The Charlie Kirk Show - BREAKING: SCOTUS Deals Devastating Blow to New York Gun Grabbers

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, Tana Charlie Kirk Show breaking Supreme Court Strikes Down New York concealed carry restrictions.

00:00:05.000 Kelly Shackelford joins us to break down what it means, including another victory he enjoyed earlier this week in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that is great for religious liberty.

00:00:14.000 And then we are also going through in great detail.

00:00:17.000 How do we get here?

00:00:18.000 10 years of fighting and actually a victory.

00:00:21.000 It's amazing.

00:00:21.000 Freedom at charliekirk.com is my email.

00:00:24.000 I read all the emails personally.

00:00:25.000 I love hearing from you.

00:00:26.000 Support the Charlie Kirk Show at CharlieKirk.com slash support.

00:00:30.000 Get involved with Turning PointUSA Today at tpusa.com.

00:00:33.000 Start a high school chapter, start a college chapter right now at tpusa.com, and come to our student action summit in Tampa, Florida.

00:00:40.000 We have Greg Gutfeld, we have Kayleigh McEnaney.

00:00:43.000 Turning Point Action is also hosting Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump.

00:00:46.000 It's going to be amazing.

00:00:47.000 Buckle up, everybody.

00:00:48.000 Here we go.

00:00:49.000 Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

00:00:51.000 Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.

00:00:53.000 I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

00:00:57.000 Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

00:01:00.000 I want to thank Charlie.

00:01:01.000 He's an incredible guy.

00:01:02.000 His spirit is love of this country.

00:01:04.000 He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.

00:01:09.000 Turning point USA. 0.65

00:01:10.000 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.

00:01:19.000 That's why we are here.

00:01:22.000 Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.

00:01:31.000 Breaking news today: the United States Supreme Court has a landmark decision, one that will live for quite a long time, God willing.

00:01:43.000 The Supreme Court strikes down New York's gun-carrying restrictions.

00:01:48.000 The Second Amendment applies outside of the home, the court says, a 6-3 decision.

00:01:53.000 It is the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin.

00:01:58.000 The Supreme Court has officially struck down a New York gun control law that required people to show proper cause to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside of the home.

00:02:11.000 Marbury versus Madison was a landmark Supreme Court decision that established the principle of judicial review.

00:02:20.000 The idea of judicial review is essential to a constitutional republic.

00:02:25.000 An independent judiciary must be able to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution.

00:02:34.000 It set the precedent, of course, by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was not the first Chief Justice, but he was one that most people reference as the first because he's the best known, because of the precedent of judicial review.

00:02:47.000 Now, we do not like judicial activism here on this program.

00:02:49.000 We believe the Warren Court and the Burger Court acted with judicial activism in the 60s and 70s.

00:02:56.000 But throughout the last couple of years and decades, conservatives and constitutionalists have been taking the issue of the courts more and more seriously.

00:03:04.000 And now, finally, we are seeing the fruit of those fights come to bear.

00:03:10.000 Someone who actually just won a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, we're going to ask him about that.

00:03:14.000 And also about this amazing victory, Kelly Shackelford from the wonderful firstliberty.org.

00:03:19.000 Kelly, welcome back to the program.

00:03:21.000 Happy to be on, Charlie.

00:03:23.000 Kelly, tell us about the significance of this decision today when it comes to the Second Amendment.

00:03:29.000 It's huge.

00:03:30.000 This has been a battle for a long time.

00:03:33.000 Most of you probably don't remember, but for many, many decades, we really had no decisions on the Second Amendment.

00:03:41.000 And it was only in recent years that we had that.

00:03:44.000 But since that, we really haven't had a lot of development of that.

00:03:49.000 But one of the things that Justice Thomas has been saying over and over again, even when they've not taken cases, he'll a denial of cert, he'll put a comment in, which is very rare in a denial of cert.

00:04:03.000 Normally, I just say cert denied, you know, seven, eight thousand times a year.

00:04:08.000 The point he's made over and over is, why are you treating this right, this individual right, differently and like it's some sort of second class constitutional right?

00:04:22.000 You know, you do things to Second Amendment rights of individuals that you don't do to like First Amendment rights of individuals.

00:04:30.000 And this is a great example of that.

00:04:33.000 I mean, think of what they're doing here, Charlie.

00:04:36.000 The government is telling citizens, you have to show, give us a proper cause why you can carry a concealed firearm.

00:04:47.000 You have to prove why you get the right versus like, I mean, can you imagine that if they did that with free speech?

00:04:54.000 Well, you can speak, but you have to show us that you have a proper cause for what you want to say.

00:04:59.000 We don't do that.

00:05:01.000 And so Justice Thomas finally kind of got, I think, somewhat of a rebalancing of the rights here and saying that this individual right is like our other fundamental constitutional rights.

00:05:14.000 You don't get permission from the government to exercise it.

00:05:17.000 And so I think it's a really important ruling.

00:05:20.000 And what's so John Roberts sided with the majority here, 6-3.

00:05:25.000 John Roberts is always there when we don't need him.

00:05:28.000 And however, he did rule correctly, which I will say, that's good.

00:05:34.000 Talk about, so you had a big victory recently, last couple of days ago, right?

00:05:39.000 The main case that's going to have implications for religious freedom nationwide.

00:05:46.000 And that is another question I have about the Second Amendment case.

00:05:48.000 So maybe you could answer both at the same time while telling us about your case.

00:05:51.000 Is it now true to say that the case in New York will then apply to all other, is now concealed carry a constitutional right in every American state?

00:06:04.000 Is that right?

00:06:05.000 No, no.

00:06:06.000 It didn't say that you can't have requirements, for instance, that you have an ability that, you know, for instance, mental illness or, you know, a weapons charge, you know, maybe you're a felon or it didn't say that you can't have restrictions.

00:06:24.000 It just said that you can't have a restriction that's not based upon like your ability to carry a firearm, but instead is like, show us your reason, your proper cause.

00:06:35.000 It's like, this is not an authority.

00:06:37.000 So there will still be concealed weapons, concealed carry requirements in states, but it definitely, again, puts the power back in the individual and their Second Amendment rights.

00:06:50.000 And it strikes down this idea that you have to prove to the government why you have a right, which is the more important issue there.

00:06:57.000 So then tell us about your main case.

00:06:59.000 And is your main case, does that have a precedent now that could apply to the rest of the country?

00:07:06.000 It will.

00:07:07.000 The main case was a, it was a law that said in Maine, most of the public school districts, they call them SAUs, but most of us refer to those as school districts, don't have public schools, especially in the rural areas.

00:07:20.000 So they've allowed for years parents to choose where to send their tax money, public or private schools.

00:07:28.000 Even out of state, they could even, you know, even out of country was okay.

00:07:34.000 But then they decided to put in a provision that said, but we're not going to allow you to pick a school where they teach from a religious viewpoint.

00:07:43.000 That's amazing.

00:07:44.000 And again, think about this.

00:07:46.000 Justice Salito did a great job in the oral argument pointing out.

00:07:49.000 So a Marxist school is okay.

00:07:54.000 A white supremacist school, okay.

00:07:57.000 But a religious school, not okay.

00:08:00.000 And they had to admit, yes.

00:08:02.000 And so it was just clear discrimination.

00:08:06.000 It's a program that was available to everybody.

00:08:08.000 Instead of treating everybody the same, they discriminated against religion.

00:08:13.000 And the Supreme Court struck that down.

00:08:17.000 That's really important in one obvious way, and then I'll go a broader way.

00:08:22.000 In an obvious way, because this means every school choice program in the country, wherever they exist and wherever they're passed in the future, it's very clear you cannot exclude religious schools from the parental choices.

00:08:36.000 So that does apply to the rest of the country.

00:08:38.000 Why would that apply?

00:08:40.000 And the Second Amendment case won't.

00:08:42.000 Is it a technical difference?

00:08:44.000 No, it'll apply because it's a constitutional provision, in this case, free exercise.

00:08:51.000 Got it.

00:08:51.000 Okay.

00:08:52.000 That says it's going to apply everywhere.

00:08:54.000 The Second Amendment applies everywhere, but not everybody has this show us your proper cause provision.

00:09:01.000 And that's really what was at play in New York.

00:09:03.000 To the extent any state tried to do that, it would apply to that.

00:09:08.000 So, but the main school choice, religious liberty case will affect every school choice program.

00:09:15.000 And again, they said you don't have to do school choice, but if you choose to do any program, not just school choice, notice this, any program where the government provides benefits generally to everyone, you cannot put religious restrictions upon people.

00:09:32.000 The people are making the choice.

00:09:34.000 The parents are making the choice.

00:09:36.000 And so realize, Charlie, that means this will apply outside of just the school choice context.

00:09:43.000 There's lots of government programs where they offer benefits to everyone, and then they try to come in and say, but we don't want you to use that for some religious purpose.

00:09:54.000 You know, let's take, let's say they were dealing with people who were having problems with drugs and they were teenagers.

00:10:01.000 And they had this big program of people who were really helping and showing results with teenagers and getting them off of drugs.

00:10:08.000 There are people that would say, well, the religious group shouldn't be able to participate in that program.

00:10:13.000 This would say, you can't do that.

00:10:15.000 That's amazing.

00:10:16.000 And so it's going to have broad implications.

00:10:18.000 First Liberty is the one that brought it to victory, and it's going to have amazing implications.

00:10:25.000 We're blessed to live in the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the world.

00:10:29.000 Luke 1248 says, quote, to whom much has been given, much will be required.

00:10:33.000 We as Christians can shape our world.

00:10:36.000 One of these ways is how we steward our finances and our money.

00:10:39.000 If you have money and stocks, you have the power to affect change through your investments.

00:10:43.000 Jesus spoke about money in roughly 15% of his teachings and 11 out of 39 of his parables.

00:10:48.000 How do we follow his teachings about money?

00:10:50.000 Well, my friends at PAX Financial can help.

00:10:52.000 I've opened an account with them.

00:10:54.000 I think very highly of them.

00:10:55.000 They are fiduciaries that will make sure you have a responsible plan to retire.

00:10:59.000 I trust them with my money, and I hope you will as well.

00:11:02.000 But look, they'll also help you invest in companies that align with your beliefs.

00:11:06.000 No companies that engage in pornography or in excessive drinking or in a degenerate lifestyle.

00:11:13.000 If you have $150,000 to invest, please text my name, Charlie, to the number 74868.

00:11:20.000 And even if you don't have $150,000, maybe they'll make an exception for you.

00:11:23.000 I don't know, but just learn more about them.

00:11:25.000 Look, text Charlie to 74868.

00:11:28.000 Take advantage of the power to make a difference with your money.

00:11:31.000 PAX Financial.

00:11:32.000 It was great for me.

00:11:33.000 I think it will be terrific for you.

00:11:37.000 I want to play some tape and have Kelly react to it. 1.00

00:11:41.000 89.

00:11:42.000 That's right.

00:11:42.000 Let's play Cut 89.

00:11:44.000 Today, the Supreme Court is sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence.

00:11:51.000 And it's particularly painful that this came down at this moment.

00:11:55.000 This decision isn't just reckless, it's reprehensible.

00:11:59.000 It's not what New Yorkers want.

00:12:01.000 Have a moral responsibility to do what we can and have laws that protect our citizens because of what is going on, the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone all the way up to even to the Supreme Court.

00:12:16.000 Kelly, your reaction.

00:12:18.000 It's a foolish comment by a government official who's got thrown into office, not even through an election. 0.85

00:12:25.000 I mean, we have a constitution to keep the government from taking away people's individual rights. 0.94

00:12:30.000 And that's what they did today.

00:12:31.000 You know, if you don't want your statute struck down, maybe pass one that's constitutional.

00:12:37.000 But to tell citizens they can't defend themselves unless they show proper cause and prove to you that they have a right to a firearm and violates the Second Amendment.

00:12:48.000 You know, I'll tell you, Charlie, something very similar happened.

00:12:50.000 You know, we won the lawsuit on Tuesday at Supreme Court against Maine.

00:12:54.000 You know what?

00:12:55.000 There's a news article today that shows Maine speaking out.

00:12:58.000 They said that to rule in that way and allow religious schools to be treated the same was, quote, inimical to public education.

00:13:06.000 And then they pushed for it, said, we need to go to the legislature and we need to make sure and pass laws to make sure that no money in any of these religious or Christian schools are used for this backward thinking like LGBT and other issues where the church disagrees.

00:13:22.000 So if you wonder if there was animus behind the discrimination against the religious groups, there it is on display.

00:13:30.000 So this is the kind of reaction you get from tyrants and people who don't like the Constitution.

00:13:35.000 Well, I mean, but can they do that after the Supreme Court decision?

00:13:39.000 I mean, don't they have to honor it?

00:13:41.000 They do have to honor it.

00:13:42.000 They're going to have to follow it.

00:13:44.000 I think what New York ended up saying is that they're going to try to figure out other ways, the restrictions that they can put in, that will be upheld.

00:13:55.000 And they're going to try to work on that.

00:13:57.000 But, you know, it just shows all that's going to be evidence.

00:14:01.000 Just like if Maine goes back and discriminates again, all of these hostile statements are going to be evidence of their own intent to violate the Constitution.

00:14:12.000 So, you know, we just, we love it.

00:14:15.000 Go ahead.

00:14:15.000 Speak on.

00:14:16.000 Yeah.

00:14:16.000 My fear, Kelly, my long-term fear, and we saw this with Sanctuary Cities, where cities and states were totally defying federal immigration law and Supreme Court decisions, that they're just going to defy the Supreme Court when they don't like the decisions they don't like and they'll pick and choose.

00:14:33.000 Are you afraid we might be going in that direction?

00:14:35.000 Because as you know, the Supreme Court has the least enforcement capabilities of any branch.

00:14:43.000 Let Marshall send his army.

00:14:45.000 What's your thoughts on that?

00:14:46.000 Yeah, I mean, that's always a danger.

00:14:48.000 And to be honest, conservatives are just as guilty of kind of saying that they want to go there at times.

00:14:55.000 But if you'll notice, they're not going there.

00:14:57.000 I mean, you've got this New York mayor saying that the decision is horrible and all these things, but she's not saying we're not going to follow it because, you know, the federal courts, the state courts, everyone would apply those and say you will follow it.

00:15:11.000 So while that sentiment is definitely there and there is a danger if we ever go there, I do, I don't think we're certainly there yet.

00:15:18.000 And people are, I mean, if you look at all these decisions, and there's going to be more that are going to be coming down that they're not going to like, but they're following them.

00:15:27.000 I mean, we still got an EPA decision to come down.

00:15:31.000 We have the decision on the border to come down.

00:15:35.000 We've got our Coach Kennedy case that's going to affect all the school districts across the country.

00:15:40.000 That's going to come down.

00:15:41.000 And then, of course, Dobbs.

00:15:43.000 So we've got some big ones coming down, and my prediction is they will follow it.

00:15:47.000 I think their reaction, Charlie, from the Marxist left is they're going to explode over this, but I think they're going to realize we've got to take over the courts.

00:15:57.000 And so they're going to push heavy for court packing.

00:15:59.000 You're going to see that really explode over the next week or so when all these decisions are out.

00:16:05.000 Keith Olbermann, who's a nothing, said it's become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court.

00:16:09.000 The first step is for the state, the court to now, that has forced on to ignore the ruling.

00:16:13.000 Great, you're a court.

00:16:14.000 Why and how do you think you can enforce your rulings?

00:16:16.000 That's Keith Olberman.

00:16:17.000 He's a joke, but that is something that is being said in left-wing intelligentsia circles.

00:16:22.000 I think that's only going to intensify.

00:16:23.000 Kelly, we're out of time.

00:16:24.000 Firstliberty.org, thank you so much for joining us.

00:16:27.000 Thank you, Charlie.

00:16:30.000 Pay very close attention, everybody.

00:16:32.000 Charlie Kirk here.

00:16:32.000 We're now facing severe food shortages, high inflation, and outrageous fuel prices.

00:16:38.000 Some people are saying there's a looming recession and possibly things could get even worse.

00:16:43.000 Are you prepared?

00:16:44.000 Do you have enough emergency food stored up for months and months?

00:16:46.000 If not, go to preparewithkirk.com.

00:16:49.000 You'll save $150 on a three-month emergency food kit from MyPatriot supply.

00:16:54.000 Be sure to get at least one kit for each person in your family.

00:16:57.000 Your three-month emergency food kit gives you a wide variety of delicious meals every day, breakfast, lunch, dinner, drinks, and snacks for three full months per person.

00:17:05.000 If the worst happens and you don't have this emergency food kit, you'll regret it.

00:17:09.000 So go to preparewithkirk.com right now to save $150 per three-month food kit.

00:17:13.000 Act quickly because these kits are selling like hot cakes.

00:17:17.000 Your order ships fast and arrives discreetly in unmarked boxes.

00:17:20.000 You get free shipping as well.

00:17:22.000 So go to preparewithkirk.com.

00:17:24.000 That's preparewithkirk.com.

00:17:26.000 You're nine meals away from anarchy.

00:17:27.000 Prepare yourself at preparewithkirk.com.

00:17:33.000 Massive victory on the U.S. Supreme Court today.

00:17:36.000 Clarence Thomas writes: as the opinion of the court, in sum, the courts of appeals second step is inconsistent with Heller's, there was a Heller decision previously about 10 years ago, historical approach and its rejection of means and scrutiny.

00:17:55.000 We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows.

00:18:00.000 When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

00:18:09.000 The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it's consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulations.

00:18:21.000 Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's unqualified command.

00:18:32.000 The Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights.

00:18:37.000 Take, for instance, freedom of speech in the First Amendment.

00:18:41.000 This is an extraordinary paragraph that we have been waiting for for quite some time.

00:18:47.000 That the U.S. Supreme Court is saying that the Second Amendment must be treated with the same respect and protection as the First Amendment.

00:18:56.000 That they believe that they are both moral, natural, God-granted rights.

00:19:03.000 Not just the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly or the freedom of privacy in the Fourth Amendment, but also the Second Amendment, your freedom to protect yourself.

00:19:12.000 Now, Governor Hochl from New York goes and says gun culture has overtaken the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:19:19.000 And she makes a very silly argument saying that, well, back when the Constitution was written, they only had muskets.

00:19:28.000 We should go back to muskets. 1.00

00:19:30.000 And you should ask her, well, does the First Amendment not apply to Twitter?

00:19:35.000 Does the First Amendment not apply to the Internet?

00:19:38.000 Does it only apply to writing on pieces of paper?

00:19:44.000 Does the Fourth Amendment not apply to government surveillance using technology of your home?

00:19:51.000 Do the rights of the Constitution remain even though technology advances?

00:19:57.000 Well, the Constitution was not written for the times.

00:20:00.000 It was written to stand the test of time.

00:20:03.000 You see, the Constitution understood the natural law, as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, the laws of nature and nature's God.

00:20:13.000 If you study the Declaration of Independence, it is very easy to all of a sudden see all the complaints they put in the Declaration against the king, they go about solving 11 years later in the Constitution.

00:20:28.000 Power is too concentrated, so then they have separation of powers.

00:20:31.000 We don't have consent, so then they get consent to the governed.

00:20:35.000 There's no judiciary that can keep you in check, King George.

00:20:38.000 They create the independent judiciary.

00:20:41.000 That not one man should be able to have so much power.

00:20:44.000 They put checks and balances.

00:20:47.000 And so at every corner you see, the complaint of the Declaration against King George is solved by the Constitution.

00:20:59.000 One of the most powerful phrases in all of the Federalist papers written by John J., Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison is in Federalist 51.

00:21:11.000 And in Federalist 51, it argues the structure of the Constitution matters more than anything else.

00:21:21.000 But also in the Federalist Papers, in Federalist 51, it says, quote, if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

00:21:32.000 In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this.

00:21:39.000 You must first enable the government to control the governed and next oblige it to control itself.

00:21:46.000 Put differently, if all men were angels, no government would be necessary.

00:21:50.000 If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls would be necessary.

00:21:55.000 They were making an observation on human nature.

00:21:59.000 They realized that human beings were likely to consolidate power for themselves, act corruptly in a government apparatus, lie, cheat, and steal.

00:22:10.000 These are things that we know in the natural law, otherwise known as original sin, that we derive from the teachings of the Bible.

00:22:19.000 The founding fathers were steeped in this teaching.

00:22:22.000 John Adams himself, a graduate of Harvard University, spoke fluent Hebrew.

00:22:28.000 The founding fathers put Leviticus on the liberty bell.

00:22:33.000 They were immersed in biblical wisdom, which allowed them to create the structure that then has these different pieces and these parts.

00:22:44.000 Kathy Hochl, the governor of New York, she doesn't believe in that.

00:22:48.000 She believes now that we have airplanes and Twitter and vaccines, your rights go away.

00:22:54.000 We don't believe that as conservatives or constitutionalists.

00:22:58.000 We believe the individual is sovereign in 1791 and the individual is sovereign in 2022.

00:23:04.000 Regardless of the times you live in, you are still a human being.

00:23:08.000 And that really goes to the question that should be asked of Kathy Hochl.

00:23:12.000 What is a human being?

00:23:14.000 Now, if she is consistent, she'll say a human being is a collection of cells that develop through millions of years of evolution, accidentally being able to break through consciousness, and we are nothing more than able to feel pleasure and pain, and anything else is an aberration of chemical compounds jolting through your brain.

00:23:32.000 If you believe that is what a human being is, then you could reasonably come to the conclusion that the sovereignty is not within the individual.

00:23:40.000 But instead, if you believe that human beings were designed and that there is a symmetry, a harmony to nature around you, and that human beings are here for a purpose.

00:23:52.000 And if you venture even far enough to say, regardless of your own religious views, mine are well known, we talk about it, but whatever religious view you have, that there is a soul or there is a spiritual dimension to existence, then all of a sudden you treat human beings a lot differently.

00:24:08.000 They're not an accident of millions of years of unfolding evolution, but instead they were designed for a purpose as the beings that can speak, that can express.

00:24:20.000 And the Constitution is the only document ever, and there's been a couple that have paralleled it, but it was definitely the first, and it's the longest lasting that recognizes what a human being is.

00:24:35.000 Not a comedy of errors or an accidental roll of the dice.

00:24:40.000 Here's Kathy Hochl making a fool of herself continuously, play cut 91. 1.00

00:24:47.000 And I'm sorry this dark day has come. 0.84

00:24:50.000 They were supposed to go back to what was in place since 1788 when the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified.

00:25:00.000 And I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices that the only weapons at the time were muskets.

00:25:06.000 I'm prepared to go back to muskets. 1.00

00:25:09.000 I don't think they envision the high-capacity assault weapon magazines intended for battlefields as being covered with this, but I guess we're just going to have to disagree.

00:25:20.000 Well, she doesn't know anything. 1.00

00:25:22.000 She's a fool. 1.00

00:25:23.000 And the more she talks, the deeper she dives into a hole of her own making and her own creation. 1.00

00:25:31.000 George Mason, who wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, said very clearly: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to be able to have a citizenry armed, if necessary, to be able to fight back against, God forbid, a tyrannical and usurptatious government.

00:25:52.000 Well, I'm sure all of Kathy Hochl's bodyguards will switch to muskets sometime soon. 1.00

00:25:57.000 And Kathy Hochl should understand freedom of speech does not apply to the internet.

00:26:02.000 She should tell the people of New York that you are not allowed to speak with any form of technology.

00:26:08.000 You're only allowed to write letters.

00:26:10.000 And in fact, you do not have freedom of movement anymore.

00:26:13.000 You must use horse and buggy carriages.

00:26:16.000 And Kathy Hochl should get rid of all the electronic voting machines because even though voting might be a right, you're not allowed to use anything with electricity because the founding fathers never would have envisioned using voting machines. 1.00

00:26:30.000 This is a view that is widespread amongst politicians on the American left.

00:26:38.000 And it was dominant for quite some time.

00:26:42.000 10 years makes a big difference when we take something seriously.

00:26:48.000 Now, you might feel like you're losing your country.

00:26:50.000 I certainly do.

00:26:52.000 But in 10 years, we've made some incredible victories and some meaningful accomplishments.

00:26:59.000 I want you to listen to the wonderful, the wise, the courageous Justice Antonin Scalia lament about where we were 10 years ago.

00:27:13.000 The court looked like it was lost.

00:27:15.000 We looked like a runaway country.

00:27:18.000 Yes, we were less in debt.

00:27:21.000 Yes, inflation was far less than it was now, but the courts looked like a permanently damaged enterprise.

00:27:28.000 Play cut 90.

00:27:30.000 We've sort of gone off the rails that nowadays, especially with regard to the Constitution, the accepted view and the view stated by my court repeatedly is that the words don't necessarily mean what they were understood to mean at the time, but can be given new meaning.

00:27:54.000 It's up to the court to say what they mean today.

00:27:58.000 They mean today what they ought to mean today, and it's up to the court to decide that.

00:28:04.000 That's new.

00:28:05.000 But, you know, it all comes under the title, the living constitution.

00:28:12.000 The living constitution.

00:28:12.000 We'll get to that phrase.

00:28:14.000 But again and again.

00:28:15.000 I hate it.

00:28:17.000 You make that clear.

00:28:19.000 He was alone.

00:28:20.000 It was him and Clarence Thomas holding down the Fort Worth Alito, and they were outnumbered by the living Constitution crowd.

00:28:30.000 And Scalia had charm, and he had charisma and whimsy.

00:28:36.000 And there's other speeches we could pull from him where he says, I'm pessimistic.

00:28:42.000 10 years later, we have a 6-3 majority.

00:28:44.000 Well, Roberts is whatever.

00:28:45.000 A 5-3-1 majority.

00:28:49.000 Thomas Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

00:28:52.000 How did this happen?

00:28:56.000 What happened because a billionaire businessman went down a golden escalator and made a series of promises and had the courage to actually fulfill them, changing the court for a generation and preventing Hillary Rodham Clinton and her cartel of criminals from getting back into the White House.

00:29:12.000 If Hillary wins the White House, Roe would be made permanent law. 1.00

00:29:18.000 You don't know what's going to happen there.

00:29:20.000 The Second Amendment deal would be upheld.

00:29:22.000 And guess what?

00:29:23.000 And I will compliment Mitch McConnell.

00:29:26.000 Yes, the day after I go after Mitch McConnell pretty hard, is that one of the great contributions Mitch McConnell has given to our republic, and there's not many, but that's worthy of recognition, is when Mitch McConnell refused to put Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court after Scalia passed.

00:29:46.000 McConnell deserves credit for that.

00:29:48.000 He got so much hate and backlash.

00:29:51.000 And trust me, I don't make a habit out of thanking McConnell.

00:29:54.000 But I'm honest.

00:29:56.000 And you should be honest too.

00:29:58.000 How did we get here after 10 years?

00:30:02.000 10 years from Scalia lamenting and railing about how we've gone off the rails.

00:30:09.000 And I don't know if we're ever going to get this back.

00:30:11.000 10 years later, a court that is the best that's been in, I think, modern American history, if not ever.

00:30:20.000 Someone can show me a better court, but certainly not since FDR has there been a court that has loved the Constitution as much as this court and is actually doing something about it.

00:30:28.000 We'll see what they do with Roe.

00:30:29.000 It looks good, but we'll see.

00:30:31.000 How did this happen?

00:30:34.000 Mitch McConnell deserves credit for not putting that serpent Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court and holding the line.

00:30:40.000 And Donald Trump deserves credit.

00:30:43.000 Play cut 85, Trump's promise of picking good Supreme Court justices.

00:30:47.000 He made the promise and he fulfilled the promise.

00:30:50.000 Every single one of the Supreme Court victories that you're about to enjoy is thanks to a billionaire businessman, never who ran for office before, coming down a golden escalator and appointing three Supreme Court justices.

00:31:06.000 You do not have to like him.

00:31:08.000 You do not have to like his tone.

00:31:11.000 But America is a freer country from a judicial perspective because of a man who ran for office and did what he said he was going to do.

00:31:19.000 Play cut 85.

00:31:22.000 The Supreme Court, it's what it's all about.

00:31:24.000 Our country is so, so, just so imperative that we have the right justices.

00:31:30.000 We need a Supreme Court that, in my opinion, is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments, but the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege.

00:31:40.000 I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint, and I've named 20 of them, they will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted.

00:31:54.000 Cut 86, President Trump says he thinks justices should not rule based on what they hear, but instead based on the Constitution.

00:32:00.000 He's making a textualist argument here.

00:32:03.000 Play cut 86.

00:32:04.000 I don't think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear.

00:32:10.000 It's all about the Constitution of, and so important, the Constitution the way it was meant to be.

00:32:21.000 And those are the people that I will appoint.

00:32:24.000 And that is who he appointed.

00:32:26.000 I know a lot of people in 2016 that didn't like a thing about Donald Trump.

00:32:31.000 But when he put his list out, these are the justices.

00:32:34.000 I know a lot of evangelicals.

00:32:36.000 I know a lot of suburban voters.

00:32:38.000 They said, all right, I'll vote for you for the justices.

00:32:41.000 The justices I can understand.

00:32:43.000 Because if Hillary Clinton would have won that race, if Hillary Clinton would have become president of the United States, you would have had three more Katanji Brown Jacksons.

00:32:54.000 You would not have Amy Coney, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

00:32:57.000 You would have right now, just so you understand the significance of Donald Trump's election, the incredible, just historical implications, you would have Kagan, Sodomayor, Breyer, Roberts, whatever, three Katangi Brown Jackson types, Clarence Thomas, and Alito.

00:33:17.000 It would effectively be a 7-2 court.

00:33:19.000 One election.

00:33:22.000 One election, one term, one president, three justices.

00:33:26.000 The fruit that comes out of that, potentially Roe versus Wade being repealed, amazing religious liberty cases, as we just went through in Maine, Second Amendment being upheld and bad laws being struck down via judicial review.

00:33:41.000 It's a transformational difference.

00:33:42.000 It's not a little difference.

00:33:43.000 It's not on the margins.

00:33:45.000 It's a 180.

00:33:46.000 It's either you're going north or you're going south.

00:33:48.000 Speaking of going north, one of my favorite clips ever from Justice Thomas, play cut 92.

00:33:54.000 You can be in the middle of a hurricane, or you can be on a calm day.

00:33:59.000 North is still north.

00:34:01.000 You could be in a thunderstorm.

00:34:03.000 North is still north.

00:34:05.000 People can yell at you.

00:34:06.000 North is still north.

00:34:08.000 It doesn't change fundamental things.

00:34:11.000 And in this business, right is still right, even if you stand by yourself.

00:34:17.000 It's so amazing what he's saying there.

00:34:19.000 I want you to understand the beauty and the importance of what he's saying.

00:34:25.000 He's talking about objective truth.

00:34:27.000 A man is a man, a woman is a woman, regardless of how many people protesting outside your home.

00:34:31.000 Life begins at conception.

00:34:33.000 North is north.

00:34:35.000 Right is right.

00:34:36.000 Wrong is wrong.

00:34:38.000 He's making an argument there for objective truth, the amazing Clarence Thomas.

00:34:43.000 And happy birthday to Clarence Thomas, by the way.

00:34:45.000 So how did we get here after 10 years?

00:34:47.000 We took it seriously, we as conservatives.

00:34:50.000 And Mitch McConnell, despite all the nonsense that he's done in recent months, which is plenty, he deserves credit for not allowing Merrick Garland to get on the U.S. Supreme Court and then Donald Trump winning the election and putting three incredible Supreme Court justices in.

00:35:06.000 One decade later, Scalia is no longer lamenting.

00:35:10.000 He's smiling from heaven and chuckling and saying, for all you libs that hated me, who's laughing now?

00:35:20.000 Thank you so much for listening, everybody.

00:35:21.000 Email me your thoughts is always freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:35:24.000 Thanks so much for listening.

00:35:25.000 God bless.

00:35:28.000 For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.

The Charlie Kirk Show - June 23, 2022

BREAKING: SCOTUS Deals Devastating Blow to New York Gun Grabbers

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript