The Ben Shapiro Show - March 23, 2017


Ep. 274 - Trump's Judicial Pick Shines

Topics
Mitch McConnell
Hosted by
Ben Shapiro
Mentioned
Jill Filipovich Donald Trump Scalia Alexander Hamilton Plessy Neil Gorsuch Ferguson Mitch McConnell Merrick Garland Stuart Smalley Dick Durbin Al Franken Filipovic Ruth Bader Ginsburg Erwin Chemerinsky Clarence Thomas Michael Knowles Vladimir Putin Lindsey Graham Marianne Williamson and 10 more
Ep. 272 - Can Trump Actually Fulfill His Promises? Ep. 275 - Can Everybody Stop Lying For 30 Seconds, Please?

Episode Stats


Length

24 minutes

Words per minute

196.91

Word count

4,762

Sentence count

366

Harmful content

Misogyny

5

sentences flagged

Toxicity

19

sentences flagged

Hate speech

3

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Jill Filipovich argues that originalists are not originalists, and that the Constitution is not written by the founders. She lays out a series of arguments against the idea that the founders intended for the Constitution to be written by their predecessors, and argues that they were not even interested in the Constitution at all. She also argues that the founding fathers were not really originalists at all, but rather, they intended to usurp legislative power and create their own version of the Constitution, which is why they left it to the legislative branch to interpret it. This is an excerpt from an article in Cosmopolitan Magazine that Filipovich wrote in response to a question from a reader about whether or not she thinks the founders were originalists: "What would you do if you were a Founding Father and you thought the Constitution was written by a Founding Fathers who didn't understand the Constitution?" (1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 5 6 7 8 9 11 10 12 13 14 15 16) 16 17) 17 18) 19) 18 19 21 22 26 27 32 29 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 45 46 47 48 49 Can the Constitution be applied to the Constitution? 50 51 56 57 Theme Music by Jeffree Theme Song by Ian Sommer Theme by Ian D Music by Ian McLennan Please Rate/Sell Me Outtro Music by Joseph McDade Subscribe to my Insta Leave Us a Review & Share Us On Apple Music by John Rocha & Sarah Kaspbrak Download a Podcast by Subscribe & Share a Review on Podchaser Support Us On Podchronicity by InstaReeves & Friends by & Sarah Mccartell Check out Our Music is Subscribe To Our Insta Story by , and Sarah s Insta is is a Song is a Podcast Epidemic by . Thanks to John Rigsby & Sarah is a

Transcript

Transcripts from "The Ben Shapiro Show" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 On Tuesday, renowned legal journal Cosmopolitan Magazine ran a piece titled, Nine Ways to Make Your Man Gasp in Bed.
00:00:06.000 No, actually they could have run that piece, but we know that they actually ran a piece titled, Nine Reasons Constitutional Originalism is Bull Bleep.
00:00:13.000 Written by NYU graduate Jill Filipovich, the article evidences all of the brilliant jurisprudential analyses we've come to expect from the journal that informs you which sex positions best tickle your significant other properly.
00:00:24.000 Here are Filipovich's nine critiques.
00:00:26.000 1.
00:00:27.000 No one is really an originalist.
00:00:29.000 Filipovic argues that judges don't actually pay attention to the original wording and meaning of the Constitution, instead substituting their own policy preferences.
00:00:36.000 As evidence, she chooses D.C.
00:00:38.000 v. Heller, a decision that re-enshrined the individual right to keep and bear arms.
00:00:42.000 Why isn't that originalist?
00:00:43.000 Because, Filipovic says, the founders meant to restrict arms ownership to militia members and didn't know what handguns were.
00:00:49.000 There's a direct quote.
00:00:50.000 Nor, of course, did handguns exist in the 18th century.
00:00:52.000 Both of these contentions are false.
00:00:54.000 Militia members were members of the community.
00:00:56.000 There were many state laws that required all able-bodied men of age to own a gun so as to be available for militia duty.
00:01:01.000 The Militia Clause is a justifying clause, not an operative one.
00:01:04.000 And handguns were in use as early as the 14th century.
00:01:08.000 Two.
00:01:08.000 Societies evolve, and that's a good thing.
00:01:11.000 Filipovich argues that scientific knowledge should impact how we interpret the Constitution.
00:01:14.000 For example, brain science should help determine what the founders meant by cruel and unusual punishment.
00:01:20.000 But we have legislatures for that. 0.89
00:01:21.000 The Constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment, but legislatures can outlaw certain tools.
00:01:26.000 She mixes up the role of the courts to apply the meaning of the law and that of the legislature to make policy.
00:01:31.000 She even says she hopes the courts would rule capital punishment unconstitutional on this basis, even though the Constitution clearly contemplates capital punishment multiple times.
00:01:40.000 Third, words evolve to reflect changing norms.
00:01:42.000 Filipovich says that words like equal meant something different in the 1790s than they mean now, particularly with regard to women and minorities.
00:01:49.000 She is right.
00:01:50.000 This is why America implemented constitutional amendments in order to enshrine those new meanings, as per the 14th Amendment for black folks and the 19th Amendment for female folks. 0.89
00:01:59.000 It is not the job of courts to rewrite meaning.
00:02:01.000 Four, technology evolves and the law has to keep up.
00:02:05.000 Filipovich argues it's difficult to apply constitutional principles to modern technology.
00:02:09.000 So, for example, the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing liberty from unreasonable search and seizure, how would they apply to cars or wiretaps?
00:02:17.000 These are indeed controversial propositions in originalist circles, but that doesn't mean we ought to merely ignore what the framers intended, in principle, in order to reach our own policy preferences.
00:02:26.000 Fifth, originalism is a cover for legal discrimination.
00:02:29.000 Again, this ignores the fact that we have legislatures in this country.
00:02:33.000 You can't rewrite founding documents to implement your own version of utopia.
00:02:36.000 Filipovich says correctly that, quote, a lot of our laws originally allowed a lot of terrible acts.
00:02:41.000 This is true.
00:02:42.000 It is also the reason we have, you guessed it, legislatures and amendments.
00:02:46.000 She says that Plessy v. Ferguson, which said segregation was okay and was reversed by Brown v. Board of Education, is a good example of courts evolving.
00:02:54.000 She ignores the fact that Plessy was arguably wrongly decided on his merits at the time.
00:02:57.000 That's the case Justice Scalia made during his career, stating that quote, in my view, the 14th Amendment's requirements of equal protection of the laws, combined with the 13th Amendment's abolition of the institution of black slavery, leaves no room for doubt that laws treating people differently because of their race are invalid.
00:03:12.000 Even if Scalia was wrong on originalist grounds, that doesn't mean the legislature could not or should not have taken the proper measures.
00:03:18.000 Again, courts are not legislatures.
00:03:20.000 And just because history was full of bad stuff doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't provide mechanisms to fix that bad stuff outside of Jill Filipovich convincing Ruth Bader Ginsburg to run roughshod over the Republic.
00:03:31.000 Sixth contention, not even the founders were originalists. 0.98
00:03:34.000 This is just horse crap.
00:03:35.000 Filipovich says, quote, the framers of the Constitution didn't offer any instructions for how to interpret the document. 0.98
00:03:40.000 Actually, it's dubious whether the founders even agreed with judicial review.
00:03:43.000 But if they did, there's no doubt they would have hated the court's usurpation of legislative power.
00:03:47.000 See, for example, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78, quote, the courts must declare the sense of the law.
00:03:53.000 And if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequence would be equally the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.
00:04:01.000 The observation, if it prove anything, would prove there ought not be any judges distinct from that body.
00:04:06.000 All laws are applied as written.
00:04:08.000 No judge would dare interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act the way leftists encourage judges to interpret the Constitution.
00:04:14.000 Seventh contention from Cosmo Magazine.
00:04:17.000 The founders weren't fortune tellers and couldn't predict every possible legal issue.
00:04:20.000 Here, Filippovich states that, quote, many of the realities of modern life didn't exist in the 18th century.
00:04:25.000 That's true.
00:04:25.000 You know who else knew that?
00:04:26.000 The founders.
00:04:27.000 Because they relied on legislatures to create law. 0.94
00:04:29.000 Filippovich makes the idiotic assessment that if you're an originalist, if the founders, quote, didn't specifically bar the government from doing something, the government is free to do it. 0.99
00:04:37.000 That's insane. 0.99
00:04:38.000 That looks only to the Bill of Rights, not to the Structural Constitution, which delegates powers.
00:04:42.000 The founders explicitly rejected Filippovich's logic and said so in the Ninth Amendment, which reserved rights to the states and to the people.
00:04:49.000 As for Filipovich's example of governments doing bad things at the state level, again, true. 0.98
00:04:54.000 The founders recognized that and relied on people not to be complete morons. 0.72
00:04:57.000 But they didn't trust the people completely, which is why they created some federal rights. 0.96
00:05:04.000 I do, if she means that legislators should legislate, and get this, judges should adjudicate.
00:05:10.000 She quotes UC Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky for the proposition that if the court didn't impose its will, quote, this would mean the end of constitutional protection for liberties such as the right to marry, the right to procreate, the right to custody of one's children, and the list goes on.
00:05:22.000 Yet, magically, for decades, the court did not read its preferences into the Constitution, and yet the country didn't descend into chaos and anarchy.
00:05:29.000 That's because we elect people here.
00:05:31.000 Yes, legislatures exist.
00:05:33.000 Ninth and final point.
00:05:35.000 A constitution that doesn't reflect changing norms and realities is a constitution that would eventually prove itself ineffectual and irrelevant.
00:05:42.000 Filipovich says the judicial system cannot be neutered lest it fail to check the other branches.
00:05:46.000 Except that she wants the other branches to be incapable of checking the mystical wisdom of the judicial oligarchy. 0.98
00:05:51.000 A constitution that changes at the whim of nine unelected judges means a country ruled by a clique, not by the people or their elected representatives.
00:05:58.000 Even Filipovich has to admit, quote, of course the Constitution should be interpreted as it's written.
00:06:02.000 But she then says that what she means is that judges should interpret it as they wish it had been written.
00:06:07.000 The Constitution, in other words, should have more positions than Cosmo.
00:06:11.000 And they will all be less satisfying.
00:06:13.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:06:13.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:06:18.000 Okay, so that lengthy introduction was meant to illuminate you to the issues surrounding what the left thinks of what judges are supposed to do and what the right thinks of what judges are supposed to do.
00:06:27.000 And that means, as you can hear, all the logic, all of the decency is on the side of the right on this one.
00:06:32.000 When it comes to originalism,
00:06:34.000 The decency in the judiciary is all on the side of the right, and we're about to go through what should be the best time of Trump's presidency so far, the Gorsuch hearings that happened yesterday, the day before, they're happening today as well.
00:06:45.000 Judge Gorsuch is doing a terrific job in front of the Judiciary Committee.
00:06:48.000 I'll talk about some problems with the system of judicial nominations and why they're a problem, why that system is crappy.
00:06:56.000 We'll talk about that in just a second, but first, I want to say thank you to our advertisers over at Tracker.com.
00:07:02.000 Tracker may have saved my marriage.
00:07:04.000 My wife loses her phone every single day.
00:07:07.000 She also loses her keys a lot.
00:07:08.000 Actually, I have to admit, I lose my keys and wallet a lot.
00:07:11.000 So Tracker is this thing, it's like the size of a coin, and you attach it to the object that you're afraid you're gonna lose, and then you can call it, and then it tells you exactly where it is.
00:07:19.000 It rings, it beeps, it's finding over a million misplaced items every day.
00:07:23.000 Order yours right now and you will never lose anything again, I promise you.
00:07:26.000 I use it all the time myself.
00:07:27.000 It's thetracker.com.
00:07:29.000 Promo code Ben.
00:07:30.000 And you get a free Tracker Bravo with any order.
00:07:32.000 Great product.
00:07:33.000 Very excited to be associated with them.
00:07:34.000 And thank you, Tracker, for helping my marriage be better because it means that I'm less annoyed with my wife.
00:07:38.000 My wife is less annoyed with me and wants to murder me less. 1.00
00:07:43.000 Tracker.com slash Ben and you get that discount.
00:07:46.000 So it's really terrific.
00:07:48.000 Again, it's a terrific piece of technology.
00:07:51.000 And thanks to Austin and the crew for making that beautiful animation of my wife looking to kill me.
00:07:55.000 I really, really appreciate that.
00:07:57.000 OK, so.
00:07:59.000 The news yesterday and this week outside of the Gorsuch hearing has not been good for President Trump.
00:08:03.000 We'll talk about Trumpcare in a little while.
00:08:05.000 We'll also talk about some of the issues surrounding Russian connections.
00:08:08.000 There's a big story about Paul Manafort, who's the former Trump campaign manager.
00:08:11.000 Apparently, he was working very closely with Vladimir Putin's allies for a number of years.
00:08:16.000 We'll get to that in a little while.
00:08:17.000 But first, I want to talk about what should be the high watermark for Trump's presidency.
00:08:21.000 The reason I want to talk about this is because I want to point something out.
00:08:24.000 A lot of people have been saying that nationalist populism, this kind of new style Trumpism, that that is where the popularity of republicanism and conservatism are going to lie.
00:08:33.000 That if we change over to this nationalist populism, that's where conservatism is really going to be great.
00:08:38.000 That's where conservatism is really going to be able to do yeoman's work.
00:08:42.000 The Gorsuch hearing shows the opposite.
00:08:44.000 The Gorsuch hearing shows that traditional conservatism, and I mean small government traditional conservatism, with checks and balance and separation of powers, is still a more powerful idea than the idea of some great god-king on a hill deciding who gets to have a job and who doesn't get to have a job.
00:08:58.000 Gorsuch's hearing are the best thing that could have happened to Trump.
00:09:01.000 They were great.
00:09:02.000 Judge Gorsuch did a terrific job.
00:09:04.000 You can see it started off with Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas, asking Neil Gorsuch,
00:09:10.000 It serves well to rebut the caricature that some on the left try to paint of originalism.
00:09:21.000 And so under the caricature that some of the Democrats have suggested, you would assume the originalists in the case.
00:09:28.000 Would all line up on the side of saying, well, gosh, the Fourth Amendment doesn't cover that.
00:09:34.000 And yet, the Kylo case, the majority opinion, 5-4, was written by Justice Scalia, perhaps the leading originalist on the court.
00:09:42.000 Okay, and he's right about that.
00:09:44.000 Gorsuch proved in this hearing that originalism is a hearty philosophy that makes perfect sense.
00:09:49.000 Again, the judiciary has a different role than the legislature.
00:09:53.000 Legislatures make law.
00:09:54.000 The judiciary applies the law according to the wording of the law.
00:09:58.000 When the judiciary starts doing its own thing, as Alexander Hamilton said, it loses its reason for existence.
00:10:03.000 And Gorsuch is very clear on this, which is why, you know, it's interesting.
00:10:07.000 I'm not sure that Trump is going to be all entirely happy with every decision Gorsuch makes.
00:10:10.000 So all credit to Trump for nominating somebody who may rule against him in certain cases.
00:10:14.000 Here is Judge Gorsuch talking about what it means to be a judge.
00:10:17.000 He says your personal views should not decide the law.
00:10:20.000 My personal views, I'd also tell you, Mr. Chairman, belong over here.
00:10:25.000 I leave those at home.
00:10:27.000 Mr. Kochel yesterday said that what he wants is a fair judge.
00:10:31.000 That's what I wanted as a lawyer.
00:10:34.000 I just wanted a judge to come in and decide on the facts and the law of my client's case and leave what he had for breakfast at the breakfast table.
00:10:43.000 And part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands.
00:10:48.000 And your personal views about the precedent have absolutely nothing to do with the good job of a judge.
00:10:56.000 Okay, so the last thing that he says there is actually somewhat troubling for conservatives, and I would like to see conservatives drill down on this.
00:11:01.000 So, there's something in judicial philosophy called stare decisis.
00:11:05.000 Stare decisis means a case has already been decided, it just means precedent.
00:11:09.000 There's always been a lot of controversy over how much respect to give to precedent.
00:11:12.000 If a case has already been decided, is it something that you should follow, or is it not?
00:11:15.000 So there are lots of cases in American history where the judiciary has decided that a case was wrongly decided 50 years before, and they overturn it.
00:11:22.000 Roe v. Wade would be a good one to do right now. 1.00
00:11:24.000 And we still don't know what Gorsuch would do about Roe v. Wade.
00:11:29.000 Cases in history where we overturn a judgment include things like Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board.
00:11:33.000 As I mentioned, Plessy v. Ferguson said segregation was okay. 0.94
00:11:36.000 Brown v. Board says it's not.
00:11:38.000 Another obvious case is Obergefell about gay marriage, which overturns a bunch, a whole string of cases at the Supreme Court level, Lawrence v. Texas, which said that there was no state capacity to criminalize homosexual activity.
00:11:50.000 That overturned a much earlier case called Bowers v. Hardwick in 1989.
00:11:54.000 So stare decisis is really a way for judges to pick and choose.
00:11:58.000 And this is why I hope that the conservatives in this committee drill down on Gorsuch and say, OK, how do you decide when precedent rules and when precedent does not? 0.99
00:12:06.000 The most consistent person philosophically on this at the court was not Scalia, actually, it's Clarence Thomas, who says stare decisis is stupid.
00:12:13.000 Basically, if the case was wrongly decided, I'm not going to pretend that it's a better decision just because it was decided 10 years ago or 20 years ago.
00:12:20.000 The reason that this matters is because here is, for example, Gorsuch talking about Roe v. Wade as precedent, this is clip 8.
00:12:29.000 One of the facts and one of the features of law that you have to decide it on is on the basis of precedent, as you point out.
00:12:36.000 And for a judge, precedent is a very important thing.
00:12:41.000 We don't go reinvent the wheel every day.
00:12:46.000 And that's the equivalent point of the law of precedent.
00:12:51.000 We have an entire law about precedent, a law of judicial precedent.
00:12:55.000 Precedent about precedent, if you will.
00:12:57.000 Those are all factors that a good judge will take into consideration when examining any precedent.
00:13:03.000 You start with a heavy, heavy presumption in favor of precedent.
00:13:08.000 Alexander Hamilton said that's one important feature, I think it was Hamilton, said one important feature of judges.
00:13:16.000 If we're going to give them life tenure,
00:13:21.000 Allow them that extraordinary privilege.
00:13:24.000 They should be bound down by strict rules and precedents.
00:13:28.000 Okay, so here's the problem with some of this, and the reason I don't believe in precedents.
00:13:32.000 Again, it allows you to pick which precedents you choose to follow and which ones you don't.
00:13:35.000 What would be really great in these hearings, honestly, and the only reason to have these hearings, Democrats destroyed the notion of a judicial hearing.
00:13:42.000 It used to be that you could just say to a judge, okay, Roe v. Wade, bad case or good case.
00:13:45.000 Every law student, every person basically has an opinion on whether Roe v. Wade is a bad case or a good case.
00:13:50.000 Certainly anyone who's ever read the decision with any sort of legal head understands it's a bad decision legally, even if you like the outcome.
00:13:57.000 It shouldn't be out of balance to say, Roe v. Wade, bad decision or good decision?
00:14:01.000 These are questions we should want to have answered before we actually get to put somebody on the Supreme Court.
00:14:06.000 And Democrats don't have any qualms about asking these questions.
00:14:09.000 They say openly that they have litmus tests with regard to their own people, that they issue these litmus tests.
00:14:14.000 If people would uphold Roe v. Wade, then they're appropriate for the court.
00:14:17.000 If not, then they wouldn't.
00:14:19.000 But because Democrats have vowed to basically shut down any justice who has a clear-cut opinion about important cases, well, you end up with these very milquetoast hearings.
00:14:28.000 In any case, Gorsuch does a good job with the milquetoast hearings.
00:14:31.000 You wouldn't expect him to come out and say Roe v. Wade is a crappy case, because if he did, then presumably a bunch of Democrats would attempt to filibuster him, and some Republicans would break off and join because they're weaklings.
00:14:41.000 That said, Gorsuch does a very good job of navigating smoothly what these hearings are, which is basically an opportunity for him to explain his philosophy in the most general possible terms and smack down allegations against him. 0.98
00:14:51.000 So here's an exchange that was pretty great where Dick Durbin from Illinois, who's just an idiot, claims that Gorsuch is anti-woman because he once taught an ethics class in which he talked about the law regarding sexual harassment. 0.98
00:15:02.000 And here's Gorsuch just smacking Durbin around like a piñata. 0.99
00:15:05.000 Senator, those are not my words and I would never have said them.
00:15:08.000 I didn't say that.
00:15:09.000 I asked you if you agreed with this statement.
00:15:11.000 And I'm telling you, I don't.
00:15:15.000 Owie! 1.00
00:15:16.000 And here's the thing about Gorsuch that I do like, is that he seems like somebody who is not going to be beholden to political interests.
00:15:23.000 So he was asked specifically about President Trump's attacks on the judiciary, and here was his answer.
00:15:30.000 This is Thive.
00:15:35.000 I know these people, and I know how decent they are.
00:15:38.000 And when anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity, the motives of a federal judge, well, I find that disheartening.
00:15:50.000 I find that demoralizing, because I know the truth.
00:15:55.000 Anyone, including the President of the United States?
00:15:57.000 Anyone is anyone.
00:15:59.000 Okay, and this speaks well of Trump that he nominates a guy who's willing to go out and say stuff like this.
00:16:06.000 Gorsuch really smacked around a bunch of Democrats yesterday.
00:16:08.000 Al Franken was criticizing the confirmation process, and Gorsuch smacks around Franken as well.
00:16:15.000 Senator, there's a lot about this process I'm uncomfortable with.
00:16:19.000 A lot.
00:16:21.000 But I'm not God.
00:16:23.000 No one asked me to fix it.
00:16:25.000 I'm here as a witness, trying to faithfully answer your questions as best I can, consistent with the constraints I have as a sitting judge.
00:16:33.000 Okay, and again, that's, I think, good stuff.
00:16:37.000 The fact that Al Franken, Stuart Smalley, is out there quizzing him is just insane.
00:16:42.000 Okay, the fact that Stuart Smalley is on the Judiciary Committee quizzing him about cases he knows nothing about.
00:16:47.000 I mean, he knows nothing about Chevron deference, he knows nothing about any of these issues.
00:16:50.000 It's just completely crazy.
00:16:51.000 But, you know, that's the way the system works.
00:16:54.000 The biggest problem, as I say, with these judicial hearings is you never get any good answers.
00:16:57.000 You never get the answers that you actually want and that you actually care about.
00:17:00.000 So, for example, Gorsuch is asked again about Roe v. Wade by Lindsey Graham.
00:17:04.000 This time he's asked if Trump asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade, and here's Gorsuch's answer.
00:17:08.000 In that interview, did he ever ask you to overrule Roe v. Wade?
00:17:13.000 No, Senator.
00:17:14.000 What would he have done if he'd asked?
00:17:16.000 Senator, I would have walked out the door.
00:17:22.000 It's not what judges do.
00:17:24.000 They don't do it at that end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and they shouldn't do it at this end either.
00:17:29.000 Respectfully.
00:17:40.000 I would ask that if I were president. 1.00
00:17:41.000 I would ask any judicial appointee how they would rule on controversial cases, because this is stupid. 0.99
00:17:46.000 The only reason you appoint a judge is if you know if they have a good long history of ruling in a certain way. 0.97
00:17:51.000 Now, the reason I like Gorsuch as a nominee is because he does have a pretty good judicial history of ruling on some controversial issues, and he has generally ruled the correct way, but
00:18:00.000 What we've ended up with is a judicial confirmation process that actually makes the system more vague, not less vague.
00:18:06.000 And that's a real problem.
00:18:08.000 For example, Gorsuch's Ist asked how he would rule on the Muslim ban.
00:18:11.000 Same sort of thing.
00:18:11.000 Here's what he says.
00:18:13.000 Now, does the First Amendment allow the use of a religious litmus test for entry into the United States?
00:18:21.000 Senator, that's an issue that's currently being litigated actively, as you know.
00:18:27.000 I'm not asking about the litigation in the Ninth Circuit or anything else.
00:18:31.000 I'm asking about the fact, is a blanket religious test, is that consistent with the First Amendment?
00:18:41.000 Senator, we have a free exercise clause that protects the free exercise of religious liberties by all persons in this country.
00:18:49.000 If this feels clearer to you, then somebody let me know.
00:18:52.000 Just a minute ago, Gorsuch in the hearings was asked whether he accepted that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land.
00:18:57.000 He said, yes, I accept that it's the law of the land.
00:18:58.000 That doesn't mean he wouldn't overturn it, right?
00:19:00.000 He could still overturn it and accept that it is currently the law of the land.
00:19:03.000 These confirmation hearings don't do anybody any favors because they actually make the answers more vague, not less vague.
00:19:09.000 And that's the fault of the Democrats who have politicized these hearings to the point where anybody who disagrees with them about a case must immediately be ruled out of line because they actually want to use the judiciary as a way of cramming down their own policy preferences.
00:19:21.000 We have to say thank you right now, and I'd like to say thank you to our friends over at My Patriot Supply.
00:19:26.000 Right now, if you are concerned, North Korea is making all sorts of noises about violent things that they want to do.
00:19:30.000 They just released a video yesterday about how they want to blow up a U.S.
00:19:33.000 ship.
00:19:34.000 They fired a missile at Japan.
00:19:35.000 It failed, thank God.
00:19:36.000 But there are real threats out there, and emergencies happen when you least expect them.
00:19:41.000 If you call 888-803-1413 right now or go to preparewithben.com right now, preparewithben.com, you can do something that will make your family significantly more likely to be safe in an emergency for just $99.
00:19:53.000 You get a four-week emergency food supply for just $99.
00:19:56.000 We're good to go.
00:20:20.000 PrepareWithBen.com.
00:20:23.000 888-803-1413.
00:20:25.000 888-803-1413.
00:20:26.000 Again, it's basically a one-time investment in your safety, because these things last forever.
00:20:30.000 And that makes, or at least for dozens of years, I think, is the case.
00:20:35.000 Like 20 years they last up to.
00:20:36.000 And so, you know, maybe in 20 years you have to reinvest for 99 bucks.
00:20:39.000 But for the moment, you're pretty well set.
00:20:41.000 So, go to PrepareWithBen.com.
00:20:43.000 Make sure that you are prepared in case of emergency.
00:20:45.000 It's the least that you can do for your family.
00:20:47.000 Okay, so Gorsuch does a really good job.
00:20:50.000 And Gorsuch is very solid in these hearings.
00:20:53.000 He navigates all the shoals well. 0.99
00:20:55.000 The Democrats make fools of themselves. 1.00
00:20:57.000 They just keep saying stupid things over and over and over again, just repeatedly. 1.00
00:21:02.000 And it's a great moment for Trump, right? 1.00
00:21:04.000 This would be the best moment for Trump if we weren't all distracted with Russia stuff and Trumpcare stuff and all the other things that Trump is busy shooting himself in the foot with.
00:21:11.000 So Democrats have been struggling.
00:21:13.000 Because they don't actually know what to do with this.
00:21:15.000 So what they've decided is that they're going to come up with an alternative strategy.
00:21:19.000 They can't actually lay a glove on Gorsuch, so what do they do?
00:21:21.000 So Brian Williams, the fake news anchor at MSNBC, he says that it is obviously tough to lay a glove on Gorsuch, who knows what he's doing.
00:21:27.000 It's tough to lay a glove on this guy.
00:21:29.000 I didn't see a single glove laid on him.
00:21:32.000 This has been a slam dunk in terms of his initial cues and A's.
00:21:36.000 You're going to see some of the more intensive questioning, but they have not, as you put it, laid a glove on him.
00:21:55.000 It's about starting to fix the system.
00:21:57.000 Our president nominates a Supreme Court justice.
00:21:59.000 The Senate deliberates on the nomination.
00:22:01.000 We will not get back to such respect if we let Trump exploit the vacancy Mitch McConnell created.
00:22:07.000 We cannot allow these two opportunists to complete what we call in basketball
00:22:11.000 The alley-oop play.
00:22:12.000 One guy throws the ball high up there above the basket and the guy standing there right underneath jams it in.
00:22:17.000 I don't want to see Donald Trump stuff his nominee through the hoop.
00:22:21.000 Why?
00:22:22.000 Because it's not his turn.
00:22:23.000 It's Merrick Garland's turn and everyone knows it.
00:22:26.000 Vote nay on Gorsuch.
00:22:27.000 Demand the 60 votes and don't give them to Trump.
00:22:30.000 It's not this guy's turn.
00:22:31.000 It's not his guy's turn. 0.68
00:22:33.000 And all the charm and dancing and Mr. Nice Guy is not going to change it.
00:22:37.000 It's not about Gorsuch or even Trump.
00:22:39.000 It's about Mitch McConnell.
00:22:40.000 And the brand of low-level politics he stands for.
00:22:43.000 Get it?
00:22:45.000 Don't let him.
00:22:45.000 Don't let him.
00:22:46.000 Please.
00:22:46.000 Don't let him take a three-pointer and then there's a rebound out to the free-throw line and Jordan goes up and then he alley-oops to Scottie Pippen and jams it through.
00:22:52.000 You shouldn't do that with judges because judges don't fit through hoops.
00:22:56.000 That's the thing.
00:22:57.000 That's the thing that I'm trying to explain to you right now.
00:22:58.000 It's good to know you have a seat.
00:23:00.000 Come have a shoot.
00:23:01.000 Talk about basketball.
00:23:03.000 Little Showtime Lakers, huh?
00:23:06.000 They're new cases, basically.
00:23:08.000 Gorsuch is a great nominee, but he can't be put through because the Republicans refused to vote on Merrick Garland, who is President Obama's nominee to fill Scalia's slot.
00:23:17.000 This isn't going anywhere.
00:23:18.000 Let the Democrats blow themselves up on this one.
00:23:20.000 It should be a great moment for Trump now.
00:23:22.000 As we continue, we're going to talk about some not-so-great moments for Trump.
00:23:25.000 Plus, there is a breaking news story that I have to tell you about.
00:23:28.000 A couple of stories that are, I think, going to... I'll talk about the political fallout from them, but they're pretty incredible stories.
00:23:34.000 We'll talk about them.
00:23:35.000 But you're going to have to go to dailywire.com and subscribe right now.
00:23:37.000 For that, $8 a month gets you a subscription to dailywire.com.
00:23:41.000 Right now, if you become an annual subscriber, you get a free signed copy, a magical signed copy, of the most comprehensive book on Democrats ever sort of written.
00:23:50.000 Reasons to Vote Democrat, a comprehensive guide by Michael Knowles.
00:23:54.000 The Amazon bestseller sold tens of thousands of copies, making a sickening amount of money off of it.
00:23:58.000 But we are giving it to you for free, and you get a free signed copy at dailywire.com when you become an annual subscriber.
00:24:04.000 Or if you just want to listen to the rest of the show later, go over to iTunes or SoundCloud, make sure that you leave us a rating.
00:24:09.000 We are the largest conservative podcast in the United States.