer amendments that Congress added over the course of time, including removing how state, excuse me, US senators are elected and so forth. Those are things that I have more more questions with. But the Bill of Rights is spot on accurate and needs, well, it needs to be defended because we're it's important that we explain

14:42it, but it stands also on its own merits. Anyway, the problem with the courts is not that liberals or conservatives enter on into it. What is the problem with the court is when the court steps outside its constitutional authority and when the justices become what's called activist judges. So we have three on the left. So they are activist judges. They believe that the Supreme Court is a valid tool platform branch of government whereby they can implement their political ideology, their political will. Now that's not the way that it was founded and set up. The Congress is where laws are supposed to be passed. The executive branch is supposed to execute and enforce those laws and the court system, the Supreme Court, of course, sitting at the top of that is supposed to interpret the law of the land effect. The Supreme Court, one could say, is supposed to be the voice for the Constitution. So if you're the voice of the Constitution and of previously written

15:46statutes, statutes on the books, then your personal opinion should matter not at all. Now, certainly there's that level of taking what was written, what we understand, and then interpreting it and applying it to the case. And you can certainly have reasonable people on certain cases draw different conclusions. But that's not what happens a lot of times on the court. The court, when you have activist judges, and I would go as far to say the vast majority of liberal justices are activist judges. Liberalism is an emotion. Liberalism is very much a feeling-based sort of ideology. I don't like that. Let's stop that. And so they will use their preferences and interpreting the law, sometimes just ignoring it. In fact, if you remember, talked about this on the program before, former Supreme Court Justice Brennan, I think it was Brennan who said once

16:50that you can cite foreign law, justice is ought to be able to cite foreign law in their decisions. It makes no sense. I said we were a half step away from allowing justices to cite Harry Potter novels, which we are. We're at that point. And so when you disregard the law, when you look outside the law, you look at other culture civilizations, their laws, personal opinions, and so forth, that is activism. Interpreting the law and doing their job as justices means that they read the Constitution. They apply that. They apply any applicable statutes. They try to make sense of all the different, sometimes conflicting laws on the books, not so much the constitutional issues, but the conflicting laws on the books that Congress has written over the past, whatever, to 250 years now. So there is some tension there, but oftentimes, a well, a purely activist judge doesn't care. There's no real friction in his or her mind because they

17:53simply know the outcome that they want. They listen to the case and they think this is what I want to happen. And so they engineer a solution or an argument, I should say, to get to the solution that they want. Those are the justices that I have a problem with. And all three of the leftist judges, Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Kataji Brown Jackson, all three are activist judges. Then you get to the people in the middle. And the person in the middle closest to the left, of course, is Chief Justice John Roberts, who sometimes arrives at decisions for just some wild reasons. And you go back to the Obamacare decision and you find that he actually, it's believed, changed his vote. Many people, in fact, misinterpreted that particular ruling. I remember listening live as people had just gotten the decision and they were flipping through. They

18:56wanted to be the first to report what happened. And some of them, or at least one of them, misinterpreted it. In part, I think because of how the ruling read from a man, the Chief Justice, who apparently flipped his vote somewhere along the process after, after actually writing the opinion. So you've got Chief Justice John Roberts. Then you've got a couple of new Trump appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. I think Amy Coney Barrett is closer to Roberts than Kavanaugh is. That's left to be determined because they're still young, but Kavanaugh in this case, actually somewhere. Let me see if I can find his comments. He basically said that the government might have been able to make its case, but this was too close to actual election day for states to be able to implement this. So this is why he voted. He was one that basically was on, you know, with the other group that said, this rule could not be enforced for the 2026 election.

20:01So again, we've got Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Katanji Brown Jackson on the far left, completely ready to be activist justices at every turn, almost every turn. Sometimes they surprise me, sometimes they actually do things that make sense inside with the majority and the constitution, but oftentimes these folks are prepared and ready and able to implement their political ideology from the bench. If you remember during Kavanaugh's hearing for being a Justice of the Supreme Court, he actually said during his testimony, maybe even during his opening statement, I can't remember exactly where it was. I just remember that he said, if I don't make a decision that I sometimes personally disagree with, I'm not doing my job. And this is exactly what he meant, because what he meant was sometimes the law requires the interpretation of the law and the constitution requires me to make a decision, a ruling that I personally disagree with.

21:01But my job, what he was arguing is that I'm supposed to enforce or I should say interpret the law and apply it, even if I don't like that particular outcome. That is that is someone who's not an activist judge. That is someone who is applying the law, trying to interpret the constitution and the statutes and apply it to the case at hand, using hopefully originalism as its guiding principle and force, which basically means what was meant by the people at the time that they passed the law or drafted the amendment or wrote the Bill of Rights. What were they trying to accomplish? What was what was what do we know from not just the language, but of course the language, but also what do we know about the debate? What do we know about some of the things that were set about some of the disagreements or some of the hashings out of the specifics on a particular issue? That's why it matters. We have to understand what they originally meant. We can't

22:04simply say, well, today this would mean X. You have to understand what it would have meant at the time it was written. And then you have to have the, well, the desire to say that's the law. That's what they meant. Don't be mad at me. That's what the constitution and the statutes require me to do. So beyond Kavanaugh, kind of in the middle there, the next, I think the next most conservative principled judge would be Neil Gorsuch. And then I, you know, there's times I feel like he's right in step with Alito and Clarence Thomas. But on this, he wasn't. And I think Samuel, Alito and Clarence Thomas are side by side in their desire to interpret the US Constitution and federal statutes as best they can and understand their original intent and apply that to the case at hand. But Alito and Thomas, the two who dissented here are the two that we need seven more like. And of

23:04course, that's easier said than done. But that's the makeup of the court. So let's talk about specifics in this decision. We'll have to do that after the break because I looked at and realized it is time to take a break. My friends, here's a quick question for you as we get to the break. Do you know where your money goes after you spend it? That answer makes you pause and cringe just even a little bit. It's time to check out Freedom Marketplace. We built this platform here at the Todd Huff Show to connect conservatives like you with businesses that share your values, businesses that refuse to support leftist candidates and leftist causes. It is absolutely free to use. No log in required. And it's all about keeping your dollars aligned with your principles. Check it out today, freedom marketplace dot net. That's freedom marketplace dot net liberty and business for all time out for me back here in just a minute. This week at Vons and Albertsons, USDA choice tri-tip roast untrimmed are 599 per pound.

24:07Limit 4 roasts with membership were applicable. And medium ripe hassovacados are 99 cents each with membership were applicable. Plus Kellogg cereals 8.8 to 16.1 ounces, selected varieties, or peppered farm goldfish 5.9 to 8 ounces are 190.9 each when you buy three. Limit 3 offers with membership were applicable. Visit vons or Albertsons dot com for more deals and ways to save. It's fall in Jeep country and during the drive into fall sales event, get a great deal on 4 by 4's that refuse to be contained like Jeep Wrangler, confidence built into every drive with the most awarded SUV ever Jeep Grand Cherokee and freedom that can't be denied with the open air freedom and Jeep gladiator. After 85 years, it's no surprise that Jeep became America's SUV brand. Get a great deal during the Jeep drive into fall sales event. Jeep is one more awards over its lifetime than any other SUV brand, cheap in the Jeep grill or register trade marks of FCA US LLC. This week at Vons and Albertsons, USDA Choice Tri-Tip Rost untrimmed are 5.99

25:07per pound. Limit 4 Rosts with membership were applicable. And medium ripe hassovacados are 99 cents each with membership were applicable. Plus Kellogg cereals 8.8 to 16.1 ounces, selected varieties, or peppered farm goldfish 5.9 to 8 ounces are 190.9 each when you buy three. Limit 3 offers with membership were applicable. Visit vons or Albertsons.com for more deals and ways to save. Welcome back my friends. Let's talk here about the specifics in the Supreme Court ruling, what the courts or what the rule I should say required the rule that they shot down again. It was not permanently shot down. It was only prevented. The court only prevented that rule from being enforced prior to the 2026 election or during the 2026 elections. So let's talk about what it was. The rule was concerned with absentee and male and ballots in general.

26:13So, but there's some specific requirements that would have been enforced. Number one, both outgoing and return ballot envelopes needed to display the official election male logo. I don't know if that's not part of the current rule, but that seems quite obvious to me. Number two, envelopes must be compatible with automated postal service equipment. Again, it seems like it's no brain hurt, no big deal. I'll point out the ones that are. Of course, a big deal here to the people on the other side anyway. Number three, a unique intelligent male bar code connected to each voter on both the outgoing and return envelopes. That is something that people who well, candidly are not interested in my estimation in voting integrity election integrity. They don't like this. This is a degree of what do you want to say? A step in the process that could make it

27:22harder to run a fraudulent election. If you can tie a specific ballot to a particular person without publicly identifying them, just to say this ballot came from from this person. That's the first thing that they don't like because if you again, remember the documentary 2000 mules, if you look at what they did allegedly, you'll see that it requires a lot of anonymity, right? You have people that go out that collect these ballots and do ballot harvesting and then go to these drop boxes. And so if you say, for example, ballot harvesting in general is illegal. In some states, you can take a couple of ballots. It's limited in number. In some states, I believe it's only supposed to be family members. So if you find out that, you know, the, for example, if you could only drop off a certain number of ballots and they have to be members of your family, if you could somehow find

28:27through being able to track this that, you know, all these ballots came through. This ballot drop came through and now suddenly we're tied. These, you have people that are tied to one another that aren't related. If there's a, this is at least the step, I'm not saying we can fully get there. But this is a step that would inch toward being able to point out some of the ways that these rules are being abused, right? Or potentially allegedly being abused. So they're not going to like that. They don't like that. A state and local election offices, this is what the rule would have required required would be required to submit each voters name address and corresponding barcodes to a new postal service portal. Bingo, bingo, circle gets the square. This is where people on the left running elections, running state governments are going to have a major, major problem. Now we've got, we've got requirements where they upload the addresses and the

29:29information of the people voting in their states. The government was not going to say that they were qualified or disqualified, but what it was going to do again, it's going to begin to tighten the metaphorical news here on whatever shenanigans might be going on out there. So if you have to then, remember, a lot of these states have refused to hand over any voter data to the federal government. Now this is kind of a a backdoor way that would have required it. Give them, but it makes perfect sense as well, right? The post office can certainly have rules on the mail that it delivers. The left, listen, the left is built this or the lover is a big government anyway of both parties, but a lot of those folks are leftists. They've built this monstrosity, this federal government. They have created this beast in which we live inside the belly here, the belly of the beast. They're the ones that have created this thing to to extend it to have all sorts of responsibilities and

30:31powers and so forth. And it is perfectly legitimate for the government that we've created to be able to regulate the mail that they're supposed to be delivering and returning for the election. But the left also vehemently opposes anything that might pull the mask off of any shenanigans that might be happening or I would suggest are likely happening in our election system. They don't want that exposed. And in fact, if I if you say something like I just said there, which I've never made a definitive claim that any election was stolen, I'm incredibly incredibly, I think that there's a lot of evidence, I should say that I'm very interested in the evidence and I am moved by the evidence to say that this is likely happening to some degree. I think well, we know what's happening, we know what's happening to some degree because we see people who have been charged and convicted of this stuff. The question is at what scale again, they they they're awfully sensitive about us

31:39finding out ways to keep them in check to make sure that the election is actually safe that that we're making sure that the people who in this case are on the registration on the voting registry or the ones returning the ballots and that we have some sort of a way to say, okay, these are the people who are voting. We want to make sure that someone who's not a voter is returning these things. And so this is the first step, right, to be able to have some sort of some sort of evidence, physical evidence to say that these this ballot was returned by this individual. They don't like that. They really, that's the key, the core of what they hate about this. The rule also said that postal employees would have given them the the rule would have allowed postal employees to compare outgoing mail ballot mailings against the portal before accepting them again, this would be a safeguard and safeguards are of course framed as people trying to disenfranchise others from voting.

32:42That's the way that this works. That's the argument here. It's not the argument that they lead with, but it's the it's the one that they fall back to whenever you continue to say this makes total sense. This is a reasonable rule, a reasonable system for mailing these ballots. Why don't you just give them the list of people who are in your voter registration systems? I mean, you're happy to spy on the American people at every other turn. You did this a lot when Trump was in office or running for office, Trump's now back in office. They're impeaching him or tried to impeach him. Again, kudos to the Democrats who finally learned their lesson on that, my friends. 64 Democrats either voted no or simply president to the latest insane impeachment. Well, the impeachment process that was started by the lunatic from Texas, Al Green. Again, this guy has never met a an impeachment for Trump. He didn't like or fully endorse, but that's been happening. It's been shot down in the house, of course. It's not suddenly that these

33:47folks have changed their ways. They've learned their lessons politically, I think. And they realize this is politically not helpful at this particular time. If it was, they would have proceeded, they would have pursued it. Anyway, going back to the case here, or the I should say the well, it's a Supreme court case, but the USPS is ruling proposed ruling. The other the last point here is that the Postal Service could refuse and return non-compliant outgoing ballot mailings to election officials for correction. So they don't like this. The left doesn't like this, the Democrat party doesn't like this ostensibly. Many would argue because they know that they are gaming the system and that they need to be able to have some sort of political cover in order to pull off whatever shenanigans they're running out there, allegedly ostensibly, presumably, at least by some. So those are the rule, that's what the rule required. The rule was struck down not

34:50because it's permanently being struck down, but because there's not enough time, they say for the states to comply with this. Now, again, the Postal Service was not independently verifying citizenship or eligibility to vote. They simply were going to take what the states gave to them and say these are the rules that have to be followed when we mail out and then we return these ballots. That's the way that it's going to work states determined who was eligible. They supplied all the information. All the UPS was USPS was going to do is check whether the voter and the ballot envelope information had been properly entered. But remember, those ballots would have been tied to an individual voter, which again is something that the something that the Democrats don't seem to care one bit about if it makes something even slightly more secure friends. Let me ask you something. Would you rather take two soft gels a day or spend

35:53hours at your doctor's office talking about cholesterol? Well, if you choose the latter, consider checking out salty. It's an all natural clinically proven dietary supplement that lowers cholesterol. Science has proven it does this. No prescriptions, no doctors visits. All you have to do is take two soft gels a day. It's a great way to start to protect your heart's health and lower your bad cholesterol. So you want more information or if you want to make your first purchase, just go to solty.com, S-O-L-T-E-A promo code Todd gets you 50% off your first three months apply. You'll get free shipping as well. Solty.com promo code Todd, time out for me back in a minute. It's fall in Jeep country and during the driving to fall sales event, get a great deal on four by fours that refuse to be contained like Jeep Wrangler. Confidence built into every drive with the most awarded SUV ever, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and freedom that can't be denied with the open air freedom and Jeep Gladiator. After 85 years, it's no surprise that Jeep became America's SUV

36:53brand. Get a great deal during the Jeep driving to fall sales event. Jeep is one more awards over its lifetime than any other SUV brand, Jeep and the Jeep Grill Registered Trademarks of FCAUS LC. This week at Vons and Albertsons, USDA Choice Tri-Tip Rost untrimmed are 599 per pound, limit four rows with membership wear applicable, and medium-ripe Hassovicados are 99 cents each, with membership wear applicable. Plus Kellogg's cereals 8.8 to 16.1 ounces, selected varieties, or peppered farm goldfish, 5.98 ounces are 190.9 each when you buy three. Limit three offers with membership wear applicable. Visit vonsoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save. Third Final segment, my friends. So, the reasoning behind the

38:14well, the official initial rule, the thinking by the Trump administration, was that this created a standardized uniquely bar-coded system where ballot envelopes would improve the tracking and visibility of ballot mail, create a record linking, outgoing and return ballot envelopes, help protect or I should say detect irregularities and possible election fraud provide information that authorized law enforcement, law enforcement agencies that they could then use to see if there's any shenanigans happening here. Fabricated ballots would be much, much harder to produce with these rules. And of course, this should, and we're told, listen, we're told if you're

39:18out there having any questions at all about the election system that you are spreading falsehoods and that you are undermining confidence in our elections. And so, the administration says fine, this rule should help people in the public have more confidence in the mail voting system. This of course, the original rule proposed by the administration followed Trump's March 31st executive order on citizenship verification and election integrity. So, here's why the Supreme Court blocked it. The unsigned order only gave us a very short explanation. Here's what it said. The government was unlikely, the government meeting the Trump Trump's administration and the USPS here. They were unlikely in overturning the preliminary injunction, that's the injunction placed on this by the lower court. And the equitable considerations did not justify emergency

40:22relief. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who I mentioned earlier, added a little bit more to this. He actually said that the rule may ultimately possess the legal authority, or that the postal service may actually have the legal authority to establish these requirements. But applying these to the 2026 election would be quote, arbitrary and capricious. State and local officials had not yet been given all sufficient time to redesign the envelopes. That's what he says, produce individual barcodes and computer systems and implement the portal requirements. The final rule was published on August 26 that took effect immediately. And was supposed to govern the November 3rd election. The Supreme Court acted on September 14th,

41:23that was just a couple of days ago. That was seven weeks from actual election day. And remember, these ballots go out prior to election day. So for Kavanaugh anyway, and maybe he was speaking for others, it's this is an unsigned ruling, but a timing, timing and implementation might have played, of course, certainly played a factor. But maybe if the timing was different, there could have been a different outcome. That's possible, although that doesn't seem to be completely the case. It was at least the case for Kavanaugh. So I do feel it's important to point out and I read this somewhere that I believe it was 12 states said that they had time to make these changes that it wasn't a time constraint. Again, it may be at this particular point because it's been dragged out. And that's what I wanted to get to here in the waiting moments of the program. I alluded to this off the top. And I'm going to leave you with this. This is at the Federalist.com.

42:30This will be again in today's inner circle. As will other articles if you want to dig deeper into this, but you can get the inner circle for free at ToddhaveShow.com or texting the word JoinedJ.O.I.N. to 317-785-1030. But here's what this says at the Federalist.com. Hence, liberal justices slow walked dissents to stop Trump's elections order for midterms. So Samuel Alito, if you read this article, basically said that this decision was delayed on purpose. So as to basically get us to this point to where whether the merits of the particular case defending what the post office rule was, whether they were legitimate or not, the court was going to be pressured to conclude that the practical efforts,

43:35like she made the practical effects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elections, was a very serious problem. And that's kind of it appears where we ended up here. So he alludes to that. Samuel Alito, listen, it's a lot of what happens as we spend a lot of time talking about this today. A lot of what happens in the legal system is not just the interpretation of the law, the application of the law, the constitution. There's a lot of other shenanigans that are happening out there as well, including feet dragging, which Alito says, well, suggests may have happened here in this case, forcing the Supreme Court to say that the US PS's rule could not be enforced in the 2026 midterms because they simply didn't have enough time to do it. So that's where we are. That's where we landed. Friends, Trump has done everything he can to

44:36secure our elections. For those of you who are concerned about it, I am concerned about that. He's going to continue to fight for this, but it looks like this is the game. The stage has been set. The rules have been finalized for 2026. Now it's time to go win this thing. I gotta run SDG. Meet the Red Bull Dragonberry Emergizer. It's one of the many new drinks out now. Who knew ice cold drinks could be so? Fire. Try them all only at McDonald's. Looking for the best of Verbo? Discover vacation rentals of the year, top quality homes, guess love from across the country. Our curated list takes the guesswork out of planning, so you can spend less time searching and more time packing. Book your next day now with Verbo.