Welcome back to the Dershow for some breaking news. The Supreme Court in the five to four decision, just a loud stand title of 42, which authorizes immigration authorities to treat applicants for asylum and other potential immigrants under a protocol that was designed to prevent the spread of COVID.

And five justices allowed it to stand with argument scheduled now for February. We don't know how they'll decide. The surprising vote was by Justice Gorsuch, who generally can be counted on to go along with the six to three conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

Gorsuch went out of his way to essentially say, look, whatever the merits of this thing are, you can't keep title 42 and effect on the claim that there is a COVID emergency. That's no longer an appropriate justification. Maybe there are other justifications, but COVID is no longer a justification. Of course, ironically, I read that as I was coughing and Fleming from COVID myself.

I'm getting a little better, but still still have it still tests positively for it. So I don't think the COVID emergency of crisis is over, but it's certainly not in the pandemic proportions that it used to be.

And this is part and parcel of a bigger issue and that is how much power should administrative agencies or even the executive, the president, have over mad is that what to be legislative emergency sure, but when the emergency is over, Congress has to act.

And so I think this decision, although it's a stopgap, it's only between now and sometime February, when they are you in this herd, maybe March or April, when the case is decided raises the more fundamental issue of what can Congress do to control immigration effectively.

We are a nation of immigrants and we want immigrants to renew the lifeblood of this country is many of our parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great, great grandparents did over over time, but we cannot accept an open door policy where people come in without regard to communicable diseases or their criminal record, et cetera.

A balance has to be struck and it should be struck by Congress. The problem is starting in January, you're going to have a divided Congress, you're going to have the House under the control, obviously, of the Republicans and narrow control and the Senate under the control, even narrower of the Democrats. So ultimately, we're going to have to see a more definitive resolution to the immigrant problem.

I haven't obviously had a chance to read everything on the Scotus case. I've read enough to be able to say what I've said, but for a more definitive analysis, perhaps tomorrow or in the future, I'll have to read the opinions more carefully. Maybe we'll do it in the run up to the February arguments, but this is not the last you've heard about the immigration crisis at the border in the United States.

Okay, that's not what I plan to talk about today. What I plan to talk about today is Congressman elect George Santos, the first openly gay New York Congressman, people applauded his election as an openly gay member of Congress Republicans, uploaded his election as helping to maintain narrow control or regain narrow control of the House of Representatives.

But now it turns out that Congressman elect Santos wasn't exactly a paragon of honesty during his campaign. The New York Times and other magazines and newspapers and media have documented misstatement after misstatement that he made gradually college, apparently, no, he never graduated college.

He worked Goldman Sachs. No, he didn't quite work the Goldman Sachs. He worked for city group. No, he may have worked for a company that had some connections to a city group.

He hid the fact or at least didn't disclose the fact that he had a year long marriage. That's really not an issue. A person can be openly gay and run as an openly gay candidate, even with heterosexual and marital experiences.

So I don't hold that against them. He was in the obligation to disclose his marital status. He apparently did fail to disclose a serious crime. He said, I'm not a criminal. I'm not here or in Brazil or in any jurisdiction of the world.

Absolutely not. That did not happen, but there seems to be evidence that when he was a young man, he was caught writing checks with a stolen checkbook. He was identified with his full name and date of birth, as well as by the names of his mother and father.

There seems to be a real issue of credibility here. I guess my favorite or maybe least favorite. And it's probably not something we should joke or even smile about.

Is he acclaimed Jewish heritage? He even went so far as to claim that his grandparents escaped the Holocaust and moved to Brazil from Europe.

And there's apparently some real doubts about that about his Jewish ancestry. And so this is my favorite quote.

I never claimed to be Jewish. He said, I never claimed to be Jewish. I am Catholic because I learned my maternal grandmother's family had a Jewish background. I said I was Jewish, not Jewish, Jewish.

Well, okay, okay, we'll give you that if that's true, if your family in fact has some Jewish Sephardic Brazilian background, but if in fact they never set foot in Europe and the Ukraine, as you said, they did. If in fact they had no connection.

Whatever to the Holocaust, that's a completely different issue. That's make you Jewish or Jewish. It makes you liish untruthish.

We might not even want to include the ish part of it. And so the question arises, what can be done about it? Obviously, democratic congressman are now starting a campaign not to see him. Well, that really can't be done.

...