chael sonnen! she is from detroit but her hair is from india.mes best-selling author kat timpf. and he uses traffic cones as earbuds. new york times best-selling author tyrus. >> greg: watching biden last night must have been too wistful because you have been thrown out of your house before so you must have had some sympathy. >> and interesting point that when you lose the presidency you lose your house. that is crazy that that happened to me. i never thought about that. i had watched the speech but then i realized at the end of the speech is it just me or did he say it was half off winter apparel. thank god he is stepping down. i think we should have a rule that if you cannot pass a roadside sobriety test when you were sober you cannot be president. could he do anything? walking a straight line i don't think the guy could say the off of it forward. >> greg: you know but be funny? if he got drunk he could pass the sobriety test. he might stop slurring when he gets drunk. all i have to say is a canadian is say it -- comedian is save some of that

chael: that's right. justice gorsuch: we're in t noncore powers we're fighting over. what role do motives play there? appointee a core power orl noncore power in your world? differentiate between the principa officers inrt cases like meyers and others of having a constitutional status of being immoveable at will with inferior officers where congress has some regulatory lot tight to pose restrictions on removal. justice gorsuch:utng that aside. i understand that. michael: putting that aside, appointing a principal officer is a power. i'm not prepared to say there's no potentialnal regulation to say you can't do it for corrupt purp to enrich yourself, for example. justice gorsuch: bribery, all right. that'shat i was wondering, do motives come into the core power an or not? i thought i heard no and now i'm hearing maybe. michael: i think maybe might be le bit more appropriate becausit not involved in this case, the deparenhas not had to take a pition on exactly how these core powers wod resolve as applied constitutional analysis. none is involved in this case. justice go

chael: of course. justice barrett: a lot of the protections you're talking about are internal protections the federal government has, protections in the department of juwhich obviously are not applicable with the many, many, ny state and local jurisdictions across the country. do you have to say to that? michael: so that raises a suprclause issue and the court would run a supremacy clause analysis that would probably start with basic principles like mcculloch versus maryland, the states don't have the auy to burden federal functions and woen kind o move through in re nagle, the state said a murder prosecution of a federal official regarding a supreme court justice and who fired a shot was not permissible. more categorical rule for thea states, i think the supremacy clause certainly leaves it within the court's prerogative to determine that the president, unlike all other officials deserves more of a robust federal defense than wh described. justice barrett: it would still be a defense in th states -- t