Ep 306 ｜ Amy Coney Barrett & Trump's Battle for the Presidency
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 8 minutes
Words per Minute
174.02512
Summary
Amy Coney Barrett has been nominated by President Trump to become the next Supreme Court Justice on the Supreme Court. In this episode, we talk about who she is, how she got her start in the legal profession, and why Christians should be concerned about her selection.
Transcript
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
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
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
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
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,
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
00:18:04.460
losing it. I saw this Huffington Post article that said that this woman said, RGB's death encouraged me
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,
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
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
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
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
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
00:28:31.120
people. She wants the government to tell people who to love and what to do with their bodies.
00:28:35.540
That's her judicial philosophy. That's who Trump is nominating for the Supreme court. That is
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
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
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
00:31:14.940
that too. Like let's, let's compare Christians who interpret the law according to the law and
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
00:31:59.780
justice, even though she has done that for the entirety of her career, is anti-Christian bigotry.
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
00:32:19.820
doing the same thing except for with Christianity and for no reason whatsoever. Here's where I think
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
00:35:15.240
non-white adoptive parents would. That in and of itself is racist. And I think about all the
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
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
00:38:34.840
I guess one of the things I don't understand about Amy Coney Barrett is how a potential Supreme Court
00:38:39.740
justice can also be a loving present mom to seven kids. Is this like the Kardashians stuffing nannies in
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
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
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
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
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
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
00:40:50.000
is projection of their resentment and their own misery. Ibram X. Kendi said some white, this is
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
00:42:06.300
kids you have adopted because you're white. You are suspect in all of your motives, even if you do
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
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
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.
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
00:44:46.460
scared of. And they're also freaking out that maybe it might be harder one day for them to kill
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
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
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
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
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
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.
00:48:28.440
There are different responsibilities in the home that women have than men have. And those strengths
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
00:51:46.320
home. Again, priority number one for mothers and wives is on their family and the home that does
00:51:53.280
not exclude all other roles and responsibilities. Now, the question of women in leadership. There is
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
00:52:14.280
and the women of Israel are the ones that are in leadership. So what this means is that passive
00:52:19.820
weak men have allowed children and women to be in charge, which ultimately leads a nation to being
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
00:55:27.840
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.
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
00:56:20.680
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
00:57:12.580
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.
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
00:58:27.380
to be scared of when this SCOTUS pick is confirmed?
00:58:33.160
Women have nothing to be afraid of with this SCOTUS pick. It's not surprising that Democrats are going
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.
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
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
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
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,
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.