The Ben Shapiro Show - Democrats Declare Anything They Don’t Like Court-Packing | Ep. 1113

00:00:00.000 Democrats pledge to stymie the Amy Coney Barrett nomination as judicial hearings open.

00:00:04.000 Joe Biden and the media team up to redefine the term court packing.

00:00:08.000 And Keith Olbermann is back and crazier than ever.

00:00:10.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:10.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:20.000 Stop putting your online data at risk.

00:00:22.000 Get protected at expressvpn.com.

00:00:25.000 We'll get to all the news in a moment.

00:00:26.000 Today is the day that the Amy Coney Barrett hearings begin.

00:00:29.000 But first, let's talk about how you can save money on your cell phone bill.

00:00:32.000 So you've been spending way too much money on your cell phone bill.

00:00:34.000 Why?

00:00:35.000 Well, you bought a plan that covers unlimited data.

00:00:37.000 Now, are you using unlimited data?

00:00:38.000 Chances are you are not because there is no way to use unlimited data.

00:00:41.000 What you actually need is Pure Talk USA.

00:00:44.000 You can take a look at that cell phone bill where it shows data usage.

00:00:46.000 The average person who switches to Pure Talk is using less than four gigs of data a month.

00:00:50.000 The big carriers are charging you for unlimited data, which is like paying for, you know, like All the seats on an airplane to use like a seat.

00:00:56.000 That's how Pure Talk saves the average person over $400 a year on their wireless service, unlimited talk, text, and two gigs of data, all for just 20 bucks a month.

00:01:04.000 And if you go over on data usage, they don't charge you for it.

00:01:06.000 Folks, switching to Pure Talk, it's the easiest decision you will make today.

00:01:10.000 Grab your mobile phone, dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro.

00:01:13.000 When you, you save 50% off your first month, dial pound 250, say keyword Ben Shapiro.

00:01:18.000 Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.

00:01:20.000 There is no reason for you to overpay for your cell phone coverage, especially Because you can get the same exact coverage as you would get from some of those bigger companies, the Verizons, AT&T, T-Mobiles, you get the same coverage for like half the price.

00:01:30.000 Go check them out right now.

00:01:31.000 Dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro, dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro, and save 50% off your first month when you do that magical thing.

00:01:40.000 Alrighty, so to understand what's going on in American politics today, you have to understand that all institutions can be broken.

00:01:46.000 The left believes that all institutions can be broken.

00:01:48.000 Why?

00:01:48.000 Well, because Trump has already fundamentally broken the country.

00:01:51.000 And therefore, every rule can be violated.

00:01:53.000 Every term can be redefined.

00:01:55.000 The entire country is now suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome in one form or another.

00:02:00.000 Which is why the return of Keith Olbermann is worthy of note.

00:02:03.000 So Keith Olbermann, you'll remember, used to have a show on ESPN, then he was on ESPN2, then he was on ESPN6, then he was on MSNBC, who's on Current TV, who's at GQ Magazine.

00:02:11.000 He's held a variety of jobs.

00:02:12.000 He's a rather peripatetic figure.

00:02:14.000 So Keith Olbermann was back to lecture you, America. 0.98

00:02:18.000 On why Donald Trump is the most evil, terrible, horrible, no good, very bad person in the entire history of the world. 0.89

00:02:25.000 And not only that, anyone remotely associated with Donald Trump should go to jail. 0.93

00:02:30.000 For the far left, it's kind of a mild exaggeration of the left-wing position, but not much.

00:02:35.000 And this is why they don't care about court packing.

00:02:37.000 It's why they don't care about wrecking the Senate.

00:02:38.000 Because the country is at stake and everyone who disagrees with me should go to jail.

00:02:42.000 Here is Keith Olbermann being very serious and looking at you because he went to Cornell Ag School.

00:02:48.000 Keith Olbermann, go!

00:02:51.000 The task is twofold. 1.00

00:02:53.000 The terrorist Trump must be defeated, must be destroyed, must be devoured at the ballot box. 0.97

00:02:58.000 And then he, and his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators, and the Mike Lees, and the William Bars, and the Sean Hannity's, and the Mike Pence's, and the Rudy Giuliani's and the Kyle Rittenhouse's and the Amy Coney Barrett's must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has nearly destroyed by turning it over to a virus. 0.99

00:03:25.000 We must take all of these people out and we must jail them and then possibly guillotine them.

00:03:31.000 From Kyle Rittenhouse to Amy Coney Barrett, they must be prosecuted I don't know why Amy Coney Barrett, but she's bad. 1.00

00:03:39.000 Even though I'm slightly aroused.

00:03:41.000 Keith Olbermann. But it's this attitude, it's this bizarre attitude that lies behind so much of our modern politics, which is we're at absolute crisis point because Donald Trump... Okay, here is the reality.

00:03:53.000 Donald Trump is not a threat to our institutions.

00:03:55.000 You pretending that Trump is such a threat to our institutions that you get to destroy the institutions?

00:03:59.000 That's an actual threat to our institutions.

00:04:01.000 Which brings us to the issue of the Supreme Court.

00:04:04.000 Over the weekend, apparently, you know, the craziness continued.

00:04:07.000 And that's not a great shock.

00:04:08.000 It's always difficult to have these Jewish holidays that last two days because you're afraid of logging back on and finding out what you missed.

00:04:13.000 It turns out that while I was gone, the entire media and Democratic Party simply decided to redefine terms in basic English so they no longer have to deal with the ramifications of those terms.

00:04:22.000 Specifically, they decided to redefine the term court packing.

00:04:25.000 So before, court packing meant that you were just going to add a bunch of seats to the Supreme Court in order to put a bunch of people who agreed with you politically on the court and therefore change the nature of the court.

00:04:35.000 It has meant this for some four generations in the United States.

00:04:39.000 In fact, the last time the number of people on the court changed was the 1860s, and it has been solid ever since.

00:04:45.000 In fact, it was so controversial in the 1930s that even a Democratic Congress, with FDR as president, refused to court pack.

00:04:51.000 But now the Democrats in the media have decided that they are going to completely redefine the term court packing so as to never have to answer a question about whether they plan to actually turn the judiciary into an open super legislature.

00:05:02.000 And when you talk about judicial nominations, when you talk about the role of the judiciary, you have to understand there is a fundamental difference in vision for how the judiciary is supposed to operate.

00:05:10.000 So on the conservative side of the aisle, The idea of the judiciary agrees with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 that essentially the judiciary is supposed to be the least dangerous branch.

00:05:20.000 That is the phrase that he used, the least dangerous branch, because it had neither the force to carry out its own judgments nor the purse to actually fund itself.

00:05:28.000 It was subject to the whims of the legislature as well as to the efficacy of the executive branch.

00:05:32.000 The judiciary could basically make decisions, but they didn't have any way to actually cram down those decisions.

00:05:37.000 And in fact, Alexander Hamilton said that should the judiciary become an agent of In other words, if the judiciary were to start basically cramming its opinions down on the American public, rather than just looking at the text of a statute and then trying to hue as closely as possible to the proper meaning of the text of the statute, they would be a legislature and there would be no reason to have unelected people in that position.

00:06:05.000 It would be an oligarchy.

00:06:07.000 Now, in a democratic republic like the United States, you want a bunch of different checks and balances.

00:06:12.000 There's no question that the judiciary is supposed to be anti-democratic.

00:06:15.000 What I mean by anti-democratic, it is a check on popular passions.

00:06:19.000 It was meant to be a check on popular passions.

00:06:21.000 But that's been true for judges since biblical days.

00:06:24.000 If you go back to the Bible and you talk about the sort of characteristics that people are looking for in judges, they're looking for honesty, they're looking for non-favoritism.

00:06:32.000 The Bible specifically says that judges are supposed to be able to neither favor the poor nor the rich.

00:06:37.000 So it's not outcome-driven jurisprudence.

00:06:40.000 The essence of justice is that justice is the same for everybody.

00:06:43.000 It is not driven by individual circumstance.

00:06:46.000 It is not driven by sympathy.

00:06:47.000 It is not driven by empathy.

00:06:49.000 Justice is supposed to be the interpretation of the law in accordance with justice.

00:06:53.000 That is what it is supposed to be.

00:06:55.000 That is what conservatives have always believed.

00:06:57.000 Judges are there in order to look at a statute that was passed by the legislature and then determine whether that statute is in the proper reading of the statute, in the most accurate reading of the statute, in coincidence with the Constitution looking at the most proper and accurate reading of the Constitution.

00:07:11.000 That is the job of the judiciary.

00:07:13.000 The left does not believe this.

00:07:14.000 The left in the United States believes that judiciary should essentially be an agent of change, and that is why the left has always celebrated the judiciary as an agent of change.

00:07:22.000 Now, what they've neglected is that the judiciary, actively speaking, is not really an agent of change.

00:07:26.000 Typically, it's something both the left and the right tend to overblow, I think.

00:07:30.000 They tend to think of the judiciary as a sort of As a sort of movement forward in American law, typically the judiciary greenlights stuff that the legislature is already doing, and then they refuse to stand in the way, or maybe they push something a little bit faster.

00:07:47.000 So to take a few obvious examples of sort of transformations in the law, in Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court declared that segregation was unconstitutional, It still took an additional decade for desegregation to actually practically start happening in the South.

00:08:01.000 And that was only after the legislature acted in the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in 65.

00:08:05.000 In other words, as Gerald Rosenberg says in his book, The Hollow Hope, the idea that the Supreme Court has the capacity to really change things radically in the United States is not quite right.

00:08:14.000 What the Supreme Court does have the capacity to do is to green light bad legislative activity.

00:08:19.000 So that is what happened in the Obamacare case, to take an example.

00:08:22.000 Yeah, so there are certain cases where people think that the Supreme Court has really affected social change, and there are cases where it has.

00:08:28.000 Roe v. Wade is the most obvious case, where the Supreme Court decided to read a trend and then try to jump to the end of the trend.

00:08:35.000 You see this in Obergefell also with regard to gay marriage, where the Supreme Court read the tea leaves and said, okay, well, more and more states are greenlighting gay marriage, so let's just go the whole hog and let's just put gay marriage right there in the Constitution.

00:08:45.000 That'd create a whole host of problems.

00:08:46.000 You see the same thing in abortion via Roe v. Wade.

00:08:51.000 The Supreme Court taking a leading moral role is the goal of the left, but it always has to be a left-wing moral rule.

00:09:00.000 The goal of the right is to treat the judiciary as though it has a separate job from the legislature, a separate job from the executive, and its job is to simply interpret the law.

00:09:08.000 It is not the job of the judiciary to create its own law or to rule in accordance with its own perception of morality.

00:09:15.000 That is not what a court is designed to do.

00:09:16.000 A court is designed in order to interpret the law as closely as possible.

00:09:20.000 But the left doesn't believe this.

00:09:22.000 And so the left believes that if the court is actually, if it becomes an instrument of interpreting law, and interpreting law requires the striking down of particular statutes the left doesn't like, or the court doesn't actively promote left-wing values, then the court has been perverted.

00:09:36.000 And this is why they oppose Amy Coney Barrett.

00:09:38.000 As we're about to see, Amy Coney Barrett, her hearings begin today.

00:09:41.000 And Amy Coney Barrett's opening statement is very much about how her job is not to impose her own morality on the world.

00:09:47.000 Instead, her job is to ensure that the law is interpreted properly.

00:09:50.000 And the left really does not like this.

00:09:52.000 If you look at the differences in how Sonia Sotomayor talks about the law, she talks about the law as sort of open-ended and broad and malleable when you see Stephen Breyer.

00:10:01.000 Justice Breyer talk about the malleable living constitution that you have to move along with the evolving standards of decency, the evolving standards of morality and interpret based on essentially your own moral compass.

00:10:14.000 That is a fundamental rebuke to Alexander Hamilton.

00:10:18.000 Hamilton would look at that sort of talk about the judiciary and he would say, okay, then the judiciary doesn't deserve to be a separate branch.

00:10:22.000 We already have two bodies of the legislature. 0.94

00:10:24.000 We don't need a third, particularly a third branch that is not elected and that serves for life.

00:10:29.000 But the left would love all of that.

00:10:30.000 And we're gonna get to this in just one moment, because all of this is the underlying framework, the underlying philosophical framework for the debate happening today, not only over Amy Coney Barrett, but also the debate that is happening over so-called court packing.

00:10:42.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:10:43.000 First, let us talk about the fact that whether your underwear is comfortable or not, that can actually determine how your day is going to go.

00:10:50.000 It's small annoyances.

00:10:51.000 This is something I've just noticed in my life.

00:10:52.000 Small annoyances can really wreck your day.

00:10:54.000 You know, things you don't think about and that you just don't bother with.

00:10:57.000 And then, each and every day, you're like, God, these underwear are so uncomfortable.

00:11:01.000 Why am I suffering with this?

00:11:02.000 The answer is you don't have to suffer with that.

00:11:03.000 Get the best underwear on the market.

00:11:04.000 I, of course, am talking about Tommy John underwear.

00:11:07.000 From working to playing hard, when you start every morning in Tommy John underwear, you are that much more comfortable, so you can do everything better.

00:11:13.000 That's why Tommy John Underwear doesn't have customers, they have converts with dozens of comfort innovations.

00:11:16.000 Once you've tried Tommy John, you'll never go back.

00:11:18.000 I know because I have tried it, Tommy John.

00:11:20.000 By the way, so has my wife.

00:11:21.000 With breathable, lightweight, moisture-wicking fabric with four times the stretch of competing brands, it moves with you, not against you.

00:11:26.000 It's not going to chafe you or anything like that.

00:11:28.000 Tommy John Underwear comes with a non-rolling waistband for the perfect fit.

00:11:31.000 The legs never ride up.

00:11:32.000 You are covered with their no wedgie guarantee, which definitely would have helped me back in high school.

00:11:36.000 Tommy John underwear is listed on GQ's latest 10 essentials with Kevin Hart.

00:11:39.000 They have over 96% four-star plus reviews, over 12 million pairs sold.

00:11:43.000 You have to try them for yourself.

00:11:45.000 And they have a best pair you'll ever wear, or it's free guarantee, so there's no risk.

00:11:48.000 If you don't love them, they are free.

00:11:48.000 Try Tommy John.

00:11:50.000 Get that much more comfortable at tommyjohn.com slash Ben.

00:11:53.000 Save 15% on your first order.

00:11:55.000 Save 15% right now at tommyjohn.com slash Ben.

00:11:58.000 Once more, that is tommyjohn.com slash Ben.

00:12:00.000 Okay, so the hearings open today, and those hearings are basically a waste of time.

00:12:08.000 They're a waste of time because the Democrats are just going to posture about how Amy Coney Barrett is terrible, and how Amy Coney Barrett is a throwback to atheocracy, and how Amy Coney Barrett is somehow a handmaid.

00:12:18.000 It doesn't matter that she's an independent, powerful woman who's going to be sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States. 1.00

00:12:22.000 We're going to get all of the posturing from the various senators.

00:12:25.000 There are 22 different senators who make opening statements today.

00:12:27.000 10 of those senators are Democrats.

00:12:29.000 It includes Kamala Harris.

00:12:30.000 Kamala Harris fans are eager for her to get very aggressive. 1.00

00:12:33.000 I don't think that she's going to.

00:12:34.000 I think Kamala Harris is probably going to take a backseat on this one. 1.00

00:12:37.000 The reason she's going to take a backseat is because she looked terrible grilling Justice Kavanaugh. 1.00

00:12:41.000 It turns out she's not good at her job. 0.90

00:12:43.000 She truly is not.

00:12:44.000 Again, proof positive she's not good at her job. 1.00

00:12:46.000 She dropped out of the Democratic primaries despite having at one point held the lead.

00:12:50.000 She dropped out before there was a single primary that was held.

00:12:53.000 Harris is going to attend Amy Coney Barrett's hearing remotely because she says the measures against COVID-19 are not safe for her.

00:13:02.000 Apparently, a spokesman for her said, due to Judiciary Committee Republicans' refusal to take common-sense steps to protect members, aides, Capitol Complex workers, and members of the media, Senator Harris plans to participate in this week's hearings remotely from her Senate office in the Hart Building.

00:13:14.000 Her confirmation hearings begin Monday.

00:13:16.000 Senators Mike Lee and Tom Tillis both tested positive for coronavirus.

00:13:19.000 Senator Lindsey Graham and Harris have been talking about implementing testing measures for members and staff ahead of the hearings, but Graham has not imposed additional testing requirements. 0.99

00:13:29.000 A lot of other members are expected to attend, including complete moron Maisie Hirono from Hawaii, who is indeed the stupidest person in the United States Senate. 1.00

00:13:35.000 I mean, she is truly a moron. 1.00

00:13:37.000 And Senator Chris Croons from Delaware. 1.00

00:13:39.000 He said that he's going to attend physically, and Hirono will as well.

00:13:44.000 He's expected to attend in person on Tuesday.

00:13:44.000 Tillis has recovered.

00:13:46.000 Lee is still undecided.

00:13:49.000 Will Harris get aggressive?

00:13:49.000 There are people who are urging her to.

00:13:52.000 Christian Farias, writing for the New York Times, says Kamala Harris should grill Amy Coney Barrett. 0.87

00:13:56.000 They say millions of Americans have already cast votes ahead of the election.

00:13:59.000 Democracy demands one of the candidates on the ballot be the Democrats' lead questioner at the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett that begins on Monday.

00:14:06.000 Kamala Harris isn't just a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Republicans control, and is rushing madly to ram through President Trump's chosen replacement for the Supreme Court seat formerly held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 0.99

00:14:16.000 She's also one of the sharpest questioners on the committee, setting herself apart in nearly four years she's been in the Senate.

00:14:21.000 She has cross-examined everyone from Jeff Sessions to Brett Kavanaugh to Bill Barr.

00:14:25.000 Yeah, her cross-examination of Brett Kavanaugh was this weird thing where she suggested that he was in cahoots with Donald Trump's law firm over at Kasowitz without any actual evidence of what she was talking about or even any indicator of what she was talking about.

00:14:37.000 But Democrats are rooting for Harris to get very aggressive.

00:14:41.000 According to this columnist for the New York Times, this is about democracy.

00:14:44.000 As Senator Harris herself observed during Wednesday's vice presidential debate, Republicans' brute force effort to confirm Judge Barrett as people head to the polls is an affront to voters.

00:14:52.000 We're literally in an election, she said.

00:14:53.000 Over 4 million people have voted.

00:14:55.000 People have been in the process of voting now.

00:14:58.000 Okay, so what?

00:14:59.000 I mean, seriously, so what?

00:15:00.000 That's a case against early voting.

00:15:01.000 That is not a case against actually having hearings to fill a vacant judicial seat. 0.91

00:15:07.000 But really, what they are going to object to, because they don't actually have any dirt on Amy Coney Barrett, and it's going to be a lot harder to accuse Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven, of being a gang rapist.

00:15:15.000 A lot harder to do that than it was for Brett Kavanaugh, who is, of course, a white male, and therefore guilty of a myriad of crimes he did not commit.

00:15:21.000 They're going to go after Amy Coney Barrett on the basis, presumably, that she is Catholic and too religious, or that she might be anti-Roe v. Wade.

00:15:29.000 John Podhoretz on the Commentary podcast made a great point the other day.

00:15:31.000 He was saying, we do live in a weirdly ironic world in which Amy Coney Barrett is expected to opine on every single issue that could possibly come before her.

00:15:39.000 But Joe Biden is allowed to hide in the basement and not explain any of his own viewpoints.

00:15:43.000 One of those people is running for an elected office.

00:15:45.000 And one of those people is being selected to be a judge.

00:15:48.000 But the media have got everything exactly backwards, of course.

00:15:51.000 So in her opening statement, Judge Coney Barrett is expected to praise her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, as well as honoring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a brief series of remarks.

00:16:02.000 She issued a four-page statement and she talks about her judicial qualifications and she talks about her sort of judicial philosophy as well.

00:16:10.000 Here's what she says.

00:16:11.000 Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society.

00:16:15.000 But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.

00:16:20.000 The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people.

00:16:26.000 She says, Justice Scalia taught me more than just law.

00:16:29.000 He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, fearless of criticism.

00:16:32.000 As I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective.

00:16:35.000 She, of course, clerked for Scalia.

00:16:37.000 There's a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming while losing sight of everything else.

00:16:41.000 That makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life.

00:16:43.000 She's also going to talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

00:16:47.000 Apparently she says, when I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, RBG sat in the seat.

00:16:51.000 She told the committee, what has become of me could only happen in America.

00:16:54.000 I've been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat, but no one will ever take her place.

00:16:57.000 I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life that she led.

00:17:02.000 It is the statements on judicial philosophy that interest me most, obviously.

00:17:05.000 And when she talks about the fact that it is not the job of judges to do right, it is the job of justices to interpret the law, this is exactly correct.

00:17:14.000 It is also in direct opposition to what the left believes, which is that, again, the court is designed to do the work that leftists couldn't get done in the legislature.

00:17:21.000 So they couldn't pass national legislation on same-sex marriage or abortion, and so they have the Supreme Court do their dirty work for them.

00:17:28.000 They couldn't pass the Affordable Care Act as a tax, so they called it a fee, and then they waited for Justice John Roberts to rewrite the statute into a tax so that it would be legal.

00:17:38.000 That is what the left wants the court to be.

00:17:41.000 The fundamental disconnect when it comes to the court that has happened here is that, again, the left would love for the court to be a super leftist legislature.

00:17:49.000 The right would like for the court to be a court.

00:17:51.000 And the left really objects when the court is used as a court because they see it as an obstacle to their utopian goals, whereas they would like for it to be just another weapon in their arsenal.

00:18:02.000 So, yeah, Amy Coney Barrett is obviously going to cut against a lot of the priorities that Democrats hold. 1.00

00:18:08.000 And she is exactly right when she says that the court is not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong.

00:18:12.000 That has been a controversial line.

00:18:14.000 I don't know how that's remotely controversial.

00:18:16.000 It is not the job of a court to do that.

00:18:17.000 It is the job of a court to interpret the law.

00:18:19.000 If the political branches want to solve a thing, they should solve the thing.

00:18:23.000 When I was in law school, I actually had a little acronym that I would text people when people started talking about judicial activism in class, which was L-I-T-T-L, leave it to the legislature.

00:18:36.000 Leave it to the legislature, should generally be the hallmark of a justice who recognizes that the law is badly written and needs to be struck down, or that a law is badly written and doesn't need to be struck down, but the legislature has to fix the law.

00:18:49.000 Judicial humility goes a long way.

00:18:51.000 A little bit of judicial humility goes a long way.

00:18:53.000 And that means faithfully interpreting the law.

00:18:55.000 Again, what's amazing about so much of this when it comes to judicial interpretation is that nobody would ever read the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1907 the way that they purport to read the Constitution of the United States.

00:19:07.000 And yet, more and more, the left expects justices to do this.

00:19:11.000 And you see even textualist justices doing this.

00:19:13.000 You saw Justice Gorsuch do exactly this with the Civil Rights Act of 64, suddenly and randomly reading transgenderism into Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

00:19:20.000 That's a bizarre absurdity.

00:19:23.000 It is a fundamental breach of what it means to be a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

00:19:27.000 But that's what the left would like.

00:19:28.000 And if they don't get their way, then they simply want to pack the Supreme Court and turn it into an overtly political branch.

00:19:33.000 And this is really what Trump has done.

00:19:35.000 And really, Obama and then Trump.

00:19:37.000 All that has happened is that the veneer has been stripped from American democracy.

00:19:42.000 That's all that has happened here.

00:19:43.000 As I've said before, Trump is not the killer.

00:19:45.000 Trump is the coroner.

00:19:46.000 Trump came upon the body of American politics.

00:19:48.000 He pointed out, he said, this body may still be warm, but it is effectively dead.

00:19:52.000 And the Democrats are confirming that each and every day.

00:19:55.000 It used to be that they would pretend that the judiciary It was some sort of apolitical branch.

00:20:01.000 Now they openly acknowledge that it's a political branch and that they would like to cram it full of Democrats.

00:20:06.000 They used to suggest that the Senate was a deliberative body.

00:20:08.000 Now they recognize it's not a deliberative body.

00:20:10.000 It is just another way for them to cram through their agenda.

00:20:13.000 The media used to pretend that they were objective.

00:20:15.000 Now they don't even pretend.

00:20:16.000 Now they're just like, okay, well, we're going to pretend we'll say we're objective, but it's pretty damned obvious that we are not objective in any way.

00:20:23.000 All the veneers have come off and it's really ugly.

00:20:26.000 A lot of people celebrate this.

00:20:27.000 A lot of people think that it's good.

00:20:28.000 I'm not so sure that it's good.

00:20:30.000 Because at least when there was the veneer, we could agree that the values the veneer stood for were good.

00:20:35.000 Yes, people were lying about what they actually wanted to do with the court, but they at least attempted to move in line with American expectations of what the court was.

00:20:43.000 With the veneer stripped away, it becomes obvious just how much we disagree with one another.

00:20:46.000 I'm going to get to that in just one second.

00:20:49.000 First, let us talk about protecting your computer from malware.

00:20:52.000 If you ever had your computer hit by malware, it is the worst thing in the world.

00:20:55.000 I mean, it just destroys your computer.

00:20:57.000 If you work on a computer, it destroys your life for several days.

00:21:00.000 You have to get a new computer.

00:21:01.000 It could destroy your life altogether because maybe you get ransomware on the computer.

00:21:04.000 They've locked up all the files that you need and you can't get to them unless you actually start paying people.

00:21:08.000 It's really, really bad stuff.

00:21:09.000 This is why you need PCmatic.

00:21:11.000 It's a next-generation antivirus designed to stop modern threats like ransomware.

00:21:14.000 Independent testing firm AV-Test just named PCmatic as a top performer in the cybersecurity industry, giving it the best performance award for 2019.

00:21:22.000 Only PCmatic has American research, development, and support.

00:21:25.000 PCmatic's competition is foreign-made, often in countries where malware originates.

00:21:29.000 PCmatic will block annoying and malicious ads for hassle-free web browsing, makes your computer faster and more reliable, even after years of use.

00:21:36.000 PCmatic protects Windows computer, including XP, Vista, Windows 7, 8, and 10, Windows servers, Macs, MacBooks, Android phones, and tablets.

00:21:43.000 PCmatic is just 50 bucks for five devices for one year with a full 30-day money-back guarantee.

00:21:48.000 If you act right now, PCmatic has offered my listeners a free month of security protection with the purchase of an annual license.

00:21:53.000 You are making a large-scale mistake if you do not protect your computer from malware.

00:21:57.000 Right now, check out PCmatic.com slash Ben.

00:22:00.000 Again, when you go to PCmatic.com slash Ben, you get 50 bucks, five devices, one year, full 30-day money-back guarantee, and my listeners get a free month of security protection when you purchase an annual license.

00:22:10.000 Check them out at PCmatic.com slash Ben.

00:22:12.000 Again, that is PCmatic.com slash Ben.

00:22:16.000 Okay, so there was a veneer that really... If you want to know where the American people are, all you have to do is look at which directions politicians tend to lie.

00:22:26.000 Don't pay attention to their actual positions, because nobody pays attention to actual political positions.

00:22:29.000 If they did, I think Republicans would win far more often.

00:22:32.000 Nobody looks at political platforms.

00:22:34.000 Nobody even really looks at what politicians do.

00:22:36.000 Mostly, people look at what politicians promise.

00:22:39.000 And what politicians promise tends to be where they think the American people are.

00:22:42.000 So, even Sonia Sotomayor, who's a wildly activist left judge, even she, when she was trying to get herself on the court, she suggested that it was the job of judges to interpret law, not make law.

00:22:53.000 Now, of course, she's on the court, and she knows that it's the job of justices from a left-wing point of view to make law, to just do it willy-nilly.

00:22:59.000 But even when Sonia Sotomayor was being appointed, she paid lip service to the idea that judges are not legislators. 0.55

00:23:06.000 When it comes to the media, the media understand that most Americans would love to believe that their news are objective, and so media keep paying lip service, or did until very recently, to the idea of objectivity in news.

00:23:17.000 Now they've completely abandoned it.

00:23:19.000 And you're starting to see Democrats abandon it on the court.

00:23:21.000 When they talk about court packing, what they really mean is that the judiciary is no longer supposed to be an objective branch of government, an apolitical branch of government.

00:23:28.000 We're just going to strip the veneer away.

00:23:30.000 So we can't even agree on what the judiciary is supposed to do.

00:23:33.000 We can't agree on what our media are supposed to do.

00:23:35.000 We can't agree on what our government is supposed to do.

00:23:38.000 There used to be this truism in American politics that we all sort of want the same thing.

00:23:42.000 We just have different ways of going about it.

00:23:43.000 It's pretty obvious as time goes on, we do not in any way want the same thing.

00:23:47.000 That the utopian vision of the left is very, very different from the conservative vision for the country, and that the institutional obstacles the Constitution provides are a real problem for many members of the left, which is why, of course, they're now talking About court packing.

00:24:00.000 Now, in order to push for court packing, in order to push for adding justices, the left understands that it's unpopular.

00:24:07.000 They understand that most Americans are not in favor of fundamentally reshaping our institutions.

00:24:11.000 So they just lie.

00:24:12.000 You've seen them do this about the court routinely, by the way.

00:24:14.000 Not only individual justices who claim that they are just there to interpret the law and not to make it and then immediately turn around and make the law.

00:24:21.000 And not just justices who suggest that judicial activism, the term judicial activism, which typically means reading the law in alignment with your moral ideals instead of just reading what the text of the Constitution says.

00:24:32.000 That's what judicial activism used to mean.

00:24:34.000 They shifted the definition of judicial activism.

00:24:36.000 They rewrote the term in order to mean any time a judge strikes down a left-wing statute.

00:24:41.000 If a judge strikes down a right-wing statute, that's not judicial activism.

00:24:43.000 That's standing up for the Constitution.

00:24:45.000 If a judge strikes down a left-wing statute, that is now active, right?

00:24:48.000 It's activism.

00:24:49.000 You see the left do this routinely.

00:24:51.000 Redefining terms.

00:24:52.000 And it's really perverse.

00:24:53.000 Well now, their new move is to redefine the term court packing.

00:24:57.000 So for several months now, we have been talking about the fact that during the Democratic primaries, many of the candidates talked about packing the court, even before RBG died.

00:25:04.000 Then RBG died, and it became a rote talking point for many Democrats that they would look at packing the court if they gained control of the Senate.

00:25:12.000 Now this isn't really as much of a threat to Biden as it is to various Senate candidates.

00:25:16.000 The truth is Biden's refusal to denounce court packing is not going to hurt Biden very much because the vote for Biden is really not about Biden.

00:25:22.000 It's really about Trump.

00:25:24.000 But it could hurt the Democrats down ballot.

00:25:26.000 It could hurt the Democrats in the Senate, because those races are very, very closely fought.

00:25:31.000 There's the significant possibility right now, and I think I'd probably put my money on this, that Joe Biden is leading in the presidential race, but in the Senate, Republicans hold the Senate because the Democrats have gotten so radical on this issue.

00:25:44.000 So instead, they've decided to completely redefine the term court packing, and the media are going along with this completely.

00:25:51.000 Donald Trump, over the weekend, he correctly pointed out that the radical left Democrats are pushing Joe Biden to pack the Supreme Court.

00:25:56.000 So President Trump tweeted, FDR's own party told him you cannot pack the United States Supreme Court.

00:26:00.000 It would permanently destroy the court.

00:26:02.000 But now the radical left Democrats are pushing Biden to do this.

00:26:05.000 He has zero chance against them.

00:26:07.000 And Biden so far has not really stood up to the radical left.

00:26:11.000 This is why, and this does undercut Biden's chief message.

00:26:13.000 It may not matter, but it does undercut his chief message.

00:26:16.000 Remember, Joe Biden is, I am a stolid moderate.

00:26:19.000 I'm a person who's going to stand up against the predations of the radical left.

00:26:21.000 I'm a return to normalcy.

00:26:23.000 Then why in the world is Joe Biden so hesitant to condemn court packing, which is a fundamental change to the nature of the republic?

00:26:28.000 The minute that you have a court that is openly political, people just stop paying attention to the court.

00:26:33.000 The minute that you have a Senate that has been packed, filled with Democrats from new states, and then pushing forward a packed court, and then pushing forward any legislation to the far left, the American people and various states are just going to say, I'm not paying attention to that.

00:26:44.000 You've now rigged the system, like truly rigged the system.

00:26:47.000 And Joe Biden is not standing up to that, which is an amazing thing for a guy who's campaigning as captain return to normalcy, back to moderation, back to the future, right?

00:26:57.000 That's a weird take.

00:26:58.000 It's a weird take from Joe Biden.

00:27:00.000 So over the weekend, here was Joe Biden trying to redefine the term court packing.

00:27:06.000 So this has been his consistent message.

00:27:08.000 Last week, Joe Biden said that he would tell you about court packing after the election.

00:27:11.000 He just simply refused to answer a question on whether he would go along with packing the court.

00:27:15.000 Here was Biden last week in Arizona.

00:27:18.000 They'll know my opinion in court packing when the election is over.

00:27:20.000 Now look, I know it's a great question, and I don't blame you for asking it, but you know the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that.

00:27:33.000 Other than, other than, focusing on what's happening now.

00:27:38.000 Okay, that was him just last week.

00:27:40.000 Okay, then over the weekend, Biden was asked about all of this.

00:27:43.000 Okay, and this is clip five.

00:27:45.000 He's specifically asked whether voters deserve to hear an answer on court packing.

00:27:49.000 And Biden's like, nope, they don't deserve to hear an answer.

00:27:51.000 This man has nothing but scorn for the American voter and scorn for American journalists.

00:27:54.000 He does not care about answering the questions, Joe Biden.

00:27:57.000 He's a lifelong politician.

00:27:58.000 He's never had to answer hard questions.

00:28:00.000 When he has had to answer hard questions, it's gone poorly for him.

00:28:03.000 So his entire campaign is now going to be, I don't exist.

00:28:06.000 I'm not going to answer questions because if I answer questions, you might write about me and I want you to write about Donald Trump.

00:28:10.000 And he's openly saying this to the media.

00:28:12.000 And so the media, like the good little lapdogs they are, are simply reflecting it back at him.

00:28:16.000 It's incredible.

00:28:17.000 Watch.

00:28:17.000 It's incredible.

00:28:18.000 Here he is openly saying voters do not deserve an answer on whether he's going to wreck the third branch of government.

00:28:23.000 Sir, I've got to ask you about packing the courts, and I know that you said yesterday you aren't going to answer the question until after the election, but this is the number one thing that I've been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.

00:28:34.000 Well, you've been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don't want me continuing to talk about what they're doing to the court right now.

00:28:41.000 Well, sir, don't the voters deserve to know?

00:28:42.000 No, they don't.

00:28:44.000 I'm not going to play his game.

00:28:45.000 He'd love me to talk about, and I've already said something on PAC, he'd love that to be the discussion instead of what he's doing now.

00:28:53.000 OK, that is the most absurd answer in the world.

00:28:55.000 No, voters don't deserve to know where I stand on wrecking the third branch of government because I want you to talk about Donald Trump.

00:29:01.000 He's literally just giving instructions to the media.

00:29:04.000 Don't cover this question.

00:29:05.000 Instead, I want you to cover Trump.

00:29:06.000 So I'm not going to give you an answer.

00:29:08.000 Okay, and then Joe Biden lays out the narrative that has become immediately the rote narrative for the entire Democratic Party and many members of the media.

00:29:16.000 And it's unbelievable how everything switched on a dime.

00:29:19.000 Okay, he decides that he's going to lay out a narrative whereby the term court packing itself no longer means that you pack the court with extra seats from people of your political persuasion.

00:29:29.000 Instead, court packing now means legally filling the seats that are empty with people who are duly nominated and confirmed.

00:29:37.000 I'm not kidding.

00:29:37.000 This is his actual case.

00:29:39.000 Now, the predicate for this case was set last week by Kamala Harris.

00:29:42.000 So, in debate with Mike Pence, she was struggling for answers.

00:29:45.000 He kept saying, are you packing the court?

00:29:47.000 Are you going to pack the court?

00:29:48.000 And she finally said, you want to talk about court packing?

00:29:50.000 Let's talk about court packing.

00:29:51.000 And then she randomly started talking about how there were no black judges appointed by Donald Trump, as though they love Clarence Thomas over on the left wing.

00:29:58.000 But this is a fundamental redefinition of the term, right?

00:30:00.000 Because when people are asking about court packing, they don't mean, are you filling existing empty seats?

00:30:05.000 They mean, are you adding seats to courts to willy-nilly overturn the majorities that currently exist on those courts?

00:30:11.000 Not a seat came open, and now you fill that seat with somebody.

00:30:14.000 Instead, court packing typically means you add seats to the court.

00:30:17.000 This is not a change in definition.

00:30:18.000 It has been like this for four generations.

00:30:19.000 During the debate.

00:30:20.000 Remember, I laughed openly at this when I reviewed the debate the other night.

00:30:24.000 Kamala Harris tried to redefine the term court packing in the middle of the debate. 1.00

00:30:27.000 You'll see Biden picked it up, then the entire Democratic Party picked it up, and then the media picked it up, which is normally the way this works.

00:30:32.000 Do you know that of the 50 people who President Trump appointed to the Court of Appeals for lifetime appointments, not one is black?

00:30:44.000 This is what they've been doing.

00:30:45.000 You want to talk about packing a court?

00:30:47.000 Let's have that discussion.

00:30:49.000 Okay, that is not what packing a court means.

00:30:51.000 Packing a court means that you add seats to the court.

00:30:54.000 That is what it has always meant.

00:30:55.000 So now there's this weird redefinition going on, because they don't want to answer the question, in which we equate filling seats with people who are constitutionalists and originalists, duly, because the seat is empty and you get to nominate and confirm judges.

00:31:08.000 We're going to equate that with adding five, six, seven seats on the Supreme Court, which is crazy.

00:31:14.000 OK, so Joe Biden tried this line also.

00:31:17.000 Here is Joe Biden saying the only court packing that is happening is happening with conservatives, which, of course, makes no sense because conservatives are not packing the Supreme Court.

00:31:24.000 The only court packing going on right now.

00:31:28.000 It's going on with Republicans taking the court now.

00:31:32.000 It's not constitutional what they're doing.

00:31:34.000 We should be focused on what's happening right now.

00:31:37.000 And the fact is that the only packing going on is this.

00:31:41.000 It's being packed now by the Republicans after the vote has already begun.

00:31:48.000 What the hell is he talking about?

00:31:49.000 Filling a seat that is empty when you have a majority in the Senate?

00:31:52.000 Is that court packing?

00:31:53.000 That's literally the constitutional process.

00:31:55.000 It is not adding seats to the Supreme Court.

00:31:58.000 Okay, but this immediately gets laundered by the Democrats into the media. 0.98

00:32:01.000 So you see Dick Durbin over the weekend, the idiot senator from Illinois who once compared American soldiers to Pol Pot. 0.95

00:32:07.000 Here was Dick Durbin over the weekend on Meet the Press explaining that if you fill vacancies, this is now packing the court. 1.00

00:32:12.000 Now, they think you're a moron. 1.00

00:32:14.000 I mean, they do. 1.00

00:32:14.000 They think the American voters are morons. 1.00

00:32:16.000 Joe Biden openly says it. 1.00

00:32:17.000 Voters don't deserve to know my answer on court packing.

00:32:19.000 Also, court packing no longer means court packing.

00:32:21.000 It means duly appointing people to open positions. 1.00

00:32:24.000 Here's Dick Durbin trying to treat the American people as idiots. 1.00

00:32:29.000 American people have watched the Republicans pack in the court over the last three and a half years, and they brag about it. 1.00

00:32:34.000 They've taken every vacancy and filled it.

00:32:36.000 Did you know that they've sent us, and we have approved only with their votes I might add, ten people who have been judged unanimously unqualified by the American Bar Association?

00:32:46.000 Do you know how many judicial nominees came from Obama who were judged unanimously unqualified?

00:32:51.000 None.

00:32:52.000 So we are dealing with people on the court, packed into the court, with little or no qualification, who are going to be there for a long time.

00:33:00.000 So this is incredible.

00:33:02.000 So the entire activist left picks this up.

00:33:03.000 The memo goes out, the entire activist left picks this out.

00:33:06.000 Sam Berger, who is the vice president of Center for American Progress, he immediately tweets out, conservative court packing in one chart.

00:33:14.000 And all the chart is, is how many judges were appointed by Donald Trump.

00:33:18.000 Which is 30, right?

00:33:19.000 That is the number of appellate judges confirmed by the United States Senate between 2015 and 2018 is 30.

00:33:22.000 2015 and 2018 is 30.

00:33:25.000 And then he tweets out, conservatives stealth court packing plan.

00:33:28.000 Step one, steal seats by blocking confirmation of judges until White House and Senate are under conservative control.

00:33:33.000 Step two, change the rules to appoint the most partisan conservative judges at breakneck speed.

00:33:37.000 So number one, I just, I'm really enjoying the redefinition of a judge who rules according to the law as a partisan conservative.

00:33:45.000 Now, if you just do your job as a judge or a partisan conservative.

00:33:49.000 You are, in fact, a wondrous human being if you look into your heart for empathy, the way Barack Obama described Sonia Sotomayor.

00:33:55.000 But if you're a judge and you look at a law and you say, you know what, this law doesn't allow this thing, even if I would like it, even if it's a nice thing to do, then you are a conservative partisan.

00:34:02.000 That is the way they've redefined what it means to be a judge.

00:34:05.000 They've redefined the term judicial activism.

00:34:07.000 And now they're redefining the term court packing.

00:34:09.000 So there is Sam Berger for the Center of American Progress.

00:34:11.000 Then you get Dan Rather.

00:34:12.000 Who for some reason is still a famous person.

00:34:14.000 Which is pretty incredible after he completely blew up his career in 2004 by putting out a fake notice of George W. Bush going AWOL.

00:34:21.000 He's now regained a certain amount of credibility for some odd reason.

00:34:26.000 He tweeted out, That's not court packing!

00:34:27.000 They didn't have the votes to confirm Merrick Garland.

00:34:29.000 End of story.

00:34:30.000 playbook for decades asking for Merrick Garland. That's not court packing. They didn't have the votes to confirm Merrick Garland. End of story. They do have the votes to confirm the judges that Trump is appointing. In what way is that court packing?

00:34:44.000 That is a redefinition.

00:34:45.000 So Dan Rather tries to launder that term.

00:34:48.000 Then you get Ruth Marcus over at the Washington Post.

00:34:51.000 Republicans have no standing to complain about court packing.

00:34:53.000 Which is the 2020 election isn't about whether to expand the size of the Supreme Court.

00:34:58.000 It isn't about whether Democratic nominee Joe Biden states his position on court packing.

00:35:02.000 The election is about one thing, a referendum on the dangerous presidency of Donald Trump.

00:35:05.000 No wonder Republicans are so desperate to change the subject.

00:35:09.000 The future of the court, now that Republicans are poised to cement a sixth justice conservative majority, is a hugely important topic.

00:35:14.000 Republicans stole one seat when they refused to let President Obama fill a vacancy created nine months before the 2016 election.

00:35:20.000 Now they are poised to steal another.

00:35:22.000 It's not stealing a seat to not confirm a justice who is appointed by your political opposition, nor is it stealing a seat to confirm a justice appointed by a member of a party of which you are also a member.

00:35:33.000 Okay, what you are watching is an incredible case of gaslighting.

00:35:35.000 It's just an unbelievable case of gaslighting.

00:35:36.000 The media are now in plain view, and Democrats are in plain view, taking the term court-packing and saying, court-packing no longer means court-packing.

00:35:42.000 We're not entitled to fill.

00:35:43.000 This is slow motion court packing in plain sight.

00:35:45.000 Okay, what you are watching is an incredible case of gaslighting.

00:35:48.000 It's just an unbelievable case of gaslighting.

00:35:50.000 The media are now in plain view and Democrats are in plain view taking the term court packing and saying, court packing no longer means court packing.

00:35:57.000 It now means anything Republicans do and we don't like is court packing.

00:36:00.000 As we will see, they're also gonna say anything that Republicans do and we don't like is unconstitutional, which is super fun, considering that the left scorns and despises the institutions of the constitution of the United States.

00:36:10.000 They think that the Senate is unrepresentative and therefore bad.

00:36:14.000 They think that the judiciary ought to be a super legislature.

00:36:17.000 They believe that the presidency of the United States should be unbounded.

00:36:20.000 There should be no delegated powers.

00:36:22.000 In fact, one of the reasons why I vote Republican is because, while I have many problems with the way that the Republicans have gone along with the expansion of the executive branch, at least they don't fundamentally despise the institutions of the Constitution the way the Democrats apparently do.

00:36:35.000 The AP picked this up.

00:36:36.000 The Associated Press picked this up.

00:36:38.000 So according to the Associated Press, they're talking about Steve Bullock, who is the current governor of Montana.

00:36:44.000 He's now running for Senate against Steve Daines.

00:36:46.000 We can all hope and pray that Steve Daines wins that race.

00:36:49.000 Here's the Associated Press describing court packing.

00:36:51.000 You ready?

00:36:51.000 So it started off, remember, from Biden and Harris, redefining court packing.

00:36:54.000 Then it went to kind of the lower level senators, redefining court packing.

00:36:57.000 Then it went out to the activist base. 0.56

00:36:59.000 It went out to people like Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, who put out a tweet thread saying, any Democrat who uses the term court packing to describe expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court should be smacked upside the head. This is not only idiotic politics. More importantly, it is wrong, incorrect, not what anyone is proposing. 0.99

00:37:16.000 For the last decade, Republicans have used an escalating mix of aggressive and corrupt means to stack the federal judiciary in order to entrench power they believe they will no longer be able to win in majority elections.

00:37:26.000 If Democrats control the Congress and the White House, they must take steps to undo this harm and corruption, and the most viable logical path is to add additional seats to the Supreme Court.

00:37:34.000 He calls this remedial.

00:37:35.000 So he says, stop calling it court packing.

00:37:37.000 It's just remedial.

00:37:39.000 And the Associated Press picks it up and goes with it.

00:37:41.000 Here's the Associated Press talking about Montana Governor Steve Bullock.

00:37:45.000 So Bullock, over the weekend, Okay, at least we'll consider packing it.

00:37:49.000 I mean, why not?

00:37:49.000 Here is Democrat Steve Bullock, who at least is honest enough to admit what he is planning to do here.

00:37:54.000 He says, OK, at least we'll consider packing it.

00:37:57.000 I mean, why not?

00:37:58.000 This is clip seven.

00:37:59.000 They have been trying to politicize the court every step of the way, and we have to figure out ways to make it less political.

00:38:08.000 So I'm open to that, and that's anything from a Judicial Standards Commission, or we'll look at any other thing that might be suggested, including adding justices.

00:38:18.000 Okay, so there was Steve Bullock openly acknowledging that he would consider packing the court.

00:38:22.000 Okay, and here is how the AP covered this.

00:38:26.000 Bullock said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed, he would be open to measures to depoliticize the court, including adding judges to the bench, a practice critics have dubbed packing the courts.

00:38:35.000 Oh, it's only critics who call it packing the courts, you see.

00:38:37.000 Yes, we've been doing this for a hundred years, talking about this.

00:38:40.000 But only critics call this packing the court.

00:38:42.000 Otherwise, it's not packing the court.

00:38:43.000 It's depoliticizing the court, you understand.

00:38:45.000 So if Republicans appoint judges who faithfully interpret the law rather than creating it from whole cloth, that is politicizing the court.

00:38:51.000 So when you add seats to the court, you are depoliticizing the court.

00:38:55.000 That is your objective, Associated Press.

00:38:57.000 Very, very objective stuff there from your Associated Press.

00:39:01.000 So it was amazing to come back off of Jewish holiday and see how the term court packing has now been completely turned on its head and redefined so that court packing is now depoliticization rather than politicization of the court.

00:39:11.000 Truly incredible, incredible stuff.

00:39:13.000 By the way, it didn't stop there.

00:39:15.000 Joe Biden claimed that packing the court was just, he essentially said, I'm not gonna answer the question.

00:39:21.000 And then he said, it is unconstitutional to push through a judge in these times because we're in the middle of an election.

00:39:28.000 He said it's unconstitutional.

00:39:30.000 So Jake Tapper asked his spokesperson, you know, you guys keep saying that it's unconstitutional to do this.

00:39:35.000 Do you know what the constitution is?

00:39:37.000 And of course she has no answer.

00:39:38.000 You know, people say sometimes I'm soft on Jake.

00:39:40.000 That's because Jake will on many occasions ask actual difficult questions of Democrats.

00:39:45.000 Here was Tapper going after Biden's spokesperson.

00:39:47.000 He said it's not constitutional what they're doing.

00:39:53.000 How is it not constitutional what they're doing?

00:39:55.000 The vast majority of people say that they want the person who wins the election on November 3rd to nominate the justice to take this seat.

00:40:03.000 That's a poll.

00:40:03.000 That's not the Constitution.

00:40:04.000 So poll after poll shows that most Americans vehemently disagree with this.

00:40:08.000 They believe that the vote should happen on November 3rd.

00:40:11.000 That's not what the word constitutional means.

00:40:13.000 Constitutional doesn't mean I like it or I don't like it.

00:40:15.000 It means it's according to the U.S.

00:40:17.000 Constitution.

00:40:18.000 There's nothing unconstitutional about what the U.S.

00:40:20.000 Senate is doing.

00:40:21.000 OK, so that is, of course, correct.

00:40:22.000 But according to Biden, now we're going to launder the word unconstitutional.

00:40:26.000 If you don't like it, it's not only not.

00:40:28.000 If you like it, it's not court packing.

00:40:29.000 If you don't like it, it's court packing.

00:40:31.000 If you don't like it, it is unconstitutional.

00:40:33.000 If you like it, it's constitutional, which again, this is all part of a piece.

00:40:36.000 It's all part of a piece.

00:40:38.000 Every single element of American politics is simply a tool to get done what the left wants to get done.

00:40:43.000 They have no respect for the institutions of the United States.

00:40:45.000 They don't care about the institutions of the United States.

00:40:48.000 In fact, as it turns out, it's not just the institutions of the United States they don't care about.

00:40:51.000 They're willing to twist and turn science in order to achieve their desired result, and then blame Trump in the process.

00:40:58.000 We'll get to that in one second when we get to COVID.

00:41:00.000 But first, let's talk about the fact that maybe you need to upgrade your employees.

00:41:04.000 Maybe you do.

00:41:05.000 Maybe right now you're looking to hire and you're figuring out, what is the best way for me to hire?

00:41:08.000 And you don't know the answer.

00:41:10.000 Well, let's say that you had an employee named Mark.

00:41:12.000 And let's say that Mark was very helpful in moving to your new offices.

00:41:16.000 Great guy, Mark.

00:41:17.000 There's only one problem.

00:41:18.000 All the other employees were complaining because Mark, every single day of the week, three times a day and in the middle of the night, took them to Texas Roadhouse.

00:41:25.000 And they're like, you know what?

00:41:26.000 We just can't handle it anymore.

00:41:27.000 Mark's gotta go.

00:41:28.000 I mean, there's no way for us to imbibe any more Texas Roadhouse.

00:41:31.000 There's just no way.

00:41:32.000 And Mark refuses to listen to reason.

00:41:34.000 He refuses to do it.

00:41:36.000 We've got steak coming out the ears and Mark keeps saying, let's go to Texas Roadhouse.

00:41:39.000 Well, then you have to get rid of Mark.

00:41:40.000 I mean, then you have to head on over to ZipRecruiter.com.

00:41:42.000 ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job sites.

00:41:45.000 They don't stop there.

00:41:46.000 With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and then actively invites them to apply to your job.

00:41:53.000 ZipRecruiter makes hiring efficient and effective with features like screening questions to filter candidates and an all-in-one dashboard where you can review and rate your candidates.

00:42:01.000 In fact, ZipRecruiter is so effective, four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.

00:42:06.000 Right now, to try ZipRecruiter for free, my listeners can go to ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.

00:42:11.000 That is ziprecruiter.com slash d-a-i-l-y-w-i-r-e ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.

00:42:16.000 ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire. 0.73

00:42:19.000 Okay, in just a second, We're gonna get to how the media and the left are now twisting science in order to achieve their priors.

00:42:26.000 It's pretty impressive, it really is.

00:42:28.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:42:29.000 First, in case you missed it, we had another great episode of the Sunday special yesterday with DailyWire God King, Jeremy Boring.

00:42:34.000 Jeremy and I talk about how we started working together, how we launched the DailyWire, where we go from here.

00:42:39.000 So go watch over at dailywire.com or listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts.

00:42:44.000 Also, it is baseball season.

00:42:46.000 The old glory DailyWire baseball bat, it's back.

00:42:49.000 It's back and better than ever.

00:42:50.000 This is our limited edition, handcrafted, custom-painted baseball bat emblazoned with the Daily Wire logo.

00:42:56.000 When we first put this bat out, a numbered edition a few months ago, it sold out in 48 hours.

00:43:01.000 That was when it was available to all Access members only.

00:43:03.000 Now...

00:43:04.000 Anybody can purchase it, but inventory is still limited, so get yours before they are gone.

00:43:08.000 Text the keyword BASEBALL to 83400 to purchase your bat today.

00:43:12.000 Again, text keyword BASEBALL to 83400 to purchase your special Daily Wire baseball bat.

00:43:16.000 The thing is really fun.

00:43:17.000 I enjoy it.

00:43:18.000 Text the keyword BASEBALL to 83400 to purchase your all-American Daily Wire baseball bat today.

00:43:22.000 you are listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show on the nation.

00:43:26.000 Okay, so it's not just that the left and the media are undermining American institutions like the Supreme Court of the United States and then gaslighting you, deceiving you about the nature You know what the term means.

00:43:42.000 And then they just lie to you about what the term means.

00:43:43.000 So court packing is no longer court packing.

00:43:45.000 Unconstitutional is no longer unconstitutional.

00:43:47.000 Basically, if they like it, it's all the good things.

00:43:50.000 And if they don't like it, it's all the bad things.

00:43:52.000 Well, now they're doing the same thing with science.

00:43:54.000 So they're blaming Trump for ruining science.

00:43:57.000 Now, let's just be real about this.

00:43:59.000 People's faith in science surrounding COVID has been Wavering since the beginning of this pandemic, namely because scientists, I think, claimed to know more than they did.

00:44:09.000 I don't think that they spoke with the proper amount of humility.

00:44:13.000 I think many of our scientific leaders proclaimed that they knew exactly what they were talking about when they absolutely did not.

00:44:18.000 They claimed that they were sure of their policies when, in fact, there was a lot of uncertainty.

00:44:23.000 I'm very much in favor of being clear about the level of uncertainty with which you pursue certain conclusions.

00:44:28.000 So I said at the beginning, maybe lockdowns are justified because we don't know enough about this particular disease.

00:44:33.000 Maybe masks are not justified, because Fauci's saying we don't need masks, and then they switched on masks, and then it turns out that the lockdowns probably were not justified.

00:44:41.000 It turns out that lockdowns have the effect of lowering infection rates for a temporary time, and then as soon as you release, then the infections start to move through society.

00:44:50.000 But current lockdowns are probably not justified.

00:44:53.000 It turns out there's been lots of conflicting science about a lot of different topics.

00:44:55.000 But the media speak with one voice as though the science on COVID is completely clear in every respect.

00:45:01.000 Which is just not true.

00:45:03.000 And so that means that we have been misled on several different occasions by a variety of supposedly scientific outlets.

00:45:09.000 Remember, The Lancet published an entire study suggesting that hydroxychloroquine was going to kill you of a heart attack, and it turns out that the study was essentially falsified.

00:45:16.000 That doesn't mean that hydroxychloroquine was a cure-all the way that President Trump was talking about it.

00:45:21.000 Probably it was not.

00:45:22.000 But at the same time, it was not just Trump who was botching that particular story.

00:45:27.000 It turns out that the botchery of COVID has been uniform across all levels of government and across all levels of our institution.

00:45:35.000 The media, however, have decided the only person who is botching the rollout on COVID is Trump.

00:45:39.000 They keep saying, we follow the science, we follow the science.

00:45:41.000 Except, as it turns out, you guys don't very often follow the science.

00:45:44.000 You follow the science when it leads to conclusions you like, and you don't follow the science when it leads to conclusions you don't.

00:45:50.000 And you're critical of Trump no matter what he says.

00:45:51.000 So if Trump had come out and said hydroxychloroquine is bad for you, they immediately would have said, well, the studies show hydroxychloroquine is not bad for you.

00:45:57.000 Everything is driven by Trump.

00:45:58.000 It is not actually driven by the science.

00:46:00.000 Again, one of the great lies, following the science, Sometimes the science is conflicted.

00:46:04.000 Sometimes the science is unclear.

00:46:06.000 It turns out that what science is really good at is examining the past.

00:46:09.000 Very often it is not great at predicting the future, and that's particularly true with a new pandemic.

00:46:12.000 There are no experts in a new pandemic.

00:46:15.000 And yet we are treated to this bizarre sort of rhetoric where when Trump says something and it's wrong, then that is uniquely bad.

00:46:24.000 But when scientists say stuff and it turns out to be wrong, then they are not held to account for it at all.

00:46:30.000 That is not a justification for Trump speaking beyond science.

00:46:33.000 It is a recommendation that we be pretty humble in how we approach all of the science from every available level, and that scientists should do the same.

00:46:40.000 So the Washington Post, for example, has a piece today about how Trump has undermined confidence in government science.

00:46:46.000 Joel Achenbach and Lori McGinley, they say, in another era, what happened Wednesday might have been viewed as simply good news.

00:46:51.000 Two companies, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly, have independently developed therapeutic drugs called monoclonal antibodies that, in preliminary testing, appear to reduce symptoms for coronavirus patients.

00:47:00.000 They applied for emergency use authorization from the FDA.

00:47:03.000 The positive development immediately became entangled in election year politics, with President Trump repeatedly making false and exaggerated claims about the new therapeutics.

00:47:10.000 He called them a cure, which they're not.

00:47:11.000 He said he was about to approve them, a premature promise given the FDA's career scientists are charged with reviewing the applications.

00:47:17.000 This has been the 2020 pattern.

00:47:19.000 Politics has thoroughly contaminated the scientific process.

00:47:21.000 The result has been an epidemic of distrust, which further undermines the nation's already chaotic and ineffective response to coronavirus.

00:47:29.000 OK, well, again, it's all about Trump, right?

00:47:31.000 So this entire article is about Trump and how the White House has intruded and how it's really bad that Trump has intruded.

00:47:37.000 And I think a lot of that is true.

00:47:38.000 I think the White House should not have intruded here.

00:47:40.000 But you also have Kamala Harris saying she's not going to take a vaccine if Trump says you should take the vaccine, which, of course, is anti-science because Trump ain't the one who's developing the vaccine.

00:47:49.000 Also, it turns out that we've been getting conflicting information from the scientific community all the way along.

00:47:53.000 First, the WHO said that this thing was not airborne.

00:47:55.000 Then, the WHO said this thing was not human-to-human transmissible.

00:47:58.000 Then, the WHO said that masks were bad.

00:48:00.000 Then, the WHO said that masks were good.

00:48:02.000 Then, the WHO suggested that perhaps lockdowns were justified.

00:48:05.000 Now, Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO Special Envoy, is saying that we should never be using lockdowns because they are not, in fact, an effective tool at containing the pandemic. 0.95

00:48:12.000 Here was Dr. David Nabarro, over the weekend, explaining lockdowns are dumb.

00:48:17.000 We really do have to learn how to coexist with this virus in a way that doesn't require constant closing down of economies, but at the same time in a way that is not associated with high levels of suffering and death.

00:48:37.000 It's what we're calling the middle path.

00:48:39.000 And the middle path is about being able to hold the virus at bay whilst keeping economic and social life going.

00:48:50.000 So now the WHO is anti-lockdown.

00:48:53.000 So forgive everybody for being a little bit confused.

00:48:55.000 And let's not pretend that if Trump were not in office that people would be less confused.

00:49:00.000 They are not.

00:49:00.000 There's mass confusion reigning in Europe.

00:49:02.000 There's confusion ranging across the Middle East.

00:49:04.000 There's confusion nearly everywhere about exactly how to handle this thing, what it constitutes, how dangerous it is.

00:49:09.000 I mean, there's actual riots in the streets in Israel.

00:49:12.000 There have been riots in the streets in France.

00:49:13.000 There have been riots in the streets in the UK.

00:49:16.000 None of that has anything to do with Trump.

00:49:18.000 One of the things that has happened with regard to our scientific institutions is that they have politicized themselves.

00:49:22.000 Once again, I think that Trump exacerbates the problems here, but I don't think that Trump is the creator of the problem inside our scientific community.

00:49:30.000 One problem is that our politicians politicize science.

00:49:33.000 The other problem is that our scientists politicize science, and they get involved in making political judgments about science.

00:49:38.000 So perfect case in point.

00:49:40.000 So Anthony Fauci said early on in the pandemic in an interview, he said that the Trump administration was doing the most of any administration he could imagine, which was true.

00:49:47.000 Again, if you look at what the Trump administration has done, not what Trump has said, not the idiotic rhetoric, if you look at what the Trump administration has actually done, namely making sure that everybody could get the ventilators they need, mobilizing Navy ships to go off the coast of New York, ensuring that PPE were distributed, Developing Operation Warp Speed, we could get the fastest vaccine literally in human history because of Operation Warp Speed.

00:50:08.000 The government backing of the development of new therapeutics that have radically reduced the rate of death from COVID-19, down closer to flu rates than originally to the WHO's suggested rate.

00:50:19.000 The WHO, you remember, suggested that the death rate on this thing could be three to five percent.

00:50:22.000 It has turned out to be maybe one-tenth of that.

00:50:26.000 That is a pretty stunning response.

00:50:27.000 Fauci said fairly early on that the Trump administration was doing yeoman's work in mobilizing everything.

00:50:35.000 So Trump cut an ad in which he pointed out that Fauci had said this, especially because Fauci is now considered sort of the trusted scientist.

00:50:42.000 Although there's one member of the, I will say, one member of sort of private medical establishment who's a very prestigious doctor at a very prestigious university.

00:50:49.000 And when they said that, how did Fauci become sort of the epidemiologist, like the source for all information?

00:50:55.000 Normally in doctorland, people who work for the government are considered like second raters.

00:50:59.000 But in any case.

00:51:00.000 That's not a direct rip on Fauci.

00:51:02.000 That's him ripping Fauci.

00:51:03.000 I don't know enough to say what is considered the grand level of expertise.

00:51:08.000 In any case, Fauci himself said that the Trump administration had done a good job mobilizing the resources.

00:51:13.000 So Trump cut an ad this way, and then Fauci inserted himself right into the politics.

00:51:17.000 So again, it is not just politicians who have politicized the science.

00:51:19.000 It is scientists who have politicized the science.

00:51:21.000 Here is Trump cutting an ad.

00:51:22.000 There's nothing wrong with this ad.

00:51:23.000 The ad is fine.

00:51:25.000 President Trump is recovering from the coronavirus, and so is America.

00:51:29.000 Together, we rose to meet the challenge.

00:51:33.000 Protecting our seniors, getting them life-saving drugs in record time, sparing no expense.

00:51:39.000 President Trump tackled the virus head-on, as leaders should.

00:51:43.000 I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more.

00:51:47.000 We'll get through this together.

00:51:49.000 We'll live carefully, but not afraid.

00:51:52.000 I'm Donald J. Trump, and I approve this message.

00:51:54.000 Okay, so Fauci then came out and said it was inaccurate.

00:51:57.000 Fauci said, they're taking my words out of context.

00:51:59.000 Why?

00:51:59.000 Because he wasn't talking about Trump personally.

00:52:01.000 He was talking about the federal employees.

00:52:02.000 Yes, but who's the head of the government?

00:52:05.000 I'm sorry, but that is not an inaccurate ad.

00:52:07.000 If you say that I can't imagine anybody doing more about the Obama administration, then Obama cuts an ad where it says, I can't imagine anybody doing more.

00:52:17.000 No one would be objecting, but because Trump is saying it, suddenly it's objectionable.

00:52:20.000 And again, the scientists have been pretty political throughout this entire process, I will say.

00:52:24.000 It is not just politicians.

00:52:26.000 Now, meanwhile, our cultural institutions are similarly under assault.

00:52:28.000 So we have our governmental institutions, then we have science, which has been politicized every which way by political actors ranging from Trump to Andrew Cuomo, who, by the way, said yesterday that he is looking at additional lockdowns in New York State after there were five deaths in New York from COVID.

00:52:42.000 Five.

00:52:42.000 That's a state of 20 million people.

00:52:46.000 This thing has become very political.

00:52:48.000 So we've already perverted our governmental institutions.

00:52:51.000 We've perverted our scientific institutions because our scientists are considered the font head of all knowledge.

00:52:56.000 And many of them are not exhibiting the sort of scientific caution that would be recommended in any normal scientific scenario.

00:53:03.000 And now we are going to pervert every aspect of our culture as well.

00:53:07.000 Like literally every aspect of our culture.

00:53:08.000 Our media are going to engage in this.

00:53:10.000 So here specifically, I gotta talk about two articles in the New York Times because this is really impressive stuff.

00:53:16.000 So, over the weekend, Bret Stephens had an excellent column in the New York Times.

00:53:20.000 I know, an excellent column in the New York Times, a sentence that is very rarely uttered.

00:53:24.000 He had a piece called the 1619 Chronicles, and he talks about the fact that the 1619 Project has now rewritten its own history to suggest that it wasn't saying that 1619 replaces 1776.

00:53:33.000 Well, that of course is a lie.

00:53:39.000 1619 was explicitly designed to overwrite 1776.

00:53:41.000 1776. Brett Stephens says, if there's one word admirers and critics alike can agree on when it comes to the New York Times award-winning 1619 project, it's ambition. Ambition to reframe America's conversation about race. Ambition to reframe our understanding of history. Ambition to move from news pages to classrooms. Ambition to move from scholarly debate to national consciousness. In some ways, this ambition succeeded. The 1619 project introduced a date previously obscure to most Americans that ought always to have been thought of as seminal and probably now will.

00:54:08.000 It offered fresh reminders of the extent to which black freedom was a victory gained by courageous black Americans and not just a gift obtained from benevolent whites.

00:54:16.000 But it also went further.

00:54:20.000 It went further.

00:54:20.000 Ambition can be double-edged.

00:54:22.000 Journalists are, says Brett Stephen, most often in the business of writing the first rough draft of history, not trying to have the last word on it.

00:54:27.000 We are best when we try to tell truths with a lowercase t, following evidence and directions unseen, not the capital T truth of a pre-established narrative in which inconvenient facts get discarded.

00:54:37.000 We're supposed to report and comment on the political and cultural issues of the day, not become the issue itself.

00:54:42.000 As fresh concerns make clear on these points, and for all of its virtues, buzz, spinoffs, and a Pulitzer Prize, the 1619 Project has failed.

00:54:49.000 These concerns came to light last month when a long-standing critic of the project, Philip W. Magnus, noted in the online magazine Quillette that references to 1619 as the country's true founding, or moment America began, had disappeared from the digital display copy without explanation.

00:55:01.000 These were not minor points.

00:55:03.000 The deleted assertions went to the core of the project's most controversial goal, quote, to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation's birth year.

00:55:12.000 That doesn't mean the project seeks to erase the Declaration of Independence from history, but it does mean it seeks to dethrone the Fourth of July by treating American history as a story of black struggle against white supremacy, of which the Declaration is, for all of its high-flown rhetoric, supposed to be merely a part.

00:55:26.000 In a tweet, Cannon-Jones responded to Magnus and other critics by insisting the text of the project remained unchanged, while maintaining the case for making 1619 the country's true birth year was quote, always a metaphoric argument.

00:55:36.000 I emailed her to ask if she could point to any instances before this controversy in which she had acknowledged that her claims about 1619 as our true founding had been merely metaphorical.

00:55:44.000 Her answer was that the idea of treating the 1619 date metaphorically should have been so obvious it went without saying.

00:55:49.000 She then challenged me to find any instance in which the project stated that using 1776 as our country's birth date is wrong, that it should not be taught to school children, and that the only one that should be taught was 1619.

00:55:59.000 Good luck unearthing any of us arguing that, she added.

00:56:01.000 Here is an excerpt from the introductory essay to the project by the New York Times Magazine's editor.

00:56:06.000 Quote, 1619.

00:56:07.000 It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country's history.

00:56:11.000 Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation's birth.

00:56:16.000 What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every 4th of July, is wrong, and that the country's true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?

00:56:29.000 Now they've cut that out.

00:56:31.000 Now they've cut that out.

00:56:33.000 This is what the new text says.

00:56:34.000 1619 is not a year most Americans know as a notable date in our country's history.

00:56:38.000 Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you 1776 is the year of our nation's birth.

00:56:42.000 What if, however, we were to tell you the moment the country's defining contradictions first came into the world was in late August 1619?

00:56:48.000 What they left out was that the fact that we were taught that 1776 is the founding date is wrong and that the country's true birth date is 1619.

00:56:57.000 And so Bret Stephens points this out, and he suggests that this is historically wrong.

00:57:01.000 This led to the New York Times Guild, which is the union of writers over the New York Times, to tweet out in bizarre fashion, quote, Okay, so a couple of things.

00:57:10.000 One, you are currently attacking a New York Times writer.

00:57:12.000 Two, they don't know how to use the word it.

00:57:13.000 article reeks. Okay, so a couple of things. One, you are currently attacking a New York Times writer. Two, they don't know how to use the word it.

00:57:22.000 It is not a possessive. Okay, but in any case, they then tweeted out, we deleted our previous tweet.

00:57:29.000 It was tweeted in error.

00:57:30.000 We apologize for the mistake.

00:57:31.000 What you will notice is that two days elapsed between them putting up that tweet and them taking down the tweet. 0.98

00:57:37.000 So in other words, it's very bad to point out that the 1619 Project is a ball of crap. 0.98

00:57:43.000 You can't point that out. 0.98

00:57:44.000 What you can do is rip on a writer at the New York Times who points this thing out.

00:57:48.000 The rewriting of our cultural institutions is occurring wholesale by motivated political actors who have no interest in journalism.

00:57:55.000 By journalists who refuse to dog Joe Biden on whether he's gonna court-pack.

00:57:59.000 By journalists who are happy to go along with the redefinition of court-packing.

00:58:02.000 And by journalists who refuse to ask simple questions like, why were you allowed to rewrite the chief mechanism and chief goal of the 1619 Project?

00:58:09.000 Okay, so that's one example of the New York Times rewriting reality in bizarre ways.

00:58:14.000 Another way in which the New York Times is rewriting reality in bizarre ways.

00:58:17.000 So this is an insane article from the New York Times today.

00:58:20.000 It's from their book review section.

00:58:22.000 They are reviewing a book by a woman named Jane Ward, put out by New York University.

00:58:26.000 It's called The Tragedy of Heterosexuality.

00:58:29.000 This is where things get real weird.

00:58:31.000 Again, this is all the New York Times just promoting cultural propaganda from the Jacques Derrida deconstructionist left.

00:58:38.000 It's bizarre.

00:58:40.000 The tragedy of heterosexuality wastes absolutely no time getting to the point.

00:58:44.000 While many of its sentences made me laugh out loud, it is at heart a somber, urgent academic examinations of the many ways in which opposite-sex coupling can hurt the very individuals who cling to it most.

00:58:53.000 Okay, so now the New York Times Book Review is literally pushing a book that argues that heterosexuality is in and of itself bad.

00:59:00.000 It only perpetuates the species.

00:59:02.000 It only provides solid family structures for children.

00:59:05.000 But it's bad.

00:59:06.000 It's inherently bad.

00:59:07.000 Here is what the New York Times Review of Books says.

00:59:09.000 The New York Times Book Review.

00:59:11.000 Ward distinguishes straightness as a practice from straight culture, which is at the very heart of society's most disgraceful failures.

00:59:17.000 Straight culture is at the heart of society's most disgraceful failures, you see.

00:59:22.000 It is not, as one popular joke goes, that straight people are not okay.

00:59:25.000 It is that heteronormativity creates a powerful, privileged form of sexuality against which historically and currently all other forms are compared.

00:59:33.000 In examining the pressure to partner with the opposite gender, we find the extortions of capitalism, the misogyny of violence against women, the racist and xenophobic erasure of non-white families, and the homophobic hatreds that purvey so much of everyday life.

00:59:47.000 So, if you're straight, and if we see straight culture, like being straight, as something good, Because it propagates the species and creates families naturally through the general biological process.

01:00:03.000 This means that you are participating in, let me quote this, the extortions of capitalism.

01:00:08.000 I didn't realize that a man having sex with a woman was about the extortion of capitalism.

01:00:13.000 The consensual exchange there was about capitalism, per se.

01:00:19.000 It seems like lots of commie countries still have heterosexuals in them.

01:00:22.000 The misogyny of violence against women. 0.99

01:00:24.000 So now we are back to the old feminist chestnut that all penetrative sex is a form of rape or some such nonsense. 0.99

01:00:31.000 The racist and xenophobic erasure of non-white families. 0.99

01:00:35.000 Okay, that's confusing. 0.97

01:00:36.000 So it turns out that being straight has to do with saying that black families don't exist, which is weird. 0.85

01:00:40.000 And the homophobic hatreds that pervade so much of everyday life. 0.87

01:00:44.000 So in other words, if you say that heterosexuality is good, that means that you have to be nasty to gay and lesbians, which is weird, because it seems like the vast majority of straight people in the United States are very friendly toward gays and lesbians.

01:00:55.000 This is the New York Times. 0.87

01:00:56.000 Rewriting our cultural norms and institutions.

01:00:59.000 Our desires may feel beyond our control, but Ward stresses the importance of understanding sexuality as self-identified.

01:01:04.000 One of the foundational principles of lesbian feminism is that each person's sexual desire is their own responsibility, says Ward. 0.99

01:01:10.000 If not something they can choose, then at least something they can choose to examine and take ownership of.

01:01:16.000 As such, she argues a queer theory might be just the thing to rescue heterosexuality from its unearned hegemony in our shared cultural imagination.

01:01:25.000 Oh my god.

01:01:26.000 So this is the culture they want to create.

01:01:28.000 This is the culture of the left, in which heterosexuality is about capitalism and forcible violence against women, and in which 1776 is not the founding of the country.

01:01:37.000 And if you argue that it is the founding of the country, then you should be called out by the New York Times Guild.

01:01:41.000 These are our media members.

01:01:43.000 But don't you worry, they have your best interest at heart, America.

01:01:45.000 They care deeply about American values.

01:01:48.000 Deeply about American values.

01:01:50.000 In very real, And abiding ways.

01:01:53.000 OK, we'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of content.

01:01:56.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow for much, much more.

01:01:58.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

01:01:59.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

01:02:05.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.

01:02:07.000 Our Technical Director is Austin Stevens.

01:02:09.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.

01:02:11.000 Our Supervising Producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.

01:02:14.000 Assistant Director, Paweł Wajdowski.

01:02:16.000 Our Associate Producer is Nick Sheehan.

01:02:17.000 The show is edited by Adam Sajewicz.

01:02:19.000 Audio Mix by Mike Karomina.

01:02:21.000 Hair and Makeup is by Nika Geneva.

01:02:23.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:02:25.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2020.

01:02:28.000 Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.

01:02:31.000 You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.

01:02:37.000 But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.

The Ben Shapiro Show - October 12, 2020

Democrats Declare Anything They Don’t Like Court-Packing | Ep. 1113

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript