The Ben Shapiro Show - It’s The Supreme Day | Ep. 576

00:00:00.000 President Trump gears up for his Supreme Court pick, Democrats panic, and Jim Jordan finds himself under the gun.

00:00:04.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:05.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:11.000 Oh, I had such a nice relaxing weekend.

00:00:12.000 It was my 10th anniversary with my wife.

00:00:15.000 And she's made me a better person.

00:00:17.000 I know that's almost impossible to believe that I used to be a worse person than I am now, considering how terrible I am as a human being now.

00:00:22.000 But it's true.

00:00:23.000 I used to be even worse.

00:00:25.000 And then she made me a better person.

00:00:26.000 So it was a really nice weekend.

00:00:28.000 Got to spend it with my kids.

00:00:28.000 And then we come back.

00:00:29.000 And today is the glorious day.

00:00:32.000 President Trump about to pick a successor to Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

00:00:35.000 We're going to get into all of that.

00:00:37.000 First, I want to remind you

00:00:38.000 Our next episode of The Conversation is almost here, Tuesday, July 17th, 5.30 p.m.

00:00:41.000 Eastern, 2.30 p.m.

00:00:42.000 Pacific.

00:00:43.000 All of your questions will be answered by our own Andrew Klavan with our host, Alicia Krauss.

00:00:46.000 Our live Q&A will be available on YouTube and Facebook for everyone to watch.

00:00:50.000 Only DailyWire subscribers can ask Drew questions in real time.

00:00:53.000 If you want to submit your questions, you log into DailyWire.com, you head over to the Conversation page, and that's where you watch the live stream.

00:00:58.000 And then you type your question into the DailyWire chat box.

00:01:01.000 And you can have it read and answered on the air.

00:01:03.000 So go check it out.

00:01:05.000 Again, subscribe.

00:01:06.000 Ask Drew live questions Tuesday, July 17th, 5.30pm Eastern, 2.30pm Pacific.

00:01:10.000 Join the conversation and get your questions answered by a guy who looks like Professor X but doesn't actually have telekinetic abilities.

00:01:16.000 Alrighty.

00:01:16.000 So, we also want to remind you that you ought to shop with stamps.com.

00:01:20.000 So here is the reality.

00:01:22.000 These days you can get essentially everything you could possibly want on demand, but you're still heading down to the post office.

00:01:27.000 Now, you may love the post office.

00:01:28.000 Post office may be a great place, but you know what's more convenient than heading down to the post office?

00:01:32.000 It is being in your office and just printing out the postage directly onto a sticker, or directly onto an envelope, or directly onto a piece of paper, and then taping it to an envelope.

00:01:40.000 Because then you don't have to get in your car, and then you don't have to go down to the post office.

00:01:43.000 Well, stamps.com allows you to do all this stuff.

00:01:45.000 You can access all the amazing services of the post office right from your desk, 24-7, when it is convenient for you.

00:01:50.000 You buy and print official U.S.

00:01:52.000 postage for any letter, any package, using your own computer and printer.

00:01:55.000 The mail carrier picks it right up.

00:01:57.000 Just click, print, mail, you're done.

00:01:59.000 It couldn't be any easier.

00:01:59.000 We use it here at the Daily Wire offices.

00:02:01.000 I use it at my house as well.

00:02:02.000 And right now, you can use Shapiro for a special offer.

00:02:05.000 This is the promo code, okay?

00:02:06.000 It includes up to 55 bucks of free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.

00:02:10.000 Don't wait, go to stamps.com, and before you do anything else, click on the radio microphone at the top of the homepage, type in promo code SHAPIRO.

00:02:16.000 That's stamps.com, promo code SHAPIRO for that special deal.

00:02:18.000 55 bucks, free postage, digital scale, four-week trial, and you never have to go to the post office again.

00:02:23.000 No matter how much you love the post office, it's easier to sit at your desk.

00:02:25.000 Go to stamps.com and use that promo code SHAPIRO at the top of the homepage for that special deal and to let them know that we sent you.

00:02:31.000 Alrighty, so today's the day, guys.

00:02:33.000 President Trump is going to make his big pick tonight, 9 p.m.

00:02:36.000 Eastern.

00:02:36.000 Who gets the rose?

00:02:38.000 Who gets to go to the honeymoon suite with President Trump?

00:02:41.000 You have to love how President Trump trots this stuff out.

00:02:43.000 I do love this sort of showmanship from President Trump.

00:02:46.000 I enjoyed it when he did it with Justice Gorsuch.

00:02:49.000 I'm enjoying it even more this time because the wails and gnashing of teeth that can be heard in the background are just glorious to behold.

00:02:55.000 We'll get into some of those wails and gnashing of teeth in just a second. 0.99

00:02:58.000 President Trump tweeted out,

00:03:08.000 And the best part of this is obviously the bathing suit competition.

00:03:11.000 That's the part I'm looking forward to the most.

00:03:14.000 Although I have to say that I don't think that the people he's considering among may chart high on that aspect.

00:03:20.000 But here are basically, he's down according to everyone to four picks.

00:03:24.000 And I'm going to go through sort of the criticisms, the major flaws in the four picks.

00:03:27.000 Because we can assume that virtually any of these people are going to be better than Justice Anthony Kennedy.

00:03:31.000 Although one of them I have my serious doubts about.

00:03:33.000 So there are four people that he is down to at this point.

00:03:36.000 One is the sort of frontrunner, the longtime frontrunner, which suggests that he's not going to win, right?

00:03:40.000 Because in every reality TV show, there's the guy who you think is going to win, and then there's the guy who's actually going to win.

00:03:45.000 And they edit it in the back room to make it look like the guy who is going to, who actually loses, is the guy who's about to win.

00:03:50.000 So that guy is D.C.

00:03:52.000 Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

00:03:54.000 He's the guy who all along we've been saying, he's the one who's going to win.

00:03:56.000 He's the one who's being pushed hardest by Leonard Leo over at the Federalist Society.

00:04:00.000 He's the one who's been pushed hardest by Team Bush.

00:04:03.000 He's a longtime Bush lawyer.

00:04:05.000 He was involved in the DOJ during the Ken Starr hearings in 1999, 2000.

00:04:10.000 Made very close with a lot of members of the Bush team.

00:04:12.000 He was very instrumental in pushing Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court, which I think is a demerit for him.

00:04:17.000 And then there's Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Hardiman.

00:04:20.000 He's the one who's friends with Trump's sister, so Trump knows him a little bit.

00:04:23.000 Then there's Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett. 0.81

00:04:25.000 And then there's Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Raymond Kethledge.

00:04:28.000 So let's go through the criticisms of each one of these people so that you know

00:04:32.000 Who's the best and who's the worst?

00:04:33.000 Now, I will give you my preliminary ranking of these people.

00:04:36.000 If I had to pick from these four, I would pick Barrett first, and then Kethledge, and then Kavanaugh, and then finally Hardeman.

00:04:41.000 I think Hardeman is by far the weakest.

00:04:43.000 I think that Kavanaugh is the second weakest, although not supremely weak.

00:04:46.000 I think that Kethledge is pretty good, and I think Barrett should be pretty stellar.

00:04:49.000 So, what are their major flaws?

00:04:50.000 What are the major critiques?

00:04:52.000 Of these four candidates.

00:04:53.000 So let's start with Brett Kavanaugh, who's the purported frontrunner.

00:04:56.000 So Kavanaugh, again, has a heavy base of support among Bush staffers because he was a Republican operative for a long time before he became this very brilliant judge on the D.C.

00:05:05.000 Circuit Court of Appeals.

00:05:06.000 So his critics

00:05:07.000 essentially make three claims, joined by maybe a fourth.

00:05:12.000 So first, they argue that in a case called Seven Sky, he went out of his way to avoid jurisdiction over Obamacare.

00:05:17.000 So Obamacare was sued, the federal government was sued over Obamacare, the case was that Obamacare was unconstitutional, and Kavanaugh looked at that case, and what he said is, I don't have jurisdiction to decide this case, because this case is adjudicated under something called the Anti-Injunction Act.

00:05:33.000 The Anti-Injunction Act holds that a tax cannot actually be adjudicated by the D.C.

00:05:37.000 Circuit Court of Appeals.

00:05:39.000 So what he said is that Obamacare was not a fine, that when the government threatened to fine you if you didn't buy Obamacare, that was not a fine, that was a tax.

00:05:46.000 He was the first person to actually articulate that position, and that position ended up being used by Chief Justice John Roberts in, of course, his famously awful decision in which he suggested that Obamacare was constitutional, that Congress could create a tax, but they couldn't create a specific fine forcing you to buy things.

00:06:01.000 So that is case number one.

00:06:02.000 So Kavanaugh's defenders will say that this is an example of Kavanaugh using judicial restraint.

00:06:07.000 Now, judicial restraint is a term that's very often used by people who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to law.

00:06:13.000 So there are a lot of folks who will use two terms, judicial activism and judicial restraint, and they will contrast these two things.

00:06:19.000 A judicial activist is a person who

00:06:21.000 Well, that doesn't answer the question of where the judge should be involved and where the judge should not be involved.

00:06:26.000 Because, of course, if you were to take these two terms to their logical extreme, then any attempt to overrule any statute at all would amount to judicial activism, and any attempt

00:06:47.000 To allow the legislature to go forward on any basis at all would amount to judicial restraint.

00:06:52.000 Nobody actually believes in total judicial activism or total judicial restraint.

00:06:55.000 The question is, what standard do you use when you are overruling a particular case?

00:06:59.000 So I don't like the terms judicial activism and judicial restraint.

00:07:01.000 I'm more interested in judicial philosophy.

00:07:04.000 Why would you overrule a case?

00:07:05.000 Why would you not overrule a particular law?

00:07:09.000 That's the real question here.

00:07:10.000 So when Kavanaugh's defenders say, well, he was exercising judicial restraint, the question is, well, was he right to do so?

00:07:15.000 In that case, I do not think that he was right to do so.

00:07:17.000 OK, second area of criticism about Brett Kavanaugh.

00:07:20.000 Critics argue that in a case called Priests for Life, Kavanaugh expressed that the government had a compelling government interest in providing contraceptive coverage.

00:07:28.000 So in Priests for Life, basically, my understanding is that there was a religious group that was not providing contraceptive coverage to some employee, and Kavanaugh, in his ruling, he dissented from the main ruling, in his dissent, he acknowledged that the government had a compelling government interest in providing contraceptive coverage.

00:07:45.000 Now, there's no reason to acknowledge that, because the government does not, in fact, have a compelling government interest.

00:07:50.000 In mandating contraceptive coverage.

00:07:52.000 Why exactly is it in the government's interest to mandate that my insurance program covers an IUD?

00:08:00.000 What does the government have to do with that?

00:08:01.000 Why isn't that just about me and my employer?

00:08:03.000 But Kavanaugh sort of accepted that premise.

00:08:05.000 Kavanaugh's fans say that he was just reflecting the Supreme Court holding in Hobby Lobby.

00:08:09.000 I think that's pretty dubious.

00:08:10.000 Okay, third, critics say that in a case called Garza, Kavanaugh didn't join a dissent that criticized Roe v. Wade.

00:08:15.000 This is a case where an illegal immigrant, 17-year-old, came to the United States, she wanted an abortion, and she was not given one by the government.

00:08:21.000 The government said, well, you haven't been released, you haven't been remanded into the custody of a relative yet, and we do not have the obligation to make sure you get over to an abortion provider to make sure you get that abortion.

00:08:31.000 So Kavanaugh didn't vote that the woman should be able to get an abortion, but in that case, he did not actually criticize Roe v. Wade.

00:08:37.000 Instead, what he said is that the government might have some sort of interest in granting her an abortion under Roe v. Wade, but that her status as an illegal immigrant trumped all of that.

00:08:45.000 Well, the problem with that, of course, is that Roe v. Wade is a badly decided case, and there was another dissent that criticized Roe v. Wade.

00:08:52.000 Finally, Kavanaugh granted standing to an atheist suing the government over the Pledge of Allegiance.

00:08:56.000 That's always sort of a weird thing.

00:08:57.000 So there's something in law called standing.

00:08:59.000 Standing means that you can't sue unless you have actually been damaged by something.

00:09:03.000 So if I am damaged by you, right?

00:09:05.000 Let's say that Jess hits me with her car. 1.00

00:09:08.000 I now have standing to sue her because now I have been damaged by Jess's car.

00:09:12.000 However, if Jess hits Mathis with her car, I can't sue Jess.

00:09:15.000 First of all, why would I?

00:09:16.000 But second of all, if Jess hits Mathis with her car, I'm not involved in that case.

00:09:20.000 I don't have standing to sue.

00:09:21.000 Okay, well, the same thing holds true with regard to federal litigation.

00:09:24.000 So, you don't have standing to sue just because a law affects you.

00:09:28.000 Right?

00:09:28.000 The law has to specifically target you.

00:09:29.000 It has to affect you in a way that violates the law.

00:09:32.000 Well, there's a case in which an atheist sued the government over the Pledge of Allegiance.

00:09:36.000 There's no standing.

00:09:37.000 There's no actual damages shown by the person who heard of the Pledge of Allegiance but was not forced to stand for it.

00:09:43.000 If you were forced to stand or put your hand over your heart for the Pledge of Allegiance, then you'd have standing.

00:09:46.000 In this case, the atheist did not have standing, but Kavanaugh granted standing anyway.

00:09:50.000 So that's another criticism of Kavanaugh.

00:09:51.000 So those are the criticisms of Kavanaugh.

00:09:53.000 Okay, now, Thomas Hardiman.

00:09:55.000 So there are a lot more criticisms of Hardiman.

00:09:57.000 So Hardiman was the runner-up to now-Justice Gorsuch just last year.

00:10:00.000 As you recall,

00:10:01.000 I was actually very critical of Hardiman.

00:10:03.000 I thought that Gorsuch would be a much better pick, and thank God, President Trump made the right call on that.

00:10:07.000 There are a bunch of areas in which he is too soft.

00:10:09.000 First, there was a case called Prowl, in which Hardiman found that a homosexual, quote-unquote, effeminate man, that was the description in the case, could be discriminated against under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act based on gender stereotyping, despite the fact that this does not reflect the text of Title VII.

00:10:25.000 So, under Title VII,

00:10:26.000 I can't discriminate against Jess because she's a woman. 1.00

00:10:29.000 I can't do that.

00:10:30.000 But, if Jess were a lesbian, then I could, and I don't know, but I assume not, she has a boyfriend. 0.95

00:10:36.000 In any case, right Jess?

00:10:38.000 I don't wanna, like, not that there's anything wrong with that, folks, but Jess is straight.

00:10:41.000 Okay, in any case, if...

00:10:44.000 Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, I can actually, under Title VII, discriminate against homosexuals. 0.74

00:10:50.000 Now, there are state laws that prevent, in many cases, discriminating against homosexuals, but Title VII doesn't cover sexual orientation.

00:10:56.000 It only says I can't discriminate against Jess because she's a woman, and I can't discriminate against Mathis because he's a man.

00:11:01.000 I can discriminate, however, on the basis of sexual orientation. 0.91

00:11:04.000 Well, in this case, a gay man sued his employer, saying he was being discriminated against not because he was gay, but because he was an effeminate man.

00:11:11.000 Okay, and Judge Hardiman found that he expanded Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to cover appearance as an effeminate man in gender stereotyping, which is a pretty radical redefinition of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

00:11:23.000 So there's that.

00:11:23.000 Second, in NAACP versus North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue, Judge Hardiman ruled to strike down a fire department's residency requirement based on a finding of disparate impact.

00:11:32.000 So this has always been a weird aspect of the Civil Rights Act, is the disparate impact test.

00:11:36.000 Virtually every law has a disparate impact.

00:11:39.000 Any law that you pass has a disparate impact.

00:11:40.000 If I pass a law against thievery, against stealing, then people who are kleptomaniacs are disproportionately impacted. 1.00

00:11:49.000 There's a disparate impact on kleptomaniacs.

00:11:51.000 If, for example, I were to pass a law that said that

00:11:55.000 You're not allowed to buy Manischewitz wine for whatever reason.

00:12:01.000 You decide that Manischewitz wine is damaging to the psyche because it tastes like cough syrup, and therefore you ban the sale of Manischewitz wine.

00:12:07.000 First of all, unclear that's constitutional, but let's say that it's a perfectly legal law.

00:12:12.000 It would have a disparate impact because most of the people who are drinking Manischewitz are old Jews, right?

00:12:15.000 So that would have a disparate impact.

00:12:17.000 Does that mean that the law is per se illegal?

00:12:19.000 Not really.

00:12:19.000 You have to show that there is intent behind the law.

00:12:22.000 You have to show that the law was designed to have disparate impact, not that the law just had disparate impact.

00:12:27.000 Well, in this case, there was a residency requirement for the fire department, and Hardiman said, well, just because there's a residency requirement, that means that not enough black people are getting in, and that means that there's disparate impact.

00:12:36.000 That means the law is discriminatory.

00:12:38.000 That's a little bit dicey.

00:12:39.000 Okay.

00:12:40.000 I'm going to get to the other claims against Hardiman in just a second.

00:12:42.000 First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Quip.

00:12:45.000 So here is the reality.

00:12:46.000 You are not brushing your teeth properly.

00:12:47.000 I know.

00:12:48.000 You lied to your dentist.

00:12:49.000 They always ask you, so how long do you brush your teeth?

00:12:51.000 And you don't know.

00:12:52.000 And then you say, I brush my teeth for 30 minutes a night.

00:12:55.000 That is a lie.

00:12:55.000 And you know that you are lying when you say that.

00:12:57.000 Instead, what you really need to- because you don't have a stopwatch.

00:12:59.000 I mean, let's face this.

00:13:00.000 You go in the bathroom, brush your teeth, you kind of swish the brush around, you're done.

00:13:03.000 Okay, that's not how it ought to work.

00:13:04.000 Instead, you ought to have a Quip toothbrush.

00:13:06.000 It's the new electric toothbrush that packs just the right amount of vibration into a slimmer design at a fraction of the cost of bulky or traditional electric brushes.

00:13:13.000 Guiding pulses alert you when to switch sides, making brushing the right amount effortless.

00:13:16.000 Quip also comes with a mount that suctions right to your mirror and unsticks to use as a cover for hygienic travel anywhere.

00:13:21.000 And Quip has a subscription plan so that the brush heads arrive on a dentist-recommended schedule every three months for just five bucks, including free shipping worldwide.

00:13:29.000 Quip is backed by a network of over 10,000 dental professionals.

00:13:32.000 It's just fantastic.

00:13:33.000 It's really, it's user-friendly, and it starts at just 25 bucks.

00:13:35.000 If you go to getquip.com slash Shapiro right now,

00:13:39.000 You get your first refill pack for free with a Quip electric toothbrush.

00:13:42.000 That's first refill pack free.

00:13:43.000 Getquip.com slash Shapiro.

00:13:45.000 That's G-E-T-Q-U-I-P dot com slash Shapiro. 0.80

00:13:48.000 Use that slash Shapiro so that they know that we sent you.

00:13:50.000 It really is a fantastic product.

00:13:52.000 Check it out.

00:13:52.000 Getquip.com slash Shapiro.

00:13:53.000 Right now you get that first refill pack free and it starts at just 25 bucks with that Quip electric toothbrush.

00:13:58.000 Okay, so back to Thomas Hardiman, who is, again, one of the possibilities for President Trump.

00:14:03.000 We've already talked about a couple of the claims against him.

00:14:05.000 Third, in a case called Valdiviezo-Goldemez, Hardiman ruled that an illegal immigrant could claim asylum based on targeting by MS-13 in his home country.

00:14:13.000 Now, asylum usually means that the government has to be targeting you or that the government is going out of its way not to protect you from criminals.

00:14:20.000 So let's say you're targeted by MS-13, you go to the government, you say, I'm being targeted by MS-13, and the government laughs in your face and says, I hope MS-13 gets you.

00:14:27.000 Right, then you might be able to claim asylum in the United States.

00:14:29.000 But just because you're targeted by a criminal somewhere else on the planet does not mean you get asylum in the United States.

00:14:33.000 Hardiman, however, ruled...

00:14:38.000 Fourth, Hardiman is not exactly a critic of so-called Chevron deference.

00:14:42.000 Chevron deference is, there's a very famous case called Chevron, in which the Supreme Court held that when an administrative agency decides that, basically, let's say that you have a fight with the EPA, it's an administrative agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, and they've ruled that a pond, your koi pond on your property, is actually a protected federal wetland, and therefore, you cannot actually have those koi in there, they're going to clean out the koi.

00:15:05.000 Okay, so you go to the EPA, and you say, that's not right, and they send you to an administrative court, and then the court rules in favor of the EPA.

00:15:11.000 So you sue, and you send it to the judiciary.

00:15:13.000 Well, normally, the judiciary would be able to look at that case de novo, meaning they'd actually be able to look at that case and say, well, is this right, or is this wrong?

00:15:20.000 But, according to Chevron, administrative agencies deserve deference.

00:15:23.000 So you ought to allow the EPA to decide its own fate. 0.98

00:15:25.000 Okay, Chevron deference is really stupid, but Hardiman has not been a critic of Chevron deference. 0.97

00:15:31.000 Instead, he's basically stood up for it. 0.97

00:15:34.000 Critics have charged that Hardiman is not textualist enough, that he hasn't focused enough on the words of the Constitution or the law.

00:15:41.000 Instead, he focuses on legislative history.

00:15:43.000 And finally, Hardiman's critics point to the fact that he's very close with Trump's liberal sister, who sits on the circuit court, and his wife is a prominent Democrat.

00:15:49.000 Okay, so Hardiman is by far the weakest of these candidates.

00:15:52.000 Okay, the other two are Barrett and Kethledge.

00:15:53.000 So, Amy Coney Barrett, who again sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, she 0.68

00:16:00.000 There's not a lot to criticize her about because her record isn't very long.

00:16:03.000 She only joined the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals last year, so she hasn't been there for very long.

00:16:07.000 Otherwise, she's very originalist from her writing.

00:16:09.000 She's very textualist.

00:16:11.000 She obviously doesn't like Roe v. Wade very much.

00:16:12.000 She obviously is not a fan of government interventionism, so she's my first pick.

00:16:16.000 And then there's Judge Raymond Kethledge.

00:16:18.000 There are a bunch of people on the right who have been criticizing Kethledge, saying that Kethledge is not anti-illegal immigration enough.

00:16:24.000 It's basically groundless.

00:16:25.000 I think that groups like Breitbart that have been targeting Kethledge on behalf of Kavanaugh, I think they're fibbing.

00:16:29.000 I think they are manipulating the actual case law.

00:16:33.000 So, for example, there's a case like Van Nguyen, in which Kethledge ruled that a particular legal immigrant

00:16:40.000 Barrett, Kethledge, Kavanaugh, Hardiman.

00:16:43.000 We'll have to see what happens tonight.

00:16:45.000 Okay.

00:17:00.000 Meanwhile, folks on the left are losing it because they think this is the end of the world.

00:17:05.000 And they've demonstrated, full scale, how radical they are when it comes to the Supreme Court.

00:17:09.000 They believe the Supreme Court exists merely to uphold their policy priorities.

00:17:13.000 I believe the Supreme Court exists mainly to uphold the Constitution.

00:17:17.000 The left will never discuss the Constitution.

00:17:19.000 The left will immediately discuss Roe.

00:17:20.000 If you ask anybody on the left, what do you want out of a Supreme Court justice?

00:17:24.000 That person on the left will never say, I want them to uphold the words of the Constitution.

00:17:28.000 Never.

00:17:29.000 They will never say that.

00:17:30.000 Instead, what they will say is, I want that justice to uphold Roe v. Wade.

00:17:35.000 Roe v. Wade is not in the Constitution.

00:17:37.000 Roe v. Wade is not law.

00:17:39.000 Roe v. Wade is a judicial decision. 0.99

00:17:41.000 That judicial decision is wrong, and it's stupid, and it's badly argued, and it's badly written. 0.97

00:17:46.000 It's wrong on virtually every score, but this just demonstrates what the left thinks the judiciary is there to do, which is impose their policy preferences from above. 0.98

00:17:53.000 So the NARAL president, the National Abortion Rights Action League, they changed their name because they didn't like to have the name abortion in there, so they just called themselves NARAL now as though it has no meaning.

00:18:00.000 The NARAL president, Elise Hogue, she was on Fox News Sunday, and she says that from any judge who is asked to be on the Supreme Court, we want an affirmative declaration that Roe v. Wade is going to be upheld.

00:18:11.000 We need an affirmative declaration, right?

00:18:13.000 We need, and I think even Susan Collins said this when she said she needs to see a nominee demonstrate their commitment to upholding Roe vs. Wade and keeping abortion legal.

00:18:24.000 What the hell does that have to do with the Constitution?

00:18:26.000 The answer is nothing.

00:18:27.000 The left doesn't care about the Constitution.

00:18:29.000 However, the left believes that the Constitution is merely an impediment to their policy goals.

00:18:34.000 And it is amazing to me that people on the right will say, we don't need a litmus test for judges.

00:18:38.000 We shouldn't have a litmus test for judges.

00:18:39.000 No, I think we should have a litmus test.

00:18:41.000 I think the litmus test on the right should be, will you vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

00:18:45.000 Like, if we were actually honest about this stuff, we would just ask judges this stuff, and judges would answer honestly.

00:18:50.000 But we can't do that anymore ever since Justice Bork.

00:18:52.000 So instead, we have stealth candidates where we ask them about Roe v. Wade, and they say, well, I'd have to see the facts of the case in front of me.

00:18:57.000 Roe v. Wade obviously is binding precedent.

00:19:00.000 They're all going to say the same thing, because precedent is a fudge word.

00:19:03.000 When people say they're going to abide by precedent, what they really mean is, I'm going to abide by the cases that are on the books until I don't want them to be on the books anymore.

00:19:10.000 So at one point, Bowers v. Hardwick, which said that states could ban sodomy, that was on the books.

00:19:16.000 And then that was overturned.

00:19:17.000 That was overturned by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas.

00:19:20.000 At one point, Plessy v. Ferguson, which said segregation was legal, that was overturned.

00:19:24.000 That was on the books for 58 years in the United States before it was overturned.

00:19:29.000 So, you know, when people suggest that precedent is the be-all end-all, what they really mean is, cases I like I want upheld, and cases I don't like I want overturned.

00:19:37.000 Constitutional interpretation, at least on hot-button issues like abortion, is actually not all that difficult.

00:19:41.000 People deliberately obscure the questions so they can get to their preferred policy recommendations.

00:19:46.000 Now, the left has moved extraordinarily radical on abortion.

00:19:49.000 They now see abortion not just as something they want protected, but as a sacrament itself. 1.00

00:19:54.000 And they're proving how foolish they are every single day. 0.99

00:19:56.000 So there was a bizarre demonstration yesterday. 1.00

00:20:00.000 We're so concerned with owning the cons and owning the libs these days that people are willing to do the stupidest possible things. 0.94

00:20:05.000 So a bunch of women decided to go out and dress themselves in Handmaid's Tale's outfits because they went and they got like red habits. 0.97

00:20:12.000 They got like red robes and the white potato chip hats and all the rest of this.

00:20:18.000 And they're wandering around Arizona in the 110 degree weather.

00:20:21.000 In order to own the cons or something.

00:20:23.000 So here they were walking around and jabbering about Roe v. Wade.

00:20:28.000 You can see them here saying, it says, keep your theology off our biology.

00:20:32.000 Get out of our privates.

00:20:34.000 Ladies, I have no interest. 0.95

00:20:36.000 Okay, keep your theology, and then there's pictures of abortion hangers and all these women who are walking around in 110 degree weather as though they are going to be made handmaidens if they can't kill the babies inside their womb. 0.94

00:20:47.000 The most obvious example, by the way, 1.00

00:20:50.000 of the stupidity of the left on this issue comes courtesy of Michelle Wolf, who is just an awful human being. 1.00

00:20:54.000 So Michelle Wolf, you'll recall from being terrible at comedy and also being on the White House Correspondents Dinner where she yelled about her vagina or some such, she decided that in honor of the 4th of July, the most American thing she could think of was killing your baby in the womb and cutting its brain out. 1.00

00:21:10.000 So here she is doing her 4th of July special in which she does a full-on, star-spangled tribute to killing your baby in the womb. 0.99

00:21:20.000 I have the power to give life and then we'll try to control that!

00:21:30.000 God bless abortions and God bless America. 1.00

00:21:34.000 Wow.

00:21:36.000 God bless America and God bless abortion. 0.99

00:21:38.000 The perverse level of love for abortion.

00:21:41.000 Abortion is a sacrament.

00:21:42.000 Abortion is a sign of bravery. 1.00

00:21:43.000 Abortion is a sign of decency on the left. 0.94

00:21:46.000 This is why they are so concerned that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned.

00:21:48.000 Not because Roe v. Wade being overturned will actually amount to the illegalization of abortion.

00:21:53.000 But simply because they're afraid that people might actually want to vote on the issue of whether you ought to kill your baby in the womb.

00:21:58.000 And they can't win this argument because this argument is unwinnable. 0.50

00:22:01.000 People should not be allowed to kill babies in the womb.

00:22:04.000 Even most Democrats believe that there should be significant restrictions on the ability to kill a baby in the womb.

00:22:09.000 They may not agree on how early you ban that, but most of them agree that 20 weeks and on, that should be banned.

00:22:15.000 So Michelle Wolf, this radicalism is really insane.

00:22:18.000 It shows why they're so concerned with the

00:22:22.000 Okay, so I want to talk about the conservative sort of response to some of the Supreme Court stuff, particularly Roe v. Wade in just a second.

00:22:36.000 First, let's talk about whether you shave, or shower, or brush your teeth, or do all the things that make you into a presentable human being in the morning.

00:22:43.000 If you do, you need to talk to my friends over at Dollar Shave Club, because Dollar Shave Club has pretty much everything you need to get ready in the bathroom.

00:22:49.000 Any particular product,

00:22:50.000 That is particularly great that comes to mind.

00:22:53.000 They've got it.

00:22:53.000 OK, so they're my favorite.

00:22:55.000 And the best one is they have this calming body cleanser.

00:22:57.000 It is so great.

00:22:58.000 OK, because as you can tell, I'm not a calm guy by nature, but the calming body cleanser smells delightful.

00:23:04.000 OK, this is amber and lavender.

00:23:05.000 It smells so good and it makes you feel so clean.

00:23:08.000 You name it.

00:23:08.000 They've got the shampoo, the conditioner, the body wash, the toothpaste, the hair gel.

00:23:10.000 They even have a wipe that will leave your butt feeling tingly clean.

00:23:13.000 All of Dollar Shave Club's products are made with top shelf ingredients.

00:23:16.000 They will not break your budget.

00:23:17.000 You will feel the difference.

00:23:18.000 Plus, shipping is included with your membership.

00:23:20.000 And there's a great way to try a bunch of Dollar Shave Club products for just five bucks.

00:23:23.000 You can get their Daily Essentials Starter Set.

00:23:25.000 It comes with Body Cleanser, One Wipe Charlies, which are the amazing butt wipes, the world-famous Shave Butter, and their best razor, that Six Blade Executive.

00:23:31.000 Keep the blades coming for a few bucks more a month. 0.87

00:23:33.000 Add in shampoo, toothpaste, anything else you need for the bathroom.

00:23:36.000 Check it all out at dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.

00:23:38.000 That's dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.

00:23:40.000 Use that slash ben for the special deal, and let them know we sent you.

00:23:43.000 Really, their products are just first-rate.

00:23:45.000 Go check it out.

00:23:48.000 There's a reason everybody's switching to Dollar Shave Club.

00:23:50.000 Okay, so.

00:23:51.000 With the left so militant about abortion that they are talking about abortion as a sacrament.

00:23:55.000 I'm old enough to remember when Bill Clinton said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

00:23:59.000 I'm old enough to remember that.

00:24:00.000 Now, it's abortion should be plentiful, available, and celebrated. 0.98

00:24:04.000 We should cheer for it. 0.80

00:24:05.000 Because killing a baby in the womb is a sign of womanhood. 1.00

00:24:07.000 It's a sign that you are truly a woman in charge of your own life. 0.86

00:24:11.000 If you have not actually killed a baby in your womb, that means that you are subjecting yourself to the hierarchical preferences of evil masculinity.

00:24:19.000 But if you kill a baby in the womb, that shows that you've stood up to the man.

00:24:21.000 Sure, you might have killed a baby in the process, but at least you stood up to the man.

00:24:25.000 This is the perspective of someone on the left.

00:24:26.000 Now, the pro-life issue is one on which the right can win, and should win, because this is an issue that is as vital morally as any issue the United States has ever faced, up to and including slavery.

00:24:37.000 The murder of a million babies a year in the womb is a serious moral issue.

00:24:42.000 And if you don't think it's a serious moral issue, it's because you haven't looked at it hard enough.

00:24:45.000 But folks on the right tend to shy away from this, and it's a serious problem.

00:24:48.000 So Leonard Leo, who's one of the fellows who's helping Trump select the next Supreme Court Justice, he was on Sunday, he was on this week on ABC, and he said that rumors of Roe being overturned, that's greatly exaggerated.

00:25:00.000 Why is it always the job of the right to quell rumors about Roe being overturned?

00:25:05.000 I don't understand this.

00:25:06.000 Why shouldn't the right say, hell yes, we want to overturn Roe because it's a bad decision?

00:25:10.000 Why shouldn't that be something the right campaign's on? 0.93

00:25:13.000 By the way, overturning Roe does not mean that abortion becomes illegal across 50 states.

00:25:17.000 If you think that California is suddenly going to ban abortion, you're out of your mind.

00:25:22.000 California is not going to ban abortion.

00:25:23.000 Neither is Massachusetts, neither is New York, neither is New Jersey, neither is Illinois.

00:25:26.000 There are too many states in the Union that are going to allow abortion to continue unfettered.

00:25:31.000 But the right is constantly running away from their own positions on this stuff.

00:25:34.000 So Leonard Leo, whom I think is a quite brilliant legal mind, here is saying, well, Roe's not going to be overturned.

00:25:40.000 Let's stop with all the fright.

00:25:42.000 Why is everyone so worried?

00:25:44.000 First of all, nobody really knows.

00:25:46.000 We've been talking about this for 36 years, going all the way back to the nomination of Sandra O'Connor.

00:25:52.000 And after that 36-year period, we only have a single individual on the court who has expressly said he would overturn Roe.

00:25:58.000 So I think it's a bit of a scare tactic and rank speculation more than anything else.

00:26:02.000 Okay, so, you know, all of the talk about, don't worry about it, it's just speculation.

00:26:06.000 The right is constantly attempting to run away from this issue.

00:26:08.000 So, more evidence of this.

00:26:09.000 Tomi Lahren, who, you know, I've refrained from criticizing generally because, you know, Tomi does what Tomi does, but Tomi Lahren has now made the case that we should never speak about abortion.

00:26:19.000 This is, of course, because she is pro-choice.

00:26:21.000 Tomi Lahren is pro-abortion.

00:26:22.000 She went on The View and she suggested that it's only religious objection to abortion that was driving the right's objection to abortion.

00:26:28.000 So she was on Fox News Final Thoughts, and she suggested that Republicans only win by staying out of the social issues.

00:26:36.000 Let's be honest.

00:26:37.000 The federal government does few things well, and I believe regulating social issues is an area where it fails.

00:26:43.000 Let the churches, the nonprofits, and the community groups step in, not almighty Uncle Sam.

00:26:48.000 Okay, so I am generally friendly to libertarian arguments, but this is not any social issue when you're talking about abortion.

00:26:55.000 When you're talking about abortion, you're talking about an issue of protecting human life.

00:27:00.000 By this definition, slavery is a social issue.

00:27:02.000 By the way, Tommy Lahren is very fond

00:27:04.000 of talking about social issues when it suits her purposes.

00:27:07.000 I mean, how many times have you heard Tomi Lahren talk about the flag and patriotism and kneeling for the national anthem and culture?

00:27:12.000 I mean, that's what Tomi Lahren specializes in. 0.99

00:27:14.000 She's not exactly a Milton Friedman economist, right?

00:27:16.000 You're not going to hear her sitting there spouting Vienna School of Economics explanations of trade theory, right?

00:27:21.000 That's not Tomi's thing.

00:27:22.000 So for her to say that we are not going to focus in on social issues because otherwise we're never going to win, 0.99

00:27:29.000 I think is is foolish. 0.99

00:27:30.000 Not only is it foolish. 0.99

00:27:31.000 Let's be real about this. 0.79

00:27:32.000 If the right is not fighting to protect human life, then the right is not doing its job.

00:27:37.000 No victory that leaves behind babies in the womb to be carved apart and then flushed down a toilet. 0.98

00:27:43.000 No right that does that in the name of victory is winning a victory that is worth that is worth fighting for.

00:27:47.000 Victory has to mean something, and one of those things that victory has to mean is standing up for the lives of the unborn.

00:27:53.000 Now, Tommy responded to all of this.

00:27:55.000 She got heavy flack from a lot of folks on the right for saying all of this, that the right should leave behind the social issues.

00:28:00.000 By the way, Donald Trump didn't leave behind the social issues during the election cycle.

00:28:02.000 He was very pro-life during the election cycle, at least insofar as what he had to say.

00:28:07.000 And Tommy then tweeted something out about how she's not going to be cudgeled into believing something that she doesn't believe.

00:28:14.000 No one's trying to cudgel Tommy into believing something she doesn't believe.

00:28:17.000 She's certainly able to believe whatever she wants to believe.

00:28:20.000 The point I'm making is that she's wrong.

00:28:21.000 So she tweeted out, Do I form my political beliefs based on acceptance from the self-appointed thought wardens of either political party?

00:28:27.000 No.

00:28:27.000 And I never will.

00:28:28.000 You don't have to like or agree with my thoughts, but at least you know they are my own.

00:28:32.000 A couple of things about this.

00:28:33.000 This seems to be the last refuge of people who can't make a good argument nowadays, is that you make an argument and then they say, you're not going to box me in with your standards.

00:28:41.000 I'm not trying to box you in.

00:28:42.000 Make your argument. 1.00

00:28:43.000 I just think your argument sucks. 1.00

00:28:44.000 Like, that's not me boxing you in. 0.99

00:28:46.000 I've heard the same from several relatively major figures in the past several weeks, that if I say that I don't like something that you've said, that suddenly I'm trying to provoke you into moving your position.

00:28:58.000 No, I'm trying to present a differing position.

00:29:00.000 You can say whatever you want.

00:29:01.000 It's a free country.

00:29:01.000 You can make a bad argument if you want to.

00:29:03.000 Also, the substitution of authenticity for solid thinking is not even an argument.

00:29:07.000 It's an emotional appeal.

00:29:08.000 This idea that you don't have to like or agree with my thoughts, but at least you know they are my own.

00:29:12.000 Right, I assume they are your own, which is why I'm criticizing you.

00:29:14.000 If they were somebody else's, I'd be criticizing them.

00:29:17.000 The substitution of authenticity.

00:29:18.000 Well, he's very authentic in how he feels.

00:29:20.000 Therefore, you really shouldn't question.

00:29:22.000 Therefore, you really shouldn't question what they have to say.

00:29:25.000 That doesn't make any sense to me.

00:29:27.000 At all.

00:29:27.000 I just, I think that's completely nonsensical on virtually every level.

00:29:31.000 Okay, meanwhile, I don't want to, you know, center on my criticism for folks on the right, because the reality is that folks on the left continue to be more and more extreme in every possible way.

00:29:41.000 Over the weekend, there's more sort of extreme behavior from folks on the left.

00:29:46.000 The point is, I don't think that we ought to surrender our principles simply because the left is really militant on issues like abortion.

00:29:51.000 I think that ought to make us

00:29:52.000 More militant, at least in our in our pursuit of the right principles.

00:29:56.000 I don't mean more militant like physically, but I do mean that we ought to stand up strongly and proudly for the positions in which we believe, particularly when they happen to be purely moral as in protection of human life.

00:30:04.000 We're going to talk about the extremism of the left in just a second because there are more incidents

00:30:08.000 Of Trump administration officials being targeted by folks on the left over the weekend.

00:30:12.000 First, however, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and check it out.

00:30:15.000 So when you go over to Daily Wire, then you get the rest of the show live.

00:30:18.000 You get the rest of the Michael Knowles show live, the rest of the Andrew Klavan show live.

00:30:21.000 You get to be part of our mailbag on Friday.

00:30:23.000 That means you get to ask your questions and get your answers.

00:30:25.000 When there's an episode of The Conversation, as there will be July 17th with Andrew Klavan next week, then you get to ask questions if you are a subscriber.

00:30:31.000 Plus, when you go to dailywire.com slash events and you decide that you want to buy tickets to our Dallas or Phoenix events coming up in August,

00:30:38.000 When you do all of that, then one of the things that you get is the ability to buy VIP tickets before anybody else when you're a member.

00:30:43.000 So lots of great things.

00:30:44.000 Plus, with the annual subscription, you get this.

00:30:45.000 The Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.

00:30:47.000 It refreshes you.

00:30:48.000 It makes you feel renewed.

00:30:50.000 It makes you feel like a new human being.

00:30:52.000 That's what this does right here.

00:30:53.000 This Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.

00:30:54.000 You get that.

00:30:55.000 For 99 bucks a year, which is cheaper than the monthly subscription.

00:30:58.000 Also, make sure you go over to YouTube or iTunes to subscribe.

00:31:01.000 We had our latest Sunday special that came out yesterday.

00:31:03.000 That was Sam with Sam Harris, and that was really great.

00:31:05.000 This week, I believe that we are going to be doing our Sunday special with Dennis Prager, is my understanding.

00:31:10.000 So that should be a blast.

00:31:11.000 So you definitely want to go and subscribe over YouTube or iTunes to make sure it shows up in your inbox.

00:31:15.000 Go check it out.

00:31:16.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.

00:31:24.000 All righty.

00:31:24.000 So, meanwhile, it seems like virtually every member of the Trump administration is now being confronted in public.

00:31:31.000 Like, this sort of thing is happening all the time.

00:31:34.000 And it ranges from current members of the Trump administration to past members of the Trump administration.

00:31:38.000 So the latest such

00:31:41.000 Incident happened over the weekend, so apparently Stephen Miller, who's sort of the president's immigration guru, former Jeff Sessions acolyte, he apparently ordered 80 bucks of takeout sushi, this is according to the Washington Post, from a restaurant near his apartment.

00:31:53.000 A bartender followed him into the street and shouted, Stephen!

00:31:56.000 When Miller turned around, the bartender raised both middle fingers and cursed at him, according to an account Miller has shared with White House colleagues.

00:32:02.000 Outraged, Miller threw the sushi away, he later told colleagues.

00:32:05.000 I'm not sure why you would throw away the sushi.

00:32:07.000 The sushi's probably still pretty good.

00:32:08.000 It seems like a waste of perfectly good sushi.

00:32:10.000 Give it to a homeless person or something if you're not going to eat it.

00:32:11.000 But in any case, this just demonstrates the vile behavior that too many on the right are experiencing.

00:32:16.000 Mitch McConnell was confronted on the street over the weekend, and people were telling him that they knew where he lived, to which Cocaine Mitch responded,

00:32:24.000 I work hard for this.

00:32:26.000 And then he snorted a line and took out his machine gun.

00:32:29.000 So Cocaine Mitch is not going to be having any of that.

00:32:31.000 He just unleashed Elaine Chao and Elaine Chao came out just like claws, claws unleashed like Wolverine. 0.91

00:32:38.000 So you want to go to the McConnell house?

00:32:40.000 Get ready, gang.

00:32:41.000 Get ready, gang.

00:32:42.000 I mean, that that dude has been.

00:32:43.000 Have you ever seen Narcos?

00:32:45.000 OK, this is why you don't go up to a cocaine dealer and say you know where he lives.

00:32:48.000 So here is what it looked like over the weekend when someone went up to to Cocaine Mitch.

00:32:54.000 We know where you live.

00:32:55.000 Yeah, we know where you live.

00:33:11.000 Okay, so screaming at people that you know where they live is always a really delightful mode of political expression.

00:33:17.000 As someone who's received a number of death threats and who has a shotgun for precisely this purpose, I promise you that Mitch McConnell is not all that worried about people knowing where he lives.

00:33:24.000 Again, but the extremism of folks on the left who feel the need to do this is pretty astonishing.

00:33:29.000 The same thing happened to Steve Bannon now.

00:33:30.000 As you know, Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist, Sloppy Steve, as the president so memorably named him, I am not a fan of Sloppy Steve.

00:33:37.000 I've been a not-fan of Sloppy Steve for many years.

00:33:39.000 In fact, I was one of the first not-fans of Sloppy Steve.

00:33:43.000 In the pages of the Washington Post, I talked about the shortcomings of Sloppy Steve as a human being.

00:33:47.000 When I quit Breitbart News, I talked about how Sloppy Steve was not a great person, to say the least.

00:33:52.000 But Sloppy Steve still has a right to go to a bookstore.

00:33:55.000 Steve Bannon still has a right to go to a bookstore.

00:33:56.000 Dude's an inveterate reader, and he likes going to bookstores.

00:33:59.000 So he went to a bookstore, apparently,

00:34:01.000 We're good to go. 1.00

00:34:08.000 Idiot person. 1.00

00:34:10.000 This woman came up to him in the aisles and started yelling at him in the bookstore, which is just a delightful thing to do, right? 1.00

00:34:15.000 Listen, again, I dislike Steve Bannon, which is why I avoid him.

00:34:18.000 I have a lot more cause to dislike Steve Bannon than some random woman at a bookstore. 1.00

00:34:22.000 She starts yelling at Steve Bannon in the bookstore because she's a jerk. 0.98

00:34:25.000 And the owner of the bookstore, whose name is Nick Cook, he promptly asked her to leave. 1.00

00:34:30.000 And she said no.

00:34:31.000 And he said, well, if you don't leave, I'm going to call the cops on you.

00:34:33.000 At which point she left.

00:34:35.000 He said this was the end of the story.

00:34:37.000 However, it was not the end of the story because it turns out the left is awful.

00:34:39.000 So a bunch of folks on the left, including a former Hillary staffer, decided it was time to dox the bookstore owner.

00:34:46.000 It was time to go after the bookstore owner for having the temerity to say, customers in my store ought not be abused on my premises.

00:34:53.000 Like, forget whether or not you like Steve Bannon.

00:34:56.000 Forget whether or not Steve Bannon is in there buying books you don't like.

00:34:59.000 None of that matters.

00:35:00.000 If you are a store owner, if I own a restaurant and randos keep invading my restaurant and yelling at the customers, I'm going to call the cops because I run a restaurant.

00:35:08.000 But this, according to the left, is not acceptable in any way.

00:35:11.000 So you have this guy, Raphael Shimonov, who is a techie political artist who apparently started going through the history of the bookstore owner and goes after the guy's wife because his wife was, I guess, a national Episcopal treasurer.

00:35:25.000 And then there's a correspondent for Raw Story who said that Nick Cook won't tolerate anyone calling out white supremacy even after the fatal alt-right march in Charlottesville.

00:35:33.000 He wants everyone to know his store is a safe place for fascism.

00:35:37.000 Or maybe his store is just a safe place for his customers.

00:35:40.000 And then there's a TV writer

00:35:42.000 He suggested that this bookstore thinks Steve Bannon should be allowed to shop peacefully.

00:35:46.000 Well, it's going to be pretty peaceful there when everyone stops shopping at this bookstore.

00:35:48.000 So now, unless you allow people to harass people on your premises, we are going to destroy your business.

00:35:53.000 Just delightful. 0.99

00:35:54.000 The best was Philip Raines, who's just a garbage human being. 0.95

00:35:57.000 So Philip Raines is a former Hillary Clinton advisor and staffer, very longtime staffer, was with her at the State Department, and goes back with her probably 20 years. 0.94

00:36:05.000 Well, he tweeted out the store's address, phone number, and email address, and then he told The Daily Caller, you have some very fine people on both sides.

00:36:11.000 Which is, of course, a reference to Charlottesville.

00:36:13.000 So clever.

00:36:39.000 This sort of delightful behavior is certainly likely to drive more people into Donald Trump's camp.

00:36:44.000 There is just no question.

00:36:45.000 There's no question.

00:36:46.000 And it should drive people into Donald Trump's camp, because the extremism of the left is making it unpalatable for people in the center to vote for them.

00:36:53.000 And it's not just these fringe political actors who are now being egged on by the likes of Maxine Waters.

00:36:58.000 They're mainstream political Democrats who are saying things that are fully insane.

00:37:01.000 So Dick Durbin, who is a senator from Illinois, he just said that detained children in the United States, these detained migrant kids who are coming across the border with their illegal immigrant parents and now are being detained because we can't just release them into the public.

00:37:15.000 Right.

00:37:15.000 We have to either separate them from their parents and give them to a relative or they have to stay with their parents.

00:37:19.000 Those are the only two choices.

00:37:20.000 Well, now Dick Durbin is comparing those kids who by law have to be separated from their parents or could be kept with their parents in detention because their parents are illegal immigrants.

00:37:29.000 Now, Dick Durbin is comparing those kids to these Thai kids who are stuck in a cave.

00:37:34.000 Literally.

00:37:35.000 You know who's been following this story?

00:37:36.000 They're all these Thai kids from a soccer team, I guess, who are stuck in a cave in Thailand.

00:37:42.000 They've had to be brought out one by one because the cave flooded.

00:37:44.000 So he's now comparing detained immigrants, detained illegal immigrant children, to Thai kids who may drown.

00:37:50.000 Yeah, it's exactly the same. 1.00

00:37:51.000 By the way, Dick Durbin's the same idiot who compared American troops to Pol Pot and Stalin. 0.99

00:37:55.000 So not a great shot for the senator from Illinois who has nary two neural connections to rub together. 1.00

00:38:03.000 So here he is.

00:38:04.000 Hearts and prayers are with those boys in Thailand trapped in that cave.

00:38:09.000 I hope our hearts and prayers are also with thousands of children, toddlers and infants removed from their parents by the Trump administration under zero tolerance.

00:38:17.000 They're trapped in a bureaucratic cave too.

00:38:20.000 Yeah, it's just the same.

00:38:20.000 And they're trapped in a bureaucratic cave.

00:38:23.000 You know, like with the judiciary.

00:38:24.000 And with actual due process of law.

00:38:26.000 It's exactly like almost being drowned in a cave.

00:38:28.000 Exactly the same thing.

00:38:30.000 Yeah, I can't imagine why folks are looking at Dick Durbin and saying, yeah, this is all a little bit nutty to me.

00:38:34.000 This is all a little bit too much to me.

00:38:35.000 Now, in a second, I want to discuss all the scandal that's now broken out around Jim Jordan.

00:38:40.000 So Jim Jordan is a guy who wants to run for Speaker of the House.

00:38:43.000 Full disclosure, I'm friendly with Representative Jordan.

00:38:46.000 I've met him a couple of times.

00:38:47.000 He asked me to speak on a panel in Washington, D.C.

00:38:50.000 We've talked on the phone a couple of times.

00:38:51.000 That's pretty much the extent of it.

00:38:52.000 But Representative Jordan is now being accused of covering up the team doctor at Ohio State University

00:38:59.000 who was apparently, basically, fondling, examining the men.

00:39:04.000 So it was a team doctor who was sexually harassing the men on the wrestling team.

00:39:08.000 And Jim Jordan was then a 21-year-old coach.

00:39:11.000 He was like first year out of college, and he was, I guess, training for the Olympic wrestling team.

00:39:15.000 And the accusation is that he knew that this team doctor was basically harassing the men, and he did nothing about it, and that he is therefore a sort of Penn State type.

00:39:24.000 So here is Jim Jordan's response to exactly those reports.

00:39:27.000 I mean, I never saw, never heard of, never was told about any type of abuse.

00:39:32.000 If I had been, I would have dealt with it.

00:39:34.000 Our coaching staff, we would have dealt with.

00:39:36.000 These were our student athletes.

00:39:38.000 If there were people who were abused, they deserve justice.

00:39:42.000 But what has been said about me is completely false.

00:39:46.000 So what's happened with a lot of these former, they're a bunch of former students, and they say that he had to have known, right?

00:39:53.000 It's not that they know that he knew, it's that he had to have known.

00:39:55.000 So there's a guy named David Range who wrestled at OSU in the 1980s.

00:39:59.000 He spoke to the Washington Post.

00:40:00.000 Here's what he said.

00:40:06.000 He said he never discussed the issue directly with Jordan one-on-one and did not know whether anyone made a formal report, but he said Jordan was present during group conversations in the locker room about Strauss' behavior.

00:40:14.000 We talked about it all the time in the locker room while Jordan was there.

00:40:16.000 He said everybody joked about it and talked about it all the time.

00:40:20.000 And Jordan said, well, conversations in a locker room are a lot different than people coming up and talking about abuse.

00:40:24.000 And people are getting on his case for all of this now.

00:40:27.000 I've talked with somebody who was at OSU while this was happening, who was actually a member of the wrestling team during this period.

00:40:33.000 And what he told me is that everybody who was on the OSU wrestling team knew that the doctor was weird, but they also figured that the doctor was the doctor, that the university had put him in place because they wanted him there to preside over thousands, presumably, of young people to do checks.

00:40:47.000 He said that this doctor was apparently the sort of person who you'd come in with a cough and they'd immediately want to check you for a hernia.

00:40:53.000 You know, right?

00:40:54.000 This is a doctor who was very

00:40:57.000 Not not covert about the sort of pursuit of young men particularly.

00:41:02.000 But what he also said is that everybody sort of joked about it. 0.83

00:41:05.000 This guy was a weirdo.

00:41:06.000 And remember, these are adults, right? 0.95

00:41:08.000 These are young male adults.

00:41:09.000 And I don't want to pretend that males and females are exactly the same, okay?

00:41:12.000 Because I don't think they're exactly the same when it comes to matters like this.

00:41:14.000 The chances that a male who is severely sexually abused at age 19 by a coach, by a team doctor, wouldn't go to one of the coaches and say something or punch the doctor when this happened.

00:41:25.000 These are guys on the wrestling team.

00:41:26.000 It's about as macho as it gets.

00:41:28.000 You know, the fact that they're joking around in the locker room, and Jordan was there while they're joking around in the locker room, I don't think is exactly the same thing as somebody filing a formal report.

00:41:34.000 So at Penn State, there were actual formal reports filed, and the accusation was that members of the Penn State administration basically ignored these formal reports, knowing what was going on.

00:41:44.000 Also, the accusation is that this was happening to 7-year-old kids, not to 20-year-old men.

00:41:48.000 But if this was just a bunch of guys in the locker room joking around about a doctor so-and-so, what a weirdo he is.

00:41:52.000 You remember that doctor?

00:41:53.000 That guy was Richard Strauss.

00:41:55.000 You remember that guy? 0.93

00:41:56.000 That guy's a weirdo.

00:41:57.000 He just called me in there and just started feeling me up.

00:41:59.000 That was weird and everybody's laughing about it.

00:42:00.000 Not exactly the same thing as Jim Jordan was told that this doctor was abusing people and then he failed to report it up the chain.

00:42:07.000 It's weird that Jordan is being targeted considering there are literally hundreds of members of the OSU athletic staff, right?

00:42:13.000 Jordan's the only name you're hearing here.

00:42:17.000 Who are the other members of the OSU staff who are being accused of covering this up if there was an active cover-up?

00:42:24.000 There's a lawsuit ongoing.

00:42:25.000 Presumably we'll get all the information, but people who are suggesting that locker room joking is exactly the same thing as filing a formal report has never met either a teenage guy or is being disingenuous, I think.

00:42:37.000 And even the reports from the Washington Post, there's people saying, well, Jordan had to have known this was happening.

00:42:41.000 First of all, had to have known is vague.

00:42:44.000 What this is is vague, right?

00:42:45.000 Because I assume that Jordan wasn't an expert in medical procedure, so maybe he just figured, okay, the doctor's a little weird, but he's doing his job.

00:42:53.000 Like, again, if you're in a position of responsibility and someone went and reported to him that he'd been sexually abused by the team doctor and he did nothing, that is a real problem. 0.54

00:43:00.000 If it was a bunch of guys sitting around the locker room going, God, that Richard Strauss guy, what a weirdo he is.

00:43:04.000 That guy, he's always finding some excuse to touch me.

00:43:06.000 Isn't that weird?

00:43:07.000 And everybody around the locker room, yeah, me too, man.

00:43:08.000 That was pretty weird.

00:43:10.000 And Jordan going, yeah, me too, because he was presumably examined by the same team doctor.

00:43:14.000 I'm having a hard time getting to, he was covering for abuse.

00:43:17.000 That he wanted Richard Strauss to get away with the abuse.

00:43:19.000 He's a defender of the administration.

00:43:21.000 That seems like a little bit too much of a stretch for me to go there.

00:43:24.000 Now, maybe new evidence arises, but from what I'm hearing, I can't go all the way to, this is

00:43:29.000 Penn State and the upper-level administration of Penn State.

00:43:32.000 I just don't see the evidence for that yet.

00:43:33.000 Again, maybe that'll change.

00:43:34.000 Okay.

00:43:35.000 Time for some stuff I like and then some stuff that I hate and we'll do a Federalist paper.

00:43:38.000 So, stuff that I like today.

00:43:39.000 So, over the weekend I read an excellent sci-fi book.

00:43:42.000 It's called Summerland by—I'm going to get the pronunciation wrong here—it's Hanu Rajaniemi.

00:43:48.000 And the book is really interesting and really creative.

00:43:51.000 So basically,

00:43:53.000 The premise of the book is it takes place in 1938 and it's an alternate history in which basically mysticism is real, that psychics are real, mediums are real, there is in fact a spirit world and somehow people on earth have found a way to get in touch with the spirit world.

00:44:08.000 So when people die you can just talk to them on the other side and the people on the other side live in a place called Summerland, hence the title of the book, and Summerland is basically

00:44:15.000 I don't know.

00:44:30.000 If you die in one place doesn't mean you die in the other.

00:44:32.000 So it's really interesting and well done.

00:44:35.000 Really clever and a cool concept.

00:44:37.000 Check it out.

00:44:38.000 Summerland by Hanu Rajaniemi.

00:44:39.000 I'm a big fan of good sci-fi and this is one of the better sci-fi books that I've read in a long time actually.

00:44:43.000 I think it's really, really good.

00:44:45.000 So go check that out.

00:44:46.000 Okay, other things that I like.

00:44:47.000 So Chris Broussard.

00:44:49.000 The Sports Commentator is now at Fox Sports 1, and he was basically thrown off of ESPN, as I recall, because he made the comment that religious people might not be in favor of same-sex marriage, and this is not allowed at ESPN.

00:45:01.000 You're not allowed to say this at ESPN.

00:45:02.000 You have to be like Jimmy Carter and say, Jesus was totally into same-sex marriage.

00:45:06.000 If you say that the Old and New Testaments are not particularly pro-homosexual activity, then you get thrown off of ESPN.

00:45:11.000 Well, now Chris Broussard is over at Fox Sports 1, and he was asked about being woke, and he made this comment, which is just spectacular.

00:45:19.000 You want to be a revolutionary?

00:45:21.000 You want to be woke?

00:45:22.000 The most revolutionary thing a black man can do in 2018 in America is partner with a wife and raise strong, intelligent black kids that are committed to the upliftment of black people and have an appreciation for their race.

00:45:36.000 This is exactly right.

00:45:38.000 Okay, what he said right there is exactly right.

00:45:40.000 Being woke is not tied to how much you hate the system.

00:45:43.000 Being woke is make all the right decisions in your life, raise your kids right so that they live better lives than you do, and also fight the elements of the system that you think are wrong.

00:45:51.000 Now, the fact this is even mildly controversial is astonishing, but Broussard is exactly right.

00:45:56.000 There's nothing you can do that is better for the world than raising your children correctly.

00:45:59.000 That is the best thing you can do for the world.

00:46:00.000 Put everything else aside.

00:46:01.000 Raise your kids right, you're making the world a better place.

00:46:03.000 Raise them wrong, you're making the world a worse place.

00:46:05.000 It is the number one contribution anyone on this planet makes, what you do with your kids.

00:46:09.000 Okay, time for another.

00:46:10.000 So the other thing that I like...

00:46:12.000 And this is pretty spectacular.

00:46:13.000 So, socialist Bill de Blasio spent the weekend at socialist Bernie Sanders' very socialist summer home.

00:46:19.000 That's really great.

00:46:20.000 I love how socialism is now this.

00:46:22.000 So, Mayor Bill de Blasio, according to the New York Post, his wife, Shalane McRae, and their two kids spent a couple of days at Bernie Sanders' summer home on Lake Champlain in Vermont.

00:46:30.000 That would be his third home.

00:46:31.000 Photos show the progressive politicians and their families at Sanders' four-bedroom retreat in North Hero.

00:46:36.000 Sanders, his unruly crop of gray hair covered by a white cap, is sitting shirtless in a lawn next to his wife, Jane.

00:46:42.000 Well, McCrae relaxes, just steps away to their right.

00:46:45.000 So this is all, you know, it's all fabulous.

00:46:48.000 This is the beauty of socialism here in the United States.

00:46:50.000 Socialism means that you get to sit on the banks of the River Champlain shirtless, wearing a white cap, looking like a refugee from Weekend at Bernie's, but actually at a Weekend at Bernie's. 0.73

00:46:59.000 And you have your own lake house.

00:47:02.000 So socialism is pretty awesome when you never actually have to experience it.

00:47:05.000 So that's pretty exciting stuff there from the socialists among us.

00:47:08.000 Final thing that I like, so this is

00:47:11.000 Also pretty spectacular.

00:47:12.000 Apparently, there's a group of lesbians who decided that they were going to lie down and stall a transgender parade, the London Pride Parade on Saturday.

00:47:21.000 So a group of eight women stormed the parade route, according to the Gay Star News, and unfurled banners reading, Transactivism erases lesbians and lesbian equals female homosexual. 0.98

00:47:30.000 And apparently the protesters stalled the parade for around 10 minutes, and as they were carted off, one could be heard screaming, a man who says he's a lesbian is a rapist. 0.90

00:47:37.000 Saying that if a man says that he is a woman, that is not true. 0.99

00:47:40.000 And a woman having sex with a man, even if he says he is a woman, is still having heterosexual sex with a man. 0.94

00:47:45.000 Which is biologically true. 0.55

00:47:46.000 One of the great ironic elements of the LGBT movement is that the T totally overrides the L and the G. 1.00

00:47:52.000 That if you are, that transgenderism makes the argument that gender is entirely a social construct.

00:47:56.000 Lesbianism and homosexuality, male homosexuality, make the argument that not only is gender not a social construct, a preference for one gender above the other is in fact biologically ingrained. 0.76

00:48:07.000 So if you prefer a male,

00:48:09.000 Right?

00:48:09.000 Then that is because it is biologically ingrained in you.

00:48:11.000 But, transgenderism argues that you can't biologically prefer a male because male- male-dom itself is a biological and sociological construct.

00:48:19.000 So it doesn't really exist. 0.67

00:48:20.000 Transgenderism destroys the lesbian and gay movement. 1.00

00:48:23.000 These lesbian activists are right. 1.00

00:48:24.000 Then they went ahead and apologized for all of this, right?

00:48:27.000 They said that this is- this is something that we- we're not, you know, we're sorry this happened. 0.98

00:48:31.000 But one of these activists told the media, we don't want any kind of penis in our bedroom. 0.96

00:48:34.000 I'm really sad I have to reassert this again. 0.93

00:48:36.000 This seems relatively self-evident if you're a lesbian that this is something that you don't want in your bedroom, but it is hilarious to watch as the left twists itself in knots to avoid the obvious implications of the movements that it supports and are in conflict with one another.

00:48:48.000 Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.

00:48:54.000 Okay, thing that I hate number one.

00:48:55.000 So the president of the United States is now tweeting out about his relationship with Kim Jong-un.

00:49:01.000 It turns out

00:49:03.000 No, no, you say.

00:49:05.000 Kim Jong-un would never lie.

00:49:06.000 Kim Jong-un was negotiated with by the President of the United States.

00:49:10.000 He's an honorable man. 0.99

00:49:12.000 Kim Jong-un is a mass murderer who shoots people with anti-aircraft guns and poisons them with weapons of mass destruction in public places. 1.00

00:49:18.000 Kim Jong-un is one of the worst people on planet Earth. 0.99

00:49:20.000 Okay, here is what Bloomberg reports. 0.81

00:49:40.000 A handshake with Kim Jong-un at least seemed certain.

00:49:42.000 In the end, Pompeo stayed in neither of the hotels where he thought he'd be.

00:49:45.000 The North Koreans took him, his staff, and the six journalists traveling with the delegation to a gated guesthouse on the outskirts of the capital, just behind the mausoleum where the bodies of regime founder Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il lie embalmed and on occasion display.

00:49:58.000 Also, it turns out that they're saying now that the United States lied about the denuclearization

00:50:18.000 Argument that they were not actually going to denuclearize in the first place and that Trump lied about it And this has led President Trump to tweet out and I am not kidding This is a thing that the president of the United States tweeted out quote I have confidence that Kim Jong-un will honor the contract we signed and even more importantly our handshake 0.95

00:50:37.000 He's an evil dictator.

00:50:38.000 Handshake deals with evil dictators are literally a plot point in an Austin Powers movie. 0.93

00:50:42.000 You don't make handshake deals with evil dictators.

00:50:45.000 Trust but verify requires actual verification, not, we made a handshake and now we're besties.

00:50:50.000 That's not how this works.

00:50:50.000 This is why I was very critical of the president meeting with Kim Jong-un.

00:50:53.000 This is why I thought that it was a mistake.

00:50:55.000 This is why I thought that he was being played.

00:50:56.000 That's why I thought that all of the premature celebration was premature celebration.

00:51:00.000 I see China's hands all over this. 0.99

00:51:01.000 We're in a fight with China. 0.98

00:51:02.000 We buy $500 billion worth of goods for the

00:51:19.000 The Chinese, they buy 100 billion from us. 1.00

00:51:22.000 They cheat and President Trump wants to change the economic relationship with China.

00:51:27.000 So if I were President Trump, I would not let China use North Korea to back me off on the trade dispute.

00:51:33.000 There's no doubt in my mind that it's the Chinese pulling the North Koreans back. 1.00

00:51:38.000 Okay, well, I think that's probably untrue.

00:51:40.000 I think that there are two things. 0.97

00:51:41.000 One, the Chinese could be pulling the North Koreans back because they're angry at the United States for its tariffs, which is, you know, again, not a reason to pull back from the tariffs if they're for actual national security purposes and not just because Trump wants a trade war and thinks about trade deficits too much because trade deficits are stupid.

00:51:55.000 But it could also be that the North Koreans never intended on fulfilling any of these promises, which is why none of them were on the paper.

00:52:00.000 We read the entire agreement word for word when it came out.

00:52:03.000 There was nothing of substance in it.

00:52:04.000 Nothing. 0.93

00:52:06.000 All of this was, it seems to me, a foolish enterprise if the president actually believed he was going to make a handshake deal with one of the worst dictators on planet Earth.

00:52:13.000 Okay, time for a Federalist paper.

00:52:15.000 So we are all the way up to Federalist number 36.

00:52:17.000 We are making steady progress through the Federalist papers.

00:52:19.000 Alexander Hamilton writes this one too.

00:52:20.000 This is in a series of six or seven papers in which Alexander Hamilton makes the case for why federal taxation power should be less limited than a lot of people were arguing.

00:52:30.000 He argues that the states shouldn't worry that the federal government is going to basically take all the tax revenue.

00:52:34.000 He says there won't be double taxation.

00:52:36.000 I think this is the weakest part of the Federalist Papers.

00:52:37.000 I think that Alexander Hamilton radically underestimated the desire of the federal government to tax.

00:52:42.000 So he says, many specters have been raised out of this power of internal taxation to excite the apprehensions of the people.

00:52:47.000 Double sets of revenue officers, the duplication of their burdens by double taxations, and the frightful forms of odious and oppressive poll taxes have been played off with all the ingenuous dexterity of political leisure domain.

00:52:57.000 He says everybody's lying when they worry about double taxation.

00:53:00.000 I can guarantee you that Alexander Hamilton was wrong about this.

00:53:02.000 We get double taxed in California like nobody's business.

00:53:04.000 And we have two separate sets of people who are actually enforcing the taxes in the United States.

00:53:09.000 We have state tax officers and we have federal tax officers.

00:53:12.000 None of it is good.

00:53:13.000 So I am with the anti-federalists on this one.

00:53:16.000 Alexander Hamilton's argument in favor of broad-based taxing power for the federal government was, I think, was short-sighted.

00:53:23.000 I understand he was attempting to set the United States on firmer fiscal footing at the time.

00:53:26.000 He never could have imagined the income tax, for example.

00:53:29.000 No one could have, considering that that was only legalized in 1916, I believe, with the 16th Amendment.

00:53:35.000 But in any case...

00:53:37.000 The arguments that Hamilton was making with regard to the taxing power seems a little bit short-sighted.

00:53:44.000 It seemed like he was trying to get something through.

00:53:47.000 It was 1913, rather, the 16th Amendment.

00:53:50.000 But his argument in Federalist 36 is not his strongest argument.

00:53:53.000 He says that state tax officers will end up collecting additional taxes for the federal government and that the states won't be adversarial to the feds because the feds are picking up their debts.

00:54:00.000 That was the one area where he was right.

00:54:01.000 The states, it turns out, don't care that much all about the federal tax burden.

00:54:05.000 Because they'll just raise taxes willy-nilly anyway, as we have learned in California.

00:54:09.000 Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow.

00:54:10.000 At this time tomorrow, we will know the Supreme Court pick by the President of the United States, and we will have all the information on it then.

00:54:16.000 And I'm sure the firefight will begin, so be there or be square.

00:54:19.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:54:19.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:54:24.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.

00:54:30.000 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.

00:54:34.000 Edited by Alex Zingaro.

00:54:36.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.

00:54:38.000 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.

00:54:39.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.

00:54:42.000 Copyright Ford Publishing 2018.

The Ben Shapiro Show - July 09, 2018

It’s The Supreme Day | Ep. 576

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript