The World and Everything in It - July 19, 2021

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court statistics are in for the term just ended. We’ll talk about what they might mean.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today on the Monday Moneybeat: that $3.5 trillion federal budget, it’s all going to come down to use the new term of art to the pay-fors.

Plus the WORLD History Book. 45 years ago, the first perfect 10 in Olympic gymnastics.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, July 19th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Now the news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations continue to rise » New COVID-19 cases continue to surge as the hyper-infectious delta variant spreads.

Some areas are seeing a greater increase than others. In LA County, officials have reinstated an indoor mask order, regardless of vaccination status. Hilda Solis is chair of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

SOLIS: Obviously, a whole lot has changed. And at the time, almost a month ago, when all this was declared that we were opening up, the numbers weren’t that high.

The county made the call after seven straight days with infections over 1,000.

Nationally, cases are up sharply. New daily cases now stand at about 30,000. That’s up from about 12,000 in late June.

And hospitalizations have risen more than 60 percent since late June, according to the CDC.

Deaths are also up, but only marginally. About 260 Americans are dying each day from COVID-19.

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy on Sunday said misinformation about vaccines is stopping many people from getting the shots that could curb the spread of the virus.

MURTHY: We know that about two-thirds of people who are not vaccinated either believe common myths about COVID-19 vaccination or think those myths might be true.

About 160 million Americans are now fully vaccinated—well short of White House vaccination goals.

Biden vows to fight DACA ruling » President Biden says the federal government will appeal a judge’s ruling against the DACA program.

That’s the program that shields many so-called “dreamers” from deportation. Those are adults who were illegally brought into the country as children.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen on Friday declared the program illegal. He barred the government from approving any new applications, though the program remains in place for existing recipients.

In 2012, then-President Barack Obama used executive powers to create the program after lawmakers could not come together on Dream Act legislation. He created the program after declaring he didn’t have the constitutional authority to do so on his own.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end DACA. But it did not affirm the legality or the program or the way in which it was created.

Immigrants and advocates are now urging Democrats to try again to pass a law legitimizing the program.

Wildfires continue to burn across the West » Smoke billowed over once picturesque forests in southern Oregon on Sunday as the largest wildfire in the country reduces more forestland to ash.

CANNON: We utilized hand crews and dozers to try to control the north corner of that fire.

Bootleg Fire Zone 2 Operations Chief Kyle Cannon heard there.

The Bootleg Fire just north of the California border grew to about 500 square miles over the weekend, an area about the size of Los Angeles.

Erratic winds fed the blaze, creating dangerous conditions for firefighters.

But fire crews are making progress against a blaze in northeastern California. Corey Rose is operations section chief for the team battling the Beckwourth fire.

ROSE: Overall, the fire’s looking really, really good. Everything is holding very, very well. And that’s just all the diligent work from the air resources and the ground resources.

Dozens of major blazes continue to burn across the West as dangerous fire weather looms in the coming days.

Merkel tours flood ravaged village in Germany » German Chancellor Angela Merkel surveyed what she called a “ghostly” scene in a flood ravaged village on Sunday.

Merkel said she came away from Schuld, in western Germany with—quote—“a real picture” of the “surreal, ghostly situation.” The riverside village is still partially covered with rubble and mud after floodwaters ripped through homes and businesses.

She pledged quick financial aid as the death toll from floods in Western Europe climbed above 180.

Officials say no one was killed or injured in Schuld, but many other places weren't so fortunate.

In neighboring North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state, 46 people were killed, including four firefighters. Belgium confirmed 31 deaths.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: a revealing analysis of the Supreme Court term by the numbers.

Plus, a historic Olympic performance.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 19th day of July, 2021. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Now that the Supreme Court term is over, all the statistics are in. Who decided what, how quickly opinions came down, which circuits got overturned the most, how often justices agreed with one another.

REICHARD: Right. The blog site I rely on is called Scotusblog. It compiles the numbers and it’s great if you want to geek out on that stuff.

So I decided that this year, I’d call up someone who likes to do that, too! Adam Carrington is associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College. He writes extensively on the courts.

Here’s our conversation.

Well, now that the Supreme Court is on summer recess, what are the justices doing all summer? I mean, that sounds like a pretty good gig.

ADAM CARRINGTON, GUEST: Yes, I want to know how much they're kicking up their feet. But I think given their schedules, they tend to still stay pretty busy. They'll sometimes teach courses at law schools, they have speaking engagements, they'll do some prep for the next term, because there's always petitions often 9000 to 10,000 petitions throughout the year they get for, for granting cert. But one I'd like to mention that maybe still happens. I know it happened a few years ago was Justice Thomas likes to travel the country in his RV. And he's had some very funny interviews where he's noted that that's what he's doing. And if you're stuck behind someone in an RV, it's probably him doing his dishes.

REICHARD: You know I like those little personal stories. Adam, before we get to the term’s statistics, remind me what salary the justices earn these days?

CARRINGTON: The Chief Justice gets $277,000, almost $278,000, the Associate Justices get over $265. And if you want to compare that to other branches, the president gets $400,000. And House and Senate get $174,000. So not a bad gig. And it reminds me that when FDR couldn't pack the court in the 1930s, what they did to actually get some of the justices to retire was make a very lucrative pension plan for them if they would retire. And that might have actually been one of the ways to get more of his justices on the court.

REICHARD: Well, I know there was a lot of conjecture that this term was going to come down very split and rancorous with three Trump-appointed justices on the bench. I know NPR reported that the new conservative majority would upend everything. What do you make of all of the conjecture prior to the three Trump appointees being on the bench together?

CARRINGTON: I think really left and right, there's sometimes a misunderstanding of the court that I think fails to understand how lawyers work, or doesn't always take into account how judges often see their own job. Yes, there are big ideologically charged cases that will sometimes fall along the lines of which party appointed. But there's a lot of these cases where it's about pretty mundane, to normal people, questions like statutory interpretation or standing. And I also think that often the letter of the law can really settle differences between judges, even when they might disagree on politics. So I think that there's sometimes a misunderstanding based on the big cases that that's how they're always operating, or that that's how they're they're thinking in a way that I think makes it sound more like they’re Congress or the president or a political party.

REICHARD: Right. Let’s look specifically at the split decisions and I’m defining that as cases that went 5-4 or 6-3. What stands out to you about those cases?

CARRINGTON: Interestingly, I think, and we've actually seen this even before, that the justices are not always in lockstep, especially the GOP nominees. And I think this comes from the fact that originalism or textualism— which are the underlying principles that almost all of them adhere to— aren't necessarily results based. And there can be differences in where they come down even when they have an agreement on that method. And I think that one example of this is you'll get some strange lineups. Borden v. US, which was about the definition of a violent felony. You have the democrat nominees being joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch to win that case. And that's actually not necessarily strange for Gorsuch, even though he's a Republican appointee. He's always been very much on the side of criminal defendants in a way that sometimes surprises people from a Republican nominee.

REICHARD: Let’s talk about the unanimous rulings or the ones that were 8-0 if it was before Justice Barrett came on to the bench. What stands out to you there?

CARRINGTON: I was surprised by several of them. One was the NCAA case about their antitrust laws. I thought that there might be someone who would side with the NCAA as far as their attempts to remain more amateur, even though that's harder and harder to maintain, for those who have any idea of how the market model now works for NCAA sports.

But even more, I was surprised at one of the bigger cases, Fulton v. Philadelphia. That was the Catholic Charities case wanting an exemption from being forced to refer children to same sex couples based on their religious beliefs. And very surprised it was unanimous. I thought, at least Justice Sotomayor would dissent. And I think part of that was it was a pretty narrow ruling where the court could have gone bigger. And it left a lot to answer in future cases. But the fact that they were able to come to that 9-0 consensus still surprised me even on the grounds that they reached.

REICHARD: OK, let’s do some quick q and a, just for fun on some interesting stats. Let’s just bat these back and forth. Adam, who was in the majority the most this term?

CARRINGTON: That'll be justice Kavanaugh, which probably is the new median justice.

REICHARD: Yeah, that makes it really interesting, doesn’t it? Who is in the dissent the most this term?

CARRINGTON: Not surprising to me,  Sotomayor, who I think is the most out of step with the court right now.

REICHARD: I’m just going to go right past that one! Who wrote the most opinions?

CARRINGTON: That was Justice Thomas and Sotomayor, who, again, are two of the justices who most have sort of an idiosyncratic opinion. So that's, I think, going to be a new normal as well.

REICHARD: Who were the advocates, the lawyers, who argued the most often?

CARRINGTON: Paul Clement, who is really the 10th justice. He's been on, made so many arguments, Feigin, Jeffrey Fisher, Kannon Shanmugam, and Malcolm Stewart. And they all did four arguments each, which is quite the accomplishment given that the court didn't do as many cases as they normally do this year.

REICHARD: That’s Eric Feigin, by the way. And I have audio of Malcolm Stewart and again, just for fun:

AUDIO: Mr Stewart?

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court: Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 reflects Congress’ conclusion that….

You know he just sounds like the actor Jimmy Stewart to me. Do you notice that?

CARRINGTON: (laughs) I had never thought of that! Now, that's going to ruin every argument I hear from him from now on! I'm going to think that it's a crossover, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington sequel.

REICHARD: Yes, I always think that when I hear him! Ok, on with my next statistics question. Which judicial circuit got overturned the most? And I think I could guess this one anyway.

CARRINGTON: That would be the 9th Circuit who is a bit on that, like the UCLA in the 60s and 70s, winning national titles in basketball, they seem to do it almost every year. This year, though, was particularly high 15 out of 16 times, that's a 94% reversal rate. That's very high for even them. And to be honest, very concerning. That's not supposed to be the case.

REICHARD: Let’s talk now a bit about the Shadow docket. Disputes that get a decision without argument, emergency appeals that block lower court orders for example. What did we see there on the shadow docket this past term?

CARRINGTON: We saw it taking a bit of an outsized importance. Often what's done with the shadow docket is things such as executions, whether to stay those or not, that's normal. But there were a lot more related to COVID. And especially some important ones related to religious liberty and the ability of churches to operate under COVID.

And I think what's interesting is that these kinds of decisions don't get the normal briefing, the normal arguing, the normal thinking. So it's going to be interesting to see did some of these decisions about COVID and religious liberty, will they have lasting import? Technically, they're not supposed to, given the way they were decided. But already we see litigants citing a number of them in order to make their arguments before the court. So I think that's something to watch and something to watch as post COVID will the number of these go down? Or will the shadow docket start to expand and its importance in use? Or is this just a blip?

REICHARD: Final thoughts, particularly for Christians?

CARRINGTON: I think a good thing to keep in mind when looking at these cases is as Christians, we believe that words matter, including Scripture, and claim that those words can really direct and guide our lives. The rule of law, while it doesn't claim to be divine, is in many ways based on a similar idea that words can be something that rule and guide our lives and make us better for it. And I think to look at the court in a right way is to say how are these judges trying to make the rule of law the rule of words rather than arbitrary will of humans actually work in our society and to be thankful that we have that commitment and protective of that commitment as one of the cherished liberties that we have as Americans.

REICHARD: Adam Carrington is associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College. As always, thank you.

CARRINGTON: Thank you. This is a pleasure. 

NICK EICHER, HOST: What would you guess is America’s favorite ice cream flavor?

Vanilla? Chocolate? Strawberry?

No, no, and no, according to ice cream maker Turkey Hill.

The company did a social media survey of 4,000 followers to find out their favorite flavors.

The top 5, counting up, were…

5. Black Raspberry
4. Chocolate Marshmallow
3. Butter Pecan
2. Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup

And the number one flavor was ... mint chocolate chip!

Now, this is a fun little story, but here’s the lesson: It’s all in the survey set! If you ask the market and the International Dairy Foods Association these are the people who make and sell the stuff—they know the market—the truth really is vanilla.

Goes with everything. Vanilla and everything in it.

It’s The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: the Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen joins us now for our regular conversation and commentary on the economy. David, good morning to you.

DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Thank you for having me.

EICHER: Well, maybe for the big economic story, I think we have to talk public policy. President Biden made a trip to Capitol Hill to meet with congressional Democrats and the big news was announcement of a budget agreement with Bernie Sanders, the budget chairman in the Senate, $3.5 trillion. 

The dollars are big, not as big as the progressives wanted, but as I say Sanders is on board, maybe that’s the biggest part—that’s what made it news.

BAHNSEN: That’s the only part of it, that’s what was basically announced, is that Biden and Bernie have an agreement and that is big news because they had to cut two and a half trillion dollars out of it. So they're clearly working backwards. But within a few hours of Senator Bernie Sanders and President Joe Biden saying that they had come to an agreement. And now they have to do the hard work of getting 50 democrats on board, because they don't intend to go forward on this bipartisan, they're going to bring it up through a budget reconciliation. You can't bring up a budget reconciliation, you can't open a reconciliation window, unless you have passed a budget. And the very first response came from Senator Joe Manchin, who said, I want all of it paid for, and my own back of napkin math, is that they are not going to be able to get much more than about 2 trillion done through some of the different pay fours. So I suspect it comes down even further. And then there are other pieces that are less quantitative and more qualitative. We're both Senator Sinema and Senator Manchin and I'm quite confident, several Democratic Congress, representatives on the House side that I don't think they're going to agree to the language about eliminating fossil fuels and things like that. So the Biden administration's left themself in a very precarious position, I still believe that they do end up getting something done. But when you set expectations high and have to keep going lower and lower and lower, it's not good politically. And then the two and I'm sorry for the long answer, but there's so much in all this, the two big things that I think are very likely to come out of it is as they push forward to the American Families Act I think they're going to lose a couple Republican senators on the on the infrastructure package. But then the other piece is the progressives in the House, they got Bernie Sanders on board in the Senate. But I'm not at all convinced that the kind of AOC squad is ready to give in on this reduced package. And what I mean by reduced to three and a half trillion seems like a lot of money to you and me, but what they wanted was a full public option on Obamacare, and they're not going forward with some of that, to scrap two and a half trillion out of what they planned, is quite a bit. So it's been a difficult week for some of the Democratic legislative agenda. But they're, they're not out, they're just gonna have to keep making the sausage and seeing what comes out.

EICHER: I'm struck by this language that we have to use now, the term “pay-for.” We don't talk about taxes anymore. We talk about pay-fors. And so I want to pick up on the comment that you made about Joe Manchin and budget pay-fors.

BAHNSEN: Well, can I, can I?

EICHER: I mean, everything’s paid for. There’s no free lunch. Even deficit-financing’s paid for in delayed, but still-unpleasant ways…

BAHNSEN: No, no, he means that’s what “pay-for” means, not with deficit financing. But I think you’re right: ideologically, all pay-fors are a form of taxation. But in this case, what he is referring to are, for example, the infrastructure bill, this is a Republican notion, it's one I actually support is user fees. So that would be an example of a pay for if you say the people that are using the cars that are on the highways are going to have a certain cost for what they're using the covers the infrastructure, higher tolls, for people using the bridges, things like that. We wouldn't think of that as taxes, and we certainly wouldn't think of them as tax rates, where incentives come into play. The other pay for that's going to be a big part of whatever they end up doing on this American Families Act is pharma reimbursement. So again, it's not necessarily a tax, but it's an incoming revenue, but it has to do with just a reduced payment to the pharmaceutical companies for the drugs that they provide through the Medicare program. So all of its a tax in the sense that it's the government confiscating money either directly or indirectly. But that's where there's a little creativity for some of these lawmakers and creativity when it comes to pay for lawmakers is usually not a good thing.

EICHER: David, the core of the Republican argument against all this and they're all going to vote no, but it seems like the core of the public debate talking point is, ‘Hey, we can't have this kind of spending. This is inflationary. Just look around. Prices going up. Lumber is through the roof. You can’t get a car.’ Everybody feels this. You've heard Republican arguments that the Democrats are pumping inflation with this spending blowout. And I know the inflation narrative is one of your favorite topics, but you think this is a mistake

BAHNSEN: Well, it’s one of my favorite topics in recent months, because it's only become a Republican talking point in recent months. And it's a wrong Republican talking point. I'm against this government spending, and I'm against inflation. But this spending is not inflationary, and a Republican Congress and Senate that oversaw the expansion of the national debt to the tune of $8 trillion in 4 years, government spending constricts growth; it does not overheat the economy, it cools the economy, it does not lead to too much productivity, whatever that is, it leads to not enough productivity, it mis-allocates capital. And the reason it does that is because productive growth in the economy comes from investment, and no dollar can be invested unless it comes from national savings, there is no dollar to invest that was not first saved. This is mathematical logic. And the more government spending you have, the less national savings, you have, ergo, the less productive growth. This is a very simple algebraic formula that I think most people can understand. Lumber prices have now become this big embarrassment, because they blew up a few 100% because they couldn't get any timber. There was this massive supply disruption. And you had a lot of Republicans, some of them well meaning, some of them disingenuous, saying ‘Oh, look at this hyperinflation and it's hurting housing, and we can't build our backyard decks.’ And now lumber prices have collapsed 70% in the last six weeks. Calling something inflationary because of supply disruptions from semiconductors, the used car issues and so forth, it is only going to backfire, because these things do end up going away. And then the people that have said been saying, ‘Oh, it's transitory, it’s transitory, government can spend more’ are going to not only take a victory lap that they were right, they're going to then claim the moral and economic authority to spend more. So I want to call this what it is - excessive government spending is a bad idea, living outside of our national means is a bad idea. But labeling it as a bad idea because of inflationary ramifications is very concerning to me, and does not stand up to the test of history. Excessive government spending contracts growth, it does not inflate it.

EICHER: David Bahnsen—financial analyst and adviser. He writes at dividendcafe.com. And that’s your Monday Moneybeat. Thanks David, see you next week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, July 19th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Next up on The World and Everything in It: The WORLD History Book. Today, a perfect 10, a dubious 100, and archaeological awe. Here’s senior correspondent Katie Gaultney.

MUSIC: Peruvian pan flute

KATIE GAULTNEY, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Machu Picchu is sometimes called the “Lost City of the Incas.” Built around 1450, it remained protected from Spanish colonists in its remote location 50 miles from the Peruvian city of Cuzco. And it went more or less undetected by all but the locals in that lofty mountain ridge until 110 years ago. That’s when American historian and explorer Hiram Bingham rediscovered it, on July 24, 1911.

Bingham grew up in a missionary family in Hawaii. He eventually became a professor at Yale.

HEANEY: Hiram Bingham, in a word, was a whirlwind, he was a force of nature.

Christopher Heaney has studied Bingham’s life and expeditions, and he talked at a National Geographic event about the trailblazer.

HEANEY: He was smart, he was deeply ambitious, he was a good organizer. He wasn’t very good at staying in one place…

While at an academic conference in Santiago, Chile, Bingham spoke to some Peruvian scholars.

On that excursion in 1909, he saw the foundations of the former Inca civilization. He returned to the States and began planning his own expedition. Upon his return in 1911, he asked an innkeeper about ruins in the area.

HEANEY: And the innkeeper, whose name was Melchor Arteaga, just pointed straight up and said the words that would change Bingham’s life: “Machu Picchu.”

Christopher Heaney again, describing Bingham’s reaction to the sites, as written in the explorer’s journals.

HEANEY: When he first saw it, it captured his imagination as a jungle-covered maze of small and large walls, the ruins of buildings made of blocks of white granite, most carefully cut and beautifully fitted together without cement. Surprise followed surprise…

Machu Picchu is today one of South America’s most notable tourist attractions, and history recognizes Bingham as the man who brought it to the modern forefront. Bingham went on to serve as governor of Connecticut for just one day before filling a vacant role in the U.S. Senate. He also served as one inspiration for the character of Indiana Jones.

Transitioning from the Eastern Cordillera of southern Peru to the People’s Great Hall in Beijing.

SONG: “March of the Volunteers”

“Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves.” That’s the English translation of the first line of the anthem for the People’s Republic of China. The song is supposed to evoke a sense of national pride, but it feels more ironic in light of the oppressive tactics of the Communist Party of China—or CPC. It was founded 100 years ago, on July 23, 1921.

The CPC has been the sole governing party of the People's Republic of China since 1949, after the Chinese Civil War prompted the retreat of the Republic of China to Taiwan. Revolutionaries Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao founded the party.

The party celebrated its centennial earlier this month. The government increased censorship efforts online and elsewhere, and officials like President Xi Jinping offered revisionist histories of the party’s contributions to society over the last century. Billboards offered slogans like "Listen to the party, appreciate the party, follow the party.” In President Xi’s lengthy speech, he offered some veiled threats to other world superpowers.

AUDIO: Xi Jinping speaks at the Communist Party of China’s centenary celebrations

In light of the CPC’s history of human rights violations, Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives proposed a resolution stating that the founding of the Chinese Communist Party is no cause for celebration. The statement went on to suggest that the party use this anniversary to reflect on its own history.

And, with the Tokyo Olympics kicking off this Friday, let’s revisit a moment of Olympics history. Romanian Nadia Comaneci tackles the asymmetric bars 45 years ago, on July 18, 1976.

ANNOUNCER: Faultless! Absolutely faultless! Nadia Comaneci. Now what are the judges going to say about that? And 10 has gone on the board! That’s perfection, and that’s Olympic history for Nadia Comaneci.

Judges awarded Comaneci the first perfect score for gymnastics at the Olympic Games. The scoreboard, though, wasn’t designed for that kind of performance; it read 1-point-0-0 since it couldn’t display “10.” Comaneci talked to the Olympic Channel in 2017 about that moment.

COMANECI: I thought I did a good routine. I didn’t even think about 10, I was hoping I would get 9.9 or something close to that. And just because I heard the big noise in the arena, I turn around and I see the scoreboard at 1.00, which is very confusing…

Comaneci was just 14 years old at the time. The 1976 Games took place in Montreal, and Comaneci went on to earn six more perfect 10s and three gold medals.

Her success prompted a pandemic of gymnastics fever and made the sport a popular activity for young people.

In 1989, she fled Communism, defecting to the United States from her home country of Romania. She married an American, fellow Olympic gold medal gymnast Bart Conner. Twenty years ago, she became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

MUSIC: OLYMPIC FANFARE

That’s this week’s History Book. I’m Katie Gaultney.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: indoctrination in Illinois. We’ll tell you about a plan to weave gender ideology into the public school curriculum as early as kindergarten.

And, Hope Awards. We’ll hear from the reporting team who visited all of this year’s finalists.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

Jesus said that in Him you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; Jesus has overcome the world.

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.