The Charlie Kirk Show - ACB Confirmation and the Democrats’ Court Packing Scheme

00:00:00.000 Thank you for listening to this Podcast 1 production.

00:00:02.000 Now available on Apple Podcasts, Podcast 1, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcast.

00:00:08.000 Hey, everybody.

00:00:09.000 Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, we unpack the Democrats' court packing scheme as well as Amy Coney Barrett's beginning confirmation fight on Capitol Hill.

00:00:18.000 We go through insight that no one else has and also into the deep history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:00:23.000 If this podcast has impacted you in any way whatsoever, please consider supporting us at charliekirk.com/slash support.

00:00:31.000 At charliekirk.com/slash support.

00:00:32.000 It gives you an opportunity to support our program and the work that we are doing to reach young people with truth and American values at charliekirk.com slash support.

00:00:42.000 Email us your questions at freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:00:45.000 If you want to win a signed copy of the MAGA Doctrine, type in Charlie Kirk Show to your podcast provider, hit subscribe and give us a five-star review.

00:00:51.000 Screenshot it and email it to us at freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:00:56.000 Important episode in store.

00:00:58.000 We unpack the court packing tactics of the left and explain Amy Coney Barrett's beginning remarks and her confirmation fight.

00:01:05.000 Buckle up, everybody.

00:01:06.000 Here we go.

00:01:07.000 Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

00:01:09.000 Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.

00:01:11.000 I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

00:01:14.000 Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

00:01:18.000 I want to thank Charlie.

00:01:19.000 He's an incredible guy.

00:01:20.000 His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.

00:01:27.000 Turning point USA.

00:01:28.000 We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

00:01:37.000 That's why we are here.

00:01:40.000 Welcome back.

00:01:40.000 It is a big week for the Republic and a big week for those of us that love liberty and the Constitution.

00:01:47.000 Right now, as we are doing this show, Amy Coney Barrett is in front of the United States Senate for a confirmation hearing and a confirmation battle.

00:01:58.000 And already, as predicted, the Democrats have gone out of their way to not yet attack her.

00:02:03.000 They already did that in her prior hearing to become a federal judge, but to attack the entire process, the idea of filling the seats.

00:02:11.000 Senator Lindsey Graham did a very good job of preempting this attack and rebutting it.

00:02:19.000 However, before we get into the back and forth of the different senators, which is very important, let's talk about Antonin Scalia.

00:02:25.000 Antonin Scalia really was one of the most impactful judges in U.S. history, one of the least appreciated.

00:02:33.000 He was a textualist.

00:02:35.000 He was an originalist.

00:02:36.000 He believed that the words that were written in the United States Constitution matter.

00:02:42.000 Now, Antonin Scalia was confirmed to the United States Supreme Court through the U.S. Senate of a vote of 98 to nothing.

00:02:50.000 Now, mind you, those were different times.

00:02:52.000 He was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and swiftly put to the U.S. Senate after a vacancy was opened.

00:03:01.000 Scalia was kind of a newfound type of Supreme Court justice.

00:03:08.000 He was not an activist and he was not a constructionist.

00:03:11.000 And so this is a very important distinction.

00:03:13.000 A constructionist, a strict constructionist, would believe that you only look at the words of the U.S. Constitution with no reason, no fair reading, and that's a term that Scalia would use.

00:03:28.000 And it's the words as they say they are. 0.93

00:03:29.000 So Scalia thought this was rubbish and nonsense.

00:03:32.000 Being a textualist, he argued, would be saying that the First Amendment, of course, applied to speech outside of a government building. 0.89

00:03:42.000 It also applied to the internet.

00:03:43.000 It applied to mailing a letter.

00:03:45.000 So, Scalia thought that you must apply the philosophical roots and foundations behind the Bill of Rights and the amendments of the Constitution, not put some sort of reading into it that you want to have some sort of desired policy objective.

00:04:00.000 But an originalist or a textualist gives a fair reading and a reasonable approach to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

00:04:10.000 Now, constructionists almost went away completely after Scalia.

00:04:14.000 And Scalia waged a philosophical counterattack against the dominant judicial opinions of the 60s and 70s and early 80s, which were the Warren Court and the Burger Court.

00:04:27.000 Through those courts, we got Roe versus Wade.

00:04:29.000 We got a sequence of very, very bad, highly politicized, left-wing, anti-constitutional decisions.

00:04:36.000 Anthony Scalia was in the vast minority throughout almost all of his career up until his sudden death in, I think, January, February of 2016, right before the presidential election.

00:04:50.000 Anthony and Scalia argued that the U.S. Constitution was not just the greatest document ever written in the history of the world, but it provided a framework for the decentralization of power.

00:05:02.000 A question that you should ask a young person in your life is: why are we so free?

00:05:08.000 Are we free because of a Bill of Rights?

00:05:12.000 No.

00:05:12.000 You can go to any banana republic and find a Bill of Rights.

00:05:16.000 We're free because of the decentralization of power.

00:05:20.000 The decentralization of power, and Montesquieu talked about this in the formation of the U.S. government, the U.S. Constitution.

00:05:26.000 He was a French judge, actually.

00:05:27.000 He talked about checks and balances and the need to be able to have one party being able to hold another party accountable.

00:05:37.000 The idea of dominating the U.S. government is really hard.

00:05:41.000 In fact, Scalia argued that we must actually admire the gridlock, that the difficulty of passing legislation is part of the beauty of the United States system.

00:05:54.000 that it's hard to be able to pass wide-sweeping reforms as you want.

00:06:02.000 Antonin Scalia was interviewed by Peter Robinson and Uncommon Knowledge from the Hoover Institution.

00:06:09.000 Listen carefully.

00:06:11.000 This was back in 2011 or 2012, and he was asked when he came out with his book: Are you optimistic?

00:06:19.000 Now, mind you, Anthony Scalia had dissented at the time on six major Supreme Court decisions.

00:06:26.000 Six, things did not look good for the Constitution back in 2011.

00:06:32.000 Listen to Antonin Scalia's answer.

00:06:34.000 Listen carefully to his view of the court.

00:06:38.000 Play tape, play cut 11.

00:06:40.000 Reading law, quote: Originalism does not always provide an easy answer or even a clear one.

00:06:46.000 Originalism is not perfect, but it is more certain than any other criterion.

00:06:53.000 And it is not too late to restore a strong sense of judicial fidelity to text, close quote.

00:07:01.000 So here's the question: This book, for that matter, your entire career represents a sustained, determined effort at restoration.

00:07:13.000 Are you optimistic?

00:07:15.000 How's the process coming?

00:07:16.000 That's an unfair question.

00:07:19.000 Especially after last term.

00:07:25.000 I dissented in the last six cases announced last term.

00:07:33.000 I don't know.

00:07:36.000 I don't know that I'm optimistic.

00:07:39.000 The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

00:07:44.000 The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

00:07:47.000 Antonin Scalia, you could tell by how he answered, he was being careful.

00:07:50.000 He didn't want to give a sound bite headline to the activist press back when he was asked that question.

00:07:55.000 He was not optimistic.

00:07:57.000 If he would have been optimistic, he would have said it.

00:07:58.000 Anyone who's optimistic when they're asked that question, they're quick to say, of course, they're optimistic.

00:08:02.000 Anything but saying you're optimistic means you're something other than that.

00:08:06.000 And the courts didn't look good under Barack Obama.

00:08:08.000 Kagan, Sodomayor, were recently confirmed.

00:08:11.000 Ginsburg had the majority opinion shaping.

00:08:15.000 Kennedy was still on the court.

00:08:16.000 Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were not on the court.

00:08:20.000 Nine years later, here we are today, where a lawkirk for Scalia is now sitting in front of the United States Senate to give a permanent 5-3 solid constitutional majority for those of us that love the Constitution and appreciate originalism.

00:08:39.000 Now, mind you, Amy Coney Barrett considers herself to be a student and a follower in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia.

00:08:49.000 What changed over nine years?

00:08:51.000 How did we go from Antonin Scalia's pessimism, being the great dissenter?

00:08:55.000 He was the true dissenter.

00:08:55.000 Ruth Bader Ginsburg was it.

00:08:57.000 They try to give her that label.

00:08:58.000 The great dissent always came from Antonin Scalia.

00:09:01.000 Because Anthony and Scalia believe firmly that you should not use the courts to make America in your image.

00:09:09.000 That you should not use the courts as some sort of playbox or just some sort of creative paradigm to put forward America how you want it to be done.

00:09:26.000 It's not what they thought, it's not what he thought the judges should be.

00:09:29.000 Instead, he said, if you want a certain law to be passed, and that's what Congress is for, what is a judge?

00:09:37.000 A judge is there to interpret the laws, to analyze whether or not the laws are constitutional, whether or not you have gone outside of the parameters set forth in the framework of the U.S. Constitution.

00:09:49.000 And now today, for the first time in my lifetime, in the lifetime of anybody listening, you have a chance to swing the courts back to a constitutional majority.

00:09:59.000 An opportunity that is only afforded to us thanks to President Donald Trump, President Donald Trump, who has made good on his promise to nominate Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Amy Coney Barrett.

00:10:13.000 Anthony Scalia was not optimistic nine years ago, but he's smiling down from heaven today, where now he is seeing an opportunity for the courts to go in a direction that will protect individual liberty, that will restrict out-of-control government, freedom of expression, religious liberty.

00:10:32.000 It happened because conservatives got serious about the courts in 2013 and 2014.

00:10:38.000 As Mitch McConnell took back the U.S. Senate in 2014, President Donald Trump won in 2016.

00:10:46.000 Look, you guys have heard me talk about Good Ranchers before.

00:10:49.000 You guys looking for dinner tonight, dinner tomorrow?

00:10:51.000 Maybe you're driving from work and you're like, oh, I'm responsible for dinner tonight, or I don't know what I'm going to do.

00:10:56.000 But what if I told you that there's a website, in a couple clicks, you can get meat delivered straight to your door?

00:11:02.000 That sounds like nirvana.

00:11:05.000 It actually sounds like good ranchers.

00:11:07.000 At goodranchers.com, they love their country.

00:11:10.000 They think we're the greatest country ever to exist in the history of the world.

00:11:13.000 That's why we're partnering with them.

00:11:14.000 And also, the meat is good.

00:11:15.000 We got a box.

00:11:16.000 I'm telling you, a massive box delivered to our office.

00:11:20.000 And the people were excited.

00:11:21.000 I mean, people were cheering.

00:11:22.000 They were clapping because we knew meat was here.

00:11:25.000 And then I said, you take a filet and you take a chicken and you take a filet.

00:11:29.000 Come back and report to me.

00:11:30.000 And the Turning Point team and the Charlie Kirk team, they came back and they said, this is American meat the way it should be, delivered to your door, tasty, marbled beef.

00:11:41.000 In fact, they were doing Instagram stories with their beef.

00:11:44.000 It was really incredible.

00:11:45.000 I've never seen anything like it.

00:11:47.000 And I said, we have to order more.

00:11:48.000 And that's why we're partnering with goodranchers.com.

00:11:51.000 Goodranchers.com.

00:11:52.000 They deliver your favorite meats right to your door.

00:11:55.000 Perfect for grilling out or dinners at home.

00:11:57.000 Go to goodranchers.com to view all American beef and chicken packages.

00:12:00.000 Use the promo code Charlie to save $20 off your purchase.

00:12:03.000 That's goodranchers.com right now.

00:12:05.000 Use promo code Charlie, save $20 off for a limited time only.

00:12:08.000 Goodranchers.com, promo code Charlie.

00:12:12.000 We are on the road continually trying to get the president re-elected.

00:12:16.000 So we are bringing this Charlie Kirkshow broadcast to you mobile.

00:12:20.000 And so we are proud to do that.

00:12:22.000 And while Amy Coney Barrett continues her hearings, which it really hasn't been much of hearings, it's more been her hearing the complaints of Senate Democrats and the defenses of Senate Republicans.

00:12:32.000 Let's go to cut one. 0.99

00:12:33.000 Senator Lindsey Graham defends having hearings this close to a presidential election. 0.95

00:12:39.000 Play cut one.

00:12:40.000 Is that my Democratic colleagues will say this has never been done and they're right in this regard.

00:12:46.000 Nobody's, I think, has ever been confirmed in election year past July. 0.85

00:12:51.000 The bottom line is Justice Ginsburg, when asked about this several years ago, said that a president serves for four years, not three.

00:12:59.000 There's nothing unconstitutional about this process.

00:13:02.000 This is a vacancy that's occurred through a tragic loss of a great woman, and we're going to fill that vacancy with another great woman.

00:13:11.000 The bottom line here is that the Senate is doing its duty constitutionally.

00:13:19.000 The Senate is doing its duty constitutionally.

00:13:21.000 And Senator Lindsey Graham is making the argument that many decent Americans agree with: the U.S. Senate was given to Republicans in 2018, and they advanced their majority because of the courts.

00:13:35.000 It was the Kavanaugh issue that swung the Senate majority in Republicans' favor, where they were able to win decisive Senate victories in Missouri, in Indiana, in North Dakota, that delivered a victory for Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans to advance their majority to where it is today.

00:13:56.000 The question is: how far are Senate Democrats willing to go to attack Amy Coney Barrett?

00:14:03.000 What lengths are they willing to go to?

00:14:05.000 Well, their opening shot is all about health care, which is politically very smart.

00:14:09.000 The health care issue is one that Democrats are winning because I think Republicans a lot of times refuse to criticize the corporatist mindset in the medical field in our country, where a lot of hospitals are in very troublesome relationships with pharmaceutical companies and deliverers of medical care.

00:14:32.000 And patients sometimes end up on the wrong side of that.

00:14:35.000 Now, the Democrats' policy prescription of this is horrendous.

00:14:40.000 It's socialized medicine.

00:14:41.000 It is no price system.

00:14:44.000 It's one size fits all health care.

00:14:46.000 However, the Democrats, their opening shot was all about this.

00:14:51.000 So Amy Klobuchar went on about health care and about Donald Trump getting the Chinese coronavirus, none of which is, by the way, at all relevant whatsoever to the hearing.

00:15:01.000 And this hearing is supposed to be about Amy Coney Barrett, not about health care.

00:15:05.000 And they're connecting it through Obamacare, which is a complete and total disaster.

00:15:09.000 Raised premiums, medical excise tax, individual mandate, and they kind of tie this all together into all of a sudden they think Obamacare is super popular.

00:15:18.000 Now, mind you, do you notice that whenever Democrats talk about health care, they call it the Affordable Care Act.

00:15:23.000 They don't call it Obamacare.

00:15:25.000 Obama went out of his way to call it Obamacare.

00:15:27.000 He called it on his website in all of the deliberation hearings.

00:15:31.000 And now that the idea of Obamacare is unpopular, now they call it the Affordable Care Act.

00:15:40.000 See, we kind of have short memories at times in the conservative community.

00:15:43.000 We forget how disastrous Obamacare has been for mid-sized hospitals, for middle-class families, expanding the Medicaid roles, over 27 new taxes, raising premiums, making state budgets go bankrupt and broke.

00:16:00.000 Not to mention doing nothing to actually address the core problem of healthcare in our country.

00:16:06.000 So in the midst of a financial crisis, back in 2009, when millions of people were out of work, the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression, not because of all of Wall Street's behavior, but also because of bad behavior from Washington and from monetary policy, Barack Obama went out of his way to revolutionize and to bring us on the path to nationalize health care.

00:16:30.000 Why?

00:16:31.000 Well, because healthcare, if you are able to have the government take over health care, then you have basically nationalized the entire country.

00:16:38.000 It's one sixth of the American economy.

00:16:41.000 It is something that every human being has to deal with at some point.

00:16:44.000 It is where the most private, most personal decisions are made.

00:16:48.000 And if you are able to nationalize health care, then you are able to nationalize a country or socialize that country.

00:16:54.000 Obamacare was hotly debated.

00:16:56.000 And still to this day, when people know the facts about Obamacare, they believe firmly that it should be repealed in part, in full, with everything except maybe pre-existing conditions.

00:17:09.000 And the entire issue of pre-existing conditions is one that is completely misrepresented.

00:17:14.000 So Amy Kolbuchar goes on this long diatribe about Obamacare, about how wonderful it is, but never calls it Obamacare because she knows that term is unpopular in the eyes of the American people.

00:17:23.000 It has the Affordable Care Act.

00:17:27.000 You guys have all seen Social Dilemma, Netflix. 0.88

00:17:29.000 Well, maybe not Netflix because they're a pedophile network.

00:17:32.000 But if you've seen Social Dilemma, which, again, I'm not exactly sure how you square that, they talk about how tech insiders explain how social media is engineered to exploit users' data for profit.

00:17:43.000 They call it surveillance capitalism.

00:17:46.000 Look, I'm cool with normal capitalism where I'm willing to participate in the transaction, like every time I go to the store to buy food.

00:17:52.000 But when my data is being harvested so tech billionaires can get even richer, that's where I draw the line.

00:17:57.000 And that's why I put a layer of protection around my data with ExpressVPN.

00:18:01.000 Every time you use the internet, big tech companies and the surveillance capitalists and the oligarchs, they track your searches, messages, and video history.

00:18:09.000 But when you run through ExpressVPN, it hides your IP address, which websites can use to personally identify you.

00:18:14.000 That makes your activity more difficult to trace and sell to advertisers.

00:18:17.000 ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your internet data to keep you safe from hackers and from prying eyes.

00:18:23.000 Many VPNs slow down your internet, but not ExpressVPN.

00:18:27.000 It's incredibly fast and easy to use.

00:18:28.000 Just one tap of a button and you're protected.

00:18:31.000 Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.

00:18:33.000 That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S VPN.com slash Charlie.

00:18:36.000 ExpressVPN.com slash Charlie.

00:18:38.000 I have an ExpressVPN on right now.

00:18:40.000 Why don't you?

00:18:41.000 Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.

00:18:46.000 So Amy Coney Barrett is going through a confirmation fight right now, where mostly it's just senators bloviating about either healthcare, their political preferences, or Republicans defending them.

00:18:58.000 Senator Ted Cruz said, what speaks the loudest is the dog that doesn't bark.

00:19:03.000 Let's play cut seven.

00:19:05.000 Let me observe, as Sherlock Holmes famously observed, that what speaks the loudest is the dog that didn't bark.

00:19:17.000 Which is, to date, of every Democrat who's spoken, we've heard virtually not a single word about Judge Barrett.

00:19:25.000 And that's exactly right.

00:19:26.000 It's all about health care or about their own political preferences.

00:19:30.000 I think Senator Ben Sasse did a very good job of this on cut eight when he articulated that none of their attacks were about Barrett.

00:19:42.000 Instead, their opening statements were all about the Chinese coronavirus or about healthcare.

00:19:47.000 Let's play Cut Eight.

00:19:49.000 I just want to say, Senator Klobuchar said a number of things about COVID that I agree with.

00:19:55.000 She cited a bunch of really painful stories in Minnesota, and similar stories could be told from across the country.

00:20:02.000 I even agree with parts of her criticism of the mismanagement of COVID by Washington, D.C.

00:20:08.000 I don't know what any of that has to do with what we're here to do today.

00:20:13.000 And Senator Ted Cruz continued with his remarks after Senator Ben Sasse said this: Democrats' vision of the court is the most undemocratic things we've ever seen.

00:20:23.000 They want, quote, unelected philosopher kings in black robes with life tenure decreeing policy for 330 million Americans.

00:20:33.000 Now, a philosopher king is actually a phrase that was first coined by Plato in Plato's Republic, Plato, who was a student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle.

00:20:46.000 Plato believed firmly that a small, educated group of almost technocratic type individuals should make decisions for the rest of the country or the rest of the citizenry.

00:21:01.000 These are the Cass-Sunstein types.

00:21:03.000 These are the Ezekiel Emmanuels.

00:21:05.000 These are the central planners that think they know how to run your life better than you do.

00:21:11.000 What's very interesting, and I think Republicans have missed a massive opportunity, we have lived right now in the last seven months through the most awful, immoral, and intentional failure of central planning in the history of our country.

00:21:34.000 The philosopher kings that the Democrats want to give more power to couldn't even get the virus right.

00:21:41.000 How are they supposed to get health care right for 330 million people?

00:21:44.000 Understand, every single policy argument that the Democrats make essentially is based on giving power to an elite ruling class that believe they can make the decisions better than you can.

00:21:58.000 Healthcare, transportation, technology, firearms, communications, schooling.

00:22:03.000 They believe that the smaller the group of people with a higher education, the better your life will be, more egalitarian it will be.

00:22:12.000 We know this is nonsense.

00:22:14.000 Absolutely nothing the ruling class has said or the experts have said about the Chinese coronavirus has been proven correct.

00:22:21.000 Death rates, hospitalization rates, whether or not we should open schools, infectious rates.

00:22:27.000 You go down the gauntlet of issues that the experts have been talking about the last seven months.

00:22:33.000 They've been wrong about everything.

00:22:37.000 The one group of people that have been correct are the dissenters.

00:22:43.000 It's really interesting.

00:22:44.000 Science has always been about protecting the voice of the minority. 0.77

00:22:50.000 How would Galileo have been treated by these people?

00:22:54.000 Galileo famously theorized the heliocentric theory of the sun actually being the center of our galaxy, not the earth being the center of our galaxy.

00:23:07.000 Now, mind you, this was considered to be heretical teaching by many of the people in the scientific community of the Catholic Church.

00:23:15.000 Galileo was actually tried and imprisoned for his teachings, his scientific discovery on the heliocentric theory of the sun.

00:23:28.000 Galileo was unapologetic in being contrarian, in showing science.

00:23:34.000 And the same scientists that warned us that Sweden actually might be onto something, which they have been, Sweden is now the blueprint for the rest of the world.

00:23:44.000 Thomas Erdnick, reporter for the New York Times, in June said that Sweden is enacting a pariah state.

00:23:53.000 And last week, he says that Sweden is the model for the rest of the world and they have the scourge under control.

00:23:58.000 Thomas Erdnick from the New York Times.

00:24:00.000 What changed?

00:24:01.000 Science actually trusts science.

00:24:03.000 Sweden trusted the science.

00:24:05.000 They didn't just follow the scientists that were supposed to be the ones that had all the answers.

00:24:12.000 And so when Senator Ted Cruz says that they want an unelected philosopher king in black robes, they're absolutely correct.

00:24:19.000 You see, Democrats on the left, they view the courts as instruments to make America in their image.

00:24:25.000 Now, mind you, an activist or a living constitutional type, they lend themselves to academics, not judges.

00:24:33.000 There's a big difference.

00:24:35.000 Academics tend to like the living constitution because they deal in theory, not in practice.

00:24:42.000 They deal in esoteric ideas, not in tangible dealings of law.

00:24:50.000 So Anthony and Scalia used to make the argument of there's a difference between academics and judges.

00:24:55.000 Judges are people that have no bias whatsoever, and they might even make decisions that they know will have negative implications, but that's not what the law warrants.

00:25:05.000 Whereas an academic will say, how do I make my worldview fit into this tightly worded sentence?

00:25:14.000 For example, the U.S. Constitution might say that for the provide for the general welfare.

00:25:23.000 Okay.

00:25:24.000 Anthony and Scalia will look in time, context, philosophical underpinnings of what does that mean provide for the general welfare.

00:25:32.000 Anthony and Scalia would say for the basic protection of equal rights under the law.

00:25:38.000 Where a Democrat or an activist judge would say, provide for the general welfare, they'll say, well, that means that everyone has a right to health care.

00:25:45.000 And Antonin Scalia would say, the founders and any sort of judge or any sort of republic since then has never said that they want health care to be a human right in that sense.

00:25:57.000 Where do you find that sort of precedent?

00:25:59.000 And someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or someone like Breyer or Sodomayora Kagan would say, well, because it says general welfare.

00:26:06.000 We can make it whatever we want it to be.

00:26:08.000 That is where the courts have gone wrong in the last 40 years.

00:26:11.000 And Antonin Scalia, being the voice in the darkness, now through Amy Coney Barrett, is about to have the majority position on the United States Supreme Court, where you don't get to make the laws in your image.

00:26:23.000 They're not law-making institutions.

00:26:26.000 They are interpreters of the law.

00:26:28.000 Article 3 articulates this clearly in the United States Constitution.

00:26:33.000 And this idea of a living constitution is so unbelievably dangerous for any sort of a society to embrace.

00:26:41.000 And what we're finally seeing is Republicans standing and fighting on these issues in a very promising way.

00:26:50.000 Senator Lindsey Graham in cut four also said this is not about persuading each other.

00:26:56.000 Lindsey Graham basically lays down exactly how this thing is going to go down.

00:27:01.000 Let's play cut four.

00:27:03.000 I'm proud of you.

00:27:04.000 I'm proud of what you've accomplished.

00:27:06.000 I think you're a great choice by the president.

00:27:08.000 This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens.

00:27:14.000 All Republicans will vote yes and all Democrats will vote no.

00:27:18.000 And that will be the way the breakout of the vote.

00:27:23.000 He's right.

00:27:24.000 The only Democrats that might break in his favor might be Joe Manchin, but Joe Manchin's not in an election year, so he's probably a firm no on this process.

00:27:33.000 Man, I would have loved to have had Joe Manchin and John Tuster be taken out in the 2018 midterms.

00:27:41.000 And so the Senate Republicans are now going forward to fill this vacancy, which is their constitutional obligation, and it is the moral thing to do.

00:27:54.000 And John Cornyn, senator from Texas, said, you stand accused of intending to violate your oath before you even take it.

00:28:01.000 Play TAPA Cut Five.

00:28:05.000 In the end, a judge's internal compass, her commitment to the rule of law, rather, is the most important constraint upon any sort of judicial willfulness.

00:28:16.000 But you're being asked to abandon that, judge.

00:28:21.000 You stand accused of intending to violate your oath before you even take it.

00:28:28.000 Further, our Democratic colleagues want you to guarantee a result in a case as a quid pro quo for your confirmation.

00:28:39.000 So you see very clearly the Democrats versus the Republicans.

00:28:44.000 The Democrats want to use this as political posturing.

00:28:47.000 And in fact, as I'm watching these confirmation hearings, I'm seeing every Democrat, they have pictures of people that allegedly would lose access to health care if Obamacare were to be struck down.

00:28:59.000 Let me be very clear.

00:29:01.000 It's completely irrelevant.

00:29:06.000 The stories that they might be telling are completely irrelevant to the constitutionality of a law.

00:29:11.000 This is the difference between radical leftists and activists and constitutional conservatives.

00:29:18.000 We look at things and say, is it legal?

00:29:20.000 Is it what the text says?

00:29:21.000 The Democrats say, well, a lot of people might suffer.

00:29:24.000 And while that might be a very good argument as to why to pass a different law or public policy, that's not how you're supposed to interpret law.

00:29:33.000 It's not.

00:29:34.000 Judges wear black robes for a reason.

00:29:37.000 Why?

00:29:38.000 Because they're supposed to be completely dressed down of any prejudice that they enter into, and they're supposed to have an equality and a non-bias and a blindness to bias.

00:29:50.000 What made the United States Constitution so different is an idea that you could get a fair hearing in our courts.

00:29:58.000 One of my favorite parts of the U.S. Constitution that is almost never talked about is Article 1, Section 9.

00:30:05.000 You go to most people in constitutional courses at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and they will not be able to tell you the significance, or even some of them might not be able to recite the actual Article 1, Section 9.

00:30:16.000 Maybe some of them will.

00:30:17.000 What is Article 1, Section 9?

00:30:19.000 That there'll be no titles of nobility given in our country.

00:30:23.000 I'm paraphrasing.

00:30:24.000 We'll read the exact text in the next segment.

00:30:27.000 What's the significance of that?

00:30:30.000 That bloodline does not matter.

00:30:32.000 That everyone in our country has equal rights and a fair hearing in front of the court of law.

00:30:38.000 The U.S. Supreme Court is no different.

00:30:40.000 That every law must be compared against the U.S. Constitution as whether or not it is constitutional in nature.

00:30:47.000 It is irrelevant whether or not that law was written by a crony donor, by a K-Street lobbyist, or by a middle-class worker in Sacramento.

00:30:56.000 In this country, the way it's supposed to be is that the sob stories that the Democrats are parading around are completely irrelevant to the constitutionality of a law.

00:31:08.000 With the ever-increasing numbers of makes and cars, it could be very confusing.

00:31:12.000 I don't understand cars.

00:31:13.000 I'm going to be very honest with you.

00:31:14.000 Don't understand it.

00:31:15.000 That's why I love mechanics.

00:31:18.000 But when I talk to mechanics, I say, my fuse went out.

00:31:22.000 They say it's not a fuse.

00:31:24.000 It's a Johnson rod.

00:31:25.000 I'm like, what's a Johnson rod?

00:31:26.000 And they say, well, you get one at rockauto.com.

00:31:29.000 And what's amazing is rockauto.com is like a buffet of options for your car.

00:31:36.000 You guys know you're paying too much for car parts.

00:31:39.000 Why would you choose to spend 30 or 50 or 100% more on the exact same auto parts at a chain store or a new car dealership?

00:31:46.000 I mean, a Delphi FG1456 fuel pump, again, I don't know what that is.

00:31:51.000 It's all Latin and Greek to me, is less expensive at rockauto.com.

00:31:56.000 So I want to make sure you guys save money.

00:31:58.000 That's why we use partners that save people money.

00:32:01.000 At rockauto.com, chain stores have different price tiers for professional mechanics and do-it-yourselfers.

00:32:07.000 So rockauto.com is about equality.

00:32:09.000 Rockauto.com is about good prices.

00:32:12.000 Rockauto.com is about transparency.

00:32:14.000 And rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.

00:32:19.000 They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps.

00:32:23.000 Rockauto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.

00:32:26.000 So if you guys are do-it-yourselfers or you want to save money, go to rockauto.com.

00:32:30.000 Prices are always reliably low.

00:32:32.000 Tell them that our show sent you.

00:32:34.000 It's rockauto.com.

00:32:35.000 That's rockauto.com.

00:32:36.000 And again, rockauto.com.

00:32:39.000 Go to the website right now, rockauto.com.

00:32:44.000 Okay, I want to go to cut 12, if we can, of Jake Tapper talking to the Biden campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, is that right?

00:32:55.000 Deputy campaign manager about court packing and flooding the court play tape.

00:33:01.000 The election, millions of people have already cast their votes.

00:33:04.000 And you see that the vast majority of people say that they want the person who wins the election on November 3rd to nominate the justice.

00:33:12.000 That's not the Constitution.

00:33:12.000 That's a poll.

00:33:14.000 By trying to, by trying to, that is their con there.

00:33:17.000 There is the constitutional process of advising consent.

00:33:20.000 The American people get to have their say by voting for president, by voting for senators.

00:33:25.000 We are now 23 days from the election.

00:33:28.000 But it's not unconstitutional.

00:33:30.000 Millions of votes, millions of votes.

00:33:33.000 Voters are being denied their constitutional right to have a say in this process.

00:33:37.000 They elected to do it.

00:33:38.000 So the Democrats say that if you dare confirm Amy Coney Barrett, we will pack the courts.

00:33:45.000 They're lying.

00:33:47.000 They can't and they won't.

00:33:48.000 Well, I shouldn't say that.

00:33:50.000 They constitutionally can.

00:33:51.000 The U.S. Constitution does not specify how many seats there should be on the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:33:57.000 There is plenty of history to try and they can go back to where there used to be 11 seats on the U.S. Supreme Court and FDR tried to pack the courts unsuccessfully in the 1930s.

00:34:11.000 And it's been nine ever since.

00:34:13.000 However, the Democrats cannot make good on that threat.

00:34:17.000 They can't.

00:34:19.000 If Democrats win back control of the U.S. Senate, it'll be very narrowly.

00:34:26.000 In fact, Senate Republicans have such a narrow, Senate Republicans have such a wide margin in Senate terms.

00:34:35.000 It is easy to say that the Senate Republicans, if they lose the majority, it'll be by one or two seats.

00:34:45.000 So let's just go through some U.S. Senate math right now.

00:34:49.000 The U.S. Senate is currently under Republican control, about 53 votes.

00:34:55.000 That's if you count Murkowski and Collins, they caucus with Republicans.

00:34:59.000 Whatever.

00:35:00.000 Fine.

00:35:02.000 Doug Jones is almost assuredly going to lose in Alabama.

00:35:06.000 So Tommy Tuberville wins.

00:35:08.000 You start from a working number of 54.

00:35:12.000 So there are some very hotly contested races.

00:35:15.000 I think Tom Tillis is going to win in North Carolina.

00:35:17.000 Stays at 54.

00:35:19.000 Colorado, Maine, and Arizona are the three potential biggest pickups for the Senate Democrats, followed by Iowa and Montana.

00:35:33.000 I'm going to tell you right now, Joni Ernst is going to win in Iowa, and Steve Daines will win in Montana.

00:35:40.000 That takes those two off the boards, off the board.

00:35:43.000 Therefore, in order for Chuck Schumer to become Senate majority leader, and that would only get them to 50, so they'd have to take the White House with it, they'd also have to probably flip South Carolina or Texas or Georgia. 1.00

00:35:57.000 Now, Lindsey Graham's in a tough race right now. 0.60

00:35:59.000 Jamie Harrison is raising money like it's going out of style.

00:36:02.000 He raised $74 million last quarter.

00:36:06.000 I mean, that's Robert Francis O'Rourke-style numbers.

00:36:09.000 But let's say that Lindsey Graham holds on with South Carolina.

00:36:12.000 Even if Republicans lose Maine, Arizona, and Colorado, they are still at 51 votes.

00:36:23.000 So I would say right now, because of Tom Tillis in North Carolina and Cal Cunningham's, let's just say, interesting news stories that have come out on Cal Cunningham, which are not good at all for him.

00:36:38.000 I think that the Republicans stay in control of the U.S. Senate.

00:36:42.000 But let's say that Tom Tillis does lose.

00:36:44.000 Well, then it goes down to 50.

00:36:46.000 Then it becomes the tiebreaker as the vice president of the United States.

00:36:50.000 So the tiebreaker would then be either Mike Pence or Kamala Harris, who would then become the president of the Senate, is their technical term.

00:37:01.000 They actually have, they're the only person in the entire U.S. Constitution that actually has overlap between two separate branches of government, is the vice president.

00:37:12.000 Kind of an interesting fun fact.

00:37:14.000 It's the unicameral idea.

00:37:18.000 Anyway, so if Democrats win back the U.S. Senate, they will only do so by getting right at 50 votes.

00:37:26.000 Now, they could get to 51 if they win in Iowa or they win in Montana or they win in South Carolina.

00:37:32.000 Based on everything that we are analyzing and seeing, that's probably not going to happen.

00:37:37.000 But let's just say for argument's sake, they get to 51 votes.

00:37:40.000 That would require a clean sweep.

00:37:43.000 It would require McSally losing, Collins losing, Corey Gardner losing, Joni Ernst losing, Steve Daines losing.

00:37:51.000 Whoa, 51 votes.

00:37:53.000 Well, in 2022, the map is hard for Republicans.

00:37:58.000 There's a lot of seats to defend, but it's not easy for Democrats to pack the court. 0.80

00:38:03.000 Because of the unusual election in Arizona, if Mark Kelly were to win, which he could win, Martha McSally could win too.

00:38:11.000 It's going to be a very tight race.

00:38:13.000 If Mark Kelly were to win in Arizona, he would be seated almost immediately because it's a special election.

00:38:19.000 And Mark Kelly would be up again in 2022.

00:38:23.000 So if Mark Kelly were to win as he campaigns as a moderate in Arizona, all of his advertisements are about bringing people together and finding common ground and not disrupting the status quo.

00:38:37.000 Do you think Mark Kelly, being a newly minted U.S. Senator, is going to be quick to all of a sudden vote for packing the court?

00:38:45.000 So even if the Senate Democrats were at 51, they immediately go to 50.

00:38:50.000 And then you're trying to tell me that other at-risk Democrats in Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire are going to be sudden to pack the U.S. Supreme Court alongside Joe Manchin and John Tester.

00:39:04.000 Here's what I'm getting at here.

00:39:05.000 The Democrats do not have the votes, and they do not have the wherewithal to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:39:10.000 They don't.

00:39:11.000 They are fearful that their indulgence in radicalism will lose them the House of Representatives in 2022.

00:39:19.000 And Nancy Pelosi will send a memo to Chuck Schumer saying, do not do this.

00:39:23.000 Because more so than even the Senate casualties of Mark Kelly probably losing in 2022, if he were to win, I want to preface that.

00:39:30.000 Or Joe Manchin losing eventually in West Virginia, or John Tester losing eventually in Montana or New Hampshire or Colorado and Nevada, all of which are up in 2022. 0.73

00:39:40.000 Nancy Pelosi would almost assuredly lose her House majority in 2022 if they were to pack the courts. 0.97

00:39:48.000 And if Nancy Pelosi was okay with it or voiced support for that.

00:39:52.000 This is only more evidence of why Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans should confirm Amy Coney Barrett. 0.79

00:40:04.000 They are threatening decent Americans and reasonable Americans saying, we will pack the Supreme Court if you do this. 0.80

00:40:11.000 Try.

00:40:12.000 Do it.

00:40:14.000 Show us who you are.

00:40:15.000 You don't have the votes.

00:40:16.000 I just went through the map.

00:40:17.000 It won't happen.

00:40:18.000 We will flood Washington, D.C.

00:40:21.000 We will activate our activists.

00:40:22.000 We will run primary challengers.

00:40:24.000 We'll do whatever it takes.

00:40:26.000 The Republican Party will be more unified than ever before.

00:40:28.000 And when the Republican Party is unified, Democrats always lose.

00:40:30.000 They try to add seats to the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:40:33.000 Even if they were to win back the Senate, I just went through the math, it would take a clean sweep because we're dealing from a 54-majority.

00:40:38.000 If you count the flip in Alabama, which is just going to happen, Tubberville's up 18 points in Alabama in a presidential year, Doug Jones is a dead man walking.

00:40:45.000 Not going to happen.

00:40:47.000 So that means they have to win Colorado, Maine, Arizona, and pick up either an Iowa or a Montana or a South Carolina.

00:40:53.000 And that also doesn't factor in maybe John James winning in the great state of Michigan, which can completely change the balance.

00:41:00.000 And it doesn't count Tom Tillis in North Carolina.

00:41:03.000 So this idea of the Senate going into Democrat hands, I say to you, Chuck Schumer, you know, in order to pack the courts, you got to control the Senate. 0.53

00:41:10.000 And there is no assuredness, there is no guarantee, I should say, that's a better way to say it, that you are going to control the U.S. Senate coming into 2022, coming into the next cycle, 2021.

00:41:23.000 Mitch McConnell knows what he's doing.

00:41:25.000 The more that Amy Coney Barrett is shown on television, the more Republican favorability goes up.

00:41:31.000 But even if it meant that the Republicans were going to lose the Senate to add a Supreme Court seat, I am always a believer you pick the tough fights and you win the tough fights, regardless of the political cost, because almost always the political reward is more seats and more promise and more votes of approval, I should say, from voters.

00:41:59.000 Voters give Republicans power.

00:42:01.000 Voters give Republicans majorities when they do what they say they're going to do and they defend the United States Supreme Court.

00:42:09.000 Chuck Schumer is blowing smoke here.

00:42:14.000 He cannot and will not pack the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:42:18.000 The math isn't there.

00:42:19.000 And if he does, Pelosi will lose her majority and he would lose whatever majority he has.

00:42:24.000 And the only way they would do this too is if Joe Biden wins in a convincing landslide.

00:42:30.000 Very unlikely.

00:42:33.000 It is always the right time to do the right thing.

00:42:36.000 And for Senate Republicans that are fighting right now to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, it is the right fight at the right time.

00:42:48.000 Let's go to cut 16.

00:42:50.000 Joe Biden was asked again about court packing.

00:42:53.000 It's like the activist media has actually found a question they enjoy asking.

00:42:57.000 Play Tate.

00:42:58.000 Sir, I've got to ask you about packing the courts.

00:43:00.000 And I know that you said yesterday you aren't going to answer the question until after the election.

00:43:04.000 But this is the number one thing that I've been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.

00:43:08.000 Well, you've been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don't want me continuing to talk about what they're doing to the court right now.

00:43:15.000 Well, sir, don't the voters deserve to know?

00:43:17.000 No, they don't.

00:43:18.000 I'm not going to play his game.

00:43:20.000 He'd love me to talk about, and I've already said something on PACOPA.

00:43:25.000 He'd love that to be the discussion instead of what he's doing now.

00:43:29.000 He's about to make a pick in the middle of an election.

00:43:32.000 First time it's ever been done.

00:43:34.000 First time in history it's ever been done.

00:43:36.000 No, they don't deserve to know.

00:43:39.000 I'm going to send out a tweet right now that says Donald Trump and Joe Biden should find some way to debate again before the election.

00:43:47.000 I really believe that.

00:43:48.000 It is very needed.

00:43:50.000 Joe Biden has intentionally dodged this question.

00:43:56.000 And mind you, did you notice what happened there?

00:43:59.000 This is Joe Biden's contempt for the American people.

00:44:02.000 Scranton Joe.

00:44:03.000 Everyone loves Joe, right?

00:44:04.000 As soon as he finds a question he doesn't like, if you listen to that sound very carefully, he attacks the questioner.

00:44:13.000 I'm hearing from a lot of viewers that they're worried about packing the court.

00:44:17.000 Well, those people must be Republicans.

00:44:20.000 You don't know that, Joe.

00:44:21.000 They could just be normal people that are worried that you might back the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:44:26.000 And yeah, what if they are Republicans, Joe?

00:44:28.000 You are running ads trying to get Republicans to go vote for you.

00:44:33.000 You have John Kasich in your advertisements.

00:44:35.000 You have Cindy McCain in your advertisements.

00:44:38.000 You have several former Republicans trying to go vote for you.

00:44:44.000 And yet you're the one, Republicans.

00:44:45.000 Well, yeah, that's actually kind of a big deal to conservatives: whether or not you're going to add seats to the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:44:53.000 Joe Biden has been asked about this repeatedly.

00:44:57.000 Joe Biden has been put on the spot and he refuses to answer.

00:45:00.000 It's kind of the new equivalent of the Nancy Pelosi deal.

00:45:03.000 Nancy Pelosi taught when she was talking about Obamacare.

00:45:06.000 She said, we must pass Obamacare to find out what's in it.

00:45:10.000 Well, now we must elect Joe Biden to find out what he's going to do.

00:45:15.000 Can you believe millions of people are voting for this guy?

00:45:19.000 Can you believe that millions of people are voting for a power-hungry, ladder-climbing socialist co-running alongside a person that will not tell you whether or not they'll pack the U.S. Supreme Court?

00:45:36.000 And today, I don't know if we have sounded this.

00:45:38.000 Joe Biden couldn't remember Mitt Romney's name.

00:45:41.000 He called him the Mormon who was governor.

00:45:43.000 Now, mind you, that doesn't necessarily narrow it down.

00:45:46.000 It very well, it could have been not just Mitt Romney.

00:45:50.000 It could have also been other former governors of Utah, John Huntsman.

00:45:55.000 Was it John Huntsman?

00:45:56.000 Do you run against John Huntsman, Joe Biden?

00:45:58.000 Because he's a former Mormon governor.

00:46:01.000 Or maybe he met Jeff Flake.

00:46:02.000 Jeff Flake is a Mormon.

00:46:03.000 He's not a governor.

00:46:05.000 So Joe Biden's got to be more specific.

00:46:09.000 And it's from Arizona.

00:46:11.000 Let's play tape of Joe Biden having another senior moment.

00:46:14.000 Play tape.

00:46:15.000 You may remember, I got in trouble when we were running against the senator who was a Mormon, the governor, okay? 0.98

00:46:23.000 And I took him on. 1.00

00:46:27.000 The Mormon. 0.99

00:46:28.000 Yeah, that guy.

00:46:29.000 That's what he thinks of him.

00:46:30.000 He doesn't think of him as anything else.

00:46:33.000 My gosh, he's right now.

00:46:34.000 Millions of people are voting for Joe Biden.

00:46:37.000 He's the crumbling republic that we live in.

00:46:40.000 Let's get to cut 14.

00:46:42.000 Josh Hawley, Republican senator from Missouri, who has been phenomenal, by the way.

00:46:46.000 I'm a huge Josh Hawley fan.

00:46:48.000 This guy is the future of the Republican Party.

00:46:52.000 He gets it.

00:46:53.000 And quite honestly, I've been very surprised.

00:46:55.000 He was always described to me as kind of a moderate corporate type, and he's been the exact opposite.

00:47:01.000 He's been a grassroots conservative, so articulate, and he loves the tough fights.

00:47:08.000 So let's play clip 14, Josh Hawley from Missouri.

00:47:12.000 Bedrock principle of American liberty is now under attack.

00:47:18.000 That is what is at stake when we read these stories attacking Judge Barrett for her faith.

00:47:23.000 That is what is at stake when my Democratic colleagues repeatedly questioned Judge Barrett and many other judicial nominees about their religious beliefs, about their religious membership, about their religious practices, about their family beliefs and practices.

00:47:37.000 That is an attempt to bring back the days of the religious test.

00:47:43.000 That is an attempt to bring back the veto power of the powerful over the religious beliefs and sincerely held convictions of the American people.

00:47:53.000 And that is what is at stake in this confirmation hearing.

00:47:58.000 So I think it would be helpful if we get, we'll pull tape of Diane Feinstein attacking Amy Coney Barrett.

00:48:04.000 Because a lot of these senators are kind of just dancing around what was the pre-existing attack on this nominee's faith back when she wanted to become, when she was becoming a federal judge.

00:48:14.000 Almost every senator is mentioning it. 0.89

00:48:16.000 And Diane Feinstein, who, of course, might have been driven to the confirmation hearing this morning by her Chinese agent, Driver of 20 years, went out of her way to attack Amy Coney Barrett for her Catholic beliefs and her Catholic faith.

00:48:32.000 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is that really his name is White House?

00:48:38.000 I just thought it was something different.

00:48:40.000 Sheldon, Senator Sheldon, okay?

00:48:42.000 Is he from Rhode Island or he's from, yeah, he's from Rhode Island.

00:48:45.000 This guy's a real piece of work.

00:48:46.000 He has made it his career to attack anyone that wants constitutionals, constitutionalists, or textualists on the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:48:54.000 Play cut 13.

00:48:58.000 Going the ACA.

00:49:00.000 The senior senator from Texas introduced in committee the circuit court judge who wrote the decision on appeal, striking down the ACA.

00:49:09.000 Senator Cornyn has filed brief after brief arguing for striking down the ACA.

00:49:14.000 He led the failed Senate charge to repeal the ACA in 2017.

00:49:18.000 He said, I've introduced and co-sponsored 27 bills to repeal all, to repeal or defund Obamacare and have voted to do so at every opportunity.

00:49:27.000 And now, talking about socialized medicine, the old Republican battle cry against Medicare, Senator Cornyn and all of our colleagues on this committee are pushing to get this nominee on.

00:49:39.000 So their entire line of argumentation is all about health care.

00:49:44.000 It's all that Republicans want to take your health care away, Republicans want to take your health care away.

00:49:49.000 And I just get exhausted by this argument.

00:49:51.000 It's not a proper role of government to administer you health care.

00:49:54.000 It's not a popular argument.

00:49:55.000 It's not one that Republicans like making, but quite honestly, it's not the role of government to give you free stuff.

00:50:02.000 It isn't.

00:50:03.000 Allow markets to do that.

00:50:04.000 Now, with that being said, Republicans should challenge corporate interests more to be able to make it easier for you to be able to get market-based health care, price transparency, challenging the pharmaceutical lobbies, favored nation clauses.

00:50:18.000 All those things I think are perfectly good uses of time, and some of those can be done on a bipartisan consensus.

00:50:24.000 But to all of a sudden say that Republicans want to take your health care away, well, maybe they're just challenging the idea of what is a right?

00:50:32.000 Is healthcare a right?

00:50:34.000 And you might be listening.

00:50:35.000 It's like, yeah, healthcare is a right.

00:50:36.000 No, it's not.

00:50:37.000 A right is not something that can be given to you.

00:50:42.000 It's not.

00:50:43.000 A right is what you have naturally, because rights are given to you by God, not by government.

00:50:48.000 You have a right to speech.

00:50:50.000 You have a right to assembly, a right to consciousness, a right to property, a right to self-defense, a right not to be accused of something falsely without the ability and the capacity to defend yourself, the right of due process.

00:51:04.000 The Ninth Amendment, which is the most forgotten amendment.

00:51:08.000 The Ninth Amendment is that there are rights that are given to you naturally that are not always articulated in the U.S. Constitution.

00:51:15.000 It's actually the forgotten amendment, but one of the most important amendments that basically says there's all sorts of other God-given rights that we weren't able to cover in this document.

00:51:24.000 Meaning, the Founding Fathers were not arguing that they had an exhaustive list in the Ninth Amendment.

00:51:30.000 The 10th Amendment, that all rights that are not that are not specified in the U.S. Constitution, are given to the people or the states, the states of the people.

00:51:43.000 The question is: where do rights come from?

00:51:45.000 John Locke made the argument that our rights were given to us by God.

00:51:49.000 His treatise on who we are in the state of nature was transformational.

00:51:55.000 So there are three social contract theorists, and every single human being that votes in our presidential election should be able to tell you the three social contract theories, who they are, why they thought what they did.

00:52:07.000 Now, mind you, I would venture a guess less than 1% of 1% would be able to tell you the three social contracts, three solar contract theories.

00:52:14.000 What's the significance of it?

00:52:16.000 There's Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke.

00:52:21.000 Without getting too deep into the philosophy of it, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke disagreed completely as to where rights come from, therefore, what is the proper role of government.

00:52:32.000 Thomas Hobbes believed that human beings were awful in the state of nature, that life was nasty, brutish, and short, and therefore he argued for a very big government to take care of people.

00:52:46.000 We have lived through in the last nine months the greatest erosion and the greatest attack of our natural rights, God-given liberties, and freedoms in the history of our country, and we let it happen.

00:52:57.000 They closed down our churches, our schools, our gyms, our gatherings, kept weed stores open, liquor stores open.

00:53:04.000 BLM Incorporated could march through the streets, yet Christians weren't allowed to celebrate Easter. 0.71

00:53:10.000 And that's really what's at the heart of this. 0.99

00:53:12.000 It's an attack on faith.

00:53:14.000 And Diane Feinstein has attacked Amy Coney Barrett previously for having dogmatic beliefs.

00:53:21.000 Let's go back in the time machine and play Dianne Feinstein attacking Amy Coney Barrett. 0.98

00:53:26.000 Play tape.

00:53:28.000 When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.

00:53:41.000 And that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.

00:53:54.000 The dogma lives loudly within you.

00:53:57.000 Now, mind you, they never attack Catholic Democrats.

00:54:00.000 Do you ever notice that?

00:54:02.000 Do you notice that they don't go to Joe Biden and say the dogma lives loudly in you now?

00:54:06.000 Whether or not Joe Biden's actually a Catholic, I don't actually decide that because I'm not a Catholic, so I'm not a Catholic referee.

00:54:12.000 So I'll let you guys sort that out.

00:54:14.000 However, I do have my question.

00:54:16.000 I do have my concerns about a guy that believes in post-birth abortion, keeping borders wide open, taking wealth forcibly away from people, perfectly okay with rioting, looting, and arson, calling yourself a Catholic, but I'm not exactly well-versed in the Second Vatican.

00:54:33.000 Not exactly my strike zone.

00:54:36.000 But I will say this: that Dianne Feinstein attacking Amy Coney Barrett on her deeply held Catholic beliefs is reprehensible, but it's predictable.

00:54:47.000 And the Democrats, I think, are trying to be disciplined here in this hearing.

00:54:50.000 And as we are watching this very long hearing, it's really not even a hearing.

00:54:57.000 It's only a hearing for one person.

00:54:58.000 It's Amy Coney Barrett listening to all of them.

00:55:00.000 It's these senators bloviating, getting their television time.

00:55:04.000 And again, these Republican senators, God bless them, I think, are doing a great job.

00:55:07.000 These Democrats are fear-mongering endlessly.

00:55:10.000 But here's exactly what's going to happen this week: they are going to put Amy Coney Barrett on the stand, specifically on the issue of Roe versus Wade and healthcare.

00:55:21.000 Those are the two big things.

00:55:22.000 And there will be a third: firearms. 0.91

00:55:25.000 They are going to put her on the stand on firearms.

00:55:28.000 They're going to try to say, Do you think firearms or the ownership of firearms is a constitutionally guaranteed or protected right? 0.84

00:55:36.000 And she's super smart.

00:55:37.000 I mean, she's brilliant, beyond brilliant.

00:55:40.000 She was rated by the American Bar Association with a very high standard and rating.

00:55:46.000 She will be phenomenal.

00:55:47.000 And I think the more that we hear from Amy Coney Barrett, the better.

00:55:50.000 I mean, poor Amy Coney Barrett, here's the tragedy. 1.00

00:55:53.000 She has to sit wearing that mask all day long, listening to Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar.

00:55:59.000 She should be confirmed just for that. 0.93

00:56:01.000 Could you imagine sitting in a U.S. Senate court hearing wearing, I mean, could they have given her a bigger mask? 1.00

00:56:08.000 She looks like a bond villain.

00:56:10.000 And I love it. 0.83

00:56:11.000 I mean, she's phenomenal.

00:56:12.000 We can get a picture up of it.

00:56:13.000 I mean, on the live stream here, I think she's terrific. 0.84

00:56:16.000 I just think that it's punishment to make her. 0.97

00:56:18.000 And here's, I mean, this is just ridiculous. 0.97

00:56:19.000 I'm going to say this. 0.89

00:56:20.000 I'm going to get in trouble.

00:56:21.000 I don't care. 0.95

00:56:22.000 She was probably tested.

00:56:23.000 Why do they test her and make her sit wearing a mask all day long and she's 96 feet away from people?

00:56:32.000 I know why, because they want you to be scared.

00:56:34.000 They want you to be scared.

00:56:35.000 And I'm not saying the virus is not a real thing.

00:56:37.000 I'm not saying that you shouldn't take proper precautions if you're at the at-risk category.

00:56:42.000 I know better than anyone else that you can have real casualty and real tragedy at the hands of this virus.

00:56:46.000 But I also will not defend foolishness.

00:56:50.000 So whoever's in charge of this whole thing, where you have to wear the Batman mask and sit 95 feet away from each other.

00:56:57.000 And by the way, on top of that, you have to listen to Senator Harris all day long while she doesn't have to wear a mask and she gets the Skype and zoom in.

00:57:05.000 So Senator Harris isn't wearing a mask while she's asking the questions.

00:57:08.000 Or you say, well, she's Skyping and zooming in.

00:57:10.000 Well, then why couldn't they have Amy Coney Barrett do that? 0.80

00:57:12.000 Anyway, I just think it's silly.

00:57:17.000 Mike Lee from Utah made some great points.

00:57:19.000 He's the first one to raise the point.

00:57:22.000 He was the first one to raise the point about separation of powers.

00:57:24.000 We take this for granted in our country.

00:57:26.000 We do.

00:57:27.000 Separation of powers is kind of the brilliance of the American system.

00:57:32.000 It really is.

00:57:33.000 Three branches of government.

00:57:34.000 Almost every European system, when I visit Europe, explaining the three branches of government is very difficult because for them, the chief executive is an adjunct of the legislative.

00:57:47.000 Meaning the chief executive, if they don't like the chief executive in the legislative branch, they just do a vote of no confidence and they remove them.

00:57:54.000 It's that simple.

00:57:55.000 There is no disagreement between the executive and legislative.

00:57:59.000 There is at times that if they don't like them, they'll just call a no-confidence vote and they're gone.

00:58:03.000 This idea that every branch is co-equal, however, exists together for the same purpose.

00:58:11.000 Where do you think they got that idea from?

00:58:14.000 Where do you think the idea of a triune executive comes from?

00:58:20.000 Well, originally, it came from the Old Testament, in the book of Isaiah, where God is the lawgiver, the law interpreter, and the law, you could say, implementer.

00:58:31.000 When Israel lived for 400 years without a standing army or a police force, they did it because everyone knew the law.

00:58:40.000 And that idea of the American system of government eventually originally came from there.

00:58:44.000 It was articulated through Aristotle, who conjectured it.

00:58:46.000 Cicero really laid it out really well.

00:58:48.000 Cicero, one-year Roman Council, right before the fall of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire, and eventually Montesquieu.

00:58:56.000 And Mike Lee articulated this better than I think anyone else.

00:58:59.000 And by the way, congratulations, Mike Lee, for overcoming the Chinese coronavirus.

00:59:03.000 It's a very good thing.

00:59:05.000 For months, we have been warning that these lockdowns that we have been enforcing across the country are not just draconian, they are dreadful.

00:59:17.000 They are harmful to the backbone and the spirit of humanity.

00:59:22.000 The World Health Organization now has come out and said the Chinese coronavirus lockdowns are against public health, as if it's a matter of fact, by the way.

00:59:33.000 You understand how evil this whole thing is, right?

00:59:35.000 How immoral this entire exercise has been.

00:59:39.000 Dr. David Nabarro said this.

00:59:42.000 We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means to control the virus.

00:59:48.000 Hold on a second.

00:59:49.000 Since when?

00:59:52.000 You have allowed the entire Western world to shut itself down.

00:59:56.000 100 million people are going to go back into poverty because of food supply chains and energy supply chains being completely disrupted.

01:00:03.000 100 million people are going to go back into poverty on the planet because of lockdowns.

01:00:08.000 And you said, the only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, and rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted.

01:00:16.000 But by and large, we'd rather not do it.

01:00:19.000 Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people a lot awful poor.

01:00:25.000 He's wrong.

01:00:26.000 It has more than one consequence.

01:00:28.000 It's not just making poor people poorer.

01:00:31.000 It's the depression, the suicide, the alcoholism, the social isolation, the childhoods that are robbed.

01:00:37.000 Do you know that there are schools, there are parks that are not allowing children to play with each other?

01:00:44.000 If we would have said a year ago that we are not going to allow kids to play with each other, we would have called DCFS, the Department of Child Family Services.

01:00:52.000 The World Health Organization comes through and says the last thing any country needs is to continue to be shut down.

01:00:59.000 Oh, really?

01:01:03.000 We shut down our country the last nine months, which will go down as the worst mistake in the history of our country in the Western world.

01:01:10.000 150,000 small businesses have gone under and they will never recover.

01:01:14.000 Families are on the verge of bankruptcy.

01:01:16.000 The entire economic landscape will be permanently disrupted for a generation.

01:01:20.000 We will lose more people, young people, to suicide than the Chinese coronavirus.

01:01:27.000 And yet we are convinced, we've convinced ourselves that staying at home, sheltering in place, not trying to develop therapeutics or better means of dealing with the virus instead of running away in this idea of safetyism, sacrificing liberty, sacrificing responsibility, sacrificing humanity.

01:01:47.000 And I have learned something, and Dennis Prager convinced me of this, and I would have disagreed with him five years ago.

01:01:53.000 Human beings don't want to be free.

01:01:55.000 They don't.

01:01:57.000 It's a tough thing for those of us that are conservatives to recognize and realize.

01:02:02.000 Human beings want to be taken care of.

01:02:05.000 Freedom is difficult.

01:02:08.000 If you have freedom with no moral backing, if you have freedom with no virtue, then that just becomes indulgence.

01:02:13.000 And eventually people want out of the indulgence by being taken care of.

01:02:17.000 If you do not have self-control, when you have abundance, the country will shatter within a generation.

01:02:25.000 Think about it.

01:02:26.000 You have a smartphone or a supercomputer in your right-hand pocket.

01:02:28.000 You can order anything you want in any period of time.

01:02:31.000 It'll be delivered to you in a moment's notice.

01:02:34.000 And if you do not have the proper restraints, you will not be free.

01:02:39.000 And that is why written in the halls of Harvard Law School, it says the law is the wise restraints that keep men free.

01:02:47.000 Think about that.

01:02:48.000 It's paradoxical.

01:02:49.000 Restraints keeping you free?

01:02:51.000 We're taught the exact opposite in modern indulgence culture.

01:02:54.000 We're taught that you're free if you don't have restraints.

01:02:58.000 You're free when you can do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it.

01:03:01.000 But the biblical principle remains true today as it did when Harvard Law School was founded, that you are actually free when you have self-control.

01:03:09.000 They're actually free when you put restraints on yourself.

01:03:12.000 Freedom comes from sometimes not doing something.

01:03:18.000 Freedom actually comes from freedom from addiction, freedom from certain possession of bad material or bad behavior.

01:03:28.000 And yet, in the last nine months, we have convinced ourselves that we can micromanage and centralize all of humanity because we want to keep people safe.

01:03:37.000 They were lying to you and us when they said they could keep us safe.

01:03:41.000 And President Trump was always on the right side of this.

01:03:43.000 He wanted to reopen the economy.

01:03:44.000 Remember, after 10 days, he said, we can't let the disease be worse than the cure.

01:03:48.000 Let's go.

01:03:49.000 Or the cure worse than the disease.

01:03:51.000 Yet today, as we do this broadcast, California and New York are still locked down primarily with indoor dining, schools barely reopening because they value power and control, and the citizenry is allowing it to happen because liberty is difficult.

01:04:09.000 Liberty is hard.

01:04:10.000 It requires responsibility.

01:04:12.000 It requires maturity.

01:04:13.000 It requires morality and virtue.

01:04:18.000 What a great episode that was, everybody.

01:04:19.000 If you guys want to get involved with Turning Point USA, where we play offense with a sense of urgency to win America's culture war, where we strive every day to make our kids love America again, go to tpusa.com, tpusa.com.

01:04:31.000 Turningpoint USA is fighting for freedom across the country.

01:04:35.000 Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.

01:04:37.000 If you guys want to win a signed copy of the MAGA doctrine, type in Charlie Kirk, show to your podcast provider.

01:04:42.000 Hit subscribe, screenshot, and email it to us at freedom at charliekirk.com.

01:04:46.000 And finally, please consider supporting us at charliekirk.com/slash support.

01:04:52.000 Thanks so much, everybody.

01:04:53.000 God bless.

01:04:54.000 Talk to you soon.

The Charlie Kirk Show - October 13, 2020

ACB Confirmation and the Democrats’ Court Packing Scheme

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript