Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 306 ｜ Amy Coney Barrett & Trump's Battle for the Presidency

00:00:00.000 Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. I hope everyone had a great weekend. Happy Monday. So if you

00:00:15.220 are watching this on YouTube, you see that I'm not in my set. It's not my typical setup

00:00:21.000 and maybe you can even tell by listening to this wherever you are listening that it sounds

00:00:25.800 a little bit different. Well, let me tell you what happened. So I'm actually recording this,

00:00:30.680 today's episode, Monday's episode on Sunday. Now I already actually recorded what was supposed to

00:00:37.500 be today's episode on Thursday. That's what I typically do. I record Monday's and Friday's

00:00:42.880 episode on Thursday. However, when I recorded on Thursday, I didn't think about the fact that Amy

00:00:51.000 Coney Barrett would be officially nominated by Trump on Saturday and that I would have so much

00:00:57.100 to talk about. And so I wanted to do a special edition. That means I had to get rid of a ton

00:01:03.920 of content that I had recorded on Thursday. And now I am now I am recording something new for you guys

00:01:14.420 because I wanted to make sure that we talked about this. It's obviously so important. And there are a

00:01:20.240 lot of questions that you guys have asked me. There's been a huge reaction to this over the

00:01:24.980 past few days. And so it just didn't make sense for me to talk about what I talked about on Thursday

00:01:30.040 today in light of everything that happened over the past couple of days. Now, at the end of this,

00:01:35.620 I am still going to show you the awesome, awesome conversation that I had with chairwoman of the RNC,

00:01:43.320 Ronna McDaniel. And I really want you to listen to that at the end of this episode. That was recorded

00:01:49.520 on Thursday. But before we get into all of that, I do want to talk to you guys about Amy Coney Barrett,

00:01:57.660 the judge that has just been nominated by President Trump to become the next Supreme Court justice,

00:02:05.520 taking what was RBG's seat. So let's talk about who she was, both personally and professionally.

00:02:15.000 We'll talk about the media slash left wing reaction to all of it. And then we are going to talk about

00:02:22.000 some of the conservative critiques of her and also some Christian critiques of her, specifically

00:02:28.200 the critique of a woman sitting on the highest court of the land and how we as Christians should

00:02:35.500 think about that biblically. So I'm going to try to cover all of that as thoroughly and yet as

00:02:40.440 briskly as I possibly can, because we've got a lot of ground to cover. And then I still have that

00:02:45.260 awesome interview at the, at the end of this. So I have to be able to make time for all of it.

00:02:49.840 First, let's talk about who she is. So she is the oldest of seven kids from a Catholic family

00:02:55.220 from New Orleans. She also has seven kids of her own now. So she is used to big families. She 0.99

00:03:01.420 graduated magna cum laude from Rhodes College in Memphis. And then she went to, I don't know how you

00:03:08.160 guys say it. Is it, is it Notre Dame? Is it Notre Dame? I say Notre Dame, but some of you from up

00:03:15.340 there, you might, you might correct me. She graduated from Notre Dame law school. After that, she spent 0.99

00:03:21.560 two years as a judicial law clerk. First for Judge Lawrence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for

00:03:28.180 the D.C. Circuit from 1997 to 1998. And then for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court from

00:03:36.060 98 to 99. You guys know who Justice Antonin Scalia is. He is the very conservative textualist,

00:03:43.400 Supreme Court justice, helped decide a lot of very important cases. He passed away unexpectedly in 2016.

00:03:50.320 And then we had that whole saga with President Obama nominating Merrick Garland and the Republican

00:03:56.400 controlled Senate saying, no, we're not even going to entertain that because look, there's precedent for

00:04:01.860 this, which there is. There's a lot of historical precedent, more than there is going the other

00:04:06.440 direction of the opposite party in the Senate, refusing to confirm the nominee of the opposite

00:04:14.980 party's president right before an election. So that's what Mitch McConnell decided to do.

00:04:20.020 Now that it's 2020, the same party in the White House, same party in the Senate. They're saying,

00:04:26.060 yeah, of course, we're going to vote to confirm this nominee. It's really just politics.

00:04:30.940 The Republicans want a Republican nominee on the Supreme Court. They didn't want a Democratic

00:04:35.380 nominee on the Supreme Court. It would be the same way the other way. You can go back and listen to,

00:04:40.480 I think it's episode 304, where we talk specifically about that difference. Okay. Back to Amy Coney

00:04:46.560 Barrett from 1999 to 2002. She practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, LaRocca, and Lewin in Washington,

00:04:54.620 D.C. Barrett served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in law at George

00:05:02.240 Washington University Law School for a year before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School

00:05:07.440 in 2002. She has lots of academic work that has been published in journals like the Columbia Cornell,

00:05:14.380 Virginia, Notre Dame, and Texas Law Reviews. At Notre Dame, Barrett received the Distinguished Professor

00:05:21.020 of the Year Award three times. Barrett has continued to teach even as a sitting judge,

00:05:26.860 a very busy and obviously an accomplished woman. On May 8th, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated

00:05:34.340 Barrett to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Like I said, she has seven

00:05:40.340 children. Two of these are adopted from Haiti, five biological. Her youngest son has Down syndrome.

00:05:46.460 She is married to an attorney and has been married to him, I think she said on Saturday,

00:05:52.140 for 21 years. Now let's talk about her judicial philosophy a little bit. She is considered an

00:06:01.660 originalist. So what that means is an originalist interprets the Constitution based on what writers

00:06:08.940 originally meant. Now, some of you out there, maybe some conservatives that have a problem with Amy

00:06:16.160 Coney Barrett and some of the decisions that she's helped make, might have a critique of that

00:06:20.920 description of her. And I will get to that in just a little bit. But just to explain a little bit more

00:06:25.940 the difference between an originalist, which is almost always what the Republicans, who the Republicans

00:06:32.560 want to nominate versus who Democrats want to nominate. We talked about this again. I think it was

00:06:38.220 episode 304. Left-wing judges interpret the Constitution based not on what the founders originally

00:06:44.780 intended, but based on what they would like it to mean today. And I don't think that that is an

00:06:50.740 unfair characterization. I'm not trying to say that all left-wing judges are flippant or that they don't

00:06:56.740 care at all about the Constitution or they don't care at all about the law, but they don't care about

00:07:01.540 the intent of the law or what the law is actually meant to mean. They care much more about how they can

00:07:07.760 reinterpret and apply the law according to the current dogma of their ideology. So, for example,

00:07:16.600 even though abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, not even alluded to in the Constitution,

00:07:22.720 and the framers would have never meant for the 14th Amendment to include the right to kill the baby

00:07:28.040 inside your womb, the justices found a way to include it. Now, not all of those justices were

00:07:34.600 these far left-wing radicals. Some of it had to do with the ignorance of the fact that a baby inside

00:07:40.020 the womb is indeed a baby. There was some technology and science lacking there that they just didn't

00:07:46.800 know how early a baby can feel pain. Of course, we know from just a moral, scientific, biblical

00:07:53.380 perspective that life is life at conception. Whether or not the baby feels pain, which they do

00:07:58.580 as early as early as 16 weeks at least, a baby is a baby from the earliest stages. A human is a human

00:08:06.280 from the point of conception. They were not operating through that lens, but there probably was some

00:08:12.200 ignorance there, some scientific ignorance on how soon a baby feels real pain. But also, it did have

00:08:20.340 to do with their judicial philosophy that you can kind of insert and create rights where they don't

00:08:27.700 actually exist where you want them to exist in the Constitution. So the Constitution, really,

00:08:33.300 according to that philosophy, is just kind of something that it's a formality. You have to

00:08:39.500 appeal to it. That's what you vowed to do when you took your place on the Supreme Court. But left-wing

00:08:47.480 justices don't actually care what the Constitution was intended to do or what the framers actually

00:08:52.560 wanted textualist, originalist interpreters of the Constitution like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas

00:08:59.240 or Amy Coney Barrett. They do care about the intention and what the law is actually meant to

00:09:04.560 mean. She does believe that some cases she wrote about this, I think it was 2013, should have what

00:09:10.660 she calls super precedents, which means that the court should never consider overturning them. She

00:09:15.980 included particular cases in this argument like Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that separate

00:09:21.120 but equal is unconstitutional in public schools, a map v. Ohio, which ruled that any evidence obtained

00:09:28.460 by state and local authorities that violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against

00:09:33.900 unreasonable searches and seizures, could not be used in courts. Now, she did not include on this

00:09:40.840 list of super precedents Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case, because she said it is not widely

00:09:47.460 agreed upon enough by the courts, nor the people to just take it off the court's agenda entirely and to

00:09:54.420 say, OK, there's never any possibility of overturning this.

00:09:58.480 On Roe v. Wade, she said the case was decided by, quote, creating through judicial fiat a framework of

00:10:15.460 abortion on demand. And so that's a disagreement with how Roe v. Wade ended up. She's right about 0.96

00:10:24.520 that whether or not you think that women should have the right to choose. The reason why Roe is contentious

00:10:31.720 goes really far beyond that. The question is, is it constitutional? Was the case decided

00:10:38.640 constitutionally? Again, left wingers just having a different worldview, having a different view of the

00:10:44.540 government doesn't really care whether or not the Constitution actually does grant the right or recognizes

00:10:50.580 the right to abortion. They are OK with creating the right to abortion and simply going back in some 0.77

00:10:56.780 subliminal message of the Constitution to try to prove their case. Now, I would say there is no

00:11:04.100 constitutional right to abortion. Most conservatives would say, no, there's no constitutional right to

00:11:09.440 abortion. There is no right to kill your baby inside your womb anywhere in the Constitution, including

00:11:15.080 in the 14th Amendment. The decision could have and should have been made legislatively, not

00:11:22.440 judicially. And for the millionth time, overturning Roe v. Wade, which is very unlikely to happen.

00:11:29.200 That's something that ACB, that's the acronym I'm using for Amy Coney Barrett. She said that herself,

00:11:34.520 that it's very unlikely for that to actually happen. But even if it did happen, it doesn't outlaw

00:11:40.440 abortion. It allows states to decide. And the vast majority of states, of course, we pro-lifers don't

00:11:45.940 like this, but the vast majority of states are going to keep abortion in place. And actually, 0.73

00:11:50.820 the fact that this became part of the judicial process rather than just a part of the democratic

00:11:56.060 process actually probably stopped the liberalization of abortion law from happening. And that is something

00:12:04.960 that RGB said herself, something that a lot of pro-choice, pro-abortion activists don't seem

00:12:10.680 to understand. So ACB also, this is another thing that you're going to hear from Democrats,

00:12:16.180 particularly from Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, that with ACB on the Supreme Court, we're not going to

00:12:22.800 have health care anymore and that people with pre-existing conditions will no longer be able to be

00:12:27.460 covered by insurance. And the reason why they're saying that is because ACB disagreed publicly

00:12:33.300 with Justice Roberts' defense of the Obamacare mandate in the case National Federation of

00:12:39.700 Independent Business versus Sebelius, the mandate said you have to have health care or else you will

00:12:46.880 be fined for it. Most of you guys know what the Obamacare mandate is. People are really fear-mongering

00:12:52.980 about this, though, trying to say that she's going to take your health insurance away, especially if you

00:12:58.520 have a pre-existing condition. But let's try to understand this a little bit. Justice Roberts and

00:13:04.540 SCOTUS, the majority anyway, in that case, recharacterized the mandate as a tax, which the

00:13:11.980 conservative justices and ACB both said that that is not an actual interpretation of the law, but

00:13:20.080 actually a rewriting of the law to be something that was never meant to be, that it never claimed to

00:13:26.020 be. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito argued in that case that this unconstitutionally

00:13:32.280 expanded the power of Congress via the Commerce Clause. Remember this, Obamacare was radical, is

00:13:39.820 radical in a lot of ways. It didn't just provide people with health care, it actually forced people

00:13:45.640 onto health care and it raised premiums. So a lot of people think that Obamacare just saved all of

00:13:52.480 these people and what would we do without it. And it's so cruel to talk about whether or not the

00:13:57.200 mandate is constitutional. But let's just talk about its effectiveness for just a second. This

00:14:02.140 is from an article in the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services titled, Think Obamacare for the

00:14:07.260 rise in the uninsured. This is from last year. While Obamacare promised affordable health insurance

00:14:13.280 for every American and even penalized those who refused to buy it, that is that individual mandate,

00:14:18.580 the law did nothing to control underlying costs. The very structure of the law, which imposed

00:14:24.320 billions of dollars in new costly regulations, also led to higher and higher insurance premiums.

00:14:30.580 As a result, when President Trump took office in 2017, average individual market health insurance

00:14:35.460 premiums in states using healthcare.gov had already doubled when compared to 2013, the year before

00:14:41.940 Obamacare's main regulations took effect. Average premiums went up by another 26% by 2018. At the

00:14:49.580 same time, individual market premiums were spiking out of control. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

00:14:54.660 services data show a substantial enrollment drop among unsubsidized people on the individual market

00:15:01.220 who do not receive federal premium tax credits. In just two years from 2016 to 2018, unsubsidized

00:15:08.660 enrollment declined by 2.5 million people, a 40% drop. These numbers clearly show Obamacare

00:15:16.200 has created a serious affordability problem on the individual market. And this was all put in motion

00:15:21.880 before President Trump took office. Let's remember that insurer's process for setting rates for 2018 was

00:15:29.220 well underway at the beginning of 2017 when President Trump took office and based on policy set in place

00:15:35.340 under the Obama administration. Simply put, there are too many people without subsidies who cannot afford

00:15:41.940 coverage under Obamacare. So the fact of the matter is, is that Obamacare wasn't a fix-all, not even

00:15:47.780 close. It made some problems actually worse. And so President Trump in 2019, they decided that they

00:15:55.900 were no longer going to enforce the individual mandate. So you wouldn't be penalized for that. A lot of

00:16:00.900 people, of course, saw this as a good thing. Even just constitutionally, people said, oh, that's an

00:16:05.580 attack on health care somehow. And people have said that President Trump is taking away coverage for

00:16:10.980 pre-existing conditions. But President Trump actually just signed an executive order to protect

00:16:16.840 pre-existing conditions. Republicans realize that coverage for pre-existing conditions is very popular

00:16:22.140 among the American people. And so they have vowed to protect that. Democrats really want to use

00:16:28.340 this to scare you away from ACB, to scare you away from Trump, and to scare you away from Republicans.

00:16:33.540 But a lot of it is just fear-mongering and propaganda. Now, I'm going to do a whole election

00:16:37.580 episode. Mondays are supposed to be election episodes. Today, it's a little bit different.

00:16:42.740 We've been doing several of them in the past. We'll continue next week. I'll do a health care one soon

00:16:47.300 to break down how the right and the left view health care coverage and what possible solutions

00:16:53.060 there could be. Now, it's not just Democrats who have a problem with some of her decisions. Of

00:16:59.820 course, they are not going to agree with her interpretation of the Constitution because

00:17:04.140 they're not textualists. They're not originalists. And they want an activist like RGB. RGB, in my

00:17:09.620 opinion, was wrong on most things. Not everything, but on most things constitutionally. She, like I said,

00:17:18.560 would just insert whatever the current dogma was of the leftist ideology of the Democratic Party

00:17:24.140 into subliminal messages in the Constitution in order to make her case. And I just don't agree

00:17:30.160 with that. And people who say that she was holding our democracy in place, how? There's just no way.

00:17:36.080 Now, you can agree with her. We can respect her as a person. We can respect her career. And we can say

00:17:41.660 she did a lot in some ways while also disagreeing with her and realizing that we don't need to idolize

00:17:47.100 her. We don't need to pretend like she was holding things together. I mean, let me just pause to say,

00:17:52.240 and we talked about this again, I think it was episode 304, that people have lost their minds when

00:17:57.640 it comes to RGB. Like some people, not everyone, but some feminists on the left are really, really 1.00

00:18:04.460 losing it. I saw this Huffington Post article that said that this woman said, RGB's death encouraged me 0.79

00:18:11.840 to join a satanic cult or the church of Satan or whatever. Okay. What? Like, I'm thinking there

00:18:19.080 was probably something brewing in your heart before RGB died. I hope so anyway, for something to push

00:18:24.680 you literally into hell. That's really interesting. I got a lot of messages from you guys when I was

00:18:29.860 posting about this last week saying that you have friends. There are people that you know that

00:18:35.380 literally are on antidepressants because of RGB's death. I talked to someone who said that her friend

00:18:41.840 of tears talking about it. And as we discussed, this is not just about, you know, right versus

00:18:49.580 left, different perspectives on this election. That's a divergence of worldview. The reason why

00:18:54.580 you did not see a single conservative act that way when Justice Scalia died and why you will not see

00:19:01.140 us act that way if President Trump loses or if somehow Amy Coney Barrett is not confirmed is because

00:19:06.420 we don't see the government as our savior. We don't, most conservatives, because of our worldview,

00:19:11.980 because we see the government as instituted by God and under the authority of God, we do not see

00:19:16.380 them as our savior. We don't idolize them. Like, I'm not going to cry if one of the justices dies. It'll

00:19:21.600 be really sad. You know, I was sad when Scalia died. Definitely honorable person and an amazing justice.

00:19:28.400 But did I think, oh my gosh, our democracy is going to crumble and I'm going to lose my mind if Obama

00:19:34.640 gets his way and confirms Merrick Garland? No, I don't know a single conservative who thought that.

00:19:39.780 So a divergence of worldviews. And it's very troubling. I just want you to know, feminists, 1.00

00:19:44.240 if you're freaking out about RGB, you don't have to live that way. You don't have to live that way.

00:19:48.260 You can be free of that kind of misery that you are living under. You're trapped by it. Now,

00:19:53.720 like I said, it is not just Democrats who are struggling with this. There are some conservatives

00:20:01.860 as well who disagree with Amy Coney Barrett. And the main thing is that she cited in a recent case,

00:20:08.820 there are a few other cases that they cited too, but I didn't have time to look into them. So I can't

00:20:13.060 talk about them thoroughly, but there's one case in particular from August, 2020. So last month,

00:20:18.960 in which she ruled in favor of the state of Illinois in regards to lockdown policies. So

00:20:25.360 in the case, Illinois Republican Party versus J.B. Pritzker, governor of Illinois, the state GOP

00:20:32.260 wanted the same relief from the limitation of only 50 people for public gatherings that the governor had

00:20:38.120 granted to religious organizations. The state said, no, we're not going to give you that relief.

00:20:42.760 And the court agreed with the state that it was in the public interest to keep the gatherings below 50

00:20:47.800 because the gathering could infect people who didn't attend the gathering. The majority relied

00:20:53.980 partly on a 1905 case, Jacobson versus Massachusetts, which ruled that the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts

00:21:01.320 had the right to force smallpox vaccinations on the citizens of that city unless child had a written

00:21:08.520 excuse from a physician that said that they did not have to get it or that they should not get it.

00:21:14.640 Now, I know that I'm just, you know, a random person and that Amy Coney Barrett and the people

00:21:20.920 who decided this case know a lot more about the Constitution and the law than I do. But I disagree

00:21:26.020 with that. No matter your stance on vaccines, this is not about one way or another on vaccines.

00:21:32.620 Forced vaccination is, in my amateur view, a violation of our fundamental rights. It makes no sense

00:21:38.940 for abortion bans for abortion bans to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, but for forced

00:21:43.400 vaccinations not to be. If the state can force you to inject something into your body against your

00:21:51.780 will, then what else can can't they force you to do? Also, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense

00:21:58.600 to me that if the issue is safety, if the issue is public health, then why are religious organizations

00:22:04.600 exempt? Like the argument that the judges gave in this case was that, well, it's, you know,

00:22:10.440 it's not fair for these people who get together in this Republican organization to meet and possibly

00:22:16.760 infect one another. And then you might go to the grocery store and infect someone who didn't choose

00:22:20.440 to go to your gathering. That's not fair to them. Well, the same could be true of someone who went to

00:22:24.220 a mosque or a synagogue or a church. And so that doesn't seem like proper reasoning.

00:22:28.380 Um, and so I understand the concern with this and the concern looking at the justification for the

00:22:34.840 ruling of this case on Jacobson, the Massachusetts, the forced vaccination, uh, case, why people would

00:22:42.300 be worried about that. That's the thing with conservative justices. We Republicans, as I've said

00:22:49.320 before, we are consistently, we're going to be disappointed with some of the decisions that

00:22:54.540 justices and judges make because they're not activists. Unlike the left-wing judges, they are

00:22:59.680 activists. They almost always, 99% of the time, uh, agree with leftist activists and Democrats.

00:23:07.400 They're never disappointed with their judges and justices because they rule according to ideology,

00:23:13.280 conservative justices and judges rule according to the law and the constitution. And according to the

00:23:18.200 law and the constitution means that there is going to be disagreements between people who are

00:23:23.820 looking at the law and the constitution that we're not judging by ideology. We are judging by what the

00:23:28.880 law says. And that means there's going to be disagreement. So no judge is going to agree with

00:23:33.940 us on everything. That's just the fact of the matter. I think that her qualifications and her record

00:23:39.740 as an originalist overall are very encouraging that we should be excited about the fact that she will

00:23:46.020 be confirmed on the Supreme court. Now, more leftist concerns about this that are not about policy,

00:23:52.360 because even if I disagree with Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and other Democrats saying that,

00:23:57.740 Oh, she's going to overturn Roe v. Wade and she's going to take your healthcare away. At least there's 1.00

00:24:02.920 some substance to those arguments. Like you're making it about her positions. You're making it about

00:24:07.900 her decisions and not about the two things that other Democrats have decided to go after her faith 0.83

00:24:14.400 and her family. Like, let me tell you what a terrible strategy that is. If you are trying to win

00:24:21.000 suburban moms, in particular, suburban Christian moms, listen to some of the stuff that these are 0.80

00:24:27.860 not just random trolls. You can find any random troll saying something on the left or the right

00:24:33.600 that is ridiculous. That doesn't typify most people or even a good portion of people on that side. But

00:24:40.320 we're talking about activists, like well-known people with large following saying the following

00:24:46.460 stuff. So, uh, this is the stuff, this is some of the stuff about their faith. So during her hearing,

00:24:53.800 when she was first appointed by president Trump to the court of appeals, Senator Dianne Feinstein

00:25:00.200 questioned Barrett about a law review article that she wrote in 1998. So she was in law school and she

00:25:06.620 argued during that time that Catholic judges should recuse themselves in cases that have to do with the

00:25:11.380 death penalty. Now Barrett said, look, I was, I was in law school and I was in a junior position

00:25:18.240 there. I was just kind of doing my job and I have had to rule in a lot of death penalty cases since

00:25:23.840 then. So she didn't say, you know, I don't believe that anymore, but what it sounded like in her answer

00:25:28.540 is that, um, I, I, I evolved in that. So she has ruled on a lot of death penalty cases and it doesn't

00:25:35.040 seem like she believes that Catholics should actually recuse themselves. She said this quote,

00:25:40.280 my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my

00:25:45.040 duties as a judge. And it is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal

00:25:50.860 convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else on the law. Barrett emphasized that

00:25:56.460 the article was written in her third year in law school and that she was very much the junior partner

00:26:01.260 in our collaboration. Um, but Feinstein was worried that Barrett would not uphold Roe v. Wade,

00:26:08.260 uh, because of her Catholicism. And she said this to her quote, the dogma lives loudly within you.

00:26:15.360 And that is a concern that is nothing other than religious bigotry. And by the way, that's a

00:26:20.360 constitutional violation. You are not allowed to issue religious tests to people. So you're not

00:26:26.340 allowed to test people on their religious belief to decide whether or not they are qualified for

00:26:31.800 something. Guys, Catholics, evangelical Christians have been making large decisions, have been in

00:26:39.560 power in this country for a very long time. It is only now that the left decided that maybe that's

00:26:45.380 disqualifying. It's them that has changed, not the Christians. They have been able to interpret the law 1.00

00:26:50.960 according to the law as long as we have had justices and judges, as long as we have had people in power

00:26:57.140 in this country. It doesn't mean that Christians have always been on the right side of every decision,

00:27:01.480 unfortunately. But all of a sudden, this is disqualifying, not because the right has changed,

00:27:06.880 not because Christians and Catholics have changed. And I really mean evangelicals and Catholics when I

00:27:12.280 say that, um, not because they have changed, but because the left has changed. The left has grown in

00:27:17.820 their animus towards religion, in particular, conservative religion. Lambda Legal is an LGBT civil rights

00:27:24.640 organization. They co-signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organization, uh, organizations opposing

00:27:30.960 Barrett's nomination. Uh, they said that they can't trust her on LGBT matters. Um, and they're afraid

00:27:40.080 that she's going to take away her, uh, their legal rights. She said that these cases are binding

00:27:46.080 president, uh, precedents. The case has been Obergefell, uh, United States versus Windsor and Lawrence v.

00:27:52.380 Texas. Uh, she said that these are binding precedents that she intended to faithfully

00:27:56.920 follow if confirmed. And this was to the appeals court when they were, uh, trying to oppose her

00:28:02.620 nomination. And so she said, look, you don't have to worry about that. I am going to abide by the

00:28:07.960 constitution. I'm going to abide by the law. The left can not imagine what it's like not to insert

00:28:14.660 your ideology into your interpretation of the law, because that's what they do. They can't understand

00:28:19.740 someone who doesn't do that. Uh, this is a tweet by activist, democratic activist, Charlotte Clymer,

00:28:26.500 Amy Coney Barrett basically wants her personal beliefs to control the private lives of other 1.00

00:28:31.120 people. She wants the government to tell people who to love and what to do with their bodies. 1.00

00:28:35.540 That's her judicial philosophy. That's who Trump is nominating for the Supreme court. That is 0.99

00:28:39.300 wild. There is no basis for ads whatsoever. Like you cannot look at her career. You cannot

00:28:45.740 look at her decisions, her jurisprudence and say, yep, that's her philosophy. No, again,

00:28:51.860 what they mean, what the left means is that they're afraid of the constitution. They have to have someone

00:28:57.460 that inserts their ideology into the interpretation of the law, no matter what the constitution says in

00:29:03.420 order for their ideology to actually be codified in, in order for it to, uh, move forward. And they

00:29:11.240 see, they see the bench, they see SCOTUS as an extension of Congress, an extension of the

00:29:19.000 legislative process in a way to ram through their ideology without regard whatsoever to what the

00:29:24.820 majority wants, uh, what the democratic process is or what the constitution says. And so they have to

00:29:31.160 project, uh, their own philosophy onto other people like Amy Coney Barrett by saying that, oh yeah,

00:29:37.280 she just wants, she wants the government to control people's bodies. She wants to tell people 1.00

00:29:41.880 what to do with their lives. She has never in her history of being a judge that has never been true.

00:29:49.040 That's not a true characterization in the slightest. Again, they want an activist who does not care about 0.98

00:29:54.760 the law. Uh, Susan Hennessy, she is also a liberal journalist. She said, Amy Coney Barrett's personal

00:30:02.320 faith is entirely unobjectionable. And between her and her creator, she should have ended there,

00:30:07.820 but she doesn't. Her clear intention of imposing her private beliefs, including religious views on

00:30:13.300 the American public by overturning long settled precedent should disqualify her from the bench.

00:30:19.380 Now let us remember what she said when she was being confirmed onto the court of appeal. She said,

00:30:26.240 my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my

00:30:31.580 duties as a judge. And it is never appropriate for a judge to impose the judge's personal convictions,

00:30:36.440 whether they arise from faith or anywhere else on the law. And her career shows that she actually

00:30:42.360 means that. But what we're seeing is anti-Catholic, anti-Christian bigotry here. It is the disbelief from

00:30:50.000 the left that a conservative Christian is not a theocrat, like is not trying to conform everyone,

00:30:57.880 coerce everyone to believe what they believe and to live how they want them to live. Even though we

00:31:03.280 have a long history in this country of Christians, very fairly judging and very fairly leading. Are

00:31:10.320 there, are there examples of Christians not doing that? Yeah. There are examples of atheists not doing 0.51

00:31:14.940 that too. Like let's, let's compare Christians who interpret the law according to the law and 0.97

00:31:20.760 atheists who interpret the law according to their ideology. Like if you want to decide who is more

00:31:27.000 biased Christian conservatives and their interpretation of the law or left-wing atheists

00:31:31.580 and their interpretation of the law, I guarantee you the less fair crowd, the crowd who cares about

00:31:38.260 equality, true equality for everyone least will be at the left-wing activists because they are not

00:31:44.780 concerned with the equality of Christians or the equality of people that they consider to be

00:31:49.920 privileged. I'm talking about the far left activists and the people that are talking about that. So what

00:31:53.960 we're seeing in this criticism that Amy Coney Barrett would not be able to be an unbiased judge or 1.00

00:31:59.780 justice, even though she has done that for the entirety of her career, is anti-Christian bigotry. 0.82

00:32:04.360 Remember when President Trump said that, which I think was an egregious thing to say, that he was afraid

00:32:08.700 that a Mexican judge, a Mexican-American judge would not be able to be unbiased in his ruling on

00:32:14.560 immigration. That was a really bad thing to say. And the left freaked out and rightfully so. They're 1.00

00:32:19.820 doing the same thing except for with Christianity and for no reason whatsoever. Here's where I think 0.97

00:32:26.020 it goes even lower below the belt. When they start attacking not just her faith, but also her family.

00:32:34.200 So Dana Howell, I think that's how you pronounce her last name. She is a Democratic activist. She has 0.89

00:32:39.180 worked as a Hill staffer before. She tweeted this. I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney

00:32:45.280 Barrett and her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti. So here's

00:32:49.260 a cue. Does the press even investigate details of Barrett's adoptions from Haiti? Some adoptions

00:32:53.980 from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy. And if press learned they were unethical and maybe illegal 0.97

00:33:00.220 adoptions, would they report it or not? Because it involves her children. Would it matter if her kids

00:33:04.560 were scooped up by ultra religious Americans or Americans weren't scrupulous intermediaries and

00:33:09.440 the kids were taken when there was family in Haiti? I don't know. I think it does. But maybe it doesn't 0.80

00:33:14.300 or shouldn't. And so what she's just casually throwing out there is perhaps Amy Coney Barrett and

00:33:19.220 her husband kidnapped her kids from family in Haiti, from their parents in Haiti. She is suggesting that

00:33:26.940 possibly they illegally took these kids from Haiti. Maybe they weren't even really orphans. Maybe they

00:33:32.740 stole them from their family in Haiti. That is such a brilliant analysis and suggestion to make that 1.00

00:33:39.380 the esteemed judge and lawyer from the United States decided that, you know what, I think that

00:33:44.400 we're just going to do this in a way that's illegal, even though it's possible to go through a legal means

00:33:49.060 of adoption. I think we're just going to steal these kids from their families in Haiti. Yes, definitely. 1.00

00:33:54.420 And that has just been swept under the rug for the past 20 or so years that they have had a career.

00:33:58.600 I mean, this is crazy. This is an attempt to attack the legitimacy of their family,

00:34:04.600 the legitimacy of her motherhood of these kids, which, by the way, in a way is weirdly racist,

00:34:10.160 because you have to wonder if they would be asking these questions if their kids were also white.

00:34:16.360 But people are very sensitive nowadays to white parents adopting non-white children. And I think a

00:34:23.160 great example of that is John Lee Brower, who is also a Democratic activist. He has worked for a

00:34:29.160 lot of big name Democrats, according to his Twitter profile. He says this as an adoptee. I need to know

00:34:35.340 more about the circumstances of how Amy Coney Barrett came to adopt her children and the treatment of

00:34:40.380 them since transracial adoption is fraught with trauma and potential for harm. And everything I see 1.00

00:34:45.500 here is deeply concerning. What what do you see? The fact that you just don't agree with her

00:34:51.460 politically, the fact that she is a conservative constitutionalist, that's what you don't agree 1.00

00:34:56.040 with. That's what you see as trembling. And that is that is really disturbing to me. There are a few

00:35:02.480 parts of this that are really disturbing. Number one, that this person is implying that white parents

00:35:09.780 who adopt non-white children, that they have a greater potential to harm those children than I guess 0.98

00:35:15.240 non-white adoptive parents would. That in and of itself is racist. And I think about all the 0.83

00:35:22.000 wonderful people that I know who happen to have white skin, who have adopted kids that don't share

00:35:27.420 their same melanin count, who are wonderful parents and who who spent so much time, money, energy and

00:35:37.480 resources to rescue a lot of these kids from dangerous and dire circumstances. And there is this

00:35:44.700 entire idea on the left right now that that is a white savior complex. And that's actually very

00:35:50.500 damaging and detrimental. Again, this is simply a way to delegitimize adoptive families. And it's

00:35:57.800 racist. That's the bottom line. It is racist. I don't care what you call it white savior complex or not.

00:36:04.600 When a parent of any skin color decides they are going to dedicate time, energy and resources 0.99

00:36:10.660 into rescuing a kid from an otherwise completely destitute situation, whether it's in America or

00:36:16.380 abroad, they should absolutely be applauded for that. Now, I'm not saying there were no sketchy

00:36:21.580 adoptions or that there aren't some parents who decided to adopt because it made them feel better

00:36:26.620 about themselves and maybe they didn't love their child. But that is an exception, a very rare exception

00:36:32.660 to the rule. The parents who adopt kids don't spend everything they have to go rescue those kids

00:36:39.240 just for clout. I mean, that takes a lot for parents of any skin color to go to another country or

00:36:48.220 even to adopt here. Children that have been abandoned or their parents are just unable to care for them.

00:36:57.760 And so I see this as an attack, not just on family, but specifically on adoption. And I said on

00:37:04.560 Twitter, and I'll reiterate this, it is a spiritual attack much more than it's a political attack.

00:37:10.080 People who hate God will always attack that which represents the gospel. And there are three earthly

00:37:15.940 depictions, wonderful earthly depictions of the gospel. One of them is marriage. We know that the church

00:37:21.660 is the bride of Christ. Another one is having biological children. We become children of God

00:37:28.520 when we are saved through Christ. And another one is adoption. We know that Gentiles have been adopted

00:37:35.480 by God through Christ to be a part of his family. So these are all earthly depictions of the gospel.

00:37:40.960 So we cannot be surprised when people who hate God attack them and try to delegitimize these

00:37:46.980 institutions in particular adoption. And so that's what's happening right here. It's not just a

00:37:51.940 political attack, which it is. And it's low. It is as low as you can possibly get questioning the

00:37:58.220 legitimacy of someone's motherhood because they have kids with a different skin color as them or

00:38:07.260 questioning the legitimacy of someone's family. But it is also, it is a spiritual attack. It is not just

00:38:16.880 political. It is certainly not just about her nomination. It is much deeper than that for a

00:38:23.680 lot of people. This is a writer for Vanity Fair, again, going in on Amy Coney Barrett's legitimacy

00:38:30.840 or effectiveness as a mom. She says this,

00:38:34.840 I guess one of the things I don't understand about Amy Coney Barrett is how a potential Supreme Court 1.00

00:38:39.740 justice can also be a loving present mom to seven kids. Is this like the Kardashians stuffing nannies in 0.99

00:38:45.400 the closet and pretending they've drawn their own baths for their kids? And if there aren't enough

00:38:49.300 hours in the day for her to work and mother these kids, when she portrays herself as a home centered 0.92

00:38:54.080 Catholic who puts her family over her career, isn't she telling a lie? So who's the patriarchy now?

00:38:59.400 I mean, this is the argument that left wing feminists have been saying that conservative patriarchs 1.00

00:39:08.520 have been using to limit women. And now they're saying, Oh, is it really possible for you to have

00:39:15.220 an illustrious career and be a good mom? Can't you only do one or the other? And I'm a little bit

00:39:21.920 confused because I thought it was feminist all this time who said, No, you can have it all. You don't 1.00

00:39:26.220 have to choose. But what I'm realizing is that the real lie that a lot of feminists believe is that 1.00

00:39:31.540 you have to give up your faith. You have to give up your family. You have to give up marriage in order

00:39:38.760 to be accomplished in your career and career fulfillment. Self-fulfillment is the real form

00:39:45.360 of happiness that you should be looking for. Certainly not self-sacrifice. And so a lot of these

00:39:51.480 left wing feminists did decide that they were going to sacrifice marriage, that they were going to 1.00

00:39:56.680 sacrifice having kids for the sake of a successful career. And unfortunately, a lot of them made those

00:40:04.220 sacrifices to only have a mediocre career. And so it has it has to be very difficult for them to watch

00:40:12.600 someone like Amy Coney Barrett have this illustrious career, have seven children, two adopted children,

00:40:19.220 one special needs child, seems to have a very lovely family and a lovely, loving, cohesive home,

00:40:26.680 and good marriage from everything we can see. It's got to be difficult for them to see that they

00:40:31.360 have imbibed these lies that landed them in the spot of misery that they're in because they made

00:40:37.660 sacrifices that they should not have made because they bought into feminist manipulation. So I think

00:40:45.140 a lot of this is personal for feminists when it comes to Amy Coney Barrett. I think a lot of it 0.53

00:40:50.000 is projection of their resentment and their own misery. Ibram X. Kendi said some white, this is 0.88

00:40:58.580 back to adoption, some white colonizers adopted in quotes, black children. They quote, civilized

00:41:04.520 these quote, savage children in the quote, superior ways of white people, while using them as props in

00:41:11.600 their lifelong pictures of denial while cutting the biological parents of these children out of

00:41:15.880 the picture of humanity. And so once again, we find these baseless accusations of Amy Coney Barrett and

00:41:23.500 her husband, at least implicitly here, that they are white colonizers who actually adopted because

00:41:33.060 they're racist. Again, trying to delegitimize her adoptive family. I mean, that is a kind of slander

00:41:41.600 and a kind of character assassination that I honestly thought was beyond most people. But

00:41:49.920 avid racists like Ibram X. Kendi, who wrote the book, How to Be an Anti-Racist, just don't see that.

00:41:55.860 And this is critical race theory, guys. This is the idea that guilt and innocence is ascribed to you

00:42:01.720 according to your skin color, not according to what you've done. So it really doesn't matter how many 0.70

00:42:06.300 kids you have adopted because you're white. You are suspect in all of your motives, even if you do 0.81

00:42:12.360 something kind and extend generosity and charity towards people who don't share your same skin

00:42:18.160 color. It can't be because you're altruistic or because you're filled with the Holy Spirit

00:42:22.040 and you are compelled to generosity by the love of Christ. It has to be because you have a white 1.00

00:42:26.840 savior complex and you're doing something out of selfishness. So this is why critical race theory

00:42:32.000 and the mentality of critical race theory that Ibram X. Kendi holds is always going to lead to

00:42:37.180 division. It's always going to lead to resentment and hate because you are constantly thinking the

00:42:42.180 worst of people who look differently than you. Rather than judging people by the content of their

00:42:47.220 character or their actions or their words, their attitudes, which, of course, is what MLK

00:42:53.040 Jr. wanted us to do and believed that we should do. We are now saying that people are suspect

00:42:59.900 and their motives are suspect just based on their skin color. Critical race theory will never bring

00:43:06.520 reconciliation. It will always bring division. It will always bring hate. It will always bring

00:43:10.900 malice. Ibram X. Kendi is the champion of this by way of liberation theology, which is basically

00:43:18.980 critical race theory, Christianized in some sense. Joy Reid, in trying to slam Amy Coney Barrett's faith,

00:43:27.740 says, turns out Republicans do have a platform. The Handmaid's Tale. I'm very confused by this

00:43:33.320 accusation, by the way, that President Trump, that Mike Pence, that Justice Kavanaugh, they're

00:43:40.200 ushering in The Handmaid's Tale. I just wonder how many of these people have seen The Handmaid's Tale

00:43:43.780 or read The Handmaid's Tale and in what parallels you are seeing here. Because, guys, you said The

00:43:50.460 Handmaid's Tale was going to be ushered in when President Trump was elected. Four years later,

00:43:53.980 you got all your rights and then some. And you said that we were going to be in The Handmaid's

00:44:00.240 Tale when Kavanaugh became the Supreme Court justice. Well, two years later, I think we're

00:44:05.980 all good. And now you're saying that Amy Coney Barrett, this very accomplished woman who has

00:44:10.700 had a full time career and has raised seven children, that this is the woman that's going 0.99

00:44:16.040 to usher in The Handmaid's Tale. I saw a really good tweet and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have

00:44:20.500 it in front of me. And it said, oh, my favorite part of The Handmaid's Tale is when the main

00:44:25.300 character packs her seven children into her minivan to go to her Supreme Court nomination. 0.99

00:44:31.720 And that's I mean, that is such a that's such a good point. It just shows the absurdity of all the

00:44:36.700 fear mongering out there of people who are saying that Amy Coney Barrett, of all people, is going to

00:44:42.020 take women backwards simply because she's a constitutionalist. Like that is what they're 1.00

00:44:46.460 scared of. And they're also freaking out that maybe it might be harder one day for them to kill 0.94

00:44:51.620 babies. Like that's what this is about. If you don't see that this is a spiritual battle in so 0.99

00:44:57.580 many ways, I don't know what to tell you. You might remember from a couple of weeks ago, the episode I

00:45:04.580 did on this whole thing after RBG died. Beth Reinhardt of Washington Post tweeted this potential Trump's

00:45:11.320 Gotis nominee. Amy Coney Barrett wrote influential decision making it easier for students accused of

00:45:17.020 sexual assault to challenge universities handling of their cases. And so this, again, they think is

00:45:22.740 part of The Handmaid's Tale. This is evil and wicked and against women. This just goes to show how much 0.99

00:45:28.140 the left really hates due process and they really don't care about actual justice because actual

00:45:34.080 justice actually deals fairly with the accused as well as the accuser. Believe all women is not 1.00

00:45:40.340 justice. That's ignorance. Like that is bias. The Bible is very clear, which whether you like it or

00:45:46.700 not, is the source of our inspiration for due process. Says that we have to treat the accused

00:45:53.320 fairly. Like he is entitled to due process and the accuser has to bring forth witnesses. And the Bible

00:46:00.480 also says you shall not be partial to the poor or to the great. The Bible is very clear that God's

00:46:06.380 definition of justice is impartial. So we don't just believe accusers simply because they are accusers

00:46:13.220 or simply because they are women. Everyone is entitled to due process. I, for one, am very

00:46:17.920 comforted by the fact that we have a potential justice who cares about due process. Yes, we should

00:46:23.460 listen to accusers. But when it comes to accusing people in a court of law, everyone is entitled to

00:46:28.640 due process. And that includes people who are accused of assault, sexual assault or any crime,

00:46:35.480 of course. And so I just think it's interesting the kind of criticism that is being leveled against

00:46:40.460 her, in particular, when it comes to her faith. And when it comes to her family, what it's revealing

00:46:46.360 is that the left actually believes in the gender stereotypes that they have been saying that they

00:46:52.660 are bucking against. And what I mean by that is that the criticisms that they are leveling against

00:46:57.840 her, they would not level against a man. They did not level against Donald Trump. They did not level

00:47:02.840 against Justice Kavanaugh. And I'm talking about the legitimacy of her adopted kids, the legitimacy of

00:47:08.940 her family, her fitness as a mother and her ability to balance it all. And so they are actually affirming

00:47:15.820 that they understand that there is a different role for women in society, a different role for mothers

00:47:21.400 than there is for men and for fathers. They are actually recognizing and emphasizing that men

00:47:27.680 and women are different. They show that by the particular attacks that they are leveling against 1.00

00:47:32.220 them. They're not so much questioning her competence. They are certainly not going to try to accuse her

00:47:38.320 of sexual assault because they realize that women are different, that she has different vulnerabilities,

00:47:43.320 different weak points. And that happens to be faith and that happens to be her motherhood. And so that is

00:47:50.040 what they are going after. And in so doing, they're revealing that they recognize there is a vast

00:47:55.460 difference between men and women. And a lot of people on the right are saying that, that, hey, these are

00:47:59.740 double standards. They're not accusing her in the same way that they accuse Kavanaugh or anyone else.

00:48:04.080 These are different kinds of attacks. And that's unfair. It is unfair. But we also know, in particular as

00:48:11.480 Christians, that, yes, there's a double standard because women and women in society do have different 1.00

00:48:17.480 roles. They do complement each other with different strengths and with different weaknesses.

00:48:22.040 There are different expectations for women. There are different expectations for mothers. 0.78

00:48:28.440 There are different responsibilities in the home that women have than men have. And those strengths 1.00

00:48:34.060 and those responsibilities and roles are meant to complement each other. They're not supposed to be

00:48:38.060 the same. And so I don't think as Christian conservatives, we should necessarily be concerned

00:48:42.400 by the double standards and the different kinds of attacks the left are leveling against her.

00:48:48.000 Again, I think that we should be saying, finally, they're admitting that there's a difference between

00:48:52.680 there's a difference between men and women and that they play a different role in society and fathers

00:48:57.000 and mothers play a different role, which I think leads us into the conversation about some of the

00:49:04.140 criticisms and concerns that I have seen evangelical Christians and Christian conservatives

00:49:09.200 articulates about her nomination. So the question is, should women, according to the Bible, 0.92

00:49:18.760 not according to the Constitution, according to the Bible, be in power? And that's not questioning

00:49:26.000 whether or not we should make it illegal for women to be in power. I think some Christians are just 1.00

00:49:30.120 asking, should I personally support this person when she is a wife and a mom? And from their

00:49:36.120 perspective, she actually should be spending all of her time at home and she shouldn't have all of

00:49:41.620 this civic influence and she shouldn't be leading. That is the concern of a lot of conservative 0.97

00:49:46.740 Christians. I wouldn't even say a lot. I would say some conservative Christians that I have seen. So

00:49:51.540 as Christians, we understand that a woman's role, according to the Bible, primarily is to be to take 0.92

00:50:02.160 care of children and the home. That does not exclude her ability to work. That doesn't exclude

00:50:07.560 her entrepreneurial endeavors entirely. That doesn't mean that she is not allowed to have civic

00:50:12.540 influence, though. That doesn't exclude other areas of her life. But we do know, according to Titus

00:50:18.740 2.5 and Proverbs 31, that a wife and a mom's life and priorities are to be centered on taking care

00:50:27.220 of her family. Again, we don't believe that that means, or at least I don't believe that that means

00:50:32.960 that a mom cannot work at all in any way ever. And that's why I am not going to personally judge

00:50:38.560 Amy Coney Barrett for her career. I'm just not going to do that. Number one, I don't know if she has the 0.91

00:50:43.620 same worldview and the same belief system that evangelical Christians do. And we don't know her

00:50:48.940 life. We don't know how she spends her time. Yes, we know that she has this long, illustrious career

00:50:54.420 that I think is very impressive. And I think is an indication that God has used her and put her in

00:51:00.180 places of influence to impact this generation and the generations to come with hopefully good and

00:51:07.360 thoughtful and wise, discerning decisions. But I don't know how she has spent her time. Like, I don't

00:51:16.220 know what her priorities have been. I don't know how much she sleeps at night. I don't know if she took a 0.98

00:51:20.180 step back when her kids were little and she decided to get back into it more after her kids

00:51:25.020 were all in school. We don't know. So I don't think it's fair for Christians to say, well, 1.00

00:51:30.020 I'm not going to support her because it seems like she focuses more on her career than her kids.

00:51:34.260 We just don't know. Like, we don't know her setup. And I don't think the Bible explicitly says

00:51:39.580 in any way or even implies that women are not allowed to work at all in any way outside of the 0.99

00:51:46.320 home. Again, priority number one for mothers and wives is on their family and the home that does 1.00

00:51:53.280 not exclude all other roles and responsibilities. Now, the question of women in leadership. There is 0.64

00:52:01.380 a verse, Isaiah 3, 12, talking about the miserable state of Israel at this time. My people, infants are

00:52:08.020 their oppressors and women rule over them. The Bible is saying this is a bad thing that the youth 1.00

00:52:14.280 and the women of Israel are the ones that are in leadership. So what this means is that passive 0.97

00:52:19.820 weak men have allowed children and women to be in charge, which ultimately leads a nation to being 1.00

00:52:26.280 passive and weak and therefore vulnerable. That does not mean that women are never meant to have

00:52:31.360 civic influence. So there are obviously examples in the Bible where God puts women in positions of

00:52:37.960 leadership and they lead in a way that the men at the time, God believed, could not. And so he,

00:52:46.300 in his sovereignty and in his specificity and according to his perfect purpose, many times,

00:52:52.240 not just put wicked women like Jezebel in power, but put good and wise and godly women in positions 1.00

00:52:59.660 of influence. Yes, it is true that men and women are different and they and men are naturally inclined to

00:53:06.720 provide and to protect and to lead. And I do not think a nation that has all women leaders is in a 1.00

00:53:13.360 good spot. I think that makes us very vulnerable. I think that makes us very weak. Society needs strong

00:53:20.000 men. We need strong leaders. We need strong male decision makers. I simply don't see according to

00:53:26.300 the Bible though, and even according to Isaiah 3, 12, that excludes women from having any civic influence 0.98

00:53:32.880 whatsoever. We do know that there is a role for women in the family. We know that there is a role 0.97

00:53:37.820 for women in the church that excludes them from preaching and teaching, exercising authority over

00:53:43.260 men. But we don't see that the Bible excludes them entirely from all civic influence. And so I am not

00:53:51.580 concerned with Amy Coney Barrett being in a position of leadership. I'm not concerned with how she balances

00:53:57.400 like being at home with work. Personally, I don't think that last that that latter one is any of my

00:54:05.500 business. But as far as her being in a position of power and influence, if she is going to make 0.72

00:54:11.060 decisions according to the Constitution, decisions that are wise and good and positively impactful for

00:54:17.420 the next generation. And my other option is for Joe Biden, if he wins to nominate a left wing

00:54:24.200 activist, then yes, of course, I am going to support Amy Coney Barrett. And I don't have any qualms

00:54:31.120 about that. And so I did want to just point that out. And also Romans 13 is very clear that governments

00:54:38.840 are instituted by God. The authority they have is from God. And so if we have a female leader in any way, 1.00

00:54:46.020 that does not delegitimize their authority and render our responsibility to submit to them

00:54:55.280 moot. We are still responsible for that submission to all government authorities as long as it does not

00:55:02.380 cause us to sin, according to Romans 13. So I did just want to talk about that because I know that

00:55:09.320 there were some, you know, conservative Christians that were concerned about this. But that is all I

00:55:16.240 have. And now, without further ado, here is my interview with Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

00:55:25.400 Chairwoman, thank you so much for joining me.

00:55:27.840 Thanks for having me. I'm so excited to be with you.

00:55:30.000 Yes, I am sure that you are busier than ever. Can you tell me just a little bit about what's going on

00:55:35.220 in the RNC about 40 days out from the election?

00:55:39.700 Yeah, 40 days out. We're in the homestretch. I've been traveling all over the country. I think I've

00:55:44.800 been in four or five states in the past couple of days. It kind of is a blur, but so is the Trump

00:55:49.240 family. So is the vice president. You see the presidents on the road and we're just making sure

00:55:54.100 we're taking the case to every American as to why President Trump deserves four more years,

00:55:59.280 why we need the Senate and why we deserve to win back the House. 0.77

00:56:02.700 There is a lot of controversy right now going on with the Supreme Court. You've got Democrats saying

00:56:08.880 that, you know, we're going to make sure we're going to pull out all the stops to make sure

00:56:13.420 this doesn't happen. How do you feel that the president and the Republican Party are navigating

00:56:18.020 this kind of crisis?

00:56:20.680 The president is leading like he always does. He is exactly right. We need to fill this vacancy.

00:56:26.940 There's nothing that says because you're 40 days out from an election that you have to stop

00:56:30.760 governing, that you put a pause on making sure that we have checks and balances, that we have

00:56:36.700 those three branches of government. And especially with Democrats systematically challenging election

00:56:43.000 laws across the country and upending election laws in many states and changing them to create

00:56:49.900 chaos on Election Day. I think it's more pivotal than ever that we have nine justices on the Supreme

00:56:55.180 Court. Yes, absolutely. And can you explain the difference between we've kind of talked about

00:57:01.120 it on this podcast, but for the people who are saying, well, whoa, whoa, whoa, what about 2016

00:57:05.120 when Mitch McConnell said that he wasn't going to try to confirm Merrick Garland? What is the

00:57:09.740 difference between 2016 and today?

00:57:12.580 Well, it's a really clear difference. And Mitch McConnell has been very straightforward on this.

00:57:16.340 When Merrick Garland was put forward, you had a president from one party,

00:57:20.080 the Democrat Party and a Senate majority of Republicans. And Mitch McConnell said, when you

00:57:25.960 have opposition between the two parties at the executive and legislative branch, we shouldn't

00:57:30.720 move forward on a Supreme Court nominee. But the voters decided in 2016 to give Republicans

00:57:36.160 not just the presidency, but also majority of the Senate. We had that vacancy. Voters wanted Republicans

00:57:42.660 to be in control of the Supreme Court. It was a key issue in 2016. And they need to fulfill that duty

00:57:48.460 because they were elected to do so. And it's constitutionally within the president's right

00:57:54.020 to put forward a nominee in the Senate to advise and consent.

00:57:58.480 Yes, I have had a lot of followers talk to me about their friends who are on the left side of

00:58:03.460 the aisle who have truly had some sort of breakdown after, unfortunately, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed and

00:58:10.880 who have even been believing what I think is craziness that women are going to lose the right to vote. 0.99

00:58:16.660 We're going to lose all of our rights if Trump is able to confirm his Supreme Court nominee.

00:58:21.700 Can you just tell us why that is ridiculous propaganda and why women especially have nothing 1.00

00:58:27.380 to be scared of when this SCOTUS pick is confirmed? 0.84

00:58:33.160 Women have nothing to be afraid of with this SCOTUS pick. It's not surprising that Democrats are going 1.00

00:58:38.880 to engage in fear mongering and division. And hopefully they won't. But I think they will

00:58:43.540 character assassination like they did to Brett Kavanaugh, destroying a good man

00:58:47.920 because of power. I hope they don't do that to this next nominee. Listen, the court is a judicial

00:58:55.100 body. These are very sound minded individuals. They have spent years studying the law. They work in

00:59:03.920 cohesion together. And they're always going to put the Constitution first. And what the president is

00:59:08.420 putting at the front and center of his nominee pick is somebody who will adhere to the Constitution

00:59:13.760 and the rule of law and not be an activist judge making law from the bench, which is not their role

00:59:18.840 on the judiciary and that branch of government. I think that's critical. And again, the voters in

00:59:26.260 2016 knew that there was a Supreme Court vacancy and they chose Republicans to fill it. And that is why we

00:59:33.360 need to follow what the voters want this election and make sure we fill that seat. 0.95

00:59:38.140 You know, Democrats are saying that they are going to I think it was Richard Blumenthal who said that

00:59:42.900 they are going to stop at nothing. Nancy Pelosi said that she's got arrows in her quiver. George

00:59:48.300 Stephanopoulos, you know, asked Nancy Pelosi, are you thinking about impeachment? Do you think that

00:59:53.940 they're going to take one of those kinds of extreme strategies to stop the president from governing?

00:59:59.300 I don't think the Democrats will stop at anything. I mean, literally, since President

01:00:04.080 Trump's been in office, they boycotted his inauguration. They've refused to work with

01:00:09.420 him on any level. We've had this phony impeachment. I mean, so many things, even before he was in

01:00:14.720 office, you saw what the Obama administration did spying on his campaign. We've never seen anything

01:00:19.400 like this. And Democrats have never accepted the results of the 2016 election. They have never given

01:00:24.920 the president any pathway to any type of bipartisan bipartisanship. And it's not surprising that Nancy

01:00:30.780 Pelosi is already pulling out the possibility of impeachment for the president doing what the

01:00:35.820 Constitution dictates the president does, which is put forward a Supreme Court nominee. It is ludicrous.

01:00:42.040 But it's also another reason why this election is so important, because if Democrats lose and they

01:00:47.440 are they are rebuffed for obstruction and resistance and all the terrible things they've done the past three

01:00:53.500 years that have divided our country, then they'll have to find a different game plan. And maybe just

01:00:58.260 maybe they'll work with Republicans and on behalf of the American people like they're elected to do.

01:01:04.480 You know, there has been a baseless theory. I believe it's baseless thrown around in the left

01:01:10.180 wing media and by Democrats saying that Trump is somehow not going to accept the results of the

01:01:14.360 election, that there's going to be some crazy coup again, just fear mongering propaganda.

01:01:18.880 Is there a fear, though, a legitimate fear of Democrats being unable to and I'm not, you know,

01:01:27.300 propagating a conspiracy theory about a coup by them or anything I'm saying, is there any fear that

01:01:33.080 they are not going to accept the legitimate results of the election if and when Trump wins?

01:01:40.420 Well, I mean, the clock's ticking and they still haven't accepted the legitimate results of the

01:01:44.760 2016 election. So I don't think there's any doubt that they're not going to accept the results when

01:01:50.320 Donald Trump wins in 2020. Hillary Clinton has already told Joe Biden, do not accept the results,

01:01:57.280 do not concede under any circumstances. Those were the words she used. You have seen Democrats 0.70

01:02:02.880 systematically try to upend voter integrity laws that ensure election integrity in states like Michigan.

01:02:09.840 They just passed through the claims court the ability for votes to be counted 14 days after

01:02:15.460 the election. There is a reason there is a finish line. If you don't have a finish line, you can't

01:02:20.800 have a winner. And Democrats are trying to get rid of any type of of deadline, finish line, end date to

01:02:28.000 an election. Why are they doing that in these uncertain times? How is this good for our democracy,

01:02:33.160 especially when we know that voting in person is safe? Dr. Fauci has said so. Michigan had a primary

01:02:39.360 in August with a million voters voting in person. There was no coronavirus spike. So they are using

01:02:44.460 this pandemic to upend vetted, tried and true election laws and inserting chaos into this

01:02:50.400 election. And the president is absolutely right to point out the concerns that he has about election

01:02:55.940 integrity and getting results on Election Day. I agree with that. And Joe Biden's pitch, though, is that

01:03:02.040 his presidency will be a return to normalcy. His presidency will be a return to, you know, peace

01:03:09.200 and safety and security and all of that. But if you look at not just what his campaign

01:03:15.540 has said and done, but also the Democrat run cities across the country are the ones dealing with the

01:03:24.000 unrest. And President Trump has tried to send help. And unfortunately, in some cases, these Democratic 0.71

01:03:29.800 politicians haven't haven't agreed. So what is is there anything behind the Democrats pitch that Joe

01:03:37.140 Biden can bring in safety and normalcy when that's just not what we're seeing from the Democratic Party?

01:03:42.600 Joe Biden has spent 47 years saying whatever he thinks the voters want to hear and then getting

01:03:48.080 nothing done in Washington. He is a total bureaucrat. But here are the policies he's putting forward.

01:03:53.280 So don't listen to his empty rhetoric because they are just words and they are lies when he says this,

01:03:57.680 that there's going to be a return to normalcy and peace. Things that he is espousing, reimagining the

01:04:02.620 police, redirecting funds from the police. He has said he wants to get rid of cash bail,

01:04:08.440 which means police are catching criminals that are doing violent things. And then they have to be

01:04:13.220 immediately released back into the streets. So the police have to use resources again,

01:04:17.020 catching those same criminals. Kamala Harris has bailed out some of these rioters and looters who've done

01:04:23.940 havoc in our cities. So their actions and their policies prove to the American people that they 1.00

01:04:31.160 are in lockstep with these Democrat mayors and Democrat governors who are not clamping down

01:04:35.680 on the violence in their cities. And they are not standing with the men and women who are serving our

01:04:41.880 country and serving our communities and protecting us every day, our men and women in blue. So Joe Biden has

01:04:47.640 no business saying that. He likes to say it. He's going and taking cans of beer to police stations

01:04:53.920 and trying to be a good guy. But his policies will make our country less safe.

01:04:58.400 And his statements as well. Every time something just happens in a city where there's an accusation

01:05:03.640 of police brutality, his default is to blame the police without looking at the facts of the case,

01:05:09.200 but just to latch on to the mainstream leftist narrative, which simply isn't always true,

01:05:14.580 which I would say actually exacerbates the tensions and stokes the flames of division that are

01:05:19.560 unfortunately causing a lot of the chaos that's happening in the cities around the country.

01:05:25.660 For women in particular, on a personal note, I mean, you are a mom, you're obviously a working mom, 0.95

01:05:31.440 and you have real concerns, not just as the chairwoman of the Republican Party, but just as an American,

01:05:36.560 as a mom who cares about the future of the country. Why, from that personal mom perspective,

01:05:42.940 do you think Donald Trump is good for the country?

01:05:46.600 I think this is the most important election of our lifetime. And I say that as a mom,

01:05:51.460 I am worried about the America we will be leaving for our kids. And will that American dream

01:05:57.880 be achievable and attainable? And Joe Biden is taking us down a path to socialism, government control of

01:06:04.380 our health care, of our decisions, of our lives, more taxes, more regulation, everything in the hands

01:06:09.780 of politicians, and really limiting the great opportunity that this country provides for so

01:06:15.900 many. Donald Trump is about freedom. He's about what our founders intended. He has cut taxes. He

01:06:21.520 has cut regulation. And he is for keeping America, America. Joe Biden is not lying when he says he wants

01:06:27.280 to transform this country. He will transform it into something we don't recognize. So that is why

01:06:32.240 I'm on the front lines of our future every day, because I want that for my kids. And this is an

01:06:37.520 election that will determine which path America goes. And I hope, I'm hopeful that we go down

01:06:43.540 the path of prosperity, and that Donald Trump will continue to lead us on the great American comeback.

01:06:48.780 Well, me too. Me too. How are you guys feeling about, about the potential for a win on election

01:06:56.600 night, or at least in the days soon after? Well, you know, I'm a party chair. So I have to always

01:07:03.440 feel like I'm running from behind. You know, I'm also a Big Ten football fan. You know, you don't

01:07:08.020 want to like sit on a lead, right? That's like the worst thing you can do. So I feel great. The energy's

01:07:13.220 great. We've outpaced Democrats and voter registration. The ground game's great. We have

01:07:17.060 the best candidate in the world who's out there working, and the best policies that will deliver

01:07:21.780 for the American people. But that being said, I'm not going to rest. I say to people, you can sleep

01:07:27.000 November 4th. This is the time where all of us need to give everything we have, because feeling

01:07:32.860 good and thinking everything's okay is not enough. We have to fight between now and election day to

01:07:37.280 make sure we're preserving the greatest nation on earth. And that means reelecting President Trump,

01:07:42.060 keeping the Senate and winning back the House. Well, thank you so much for all the work that you

01:07:46.460 are doing and everyone at the RNC is doing and everyone in the campaign in general. I know that you

01:07:51.860 guys are working really hard. Y'all have been up against a lot for the past few years, and you will be

01:07:56.400 over the next few weeks. I keep telling people to brace themselves if you're not already. It's a

01:08:01.000 crazy time, but I'm hopeful and optimistic as well. So thank you again, and thank you for taking the

01:08:06.200 time to talk to me. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - September 28, 2020

Ep 306 ｜ Amy Coney Barrett & Trump's Battle for the Presidency

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript