The Ben Shapiro Show - Ep. 284 - So, Is There A Plan?

United Airlines forcibly removed a passenger from a plane because he refused to give up his seat on a flight from Chicago to Louisville, Kentucky. The airline offered a $400 travel voucher and a hotel stay in exchange for four seats, but no one volunteered. At that point, security personnel were called to the plane and removed the man who refused to leave the plane. United Airlines is now facing a lawsuit from the passenger who claims he was forcibly removed from the plane, but the airline says that the incident was self-defense and that he was the one who was the problem, not the airline's overbooking problem. Ben Shapiro talks about the incident and calls for government intervention in the airline industry, which is a good thing in the long-term, because the market is working in favor of the airline. He also talks about a recent article written by feminist advocate Jillian Gilchristchrist Christchrist and her new book, "Why Women Are All Sexist: A Feminist's Guide to Sexism in the 21st Century." And he talks about why we should all be worried about burglarizing our houses and stealing our valuables from our own homes. All that and more on today's episode of The Ben Shapiro Show! Subscribe to Ben Shapiro's newest podcast, The Weekly Standard, wherever you get your epsiode of the latest news and updates on what's going on in the world. Subscribe and let us know what you're listening to! on Apple Podcasts, iTunes, Podchaser, Stitcher, or wherever else you re listening to the show is listening to your favorite podcast. Thanks for listening to The Ben and Ben Shapiro! and Good Morning America? Subscribe? Subscribe on iTunes? Subscribe on Podchats? Learn more about your ad choices? Leave us a rating and comment on your thoughts on the show? and we'll be giving us a chance to be featured on next week's episode on our next episode of the show next week on The Daily Mail's newest episode of Good Mythical Monday, Wednesday, May 15th, May 21st, May 22nd, and 27th, July 25th, 7/27th, 6/9/28th, 9/29th, 8/8th, and so on The Dark Side of May 9/9th, Thank you for supporting The Weekly Shout Out? Thanks for supporting Ben Shapiro s new podcast, Shoutout to .

00:00:00.000 According to the Courier-Journal, a passenger on a flight from Chicago to Louisville was forcibly removed from an airplane after the airline overbooked the flight and no passenger was willing to give up his or her seat for a stipend from the airline.

00:00:11.000 Three members of security apparently began speaking with the man who refused to leave.

00:00:15.000 They then grabbed him and yanked him out of his seat and dragged him from the plane.

00:00:18.000 Here's what the spokesperson for United Airlines had to say, quote, Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville is overbooked.

00:00:24.000 After our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave.

00:00:27.000 The aircraft was voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to the gate.

00:00:32.000 We apologize for the overbooked situation.

00:00:34.000 Further details on the removed customer should be directed elsewhere.

00:00:37.000 The Courier Journal reports that passengers were told the plane had been overbooked by four seats.

00:00:41.000 The airline offered a $400 travel voucher and a hotel stay, which nobody took them up on.

00:00:45.000 At that point, they had the computer randomly select four travelers on the flight and tell them to give up their seats to United employees who were required in Louisville for the next day.

00:00:54.000 One doctor, who said he needed to see patients in the morning, refused to get out of his seat, at which point security carted him off.

00:00:59.000 Here is the career journey.

00:01:00.000 We're good to go.

00:01:29.000 United Airlines is taking a serious hit publicly for this incident, as well they should.

00:01:33.000 It is appalling.

00:01:34.000 Here's what the United Contract of Carriage states, quote, All of UA's flights are subject to overbooking, which could result in UA's inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved.

00:01:45.000 Under Rule 25 of their Code of Carriage, United states that it will request volunteers, but that if nobody volunteers, they can deny people boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA's boarding priorities.

00:01:56.000 If you're removed from a flight involuntarily, the airline pays you a multiple of the airfare beyond your original ticket.

00:02:01.000 This isn't an unreasonable policy, actually.

00:02:04.000 Passengers routinely miss flights, overbooking is common practice in order to fill planes instead of wasting money and time flying extra routes.

00:02:10.000 But there are two elements here that are unreasonable, if not legally, then certainly in terms of business.

00:02:15.000 First, there's the question of the airline employees bumping paying passengers. 0.89

00:02:18.000 Yes, the airlines have contracts with their stupid unions that require a certain number of staffers on particular flights. 0.96

00:02:24.000 But when the unions trump the customers, the business is doing a terrible job. 0.99

00:02:28.000 I will admit this has happened to me.

00:02:29.000 I've been forced to miss a speech before hundreds of college students because the airline cancelled my flight, then refused to book me on the next flight in order to fly a bunch of its own employees.

00:02:37.000 Second, there's the problem of force.

00:02:38.000 Why didn't United decide which passengers were bumped before boarding them?

00:02:41.000 Or better yet,

00:02:42.000 Keep upping the offer until somebody on the plane took it.

00:02:44.000 $400 isn't a lot of money to give to somebody to compensate them for having to stay overnight in a location that prevents them from working the next day.

00:02:51.000 Is there any question that if the company had simply upped its bid, somebody would have taken them up on it?

00:02:56.000 In the end, people are going to call for government regulation because that's what they do.

00:02:59.000 But this is actually a really good example of the market working.

00:03:02.000 United is going to take a massive public relations hit today.

00:03:06.000 They'll lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over this fiasco.

00:03:08.000 Their stock price may even be affected.

00:03:10.000 They'll change their policy to ensure this never happens again.

00:03:12.000 Other companies will take advantage with better service, and customers will be served.

00:03:16.000 And that customer who was removed will probably be amply compensated in settlement too.

00:03:20.000 The market still works, even if people are going to want government action on stupidities like this. 0.92

00:03:25.000 I'm Ben Shapiro. 0.97

00:03:26.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:03:31.000 All right.

00:03:32.000 So we have a lot coming up today.

00:03:33.000 Today is the last day before Passover.

00:03:34.000 Passover begins tonight.

00:03:36.000 So we're going to try and jam-pack the show even more than usual.

00:03:39.000 In a little while, we're going to be having on a feminist advocate from Connecticut named Jillian Gilchrist. 1.00

00:03:45.000 And she has a column in which she says that originalists are all sexist.

00:03:48.000 So I have a few questions for Ms. 0.91

00:03:50.000 Gilchrist.

00:03:51.000 So we'll be discussing with her shortly.

00:03:53.000 But first,

00:03:54.000 We want to say thank you to our friends over at Ring.com.

00:03:57.000 So, if you are somebody who worries about security, I worry about security a lot.

00:04:01.000 My wife and I are deeply worried about security and have been for years.

00:04:04.000 Basically, ever since I did the Piers Morgan interview on CNN, I've been getting death threats pretty regularly.

00:04:08.000 And so we are worried about people coming to the house and burglarizing the house.

00:04:12.000 And we're also worried about people who ring the doorbell to see if somebody's home and then decide whether to enter the house or not.

00:04:18.000 And that's what Ring.com is good for.

00:04:19.000 So Ring.com, what they do is they have a ring video doorbell.

00:04:22.000 You put it on your fence or on your gate or on your front door and they ring the doorbell and then you can actually see a camera shot of the person who's outside the door and what's cool is that you can do it from anywhere.

00:04:30.000 So if I'm sitting right here after the show and somebody arrives at my house and they ring the doorbell,

00:04:35.000 I can pick up my phone, I can see exactly who's at the door, and I can determine whether or not this is somebody who is safe or not.

00:04:40.000 This is really great for preventing burglaries, because most burglaries are, they ring first.

00:04:44.000 They want to find out whether somebody's home, then they know you're not home, and then they rob the place.

00:04:49.000 This helps prevent that.

00:04:50.000 And right now, they have an advanced motion detection technology that you can get with the Ring of Security Kit, which includes the Ring Video Doorbell for that front door, and then a Ring Stick Up Cam, which is a wireless weatherproof HD camera to keep an eye on other parts of your property.

00:05:03.000 They both install in minutes.

00:05:04.000 I've installed them myself.

00:05:05.000 And when they're working together, they do provide that 24-7 monitoring of your entire home, whether you are there or whether you're actually at the office or someplace else.

00:05:14.000 Again, when I'm out of town, I rely on Ring to make sure that, you know, everything is okay at home.

00:05:19.000 And I really enjoy and we use their product a lot, obviously.

00:05:23.000 For a limited time, listeners to this show can get $150 off a Ring of Security Kit.

00:05:27.000 Right now, just go to Ring.com slash Ben.

00:05:30.000 Ring.com slash Ben.

00:05:31.000 Use that slash Ben to get the $150 off that Ring of Security Kit.

00:05:34.000 Plus, they'll know that we sent you Ring.com slash Ben.

00:05:38.000 Again, Ring.com slash Ben for that $150 off the Ring of Security Kit.

00:05:42.000 Okay, so, the big news over the weekend, we'll get to Gorsuch in a little while, but Gorsuch was sworn in justice, now Gorsuch has been sworn in to the Supreme Court, which is cool.

00:05:53.000 But the big story over the weekend was not that.

00:05:54.000 The big story over the weekend was obviously what's been happening in Syria.

00:05:58.000 So, the big question has been, what exactly is the plan here?

00:06:02.000 And the Trump administration has not made very clear that there is a plan.

00:06:05.000 So I offered two theories last week as to what could be going on.

00:06:08.000 One is, Trump saw some stuff on TV and fired a few missiles at it.

00:06:12.000 Very possible, because that would fit with his personality.

00:06:15.000 The other is that Trump saw some stuff on TV, saw that it was really bad, and then went to his people and said, let's come up with a coherent, cohesive strategy, and the first step will be firing some cruise missiles at this particular airbase that was responsible for the gas attack.

00:06:26.000 Now, it is worth noting that a couple of facts have happened here.

00:06:29.000 One is that the Syrian government immediately launched a plane from the airbase that was supposed to be out of order.

00:06:35.000 And began launching air raids against their enemies right afterward to demonstrate that they had not been hurt by the United States, which is sort of a black eye for the Trump administration.

00:06:43.000 The other thing that's happened is that Russia has become very aggressive in its rhetoric.

00:06:47.000 Russia obviously sees a central interest in Syria.

00:06:49.000 One of the reasons is because Russia has propped up the dictator Assad there, and if he falls, then their credibility in terms of guarantees for the Iranian regime, in terms of the Iraqi regime, which is now at least partially sponsored by the Iranians,

00:07:02.000 That guarantee seems to be worth a little bit less, and so the Russians want to make sure that they stand by their man in Syria.

00:07:08.000 So they're getting very aggressive.

00:07:09.000 They're saying that they're going to treat any bombing like this in the future as an act of war.

00:07:13.000 Now, the real question is going to be, do we want to go up against Russia here? 0.61

00:07:17.000 Do we want to play a game of chicken with them?

00:07:19.000 If we do play a game of chicken, are they actually going to try and shoot down an American plane?

00:07:22.000 If they did shoot down an American plane, would we then be in a state of full-scale war with Moscow?

00:07:27.000 Vladimir Putin is not in a strong position in his own country, other than the fact that he controls the military and the money.

00:07:32.000 So, I mean, that sounds funny because those are the two most important things to control, but he does not control the population.

00:07:38.000 The population clearly is not super fond of Vladimir Putin.

00:07:41.000 And so one of the ways he has to maintain his power is by promoting this image of himself as a very, very powerful guy who will stand up to anyone, up to and including the United States of America.

00:07:51.000 That means that he's going to want to play chicken.

00:07:53.000 The United States may have more of an interest in allowing him to play chicken and give off a sense of superiority to his own people than in challenging the Assad regime.

00:08:03.000 But if Assad keeps firing gas bombs, Trump has now set the red line.

00:08:06.000 The red line exists.

00:08:07.000 If he keeps gassing people, Trump is going to have to do something.

00:08:10.000 Otherwise, he is not just Obama.

00:08:12.000 He's actually worse than Obama because he's shown 0.99

00:08:14.000 That he's like Bill Clinton in 1998, after the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, that just wants to shoot a camel in the ass and be done with it. 0.99

00:08:20.000 And that's not a winning strategy when it comes to deterrence. 0.97

00:08:24.000 So, there are a lot of mixed messages coming out of the administration.

00:08:27.000 One message is that Assad has to go.

00:08:28.000 The other message is that Assad can sort of stay.

00:08:30.000 Chris Wallace over at Fox News, he asked H.R.

00:08:32.000 McMaster, who's the new National Security Advisor, a guy who really does know military strategy.

00:08:37.000 His book, Dereliction of Duty, is required reading over at the War College.

00:08:41.000 And it is a very, very good book.

00:08:42.000 It's worth getting.

00:08:44.000 So here's Wallace asking McMasters, aren't you sending a few mixed messages here?

00:08:47.000 The Trump administration seems to be sending mixed signals this weekend.

00:08:52.000 UN ambassador Nikki Haley says that getting rid of Assad is a priority.

00:08:58.000 On the other hand, Secretary of State Tillerson says that first we have to get rid of ISIS, destroy ISIS, Assad can wait.

00:09:07.000 So which is it?

00:09:09.000 And McMaster didn't have a great answer for that.

00:09:11.000 Bernie Sanders, of course, says that the Trump administration has no plan either.

00:09:17.000 When you get this guy screaming at you, you always are going to take it with a large grain of salt.

00:09:22.000 But here is Bernie Sanders talking about Syria and why he cannot find his pudding no matter how hard he tries.

00:09:28.000 Asking the Republicans, what are you going to do when you throw 20 million people off of health insurance?

00:09:35.000 How many of them are going to die?

00:09:36.000 What's your plan?

00:09:38.000 Okay, again, we'll get to what the actual plan is in just a second.

00:09:44.000 But first, I want to bring in to join us a special guest, Jillian Gilchrist, who is a feminist advocate from Connecticut. 0.98

00:09:50.000 She champions public policy on issues of gender, gender-based violence, and reproductive choice.

00:09:54.000 She's an organizer with the Women's March in Connecticut.

00:09:57.000 And she currently teaches political advocacy at the UConn School of Social Work.

00:10:01.000 Jillian Gilchrist is also a, she also wrote a column for her site in which she talked specifically about the idea that Judge Gorsuch would be terrible for women, and the reason that he would be terrible for women is because he's a proponent of originalism.

00:10:17.000 Professor Gilchrist, are you actually a professor, or is it just Miss Gilchrist?

00:10:21.000 I want to address you properly.

00:10:22.000 Hi, it's Ms.

00:10:23.000 Gilchrist.

00:10:23.000 Thank you.

00:10:24.000 Ms.

00:10:24.000 Gilchrist, thanks for coming on the show.

00:10:26.000 I appreciate it.

00:10:26.000 So what you actually wrote is you wrote that Gorsuch, like Antonin Scalia, is a proponent of originalism, which means he believes a judge should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written.

00:10:36.000 When the Constitution was written, women couldn't own property. 1.00

00:10:39.000 In 1787, women didn't have the right to vote. 1.00

00:10:41.000 It would be 133 years before women won that fight, a fight they fought for 72 years. 1.00

00:10:46.000 Considering women had no rights when the Constitution was written and there was no mention of women in the Constitution, originalism is sexist.

00:10:52.000 So, let me ask you first to expand on that.

00:10:55.000 Is it the Constitution that's sexist, or originalism that's sexist, or both?

00:11:00.000 Um, well, actually the original constitution is sexist.

00:11:04.000 Um, and then the originalist perspective that actually looks to the original document is also sexist.

00:11:09.000 And so, um, we know that when a judge practices originalism, they look backwards.

00:11:15.000 Um, they don't try to see the constitution in the current context of society.

00:11:21.000 And so by looking backwards, as I said in my piece, um, at the time the constitution was written, women didn't have any rights. 1.00

00:11:27.000 We were property.

00:11:29.000 So, yes, the originalist perspective is sexist, and so I think Neil Gorsuch will not be good for women on the Supreme Court.

00:11:36.000 Okay, so two quick things.

00:11:37.000 One, you're right, obviously, that women did not have rights under the Constitution in many ways. 1.00

00:11:42.000 The idea that they were property is an overstatement.

00:11:44.000 They couldn't be sold into slavery.

00:11:45.000 I mean, black people were property. 1.00

00:11:46.000 Women were not property under the Constitution of the United States. 0.98

00:11:51.000 I do have a basic question here, which is, what do you think a judge's job is?

00:11:55.000 I mean, a judge, from where I sit, and according to the structure of the Constitution, his job is to interpret the law as it's written, not to make up what he wishes the law were.

00:12:04.000 That's what we have legislatures for, that's why we have people who vote on things.

00:12:07.000 The idea that you're going to have some sort of super legislature made up of the great wise men, or women, who decide what a text means that has nothing to do with the original meaning of the Constitution, what do you think a judge's job should be?

00:12:19.000 Well, so what an originalist actually does, though, is goes even beyond that interpretation.

00:12:25.000 An originalist thinks that the 14th Amendment, which would actually give women equal protection, based on what we know from Justice Scalia, he didn't actually think that that protected women.

00:12:37.000 And so he thinks that equal protection does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.

00:12:44.000 An originalist like Scalia

00:12:45.000 Also feels that the right to privacy is not included in the Constitution.

00:12:49.000 And so I understand what a judge's job is, but then we also have, thankfully, the legislature.

00:12:56.000 And so the legislature can pass public policies that will give women rights. 1.00

00:13:01.000 And Scalia, to be fair, that's what Scalia says.

00:13:04.000 I mean, that's what Robert Bork says.

00:13:05.000 That's what Justice Thomas says.

00:13:07.000 I'm an originalist.

00:13:07.000 This is what originalists say.

00:13:08.000 We say, this is why we have legislatures.

00:13:10.000 The purpose of a legislature is to pass things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

00:13:14.000 You don't have judges who just sit there and then pass legislation.

00:13:17.000 This is why we have separate branches.

00:13:19.000 So again, I ask you,

00:13:20.000 You're upset at the outcome of some of what the judges say, because the judges are reading the text according to what texts mean.

00:13:27.000 I mean, it's not poetry.

00:13:28.000 But what do you think a judge should do that is distinct from what a legislature does?

00:13:35.000 Well, to answer that, I mean, what now is happening is so the legislature passes a policy to give women greater access.

00:13:42.000 Let's use Hobby Lobby, since that's a case that Neil Gorsuch, you know, ruled on.

00:13:47.000 The Congress passed health care reform to allow women to have greater access to birth control.

00:13:53.000 And when that then went through the court process, because conservatives argued against that, when it went through the court process, it was ruled down.

00:14:05.000 Yes, we might have the legislature.

00:14:07.000 Yes, we have judges.

00:14:09.000 But with an originalist perspective, like Neil Gorsuch's and like Scalia's, when we try to progress women through public policy, it then is still being shot down in the courts because that originalist perspective, as I mentioned, is a sexist perspective.

00:14:23.000 Okay, so, again, the problem is that, I mean, take Hobby Lobby as an example.

00:14:28.000 It wasn't that Neil Gorsuch is against contraception, presumably.

00:14:31.000 I mean, his church apparently is pro-contraception.

00:14:33.000 The idea that Neil Gorsuch has a personal view that's anti-contraception, that's not accurate.

00:14:37.000 I mean, Neil Gorsuch's view is that there's a First Amendment to the Constitution which protects the freedom of religion of people like the religious owners of Hobby Lobby and said that they don't have to violate their own religion in the provision of health care.

00:14:49.000 Now, you may disagree with that policy.

00:14:51.000 That's why we have an amendment process. 0.99

00:14:53.000 The Constitution basically enshrines certain fundamental rights.

00:14:56.000 If we disagree with those fundamental rights, there's an amendment process.

00:14:59.000 Or do you think that we should just get rid of the Constitution completely?

00:15:01.000 Because it seems to me that's sort of what you want.

00:15:03.000 We shouldn't have judges.

00:15:04.000 We shouldn't have judicial review.

00:15:05.000 We shouldn't have a Constitution.

00:15:07.000 We should just have a legislature that does all the things that you want them to do, or judges that just say the legislature can do all those things.

00:15:13.000 No, not at all.

00:15:15.000 We could certainly, we need to pass public policies or we could amend the Constitution.

00:15:19.000 And women did try that through the Equal Rights Amendment, but that too didn't make it through. 1.00

00:15:23.000 Right.

00:15:24.000 And so to your point about Hobby Lobby, it is the first decision where two competing interests, the religious freedom, religious rights of individuals, did actually then trump the rights

00:15:36.000 So how should a judge read a text?

00:15:38.000 Should a judge just decide what the judge wants to be the law and then just say this is the law?

00:15:44.000 What standard do you use?

00:15:56.000 So my standard is that with the Constitution, I think it was supposed to be a document, a guiding document.

00:16:02.000 And so I don't think anyone at the time the Constitution was written thought that the world would always exist as it was.

00:16:08.000 And so I certainly think we need that text, but we should interpret it in light of what is happening in present day.

00:16:15.000 We've changed a lot as a culture and as a society.

00:16:18.000 And so to assume that you can use a text from hundreds of years ago to decide cases today, 0.58

00:16:24.000 Um, just seems ridiculous.

00:16:47.000 Yes, but we use that text to interpret current day problems.

00:16:51.000 And it seems that when it comes to women's rights, originalist perspective tends to side in the air of always looking backward and not looking at current day.

00:17:03.000 Because they're trying to, because if you're looking, if I wrote a piece of legislation 10 years ago, and I said to you, okay, you and I write a piece of legislation today.

00:17:12.000 Right?

00:17:12.000 And we use the language of today.

00:17:14.000 We mean something by that language.

00:17:15.000 In this conversation, somebody will read this 100 years from now, and we will have meant what we're saying to each other.

00:17:19.000 We understand what we're saying.

00:17:20.000 If somebody wants to read what we're talking about today, and then it turns out that all the words that we're using now mean the reverse because things have changed, did our conversation mean the reverse of what it meant, or does it mean what we're talking about right now?

00:17:32.000 Words have meaning at the time they are said, and to try and read new meanings into old words just because quote-unquote times have changed, you can end up with some really bizarre results.

00:17:41.000 I mean, and the problem here is that, you know, you may not like what Neil Gorsuch is trying to do, but at least it's a rule of interpretation.

00:17:48.000 In the constitutional structure, what we've had is the Supreme Court very often reversing itself on the exact same language by using the sort of rules that you want.

00:17:55.000 So, for example, in Plessy v. Ferguson, you had the Supreme Court say that the 14th Amendment did not apply to black people insofar as segregation was okay.

00:18:04.000 And then 50 years after that, they say, no, it turns out the 14th Amendment actually meant that segregation is not okay anymore.

00:18:10.000 Well, 0.88

00:18:11.000 That's silly. 0.53

00:18:11.000 I mean, it either meant one or it meant the other. 0.53

00:18:13.000 It didn't mean two different things at the same time.

00:18:14.000 One of those decisions is wrong and one of those decisions is right.

00:18:17.000 That's true for every judicial decision.

00:18:19.000 The idea that we can just look to our hearts to determine what a text meant 200 years ago is silly when we can find out what they meant 200 years ago by reading what they're talking about now.

00:18:30.000 And yes, I wouldn't disagree where you made the point, though, that our conversation we're having today, what we're saying to one another is what we're saying to one another.

00:18:40.000 And if looked at a hundred years from now, it would still mean the same thing.

00:18:44.000 But people using our conversation a hundred years from now would have to apply it to that current day because it's not going to look the same.

00:18:52.000 And so we do need to look back at texts, but we need to interpret them with the current climate.

00:19:00.000 To say that, I mean, Justice Scalia came out and said that the 14th Amendment does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.

00:19:09.000 Justice Scalia came out and said that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

00:19:13.000 Right, because there aren't any of those things in the Constitution.

00:19:15.000 If you want to establish one, you create an amendment.

00:19:18.000 There's no right to abortion in the Constitution.

00:19:21.000 The right to privacy is not the right to have an abortion.

00:19:23.000 The right to privacy also covers the right to access birth control.

00:19:27.000 Yes, Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965.

00:19:29.000 I'm well aware of the case.

00:19:30.000 But the idea that the founders, the people who wrote the Constitution, were deeply concerned with access to birth control in the federal Constitution 0.77

00:19:39.000 It's just silly.

00:19:41.000 Again, this is why we have legislatures. 0.91

00:19:43.000 The point is that I'm in favor of availability of contraception.

00:19:46.000 This is why I would elect people who would be in favor of availability of contraception.

00:19:50.000 If you just want the courts to do what you want them to do, why not just appoint a couple of oligarchs? 0.97

00:19:54.000 We can have Ruth Bader Ginsburg be our queen, and then we don't actually have to have a legislature anymore. 1.00

00:19:58.000 We can skip all these expensive election things.

00:19:59.000 Donald Trump wouldn't be president, and the notorious RBG would just rule us all.

00:20:04.000 The problem for women in this country is that when we pass public policies to increase our rights, they are then shot down by the court who doesn't believe what you just explained, that we don't have a right to privacy or that we don't have equal protection under the law.

00:20:19.000 That's not accurate.

00:20:23.000 There are dozens of states that had already legalized abortion in large part before Roe v. Wade, and the courts had never struck that down on any grounds.

00:20:31.000 I mean, now you're reversing it.

00:20:32.000 I mean, the fact is that if a state legislature passes a law that makes availability of contraception a thing, that's still not the same thing as, for example, Hobby Lobby, where you're actually forcing people to pay for your contraception in violation of their religious obligations.

00:20:45.000 So if you're just talking about access to health care, then a state is perfectly capable of passing whatever law that it wants, and the courts won't strike it down.

00:20:53.000 There are countervailing interests in some of these cases under the Constitution, and that's what the Supreme Court is talking about in an originalist

00:21:00.000 Jurisprudence, but if you want to pass a constitutional amendment go for it again I guess my final question is this and I unfortunately have to let you go to an interesting conversation But my final question is this why bother having elections?

00:21:12.000 Why bother having legislatures?

00:21:14.000 Why do you if the American people are? 0.79

00:21:16.000 are constantly doing things that are stupid, or if the American people are constantly electing legislatures that are terrible, and if we can just have judges who are going to be able to apply the Constitution as you see fit, again, I ask, why not just appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg the actual Queen of the United States, and she can rule from above, and she'll do all the things you want, and why isn't that okay with you? 0.84

00:21:34.000 I mean, tyranny with someone who you agree with seems okay with you a little bit. 0.95

00:21:38.000 Tyranny is never good.

00:21:40.000 And right now I feel as though we're under a tyranny.

00:21:42.000 Why?

00:21:42.000 What is it?

00:21:43.000 Again, I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm just wondering what he's done exactly.

00:21:45.000 But we can get into that in a bit.

00:21:46.000 That would be another conversation for another time.

00:21:50.000 No, I certainly think checks and balances are what we need in this country.

00:21:54.000 You know, I'd end by saying what we haven't tried in this country is equal representation.

00:21:57.000 And so maybe when we get

00:22:00.000 We get a legislative body that is equally men and women, and we get a Supreme Court that's equally men and women, we might see.

00:22:05.000 What about when we have an electorate that's 54% women? 1.00

00:22:08.000 At that point, can we say that we have equal representation?

00:22:11.000 Because most people who vote are women? 1.00

00:22:13.000 Nope, not yet.

00:22:14.000 Why not?

00:22:15.000 What happened to the women? 1.00

00:22:16.000 Are they all slaved by the men?

00:22:20.000 We might have equal voting, but we do not have equal representation in any of our bodies of government.

00:22:24.000 And so until we have that, I think we'll see a big difference

00:22:28.000 In the policies and the rights we have as women in this country.

00:22:31.000 So a woman is not really a female voter if she elects a man? 1.00

00:22:35.000 I'm just I'm confused again by like, like, I just think that to your point of should we have just a judicial branch ruling all?

00:22:45.000 I was answering that no, we need equal representation in all leadership bodies in this country.

00:22:50.000 And so I was speaking to that piece.

00:22:52.000 I think

00:22:53.000 It's fantastic we have both men and women voting for both men and women.

00:22:58.000 Okay, so Ivanka Trump for president then. 0.89

00:23:00.000 She's a woman, so yay. 1.00

00:23:02.000 I wouldn't go there!

00:23:04.000 Okay, well I appreciate you taking the time.

00:23:06.000 Jillian Gilchrist, very kind of you to come on.

00:23:08.000 Feminist advocate from Connecticut.

00:23:10.000 She teaches political advocacy at the UConn School of Social Work, and if people want to find her work, what's the best way to get in touch?

00:23:17.000 Great, they can find me on Twitter at Jill Crest.

00:23:21.000 That would be the best plan.

00:23:21.000 Great, really appreciate it.

00:23:23.000 Thanks so much.

00:23:23.000 Thank you.

00:23:24.000 Okay, so, we have to say, I want to say thank you to our advertisers over at ZipRecruiter.com.

00:23:30.000 So, if you're looking to hire, not on the basis of sex, but on the basis of merit, and you would like to just hire somebody who's great for the job, the best way to do that is over at ZipRecruiter.com.

00:23:39.000 You can post your job to 200 plus job sites, including social media networks like Facebook and Twitter,

00:23:44.000 With a single click instead of having to go all around and post at a thousand different sites.

00:23:49.000 You can find candidates in any city or industry nationwide.

00:23:52.000 You post once and those candidates just roll right on in.

00:23:54.000 They have a very easy to use interface so you can dismiss people or accept people.

00:23:58.000 It's great.

00:23:58.000 We're starting to use it over at dailywire.com.

00:24:01.000 And right now, my listeners can post jobs over at ZipRecruiter for free by going to ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.

00:24:07.000 That is ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.

00:24:10.000 Ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.

00:24:12.000 You can post your job for free.

00:24:13.000 Make sure you get that slot filled, again, on the basis of merit, not on the basis of the gender of the person being online.

00:24:20.000 God, okay.

00:24:21.000 So, all righty.

00:24:22.000 So, I want to discuss this Syria thing for one more second before we have to break on the podcast Facebook Live.

00:24:30.000 So, as I say before, sorry, final note on that interview.

00:24:35.000 I just would like to note, again, there is no reason that Ms.

00:24:39.000 Gilchrist could come up with, none, that suggests that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should not be Queen of the United States.

00:24:44.000 She says she's against tyranny, but then she says that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be able to read whatever she wants into the Constitution in order to apply Ruth Bader Ginsburg's values. 1.00

00:24:52.000 She says that she's in favor of checks and balances, and then explicitly says that she's angry that the Supreme Court would act to check and balance a legislature that oversteps its boundaries in violation of rights.

00:25:02.000 This just demonstrates, once and for all, that when it comes to the left view of the judiciary, it is judicial tyranny they are after.

00:25:08.000 They are not after any sort of consistent rule of law.

00:25:11.000 They have no idea what judges should be doing, as opposed to legislatures.

00:25:14.000 They think that judges should just be doing the things they want them to do, and they have no good answers on any of this.

00:25:19.000 Okay.

00:25:19.000 When it comes to Syria...

00:25:21.000 As I was saying before the interview, the fact is there's a lot of confusion on Syria.

00:25:26.000 Two messages coming from the administration.

00:25:27.000 One is that Assad should be left in place, and the other is get rid of him.

00:25:31.000 So here's Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, saying that the first priority is to defeat ISIS, and for the moment, let's leave Assad alone.

00:25:37.000 We believe that the first priority is the defeat of ISIS, that by defeating ISIS and removing their caliphate from their control, we have now eliminated at least or minimized a particular threat, not just to the United States, but to the whole stability in the region.

00:25:54.000 And once the ISIS threat has been reduced or eliminated,

00:25:58.000 I think we can turn our attention directly to stabilizing the situation in Syria.

00:26:04.000 We're hopeful that we can prevent a continuation of the civil war and that we can bring the parties to the table to begin the process of political discussions.

00:26:14.000 Clearly that requires the participation of the regime, with the support of their allies, and we're hopeful that Russia will choose to play a constructive role in supporting ceasefires through their own Astonotops.

00:26:27.000 I don't think Tillerson is entirely wrong here.

00:26:29.000 When Tillerson says we have to defeat ISIS and we just have to stop Assad from basically running roughshod over everybody, I think that's probably the right strategy. 0.94

00:26:35.000 As I said last week, ousting Assad seems to me a secondary priority.

00:26:39.000 It's not like, get rid of Assad, that'll make the country better and then go after ISIS. 0.66

00:26:43.000 The question is whether Assad even cares about going after ISIS.

00:26:45.000 I don't think he does.

00:26:46.000 I think we're going to have to do it ourselves.

00:26:48.000 That said, we can keep Assad in check at the same time we are going after ISIS.

00:26:51.000 The idea that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time is silly, but I do not think that we are in a position to rebuild the country at the same time that we're trying to protect people from Assad and ISIS. 0.66

00:27:01.000 I think that's a mistake.

00:27:03.000 I mean, getting rid of Assad and then having a giant chaotic vacuum 0.81

00:27:07.000 And seems to be opening a can of worms we have no answers to.

00:27:10.000 H.R.

00:27:10.000 McMaster, the National Security Advisor, he still seems desperate to keep Russia involved in this.

00:27:15.000 He says Russia should be part of the solution in Syria.

00:27:19.000 Medvedev wrote, the U.S.

00:27:21.000 is, quote, on the verge of a military clash with Russia.

00:27:25.000 Sir, what are we prepared to do if Russia defends its interests in Syria?

00:27:31.000 Well, this is part of the problem in Syria, is Russia's sponsorship for this murderous regime.

00:27:36.000 And so, we would want to appeal rationally to Russia.

00:27:41.000 This is a great opportunity for the Russian leadership to re-evaluate what they're doing.

00:27:46.000 Why they're supporting a regime that is committing mass murder against its own people.

00:27:50.000 So it would be a great opportunity, except they're not going to do it.

00:27:52.000 So what do we do next?

00:27:53.000 Well, that's the big question.

00:27:54.000 So to get that answer, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com right now and become a subscriber.

00:27:59.000 You got a little bit of extra today, but normally you wouldn't.

00:28:01.000 So that means that you have to go over to dailywire.com.

00:28:03.000 You can see the rest of the show live.

00:28:04.000 You can also be part of the mailbag, which we will do a little bit later this week.

00:28:07.000 And right now for $8 a month, you get that subscription.

00:28:10.000 If you become an annual subscriber, you get a free signed copy of Reasons to Vote Democrat, a comprehensive guide by our own Michael Moles, Yale graduate.

00:28:18.000 It's gotten stellar review, really.

00:28:19.000 A stellar review from WeeklyStandard.com, which is hysterical since it is an actual blank book.

00:28:24.000 But it is a great gag gift.

00:28:25.000 It is the most thorough book on democratic ideology there is.

00:28:28.000 Go check it out over at DailyWire.com.

00:28:30.000 Become an annual subscriber.

00:28:31.000 Or if you just want to listen later, then go over to iTunes or SoundCloud.

00:28:34.000 Leave us a review.

00:28:34.000 We appreciate it.

00:28:35.000 It helps iTunes recognize that we are a massive podcast because indeed we are.

00:28:39.000 Our numbers are stellar.

00:28:41.000 You are listening to the grandest and most glorious conservative podcast in the nation.

The Ben Shapiro Show - April 11, 2017

Ep. 284 - So, Is There A Plan?

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript