The Megyn Kelly Show - Supreme Court's Historic Free Speech and Student Debt Decisions, with Charles C.W. Cooke, Judge Amul Thapar, Kristen Waggoner, and More ｜ Ep. 579

00:00:00.440 Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.

00:00:11.560 Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, and what a day. Huge, absolutely huge.

00:00:19.080 Two new major rulings, landmark rulings in one case, from the U.S. Supreme Court on this, the final day of its session.

00:00:26.900 The court today striking down President Biden's student loan, quote, forgiveness plan as an executive overreach, finding he lacked the executive authority to do this.

00:00:38.620 And in a genuinely landmark ruling on free speech, the high court ruled that states cannot order Americans to violate their own religious beliefs,

00:00:49.460 even when a state law purporting to be battling discrimination against protected groups tries to require it.

00:00:58.320 We'll get into the specifics of that ruling.

00:01:00.580 You may remember the Colorado woman behind that second case, the one about the public accommodations and free speech.

00:01:07.920 She came on this program, and in just a bit, her lawyer, Kristen Wagoner of Alliance Defending Freedom,

00:01:13.780 who was also with her when she appeared on this program, will be here with her first reaction to their enormous win.

00:01:20.620 I'm also going to be joined by Charles C.W. Cook, absolutely one of, if not the fiercest critic of the president's student loan plan.

00:01:28.400 You may recall he's been calling for President Biden to be impeached over this executive overreach.

00:01:34.100 Charles is not prone to that kind of incendiary rhetoric, but that's how strongly he felt about the egregiousness of what Biden did here.

00:01:42.880 So we'll have his reaction on the high court agreeing with him.

00:01:47.400 But first, we are honored to begin today with Judge Amul Thapar.

00:01:52.760 Judge Thapar sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

00:01:57.880 He was President Trump's first appellate court nominee back in 2017.

00:02:01.700 He was also on the shortlist of Supreme Court justices of names for the high court when Trump was choosing during his presidency

00:02:10.280 and is believed to be again to be on that list if Trump wins in 2024 and, frankly, if any Republican wins.

00:02:18.240 He has a perfectly timed book out right now called The People's Justice, Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories That Define Him,

00:02:25.560 which I absolutely loved and blurbed because I loved it.

00:02:29.740 And we just got lucky that Judge Thapar was booked to come on this program today, the biggest day of the high court's term.

00:02:37.600 Judge, it's an honor to meet you in person.

00:02:39.280 Thank you so much for being here.

00:02:41.200 Let me just get your overall reaction to the bombshells that were handed down by the high court this morning.

00:02:46.900 Yeah.

00:02:47.660 First, thank you for having me.

00:02:49.180 It's really a pleasure to be here.

00:02:50.900 I think the first thing the American people should take away and hopefully the book demonstrates this is that the majority of the majority in both cases is trying their best to get back to the meanings of the law and the original meaning of the Constitution.

00:03:08.480 And they're spending a lot of time talking about that.

00:03:12.320 I haven't had a chance to fully digest the opinions, but I think it just proves the thesis in my mind of The People's Justice, the book.

00:03:22.400 Because Clarence Thomas, who you zero in on, is fighting with the majority in all of these cases.

00:03:29.460 Yesterday's case striking down affirmative action in college admissions process.

00:03:34.480 Today's ruling against Biden on his executive overreach with student loans and critically, this free speech case.

00:03:40.640 I have to tell you, and we'll get to more of the book in a minute, but I have to tell you, for me as a lawyer, it it made my heart sing to see an opinion like this so strongly reminding the American people of the power of the First Amendment and chastising states who, in the name of equity, wokeness, however you want to phrase it, try to trample on those rights.

00:04:01.640 Yeah. And one of the important things, Megan, not to forget, is what the originalists are doing.

00:04:07.820 They're not then textualists. They're not stating their opinion.

00:04:11.740 They're they're honoring the American people's opinion.

00:04:14.840 And so when you point to the First Amendment, for example, it's the American people that decided that the First Amendment was a critical foundation in our rights,

00:04:23.080 so much so that they enshrined it as the first in the Bill of Rights, in the Constitution.

00:04:28.060 In fact, the Anti-Federalists fought tooth and nail for a right of conscience.

00:04:32.640 And it was spelled out in more detail by James Madison in the First Amendment.

00:04:37.120 And the whole point of originalism and textualism is to honor the will of the people.

00:04:42.680 And when you do that, you most often favor the little person, because if the American people want to change it,

00:04:50.560 the beauty of the court enforcing the Constitution as written is the American people, if they disagree, have a mechanism to change it,

00:04:58.180 whether it be amendments or through laws.

00:05:00.240 But here, when it's a bill of right, a right they enshrined in the Constitution, as you point out,

00:05:07.120 they have the court has an obligation to enforce those rights as they were understood at the founding.

00:05:14.260 The free speech principles that are at the bedrock of the foundation of this country have been getting eroded bit by bit,

00:05:22.040 whether it's by state laws that go unchallenged or by laws like this that a lower court will uphold in the name of,

00:05:31.360 well, you know, we have a state law that protects, that's basically an anti-discrimination law in public accommodations.

00:05:37.220 And we just don't think that the First Amendment really is going to trump that.

00:05:40.580 But this this court really put the lie to it today, saying that's not true, saying you can have anti-discrimination laws.

00:05:48.060 In this case, it's in public accommodations, like it was a web design proprietor who would absolutely serve LGBTQ members.

00:05:56.100 Absolutely. If you went in there and said, I'm going to launch, you know, a realty company,

00:06:01.440 she would have built your realty company for you, your website, despite your LGBTQ status. 1.00

00:06:07.320 She didn't want to do same sex websites for them. That was the place she drew the line. 0.99

00:06:11.420 And she came on this show and said, I'm not only fighting for people like me who don't want to do that.

00:06:15.120 I'm fighting for people on the other side, same sex marriage proponents who don't want to accommodate somebody who wants to have them do a website opposing same sex marriage and maybe bashing something they believe in.

00:06:28.580 So this win is a win for all of us. However, I have to say, I've been shocked at the amount, the amount of jurists who won't stand up for this principle.

00:06:36.620 And I wonder how big you think this landmark decision is in shutting down this erosion of the free speech principles.

00:06:43.800 Yeah. So let me stand up for my colleagues just a little bit here, because I think it's important that all your listeners know that we are trying to do our best.

00:06:53.280 And it's helpful when the Supreme Court does this and gives us clear guidance, because a lot of these we struggle through the briefs.

00:06:59.300 The arguments aren't raised. The right arguments aren't raised. And we're bound by the arguments that are raised.

00:07:04.140 I truly think, for example, on my court, I've got a total of 15 active judges right now and a bunch of senior judges, and I see them struggle all the time with difficult issues.

00:07:14.540 But I think every one of them is trying to get it right. We may approach it from different angles, but we're all trying to get it right.

00:07:21.180 And it's really one of the great hallmarks of the court as an institution is that despite the kind of what you see on the outside, on the inside, we all get along really well.

00:07:32.540 And we're like brothers and sisters that have disagreements and we work really hard. And I think my circuit is emblematic of that.

00:07:40.500 Yes, I agree. It's one of the best circuits, definitely better than the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit, in my view.

00:07:45.560 So but let's talk a little bit about the opinion, because, you know, the court really gets into it and says the following because we had Lori on this program, Lori Smith, and she is a small town woman who launched her own business designing websites and said, this is where I'm going to draw the line.

00:08:01.960 I'm not going to do the ones that promote same sex marriages. And there was a local law in California saying she must that she has no choice and that she was also prohibited from even posting on her own website that she is opposed to same sex marriages. 1.00

00:08:15.280 Would not even allow her to say how she felt and then tried to compel her speech. Right. So they silenced the speech in one lane and they compelled the speech or tried to in another lane.

00:08:24.660 You will do the website. You will use your own words to support same sex marriages. And this is what the court wrote. Colorado defended its law.

00:08:33.700 They said under Colorado's logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic, no matter the message.

00:08:42.680 If that topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters and others whose services involve speech to speak.

00:08:56.120 What they do not believe on pain of penalty. The court's precedents recognize the First Amendment tolerates none of that.

00:09:04.600 And then it goes on to say, look, to be sure, public accommodations laws play a vital role in in protecting the civil rights of all Americans.

00:09:11.200 But they say at the same time, this court has also long recognized that no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution.

00:09:21.000 In particular, this court has held public accommodation statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.

00:09:29.620 So what they're saying is a local law, a state law that is meant to protect these communities, you know, minority rights cannot trump the Constitution's free speech protections.

00:09:44.000 When it's the state versus the Constitution and the right to free speech, the Constitution is going to reign supreme.

00:09:51.840 Yeah, and I think the court's really been consistent of that.

00:09:53.940 If you go all the way back to their Skokie case, for example, and the right to march and speech we might not want to hear, you'll remember, and this this kind of goes to Virginia v. Black, too, which is in the book.

00:10:05.000 You'll remember that speech we may not like, others are entitled to say.

00:10:09.440 And this goes, I think the important thing is really that this goes all the way back to the founding where the federalists and anti-federalists, the anti-federalists were going to stop the Constitution from being ratified if we didn't have rights of conscience.

00:10:21.540 It was so important to them that people be protected from being forced by any government to say what they didn't believe.

00:10:30.120 I mean, it's one of the great hallmarks of our country.

00:10:32.540 In fact, it's why people can protest our rulings and often do.

00:10:36.460 It gives them the liberty, the American people, the liberty to take an unpopular voice.

00:10:42.780 And in fact, if you think about it, those unpopular voices, sometimes they're unpopular 30 years ago, become more popular now because they're entitled to be voiced.

00:10:53.600 And countries that don't allow people to have a right of conscience are the very countries where the separation of powers breaks down or their dictatorships or monarchies.

00:11:03.240 And that just isn't the United States.

00:11:05.020 And I really think the court has been consistent here from the Skokie cases to these cases, to Virginia v. Black and other cases, as as I document in the book, I think.

00:11:15.620 To your point, this listen to how Justice Gorsuch, a Trump appointee to the high court, ends the opinion.

00:11:22.900 It's absolutely gorgeous.

00:11:24.240 He writes,

00:11:54.240 That is beautiful.

00:12:07.520 That's beautiful.

00:12:08.380 And it used to be uncontroversial.

00:12:10.700 Yeah.

00:12:11.300 And the other thing, Megan, that you're highlighting so well, but I think is important for your listeners, is we should all imagine a government official we vehemently disagree with, and then imagine them compelling us to give a message we disagree with.

00:12:24.980 So that's the point you were making about this protects everyone.

00:12:29.000 It doesn't protect one side or the other.

00:12:30.980 And I hope everyone walks away from this decision and recognizes it reinforces the rights in the Constitution there from the founding to protect everyone's right to think differently than their government.

00:12:43.200 Yeah, it's, of course, not the way it's being spun today.

00:12:47.400 I'll just give you one example.

00:12:48.720 People magazine's headline, Skoda sides with anti-LGBTQ web designer.

00:12:53.700 She's anti. 0.90

00:12:54.660 OK.

00:12:54.820 Slate, of course, a left-wing publication.

00:12:58.100 The Supreme Court's blessing of anti-LGBTQ discrimination will haunt gay couples.

00:13:04.360 PBS Supreme Court rules for Christian graphic designer who didn't want to work with gay couples.

00:13:09.460 This will be misrepresented in pretty much all of the press other than, you know, Fox News and digital media.

00:13:16.920 But this is why the book, if I can bring it back, is so important because the people's justice talks about how the criticisms that originalists favor the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak, the corporations over the consumers just isn't true.

00:13:31.860 And when you read the real stories of the cases, not the headlines, but the real stories of the 12 cases included in the book, you see firsthand that originalism actually favors more often the little guy because that's honoring the will of the people or the will of the Constitution.

00:13:48.660 And that's what you're pointing out here.

00:13:50.220 It's often protects you from the government.

00:13:52.600 Why?

00:13:53.000 Because when the American people gave up and allowed the government to infringe on certain God-given rights, it was a limited infringement that they allowed.

00:14:00.720 And they retained the remainder of their rights so much so that they put the Bill of Rights in place right away.

00:14:06.640 That was a condition of the Constitution being approved, was the Bill of Rights being there.

00:14:12.340 And so when you honor those rights, you often honor the little guy against the government.

00:14:17.980 You it's a great it's a very timely book because it, in essence, rehabilitates Justice Thomas, who required no rehabilitation to any of us who have been following his career and his jurisprudence.

00:14:30.660 But he's been so demonized by the left.

00:14:33.040 It was a great idea to do, especially from somebody like you with your credentials and the respect that you have in the legal community.

00:14:38.700 But it comes at a great time because he's really getting bashed right now, not only for his alleged they alleged these were improper gifts he took from donors.

00:14:47.640 Not not true, not improper.

00:14:49.160 But because of what they've been saying about him in the wake of the decision yesterday on affirmative action and now in the wake of these, I bring to you, forgive me for playing you a soundbite from Joy Reid.

00:15:00.200 This is in the wake of the affirmative action decision yesterday in which had in part Justice Thomas warring with Justice Sotomayor in the dissent and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the defense in the dissent about what this would mean for minority communities.

00:15:13.320 You point out in the book, Justice Thomas consistently, consistently in his opinions, whether they're the majority or the dissent, cites people like Frederick Douglass, Thomas Sowell, you know, brilliant, legal black men who have sort of set the stage for his arguments.

00:15:28.540 None of that matters to somebody like Joy Reid, who's representative of many on the far left.

00:15:33.660 Here's what she had to say in Sot 3.

00:15:36.520 He, like Samuel Alito, appears to operate from a kind of rage, a sort of cold rage against the entire 20th century, the second half of the 20th century, which they find to be an affront to their own self-image and to their image of America as this country that is known.

00:15:58.540 And that has been noble and that has always been noble and whose slaveholding founders were noble.

00:16:03.860 He has been assisted, you know, by white patrons, really, his whole life. 0.78

00:16:09.380 He seems to deeply resent all of the assistance he got, and he wants to make sure that nobody like him ever gets that kind of help again, because it helps his self-image so that he can lie to himself and fool himself and maybe hate himself a little less for having gotten help all along his path to the Supreme Court.

00:16:29.000 And it was only black people's support in those polls that got wavering Democrats to vote for him.

00:16:37.140 And he has repaid black people with scorn ever since. 0.83

00:16:42.280 A lot there.

00:16:45.620 What do you make of it?

00:16:47.260 Well, I would say I would point to the first chapter of the book and say the one thing I tell people is give the book to a critic and make them ask them to read it and then discuss it with them.

00:16:58.280 The first chapter of the book talks about Suzette Kilo's struggle to keep her home from a partnership with Pfizer and the city of New London.

00:17:05.640 And I'm going to fast forward. The opinion reaches the Supreme Court and who the one justice that takes the NAACP's invitation to return to the original meaning is Justice Thomas.

00:17:16.800 And he's in dissent, along with Justices Scalia, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor.

00:17:22.240 And the reason he points out, among others, is that often eminent domain, the taking when the government takes it for it's supposed to be a public use, although, as he said, it was suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation.

00:17:37.180 When they do that, they most often harm poor minorities. 0.51

00:17:41.040 And in fact, in a predecessor case, 97 percent of the people that were displaced were black.

00:17:47.500 And so he goes through and chapter by chapter, you're going to see, as you just pointed out, he often cites Frederick Douglass.

00:17:54.500 He often cites Thomas Sowell, as he did yesterday.

00:17:58.020 And he has a little bit of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in him combined yesterday, a little bit of Martin Luther King.

00:18:04.580 Sometimes it's a little bit of Malcolm X.

00:18:06.380 I think the difference that people are missing is Justice Thomas, one of the things the book proves, and it's for ordinary people, is it proves that Justice Thomas has a strong black voice.

00:18:17.480 It surprised even me.

00:18:19.260 But what he has, and it comes from his upbringing, he was born dirt poor.

00:18:24.280 He he his mom made ten dollars a week and couldn't afford to raise a young Clarence Thomas and his brother.

00:18:30.960 So she gave him to their grandfather and their grandfather ruled with an iron fist.

00:18:35.860 But he also understood that education means emancipation, to quote Frederick Douglass and something Justice Thomas later quoted in the voucher case, the second chapter in the book.

00:18:45.780 And he whenever Justice Thomas would complain to his grandfather, he'd say, oh, man, can't is dead.

00:18:52.460 You know how I know I helped bury him.

00:18:55.080 And I think you saw that in yesterday's opinion.

00:18:58.400 His view was you could either choose victimhood.

00:19:01.240 And if you chose victimhood, you'd use it as an excuse or you can show that you, too, deserve to get things done.

00:19:09.000 And it's amazing because if you look at Chapter three, he predicts that grutter will be used to segregate, resegregate America. 0.81

00:19:20.760 And there was the case that upheld the use of race as a factor in college admissions.

00:19:25.780 Keep going.

00:19:27.000 Exactly.

00:19:27.700 And he strikes the stats yesterday.

00:19:30.160 Forty three percent of colleges now offer segregated housing.

00:19:34.180 Forty six percent offered segregated orientation programs and seventy two percent sponsored segregated graduation ceremonies.

00:19:42.400 He points out that HBCUs he's been championing, championing HBCUs since he got on the bench, which is not which is contrary to the narrative you'll hear out there.

00:19:54.880 And he points out yesterday that HBCUs have produced 40 percent of all black engineers, 80 percent of black judges, 50 percent of black doctors and 50 percent of black lawyers.

00:20:06.040 Think about that. And Xavier, a historically black college, has had more success than Harvard at moving low income students into the middle class.

00:20:19.140 Wow, that's amazing.

00:20:20.340 You point out you mentioned the voucher case.

00:20:22.960 It's another example of him fighting not just for the little guy, but of course, for students of color who get stuck in minority communities where the schools are not good and they can't get into a charter school or they can't get a voucher because of the teachers union.

00:20:35.120 And he's been fighting for those kids, too.

00:20:38.120 But he gets no credit for that from somebody like Joy Reed, who only wants to see racial preferences in in the way that she understands that that term enforced and promoted by Thomas. 0.99

00:20:50.360 Yeah. And chapter two talks all about that voucher program.

00:20:53.880 And, you know, he points out that the affirmative action at the end of that case, he points out affirmative action is an unconstitutional bandaid in his mind.

00:21:03.800 On a much bigger problem that they're using the bandaid so they don't have to solve the bigger problem, which is failing schools that often fail poor and minority students.

00:21:14.400 And if we fix that, those students would succeed.

00:21:17.380 And the Zellman case is a perfect example that 25 buildings, school buildings in Cleveland had been condemned.

00:21:23.200 And yet the students were still going there without toilet paper and soap.

00:21:27.980 And they set up a voucher program and it was challenged from the outset.

00:21:32.460 And the chapter two just details in gripping detail how that voucher program goes all the way to the Supreme Court.

00:21:39.420 And Justice Thomas is consistent in saying, look, this is what we need.

00:21:44.140 We need to give people a chance and we're trapping them in failing schools so they never have a chance.

00:21:50.020 And the way what he calls the cognoscenti, meaning the elites, what they do is they put an unconstitutional bandaid on it by using affirmative action rather than setting people up for success.

00:22:01.380 And he shows in the book shows how people like Warwick Dunn and Kathy McKee are amazing black, amazing people who happen to be black and accomplish amazing things under the hardest circumstances imaginable.

00:22:16.860 So it proves that no matter your race, you can accomplish great things.

00:22:21.420 And I think what people should step back and see is what Justice Thomas is really championing is the poor and the people that aren't given the tools to succeed.

00:22:31.800 And he's trying he's trying his best.

00:22:33.800 If you read the people's justice, you'll see at every turn he's championing those people.

00:22:40.680 And and yet he is portrayed as the devil incarnate by the left.

00:22:44.280 I mean, everyone's reaction to his dissents, whether it was in Dobbs overturning Roe or in the wake of the decisions of the past few days, zeroes in on him.

00:22:54.320 He gets it in a particular way because they they see him as some sort of a race traitor and they ignore, you know, like Nancy Pelosi was out just the other day scoffing at the store at this.

00:23:07.000 Her own story of how somebody had defended Justice Thomas to her as a good person.

00:23:12.160 And she just openly scoffed at it as if it was impossible.

00:23:16.060 And one of the things I love about the book is you get into who Justice Thomas is as a man to talk about when they honored him at Yale Law School.

00:23:24.600 I've heard you tell that story and how he was Justice Sonia Sotomayor's comments about Justice Thomas.

00:23:29.920 And, you know, this is his polar opposite, I would say, on the high court pointing out what a good man this is.

00:23:38.260 Yeah, it's her quote is amazing.

00:23:40.280 I would say coming from her, it means a lot because she also cares passionately about people.

00:23:44.940 And he says Justice Thomas is the one person in the building that knows everyone's name, that he cares deeply about the institution and people, the people in it.

00:23:54.240 And I think you see that firsthand.

00:23:56.400 He never forgets a person.

00:23:57.560 And in fact, the other day, Megan, there's this counterman case about truth that threats.

00:24:01.640 And remember, Kathy McKee, if I just may for a minute, Kathy McKee wanted to sue Bill Cosby to write her name.

00:24:08.900 And they said she couldn't because by suing him, she became a public figure and she had to prove actual malice, which Justice Thomas notes under New York Times versus Sullivan is almost impossible to prove.

00:24:20.660 He then writes a separate opinion saying Kathy McKee should have this right.

00:24:24.660 Two years later, he remembers Kathy McKee and he says by accusing a powerful man of rape, she was not given the opportunity to sue.

00:24:32.520 And just the other day, Encounterman, in his dissent, he again cites Kathy McKee's case.

00:24:38.980 So he never forgets the real people in front of the court.

00:24:43.620 And when the book starts with an amazing story, and I don't know if I have time to tell it, but if I do, I'd love to tell a story about him, his interaction with the homeless person.

00:24:52.340 Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

00:24:54.640 He walks out of a daily mass with a few of his long law clerks and a homeless person comes running up to him and says, Justice, Justice, I have a petition for you.

00:25:02.680 His law clerks brace and he waves them off and goes and talks to him and the man's animated.

00:25:09.840 And when he comes back, the law clerks say, what's going on, Justice?

00:25:14.120 Justice. And he says to them, these are hard days for him.

00:25:18.140 He then relays the story that the homeless man was addicted to drugs a few years ago.

00:25:23.320 And Justice Thomas counseled him to get off drugs because his mom and him had had a falling out over his drug use.

00:25:31.180 He got off drugs and reconciled with his mom and his mom had just passed away.

00:25:35.760 These are the stories that aren't told. That's what the people's justice is for, to tell the character of Justice Thomas and show how the cases are different than everyone portrays them.

00:25:46.400 And you read the facts alongside the litigants and see firsthand.

00:25:50.220 The evidence is right there in the case law and what he's written, whether it was his majority opinion writer or as the dissenter.

00:25:57.600 A couple of quick questions before. It's just too great an opportunity to have somebody like you here.

00:26:01.740 We talk a lot on this show about how, you know, the left's diehard push for equity at all costs and wokeism is affecting law schools.

00:26:11.100 You know what we saw at Yale Law School when we had a judge from the Third Circuit get shouted down.

00:26:16.860 You know, just sort of this complete abandonment of core principles to students who want to see hate speech banned, notwithstanding the provisions of the First Amendment and so on.

00:26:26.300 And we wrestle a lot on the show with whether the courts will be, you know, a bulwark, bulwark against that, whether they will stop that because the law will not allow these kinds of things or whether the law is slowly but surely surrendering to this agenda as these law students become lawyers and then judges.

00:26:45.280 What do you think?

00:26:46.860 You know, again, I work with colleagues, including all of my new nominee, all the new nominees to our court, and I find them to be incredibly thoughtful, willing to discuss different ideas.

00:26:58.300 I'm very hopeful for this country.

00:26:59.880 Like Justice Thomas, I recognize that, quote unquote, what we call the elite schools aren't always the best schools at times.

00:27:08.540 And you can look at Justice Thomas's hiring record.

00:27:11.520 He proves that when he hires from a diverse set of schools because he doesn't want to listen to what the elitists say to him about who he should hire.

00:27:20.140 And so he hires from the widest cross-section of schools and hires people from schools that don't have these issues and they have thoughtful discussion and debate.

00:27:29.580 I would say I've heard that after the incident at Stanford, even Stanford and the dean there should be commended.

00:27:36.100 She's done a good job of stamping it out and saying, look, we are going to have these discussions.

00:27:41.080 So I do think at a lot of these law schools, they might be the silent majority, but a lot of the professors are very intelligent and want to engage in this discussion.

00:27:50.100 That's why they went to teach, to tangle with intelligent students.

00:27:53.560 And so hopefully incidents like that are going to cause law schools to reassess.

00:27:58.900 And I do think Dean Martinez at Stanford should be commended for the steps she's taken to foster diversity of speech and allowing people to voice different views.

00:28:09.440 And I hope that's going to be the message going forward.

00:28:12.200 And I'm confident with deans like her, it will be.

00:28:14.700 I've always tried to respect the Supreme Court because I understand even if I disagree with the justices jurisprudential approach, I respect them.

00:28:25.320 They're making pretty big sacrifices.

00:28:27.240 You are, too.

00:28:27.780 You could be making millions if you were in private practice right now.

00:28:30.980 You don't get paid very much to sit on the federal bench.

00:28:33.500 And that's very much true of every one of the nine justices sitting on the high court right now.

00:28:39.020 It's not, unfortunately, the case for everybody.

00:28:41.240 And I thought yesterday, Joe Biden made an extraordinary remark when he was asked about this high court on his way out of his quick press conference reacting to the affirmative action case.

00:28:52.940 Here's what he said.

00:28:54.600 Its own legitimacy.

00:28:56.140 Is this a rogue court?

00:29:01.080 This is not a normal court.

00:29:04.860 Not a normal court is what how he described this particular court right now.

00:29:10.320 I'm sure because it's a 6-3 court in favor of the conservatives.

00:29:14.420 But what do you make of that, I think, extraordinary comment by the president of the United States?

00:29:19.300 Yeah, I mean, I don't want to get involved in politics.

00:29:21.040 But the one thing I will say about the justices on the court is I know all of them, other than Justice Jackson, who I also think the world of.

00:29:28.520 But I know eight of them pretty well.

00:29:30.980 And they're all amazing people just trying to do their job.

00:29:34.060 And I hope the American people go past that and read their decisions.

00:29:38.080 I mean, they spent 237 pages yesterday trying to explain their disagreements and talk about what they thought about affirmative action.

00:29:48.840 And I thought it was really telling that the debate was pretty civil.

00:29:54.280 And while it was heated in words at times, it still remained that way.

00:29:58.300 And I think the court genuinely tries to get it right.

00:30:01.160 And I think what a lot of people don't point out is there are a lot of strange alignments at the court to the outside world.

00:30:08.640 But to the rest of us, it makes sense because they're all working through the materials and trying to do their best.

00:30:15.220 And I really think it's one of the great institutions because we can disagree without being disagreeable.

00:30:20.980 And I hope the rest of the country will follow the court's lead in that regard.

00:30:25.020 Well, it's exciting to think that, you know, potentially if we got a Republican president next time around and somebody who you love and respect like Clarence Thomas decided he would take that opportunity to step down, we could be seeing you subjected to those Senate cross examinations and possibly as a future Supreme Court justice.

00:30:46.540 Thank you so much for your service to the country and for this amazing special book.

00:30:50.120 It's called The People's Justice, and it will give you the information you need to defend Clarence Thomas against these vicious critics who malign him without a thought for their own integrity or the truth of what they're saying.

00:31:02.420 Thank you, Judge.

00:31:03.900 Thank you for having me.

00:31:05.520 All best.

00:31:06.520 OK, up next, Charles C.W. Cook on the bombshell rulings that came down this morning.

00:31:11.300 I bet he's dancing right now at his desk over the student loan forgiveness decision.

00:31:17.580 He's been railing about it from the start in a intellectual, smart and sassy for Charles way.

00:31:24.480 He's next.

00:31:26.180 People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness.

00:31:32.080 He does not.

00:31:33.560 He can postpone.

00:31:34.940 He can delay.

00:31:36.800 But he does not have that power.

00:31:38.640 That would have to be an act of Congress.

00:31:43.160 She was absolutely right.

00:31:45.040 And today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.

00:31:47.300 Welcome back to The Megyn Kelly Show.

00:31:48.700 I'm joined now by Charles C.W. Cook.

00:31:50.400 Charles, the senior writer for National Review and host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast.

00:31:56.060 Charles, are you dancing?

00:31:57.460 Are you dancing?

00:31:58.080 It's the high court agreed with you and Nancy Pelosi on this.

00:32:02.340 Yeah, I was so nervous before the decision came down this morning, having spent the last year writing monomaniacally about this,

00:32:09.960 that my Apple Watch actually asked me if I was okay because my heart rate was so high.

00:32:15.420 I knew it.

00:32:16.280 Yeah, I'm dancing.

00:32:17.740 This is a huge deal for America.

00:32:20.960 I have noted before that the student loan part of this is the detail.

00:32:27.380 The core of it is separation of powers.

00:32:29.900 And the question at hand was, are those separation of powers going to stay intact?

00:32:35.820 And thank goodness today the court said, yes, they are.

00:32:40.580 They ruled six to three in an opinion written by the chief justice, John Roberts, who's been busy.

00:32:45.020 He wrote yesterday's affirmative.

00:32:46.060 No.

00:32:46.480 Yeah.

00:32:47.000 Yesterday's affirmative action opinion as well.

00:32:49.680 Gorsuch wrote the case on on the the woman who designed the website.

00:32:54.980 And they made clear.

00:32:57.180 I mean, it's funny.

00:32:57.620 I had the same experience as you because first we saw the update saying on the one case, it was a pair of cases.

00:33:01.000 Right.

00:33:01.400 On the one case, they said there's no standing.

00:33:03.340 These two plaintiffs can't bring this case.

00:33:04.680 And it was like, oh, don't because you see Alito wrote it.

00:33:07.260 It was like, oh, that's promising.

00:33:08.420 And then it said no standing.

00:33:09.680 It was like, oh, God, because they could have they could have found no standing in the second case, too.

00:33:14.040 But they didn't.

00:33:14.800 They decided to decide that case on the merits and said he went too far.

00:33:19.620 He went he doesn't have the power to do this.

00:33:23.220 And maybe you can explain to the audience why.

00:33:25.760 Why doesn't he have the power to just cancel student debt?

00:33:30.760 So you played at the beginning of this segment that Nancy Pelosi clip.

00:33:35.320 And there's two things that I think are really interesting about that Nancy Pelosi clip, which, by the way, made it into the majority opinion verbatim.

00:33:42.540 The first thing is how she says what she says.

00:33:46.280 She is essentially what would be called if she were male, mansplaining this to the audience. 0.99

00:33:53.660 She thinks they don't know this obvious truth.

00:33:57.260 And she sounds almost exasperated.

00:33:59.580 Now, of course, the president can't do that.

00:34:01.980 How quickly the tone changes when she wants something.

00:34:07.420 Then there's what she said.

00:34:09.480 She is a legislator.

00:34:11.280 She has been a legislator for a long time.

00:34:13.660 She was a speaker of the House for many years for the Democrats.

00:34:20.040 The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power, not some, not in certain circumstances, all legislative power in Congress, in the House and in the Senate.

00:34:34.440 That includes everything to do with the budget, taxes, spending, borrowing, and so forth.

00:34:44.320 Anything that the president of the United States does, and his branch is Article 2, not Article 1.

00:34:50.700 I should tell you something about the order of importance.

00:34:53.500 That's right.

00:34:53.840 Anything that the Article 2 branch, the executive branch, the president does, has to be explicitly authorized by Congress.

00:35:02.140 He does not have any free-floating powers when it comes to legislation or budgeting.

00:35:08.040 And Congress has not given him any power.

00:35:13.020 It is very simple.

00:35:14.320 Biden knew this.

00:35:16.700 Nancy Pelosi knew this.

00:35:18.480 The Department of Education, which looked into it in 2020 and 2021, knew this.

00:35:24.160 Everyone knew this.

00:35:26.160 This was self-evident.

00:35:27.560 Congress has never voted to allow student loans to be forgiven.

00:35:32.300 This went to the court.

00:35:33.740 The court got past the standing issue, which was, I think, the only circumstance under which this could have been sent back.

00:35:40.060 And they rightfully struck it down, and it should have been nine to nothing.

00:35:44.240 If you believe, as I do, that the core of the American Constitution is separation of powers,

00:35:49.840 and there's no way to disparage the rest of it, the Bill of Rights, the Reconstruction Amendments, and so on,

00:35:53.840 but the core of it, what separates us from every other country, is separation of powers.

00:35:58.760 This is a great day in American history.

00:36:01.680 We didn't want a king.

00:36:03.320 That was one of the main reasons.

00:36:05.060 We fought a whole war and tried to establish our own independent union.

00:36:07.940 We did not want an all-powerful executive at the top of our government.

00:36:12.320 And somebody should have told that to Barack Obama and to Joe Biden,

00:36:15.820 who now twice in about 12 months or so has been rebuked by this court for acting like a king.

00:36:24.320 Acting like a king and knowing he was acting like a king.

00:36:27.540 I mean, at least former presidents have had the gall to hide it.

00:36:33.580 I should say guile, not gall.

00:36:35.540 Biden had gall in that he has said, in other circumstances, that this is illegal.

00:36:41.840 If you go back to earlier Supreme Court cases on the eviction moratorium,

00:36:47.600 on the vaccine mandate under OSHA, he knew.

00:36:53.780 He knew what he was doing was illegal, and he did it anyway.

00:36:57.960 And that was the case here.

00:36:59.480 And, you know, I would go one step further than you did, Megan.

00:37:02.820 It's not just that we didn't want a king, which, of course, we didn't.

00:37:05.960 I say we now as an American citizen, despite my accent.

00:37:08.600 You're one of us.

00:37:09.340 We didn't want a king like the British had.

00:37:13.300 But the British also did not want the sort of king that Joe Biden was trying to be here.

00:37:19.440 The founding fathers and the colonists who preceded them were in love with the glorious revolution of 1688-89 in England,

00:37:29.400 which pushed power away from the king, especially when it comes to budgeting, which this falls under, and put it into parliament.

00:37:38.620 We also, in Britain, I'm doing we for both now, we didn't want a king either, or at least we didn't want a dictator.

00:37:44.920 So even the system that the American founders rejected would have said, no, the king does not have the authority to take this sort of action on his own.

00:37:56.040 He didn't go through Congress on any of the two prior items you mentioned, or this item, because he couldn't get it passed.

00:38:03.040 He knew it.

00:38:04.000 And so he just didn't end around the Constitution.

00:38:06.580 And in some ways, I see today's decision on the free speech case, you know, with this web design, web designer who didn't want to be forced to compel to have compelled speech in favor of gay marriage as the same.

00:38:20.840 You've got a group of state legislators out in Colorado who, in advancing their woke, quote, inclusive, equity-based agenda, said to all of the businesses in their state,

00:38:32.500 you must, you must silence your own private beliefs about same-sex marriage, and you must actually, if asked to, support it, 0.92

00:38:41.500 whether it's through baking a cake or taking photographs at a wedding or doing a wedding website for a same-sex couple.

00:38:48.460 You have no choice, entirely forgetting the First Amendment.

00:38:52.360 And here again, that overreach was struck down by a same sober Supreme Court reminding them there is a Constitution.

00:39:00.460 There's Article 1, there's Article 2, and then on this case, there's the Bill of Rights.

00:39:04.020 And then number one is freedom of speech.

00:39:08.040 Yes, and this was a freedom of speech case, as you say.

00:39:10.860 It's being cast in the press this morning as a religious liberty case or a case about LGBT rights.

00:39:16.500 But it's really much broader than that.

00:39:18.700 This is about compelled speech.

00:39:21.640 It is simply not true, as I've seen some claim, that this has allowed private businesses to say we will not serve a certain class of people.

00:39:30.640 That's not true.

00:39:32.060 This case involved a woman who said that she would quite happily serve anyone, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian, atheist, or what you will,

00:39:40.920 but that she did not want to use her creative talents to express certain viewpoints and certain ideas.

00:39:49.560 And I think everyone should support that.

00:39:52.960 You know, this is not a left or right thing, or it shouldn't be.

00:39:55.900 It's not a gay or straight thing, or it shouldn't be. 0.99

00:39:57.980 It's not an atheist or Christian thing.

00:39:59.500 It shouldn't be.

00:39:59.980 That's fundamental within the American order.

00:40:03.060 And it's telling, isn't it, that the criticisms of the cases that have come down over the last two or three days have not focused on the Constitution or the law, but the results.

00:40:13.980 So now, today, we're told the Supreme Court took $10,000 away from people, not the Supreme Court upheld Article 1.

00:40:22.480 Wait, let me just give an example of that, and then I'll let you finish your point.

00:40:25.960 Chris Hayes of MSNBC.

00:40:27.120 Well, look, that is a major network host in the United States who seems only to care about outcomes, who doesn't mention the law, who doesn't mention the controversy in the case,

00:40:49.480 and who also pretends that anyone who was involved in this had more or less money at any given point, when, of course, they didn't.

00:40:58.340 Anyone who owes $10,000 owed it because they borrowed it and spent it and benefited from it.

00:41:02.600 And Joe Biden never had the authority to change that, as we found out today.

00:41:06.700 But I was going to say that, you know, that's the response you get on this one, not discussion of Article 1 or the statute in question.

00:41:13.300 Yesterday, with affirmative action, the responses have all been, look at this thing that might now happen that I don't like.

00:41:19.220 Rather than the meaning of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

00:41:22.820 This morning, with the 303 case, well, what will happen to this person or that person?

00:41:27.600 Not what does the First Amendment say?

00:41:29.700 One of the great things about having a constitution, as we do, and it doesn't always yield outcomes that I like, is that you know where you stand.

00:41:37.620 The state of Colorado should have known that the First Amendment is in place, and it applies to it.

00:41:43.180 And if they want to change that, then they're going to have to repeal it.

00:41:46.420 They can't just do whatever public policy they wanted to achieve anyway.

00:41:50.720 The same is true with Joe Biden.

00:41:52.140 If the Democratic Party wants to forgive student loans, by which I mean transfer the liability for them to the people who didn't borrow them, then they can do that through Congress.

00:42:01.940 I think it is a terrible, divisive idea, and that it would be politically disastrous and deserved to be.

00:42:08.260 But if they want to do it, they can.

00:42:10.000 They can introduce the bill into Congress tomorrow.

00:42:12.500 They can convince enough people in there to pass it.

00:42:15.020 Joe Biden can sign it and then implement it.

00:42:17.320 Until that has happened, you can't do it.

00:42:20.740 I've got to talk to you about two other MSNBCers because it's just extraordinary.

00:42:25.220 Mehdi Hassan is another one.

00:42:26.600 His tweet, 43 million Americans who were promised relief by an elected president just got screwed over by an unelected group of justices,

00:42:35.620 half of whom were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote and benefited from a stolen seat.

00:42:41.620 Yep, it's all totally fine.

00:42:43.160 Nothing to see here.

00:42:45.040 To your point, absolutely nothing about the law and actually what was required.

00:42:49.960 Just mad, just mad that unelected judges applied the Constitution. 0.61

00:42:54.820 Secondly, Nicole Wallace had an interview with Joe Biden yesterday, an extraordinary interview.

00:42:59.860 And in the course of that interview, he, number one, a good thing, said he doesn't want to expand the court.

00:43:07.980 He doesn't want to pack the court.

00:43:09.060 He says that will politicize it forever.

00:43:10.700 Good.

00:43:11.280 That's a good result.

00:43:12.380 But number two, Charles, she did not ask him about Hunter Biden or the scandal swirling around the two of them at all.

00:43:21.680 I mean, what a dereliction of journalistic duty.

00:43:26.900 Yeah, this story, at the very least, warrants relentless investigation.

00:43:34.200 I think you listened to the editor, so you may have heard me say this.

00:43:36.620 But at this stage in the proceedings, we know more about this scandal than we did with Watergate at the same point in the scandal.

00:43:48.300 I'm not saying they will end up the same.

00:43:49.840 Perhaps there's an innocent explanation for everything.

00:43:51.880 But if you are a journalist, the red flags that we already have should warrant relentless investigation.

00:43:59.840 And that includes on television.

00:44:01.680 It is absolutely absurd that Nicole Wallace could not ask Joe Biden about this when she had him sitting there.

00:44:10.460 And not just ask, but push back if he did what he likes to do, which is to say, I love my son and I'm proud of him, which is great.

00:44:17.080 I'm glad he loves his son, genuinely.

00:44:18.860 And if he's proud of him, that's great, too.

00:44:20.580 But it's not the question at hand.

00:44:22.580 We can assume that.

00:44:23.460 That's a constant.

00:44:24.660 Most people love their children.

00:44:26.920 The question is whether or not anything untoward happened here.

00:44:29.840 And I just do not.

00:44:31.260 Well, I was going to say, I do not understand why the press isn't digging into this.

00:44:34.220 Of course, I understand why they're not digging into it.

00:44:36.680 But I am as appalled by that as you.

00:44:39.260 It was a dereliction of duty.

00:44:41.780 And it gives you a flavor for what's happening at MSNBC.

00:44:44.300 Those comments and her sitting across from the president saying, just completely ignoring the biggest story. 0.99

00:44:50.580 Here's Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

00:44:54.240 Her reaction.

00:44:55.500 Justice Alito accepted tens of thousands of dollars in lavish vacation gifts from a billionaire who lobbied to cancel the student loan forgiveness.

00:45:04.580 After the gifts, Alito voted to overturn.

00:45:07.460 This SCOTUS's corruption undercuts its own legitimacy by putting its rulings up for sale.

00:45:16.380 I mean, talk about gymnastics to try to tie two totally unrelated things together in order to further what the left might call a conspiracy theory.

00:45:27.280 Well, there's two big problems with what AOC says there.

00:45:32.980 The first one is that the scandal that she's referring to is not a scandal and has been exposed as such.

00:45:40.560 Because in the report that was written about Alito's behavior, in I think it's paragraph 73, it points out that he was explicitly not obliged to report that trip or to turn it down.

00:45:56.180 So she's pretending that there is a scandal where there is not.

00:45:59.880 I think the bigger point, and this applies really to criticisms of other Supreme Court justices, is that it's not at all obvious, by which I mean it's invisible, what the post hoc ergo propter hoc is supposed to be here.

00:46:14.440 Can you find me an example in the last 10 years, 15 years, with Clarence Thomas, 30 years, of any of the justices who are being targeted writing opinions that are outside of the norm for them and their ideological priors?

00:46:34.680 Clarence Thomas doesn't do it.

00:46:36.660 Justice Alito doesn't do it.

00:46:38.500 I can't think of an opinion that any of them have written where you've said, my goodness, that's very strange.

00:46:42.980 Why did this person come down like this, let alone being able to track that back to a given individual or plaintiff?

00:46:48.940 This is a scurrilous insinuation, and AOC should be ashamed of herself for advancing it. 1.00

00:46:54.300 Lastly, the president just tweeted in response to these decisions, unthinkable, unthinkable.

00:47:02.640 This fight isn't over.

00:47:04.300 I'll have more to announce when I address the nation this afternoon.

00:47:08.460 So, OK, what does he plan on doing?

00:47:12.220 I think in particular on student loan, quote, forgiveness, you're right, wealth transfer.

00:47:17.060 They're not going to give up.

00:47:18.180 We've been hearing a lot of that.

00:47:19.240 Like, we're not done.

00:47:20.260 We're going to try again.

00:47:21.280 So what do you see them doing?

00:47:23.420 And is it likely to wind up back in front of the very same court they just failed in front of?

00:47:28.360 Well, it needs to be over.

00:47:29.880 The problem he's got is that even the more limited powers that the court confirmed that the president has under the HEROES Act have now expired because the emergency that was COVID has gone.

00:47:43.180 The HEROES Act isn't some freestanding source of power.

00:47:45.680 You have to invoke it with an emergency and there isn't one.

00:47:49.640 So unless he has some other concocted plan, then I suspect it'll either come to nothing or end up struck down again by the Supreme Court.

00:48:01.160 Yeah, he's out of luck.

00:48:02.120 And, you know, that pesky First Amendment isn't going anywhere either.

00:48:05.760 Charles C.W. Cook, thank you.

00:48:07.420 Great to see you.

00:48:09.020 Thanks for having me.

00:48:10.160 Much, much more ahead when Kristen Wagoner of Alliance Defending Freedom joins us with the potential impact of this ruling. 0.95

00:48:15.880 And it's big.

00:48:20.240 Joining me now, Kristen Wagoner, CEO, President and General Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, whose firm represented Lori Smith in the so-called 303 creative case.

00:48:30.960 As we've been discussing this morning, they were handed a huge victory at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning, a decisive victory in a landmark case.

00:48:40.660 Kristen, congratulations.

00:48:42.420 Welcome back to the show.

00:48:44.020 What did you make of the ruling?

00:48:45.940 Oh, we are so delighted by it.

00:48:47.840 It has been seven years that Lori has waited to have justice and to be able to speak freely and even longer for others who would be impacted by this decision.

00:48:57.060 So we're thrilled about it.

00:48:58.400 And we know that it is a broad victory that protects the speech rights of everyone, even those who may disagree with Lori or others on marriage.

00:49:07.080 When you came on and I should I recommend the episode to all of our listeners.

00:49:10.000 It was a number 407.

00:49:11.260 If you're searching our archives with Lori, you you talked about we talked about how there was the Colorado baker, right?

00:49:19.160 Jack Phillips, the baker who did not want to bake the cake for the gay wedding.

00:49:24.100 And he won that case.

00:49:25.360 You won that case at the Supreme Court, seven to two.

00:49:27.440 But then Colorado went on to cause all more problems for Jack Phillips despite his victory.

00:49:32.780 And I was asking you, how are they able to do that and how you know, how are we now still dealing with this issue?

00:49:38.800 And you pointed out, well, that was a free exercise case.

00:49:41.320 That was a that was a case under a different provision of the Bill of Rights.

00:49:46.540 And this case involving Lori Smith and their web design is a pure free speech case.

00:49:53.260 And it's a huge free speech victory.

00:49:56.780 So it discussed discuss the significance of what the Supreme Court has just said about free speech in the First Amendment.

00:50:04.160 The court said that it's wrong for the government to force someone to create expressive content that they object to.

00:50:12.000 That simply the government can't misuse the law to try to compel someone to say something that they don't believe.

00:50:17.880 And in the Jack Phillips case, which is referred to as the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, there was a free speech claim that was asserted because Jack's cakes aren't like the kind of cakes you might buy in a grocery store.

00:50:29.180 But their custom cakes, particularly his wedding cakes, are all custom.

00:50:33.460 They're designed to be unique and one of a kind.

00:50:36.740 And they have inherently expressive content in the message they send.

00:50:40.180 And he designs other cakes as well that, you know, may have written words on them or symbols.

00:50:44.460 So it's not that all cakes would be expressive content, but certainly most of Jack's would be.

00:50:50.480 And the court, rather than address the free speech arguments in Jack's case, they focused on the free exercise arguments because Colorado had showed its hand in how hostile it was towards Jack's beliefs by comparing them to owners of the slave owners of slaves, as well as perpetrators of the Holocaust in a hearing.

00:51:09.460 They did that.

00:51:10.240 So the court said, now we've seen enough here.

00:51:12.980 There's so much religious hostility.

00:51:14.600 It's clear he didn't get a fair shake.

00:51:16.740 And now Colorado continues to pursue other people like Lori and suggests that their law can compel speech. 1.00

00:51:24.440 And so Lori filed her case before Jack's was even decided in Colorado.

00:51:29.060 Today is a resounding victory for free speech and the right of all artists, both Jack and Lori, in creating expressive content.

00:51:36.220 Now, with all due respect to Jack and Lori, I care more about the bigger picture of free speech, right?

00:51:42.880 Because most of us don't bake cakes or do websites for any couples, never mind same sex.

00:51:47.140 And when I read this order, I'm full of joy because I've talked to you before about some of the other cases you have.

00:51:55.780 And the one that came to mind first was the battle on ongoing right now in this country over things like preferred pronouns, where more and more employers and schools are being mandated to say the quote preferred pronouns of choice or they're guilty of a hostile work environment or they're guilty of harassment or some sort of discrimination against the people demanding.

00:52:18.540 We use their pronouns, not their biological pronouns, not scientific fact based pronouns, that too is forced speech that goes against sometimes religious beliefs, but separate and apart from our religious beliefs, our biological scientific beliefs.

00:52:34.440 And when I read when Colorado's public accommodations law, meaning it's anti-discrimination law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which much must prevail.

00:52:45.940 Well, I think Kristen Wagoner is going to use that line among others in this decision to fight for those of us who don't want to be forced on the preferred pronouns nonsense. 0.99

00:52:55.340 You're absolutely right. We have a number of cases where people have been fired for using a person's given name or the name they request, but declining to use their preferred pronouns, not using other pronouns, just simply not using a pronoun.

00:53:07.020 They've been fired or disciplined for that. And so those cases are ongoing.

00:53:10.680 And this decision is going to have a real impact and a decisive impact on them.

00:53:15.100 And I would just encourage every American to actually read the decision.

00:53:19.280 It is a tour de force of our First Amendment law. It explains why we protect speech, even speech that we might dislike and what that the value of that speech gives us.

00:53:29.500 The pluralism that we have, the strong republic that we have, the curve on government authority and why those things are so important.

00:53:36.300 So it's reaffirming law that was already in place, but it's applying it to our cultural moment. And that's critical.

00:53:42.300 So the high court in the majority opinion writes as follows.

00:53:47.160 It is difficult to read the dissent in which the three liberal jurists joined together, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.

00:53:53.680 It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case.

00:53:57.680 Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law.

00:54:04.260 And no doubt there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today.

00:54:09.320 Can a state force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?

00:54:19.300 How broad is this likely to go? I mean, will it go beyond companies like lorries that provide, quote, expressive services?

00:54:27.660 Because to me, that's one of the battles you faced was proving that that was speech.

00:54:32.320 If you've got people actually speaking their mind, you know, in subjects like the ones we just discussed, it's an even stronger case.

00:54:39.360 It absolutely is. And it is a very, very broad ruling.

00:54:44.660 Again, when there is speech involved, the court has said you cannot compel it, that free speech is for everyone.

00:54:50.280 It's for the LGBT website designer, the Democrat speechwriter, the pro-abortion photographer. 0.61

00:54:55.060 We all have the right to enter the marketplace, to enter the public square and to say what we believe without having to fear that the government's going to impose jail time on us,

00:55:04.340 which some of these laws actually do have jail time in them.

00:55:07.140 And again, I would just reaffirm that the court literally explicitly says tolerance, not coercion, is the path that this nation has chosen and that we need to remain on.

00:55:18.060 So it's a great victory for free speech. And I think it's been maligned by some in the media and misrepresented.

00:55:25.880 Public accommodation laws and non-discrimination principles continue to exist and apply peacefully and coexist with the First Amendment.

00:55:34.360 And that was the court's ruling today.

00:55:35.800 I mean, they the people writing about this already, and even the majority opinion points out the dissent suggests this is actually a newfound upholding of separate but equal.

00:55:48.180 It's not true. Laurie Smith is not refusing service to people who are part of the LGBTQ community.

00:55:55.860 They can come in and have her design any website for them, and she'll do it willingly, just not one that conflicts with her religious beliefs.

00:56:03.520 And she can't be compelled to say she supports same-sex marriage when she doesn't.

00:56:07.620 But of course, it's an intentional decision to be obtuse about this.

00:56:13.080 Well, and it is disappointing and disingenuous.

00:56:17.780 Again, as the majority points out, the dissent basically is litigating a completely different case.

00:56:22.760 And what's important about this case, too, is that the facts are agreed to by Colorado.

00:56:27.260 It's not in dispute whether Laurie serves everyone.

00:56:30.640 In fact, Laurie has clients who identify as LGBT, and she's never designed a website or created a message that violated her beliefs, whether those are beliefs about not disparaging people, whether they're political beliefs or other beliefs.

00:56:43.900 So certainly marriage is something that she believes is a sacred union between a man and a woman, and she's not going to betray that conviction.

00:56:50.440 But there are also other messages she won't express, and it doesn't matter who requests those messages.

00:56:55.240 I read some of these earlier with Judge Thapar, but just a sampling.

00:57:02.380 You've got People magazine saying, SCOTA sides with anti-LGBTQ web designer. 0.99

00:57:07.540 You've got PBS saying, Supreme Court rules for Christian graphic designer who did not want to work with gay couples, and so on.

00:57:14.200 Lots of spin like that, like she didn't like gay couples. 0.96

00:57:17.820 Meanwhile, on my timeline, Kristen, on Twitter, I've got lots of gay and lesbian followers on my Twitter account saying, this is a ruling in favor of us all.

00:57:27.760 They don't want to be forced to do something that would speak against gay marriage.

00:57:31.900 Well, think about, you know, whether it's abolition or it's women's rights, women's voting rights, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, all of those things, that social progress that took place, took place because we all had the right to speak freely.

00:57:45.540 And those who advocated for same-sex marriage had the right to advocate for it and to see, you know, whether to make it popular or unpopular.

00:57:53.760 What today's orthodoxies are can be tomorrow's heresies, and that's the beauty of the First Amendment.

00:57:59.940 This case is about whether the government has the raw power to tell us what to think and what to say.

00:58:06.620 And thankfully, our Supreme Court stood in the way of that and said, no, we are sticking with the First Amendment.

00:58:12.740 Well, what's so interesting about it is this was a situation in which a Colorado anti-discrimination law, public accommodation law,

00:58:20.060 saying it's basically you can't deny service to blacks, gays, women, whoever you want, which is a good law in principle.

00:58:27.360 But whether this anti-discrimination law, when it clashes with the First Amendment rights of an individual, which one will rule?

00:58:36.560 Which one will take precedence?

00:58:38.320 And here the court said it's going to have to be the Constitution.

00:58:41.840 You cannot compel someone to say something they don't believe.

00:58:47.580 That's I again, I refer to the preferred pronoun thing.

00:58:51.760 That's what's being mandated of us in the workplace setting and elsewhere.

00:58:56.280 And I know you've got cases along those lines, which you just referenced.

00:58:59.880 So is this really going to be a game changer or is there a distinction that is going to be exploited by the other side to say,

00:59:06.760 no, this case is different because it involves public accommodations?

00:59:11.280 There isn't a distinction.

00:59:13.120 It's about whether the government has the power to force someone to say something they don't believe.

00:59:17.580 And so whether that falls under public accommodation law or some other policy,

00:59:21.580 the court gave a resounding answer today that the government does not have the power to do that.

00:59:26.460 We know all the way dating back to the founders, all the way forward to all the precedent in the First Amendment,

00:59:32.600 that the first thing that those who are in power try to do is to censor individuals.

00:59:37.440 It's to assert that power by removing the free speech rights that we have.

00:59:41.860 And we see that abroad and have seen efforts in the United States.

00:59:44.800 So, again, this is an effort that we should all applaud and a decision that we should rejoice in because it ensures that we all have the right to be able to debate ideas and to explore truth.

00:59:56.960 And that's how social progress results is from having this debate and entering the marketplace.

01:00:01.600 Does it change if somebody, you know, workplace harassment laws or what have you, they tend to be state statutes.

01:00:07.740 But does it change if the litigants in the next proceeding, say, under the Equal Protection Clause,

01:00:15.480 we're entitled to be spoken to in a way that's not harassing and diminishing and discriminatory?

01:00:20.540 So now you've got a constitutional right versus the constitutional right.

01:00:23.940 You know, let's go 14th Amendment versus First Amendment. 0.54

01:00:26.260 It's not a Colorado state law.

01:00:28.420 It's constitution versus constitution.

01:00:30.920 You know, we do have the right not to be harassed in our workplace setting.

01:00:33.940 And therefore, this decision cannot be the end all.

01:00:40.900 Well, I mean, the free speech, this applies to the free speech clause of the Constitution.

01:00:45.580 And in applying the free speech clause, it applies to whether the government can force you to do something or say something, essentially,

01:00:52.460 whether the government can force you to say something.

01:00:54.380 So, you know, harassment and that would would not it's not protected speech, you would say, in the workplace.

01:01:01.940 But it also I mean, we have to think of the court's recent decision this last term as well on what mens rea is necessary in certain laws and things like that.

01:01:09.860 But let me say, but no, no, no, because it would be because like in places like New York, they've outlawed the term illegal alien.

01:01:16.280 You're not allowed to say that.

01:01:17.240 But they've also said that it's workplace harassment to not you like the government of New York has said it's it's workplace harassment to not use preferred pronouns.

01:01:25.800 So now we're getting into not just, you know, a state provision necessarily, but invocation of constitutional rights.

01:01:31.540 OK, now I'm tracking with you because I thought what you were suggesting is that a private individual who might have a view on marriage, you know, would that be harassment in the workplace?

01:01:40.460 But what you're saying is whether the government can pass a law compelling pronouns and suggest that it is harassment.

01:01:46.760 And I think this decision applies to that.

01:01:48.340 It applies to the government's actions to mislabel or to relabel speech as discrimination.

01:01:53.940 The government cannot relabel speech as discrimination and then censor it.

01:01:58.860 So it would apply in that context.

01:02:01.020 That's what this is so huge.

01:02:02.540 This is so huge to the point you just made.

01:02:04.780 The left is winning all of these wars politically and culturally by controlling our language.

01:02:09.420 And now you've got the big behemoth of the U.S. Supreme Court saying legally, you can't do that.

01:02:15.840 You will not force people to comply with your chosen words.

01:02:19.420 Otherwise, you'll deal with us.

01:02:20.880 Yes. And it's something that we need to continue to be vigilant about and make sure that the lower courts, who sometimes are obstinate, will continue to enforce the rule that the Supreme Court has laid out.

01:02:32.660 Or actually, it's not a new rule.

01:02:34.000 It's reaffirming the time-tested tradition.

01:02:36.600 I mean, it's such a novel concept that Justice Sotomayor would suggest somehow that it's OK to compel speech.

01:02:42.260 The court has never done that in the history of the United States.

01:02:46.040 That would be brand new.

01:02:47.080 And so we need to be vigilant about protecting speech.

01:02:49.520 We still have to show up.

01:02:50.880 And defend these cases.

01:02:52.420 But now we have a tremendous decision to do that with.

01:02:56.660 I'm so excited about that.

01:02:58.040 This is like it's such a reaffirmation of the fundamental principles that this country was founded on.

01:03:03.060 I'm going to be celebrating this on July 4th.

01:03:04.720 I am going to be celebrating your ruling and alliance defending freedom.

01:03:08.660 And Lori Smith, Lori Smith, who is not this person of privilege.

01:03:12.880 She came on the show.

01:03:14.020 She talked about how her mom starting a small business inspired her to try it.

01:03:17.720 But she knew she was in the face of this law that was going to conflict with her business.

01:03:21.700 Here's a little for the audience who didn't get to meet her of Lori when you guys came on again in episode 407.

01:03:27.080 Yes, I work with people from all walks of life.

01:03:31.980 And I currently have clients who identify as LGBT.

01:03:35.300 So my case has always been and always will be about the message that I'm being asked to pour my time and my talents into promoting.

01:03:43.860 It's never about the individual.

01:03:45.020 It's always about the message.

01:03:49.240 I mean, I love it.

01:03:50.560 And I'm sure.

01:03:51.040 Have you spoken with her?

01:03:51.820 Is she thrilled?

01:03:53.220 Oh, I'm with her.

01:03:54.720 Yeah, she's here in D.C.

01:03:56.620 Because we knew it was she I mean, she's not here right now, but we knew it was coming out this week.

01:04:01.760 And so we've been together and it's just been a really candidly and an emotional day for us all to see this victory and to know what she's gone through.

01:04:10.320 So it it's a great day today, but you've got seven years of really horrible things happening, being doxed with your home address, having death threats along the way.

01:04:20.220 And yet she has been tenacious and persistent to stand not just for herself, but for all of us.

01:04:26.520 One person can make a difference.

01:04:29.020 This case is huge.

01:04:31.300 It's huge.

01:04:31.820 And by the way, I've never actually looked at I'm sure I should know the answer to this, but do you guys rely on donations to find can we can we donate to you?

01:04:38.440 How can we support Alliance Defending Freedom, which is at the pointy end of the spear on this case and so many other important ones?

01:04:45.400 Well, all of our work is pro bono, meaning it's free of charge to our clients.

01:04:48.700 So we would welcome any help and we will be litigating this decision across the country to ensure that, again, the lower courts and government officials protect the right of free speech, even if they don't want to.

01:05:00.720 God bless you.

01:05:01.780 All our best to you and to Lori, too.

01:05:03.760 Thank you.

01:05:04.220 Please pass along our congratulations.

01:05:06.280 Thank you.

01:05:06.680 Oh, it's just so great to finally have a sane Supreme Court doing the right thing, isn't it?

01:05:13.420 It's just great to have those principles that we grew up understanding were a fundamental right of ours as American citizens, as humans, and then protected by our government would be there for us.

01:05:23.760 And it's maddening when you see them eroded bit by bit by lower courts or by the left and crazy legislation.

01:05:29.280 And now we have a whopper of a Supreme Court opinion, six to three, saying, no, no, this ends now.

01:05:37.280 It's huge.

01:05:38.680 Up next, very excited to meet and introduce you to a couple of ladies who go by chicks on the right. 1.00

01:05:44.320 And we'll talk about Dylan Mulvaney reopening the fight with Bud Light and how they're now responding.

01:05:52.840 Oh, well, we've got to address another big story in the news today.

01:05:56.220 Dylan Mulvaney breaking his silence for the first time on the Bud Light controversy.

01:06:00.540 To tackle that issue and many more, I am joined now for the first time by the Chicks on the Right. 0.99

01:06:06.580 Love that name.

01:06:07.760 The Chicks are duo Miriam Weaver and Amy Jo Clark, also known to their audience by their nicknames Macarena. 0.99

01:06:14.740 Love that.

01:06:15.300 And Daisy.

01:06:16.380 Welcome to the show, Miriam and Amy Jo.

01:06:18.300 So nice to meet you.

01:06:19.900 So great to be here.

01:06:21.300 Great to be here.

01:06:22.600 And what a day.

01:06:23.540 What a day for Chicks on the Right. 1.00

01:06:25.180 Everywhere.

01:06:26.220 Fantastic.

01:06:26.660 Fantastic.

01:06:27.560 I mean, you got to say a big day for you.

01:06:29.960 We just saw you celebrating and we're right there with you.

01:06:32.700 Right.

01:06:33.120 We're rooting in the background.

01:06:35.060 I'm so proud of the Supreme Court.

01:06:36.640 And I have to say, I am so grateful to Donald Trump.

01:06:39.320 I am hugely grateful to Donald Trump.

01:06:41.320 He he's responsible for three of those justices who have been part of that six person majority over the past couple of days.

01:06:47.060 And you got to anticipate this becoming an issue on the campaign trail and a feather in his cap.

01:06:52.340 But this is what I mean.

01:06:53.340 Elections matter.

01:06:54.120 They really do have consequences.

01:06:55.340 Amen to that.

01:06:57.340 Yeah, absolutely.

01:06:58.140 Although you could the flip side of that is that there will be a lot of anger towards him from the left.

01:07:02.840 I mean, they're going to think this is exactly why he shouldn't be president again.

01:07:07.140 And so it always goes both ways.

01:07:09.740 Well, yes, exactly.

01:07:10.760 Because look at what's been happening to the Republicans in the wake of Dobbs.

01:07:14.160 They've been losing.

01:07:14.980 You know, the Dobbs was held against them to some extent, at least in the midterms when they did more poorly in the House than expected.

01:07:21.120 And they lost the Senate where it was potentially on the table.

01:07:23.700 So, yeah, there could be backlash to this.

01:07:25.700 I don't know.

01:07:26.300 I don't think it's going to because affirmative action.

01:07:29.820 America's against it.

01:07:30.900 Minority groups are against it.

01:07:32.200 Democrats are against it.

01:07:33.180 If you look at the polling, even Democrats are against it.

01:07:35.520 So I don't think it's going to have the kind of backlash that Dobbs did.

01:07:38.940 And today's opinions, I mean, it's basically upholding free speech and striking down the student loans like the young people. 0.90

01:07:44.900 OK, I guess they might get mad that it was struck down, but they're not the hugest voting bloc anyway.

01:07:49.100 Am I wrong?

01:07:50.240 They're a big one.

01:07:50.960 I mean, the student student loan thing, they were losing their minds like the young people. 1.00

01:07:54.700 Although we did see a lot of people like when we started our site back in what, 2009?

01:07:59.300 Miriam, was it 2009?

01:08:00.580 Like it was 2008 was around the time that Obama mania hit.

01:08:03.600 And that's when we saw a lot of young people come out to the polls and we were like, what is going on?

01:08:08.480 And and listen, young people are a force. 1.00

01:08:11.440 And so with the student loan thing, it is a little bit of a concern because, I mean, this is as common, we'll call them the idiots. 1.00

01:08:18.860 Right. 0.99

01:08:19.680 These are the well, the other thing is there's not a group within the Democratic Party that hates Joe Biden more.

01:08:26.800 The young people want him gone.

01:08:29.060 Desperately want a different.

01:08:30.220 I think he's only got 20 percent support for him being the nominee.

01:08:33.700 And so this could be exploited by the Democrats to try to get them reanimated to get out there and support the old man.

01:08:41.780 They do like the free stuff, though, Megan.

01:08:43.780 They like the free stuff.

01:08:45.540 That's the thing.

01:08:46.340 I mean, who doesn't?

01:08:47.660 But then there's the pesky matter of the Constitution.

01:08:49.660 This is so annoying.

01:08:50.360 That's right.

01:08:51.220 Absolutely.

01:08:52.600 I know.

01:08:53.060 I'm so excited because it's just I've lived long enough with the Supreme Court to just learn to be disappointed or just learn that the victories are going to be just eked through.

01:09:01.500 Not a strong six to three ruling that is sweeping and clear.

01:09:07.040 It's just it's the dawn of a new day.

01:09:09.480 OK, yeah, let's talk about I would like to ask you, though, Megan, if I could, because you're an attorney.

01:09:14.200 And so I'm curious because I was listening to your prior guests and I'm curious, this Michigan law that the House just passed in Michigan saying you can go to jail with a felony and pay a ten thousand dollar fine if you misgender someone.

01:09:25.920 Will this impact that?

01:09:28.720 Because it seems like it should.

01:09:30.620 Yeah, it should.

01:09:31.780 That's what I was trying to get at with Kristen. 0.91

01:09:33.480 You know, will all of these state laws trying to basically contradict the Constitution?

01:09:39.220 Are they in jeopardy now?

01:09:40.640 And yes, I mean, there's the U.S. Constitution reigns supreme where there's a conflict.

01:09:45.560 The U.S. Constitution reigns supreme.

01:09:47.140 And so everything's in jeopardy.

01:09:48.600 It's on.

01:09:49.060 This is going to lead to a whole slew of cases and litigation.

01:09:53.900 And with this 6-3 majority not going anywhere, I think we're going to get a lot of rulings we like.

01:09:59.640 You know, the Supreme Court issued that that case not long ago.

01:10:02.420 Gorsuch joined with the liberals saying you don't have the right to discriminate against trans people in the hiring decisions in the workplace.

01:10:09.820 That's, I think, the right ruling.

01:10:11.320 I get that.

01:10:11.900 You know, you don't want to say you can't have a job because you're confused about your gender.

01:10:15.140 But this forced speech is something totally different.

01:10:19.060 And so while this case didn't deal with that issue, it set the stage for that issue to go the right way beautifully.

01:10:25.500 Just beautifully.

01:10:26.240 And especially when they keep changing the rules on semantics.

01:10:28.240 I think that you guys said it on the head in that last segment when they keep changing the rules on speech and semantics.

01:10:33.240 And, you know, liberals are known for doing that. 0.94

01:10:36.120 And, you know, we're told different things about speech every day and they change that.

01:10:40.280 And then they're like, OK, now we're going to tell you what you can and cannot say based on the rules that we've changed on semantics.

01:10:45.940 And it's like what every day the rule book is different.

01:10:49.620 And it makes it so confusing for people. 0.97

01:10:51.540 We talked yesterday about that LGBTQ advocacy group that wants to change vagina into bonus hole. 1.00

01:10:56.360 Right. 0.99

01:10:57.200 No.

01:10:57.840 What court in the land is going to uphold that?

01:11:02.240 Exactly.

01:11:02.760 Well, I mean, this is things are so crazy now.

01:11:05.300 But I saw that yesterday.

01:11:06.280 I was like, absolutely not.

01:11:08.300 I mean, I think I said other words that I can't say probably on the air, but I actually tweeted those words.

01:11:13.160 Did you?

01:11:13.680 Good for you.

01:11:14.480 It's insane.

01:11:16.080 What is I always joke?

01:11:16.980 Because we have our our panel of Carrie and Brit who are they founded the battle cry. 1.00

01:11:21.420 They fight all these battles.

01:11:22.240 And this is what they would have to say.

01:11:24.360 It's a no.

01:11:25.560 It's a no.

01:11:26.460 It's a hard no.

01:11:27.540 Hard.

01:11:28.060 Yeah.

01:11:29.020 Yeah.

01:11:30.220 I say I think I would have said an F no is what I would.

01:11:32.840 It's this is madness what we're seeing.

01:11:35.040 And they're trying to erase women, which is precisely what I feel like a lot of the transgender 1.00

01:11:40.340 movement is, is the erasure of women and girls. 0.65

01:11:44.000 And and I think even, you know, a lot of gay people are starting to speak out against it

01:11:48.140 because of that.

01:11:48.860 Oh, yeah.

01:11:49.420 I was talking to two gay men last night who are fans of the show, and I bumped into them

01:11:53.180 at dinner.

01:11:53.560 We were talking about how angry they are at the basically the conversion therapy that 0.76

01:11:58.960 these trans activists are trying to do on little gay boys who if they would just leave 0.95

01:12:03.620 them alone, would be up to would grow up to be gay men and not trans. 0.99

01:12:07.400 And yet they're trying to make them into women, fake women. 1.00

01:12:11.100 Right.

01:12:11.700 And so many gay people don't want to be lumped in with the the T part of the LGBT Q, whatever,

01:12:18.700 like all the letters there.

01:12:19.920 They don't want to be lumped in with that because some of those people and we saw it with

01:12:23.260 pride and all the parades and all of that, all of the danglies that nobody needed to see. 0.63

01:12:29.100 I mean, you know, they don't want to be associated with that.

01:12:32.360 They just want to live normal lives and not be looked at like complete freaks, which is

01:12:37.080 what always represents the Rainbow Brigade, the Alphabet Brigade in those pride parades.

01:12:42.700 It's true.

01:12:43.380 You look and you think, what are you pride?

01:12:44.540 What are you prideful about?

01:12:45.580 Because I want to be proud of that, proud of that naked men in front of the young children.

01:12:49.400 And that brings me to Dylan Mulvaney.

01:12:52.040 I'm offended by this post.

01:12:53.760 She he refers to himself as a woman, like just not even a trans woman anymore.

01:12:57.840 OK, whatever.

01:13:00.340 And Dylan Mulvaney, interestingly, has finally spoken out about the Bud Light controversy

01:13:05.180 and points out in this.

01:13:07.060 I'm not going to play the whole video is long, but points out in the beginning.

01:13:10.580 I was very rattled.

01:13:12.260 I intentionally didn't say anything, but puts the lie single tear, but puts the lie to what

01:13:18.680 Bud Light wanted us to believe, which was, you know, through leaks, they were basically

01:13:22.020 saying this wasn't a partnership.

01:13:23.240 It was just some low, low level minion who sent one can of beer to Dylan, not sanctioned.

01:13:30.240 But now we know they've fired that woman in marketing, Alyssa. 0.98

01:13:33.680 They fired her boss, the head of marketing.

01:13:35.500 So it sounds like it was more than a low level minion who acted rogue.

01:13:38.860 And Dylan Mulvaney is apparently confirming that in a bizarre post.

01:13:43.140 Take a listen to part of it.

01:13:45.860 I took a brand deal with a company that I loved and I posted a sponsored video to my page.

01:13:51.520 And it must have been a slow news week because the way that this ad got blown up, you would

01:13:55.920 have thought I was like on a billboard or on a TV commercial or something major.

01:14:00.460 But no, it was just an Instagram video.

01:14:03.720 What transpired from that video was more bullying and transphobia than I could have ever imagined.

01:14:11.580 And I was waiting for the brand to reach out to me, but they never did.

01:14:15.840 And for months now, I've been scared to leave my house.

01:14:19.120 I have been ridiculed in public.

01:14:21.540 I've been followed.

01:14:22.340 And I have felt a loneliness that I wouldn't wish on anyone for a company to hire a trans 1.00

01:14:28.760 person and then not publicly stand by them is worse, in my opinion, than not hiring a

01:14:33.920 trans person at all. 0.84

01:14:36.940 So Dylan is the victim and we should feel sorry for Dylan.

01:14:41.500 But isn't it indicative, though, of what companies do during Pride Month, too, is that they, you

01:14:46.980 know, they latch on to this notion of like the rainbow and pride and everything.

01:14:51.220 And then on July 1st, it all goes away.

01:14:53.780 I mean, they're basically using all these people, right, to make money.

01:14:57.580 So, I mean, he's shocked that that they weren't holding his hand and like being his BFF.

01:15:02.940 And then, you know, I just I find this whole it's just very it's very telling of of just

01:15:08.900 the whole the whole movement in general and how these corporations will use these people

01:15:14.560 to make money.

01:15:15.520 I mean, this is it's like welcome to corporate America, sweetheart.

01:15:18.340 You know, this is what we saw. 0.98

01:15:19.380 Well, it's interesting, though, like he's he's not wrong that they're cowards. 0.97

01:15:24.060 He's not wrong about that. 0.97

01:15:25.400 They were complete cowards with respect to Dylan, with respect to the rest of us who have 0.95

01:15:29.700 been complaining. 0.98

01:15:30.600 They've been trying to skirt this middle line, Miriam, which has been a fail.

01:15:34.480 We all see it's a fail.

01:15:35.820 And that's why we remain angry.

01:15:38.180 Well, there are not enough eye rolls, first of all, for that video.

01:15:41.080 I mean, it was just nauseating to watch it.

01:15:43.240 I love that you refer to him as him.

01:15:44.780 I wonder how much longer you're going to be on YouTube as a result of that, but forever.

01:15:49.240 They are not going to censor me.

01:15:51.580 But the thing about it is the CEO of Anheuser-Busch has been such a weenie about this whole issue.

01:15:58.400 And so in trying to be woke and sending the can and getting this advertising deal, which

01:16:03.220 we now know was a sponsored deal.

01:16:05.240 It wasn't just Dylan making an Instagram video.

01:16:08.080 This was this was a sponsored deal now that he's coming out and he's being so wishy-washy

01:16:14.160 and trying to say, well, we just really we just sell beer to everybody and we just really

01:16:18.440 care about our employees and not even addressing the fact that Dylan has called them out for

01:16:22.740 not reaching out, which they didn't have to reach out to him.

01:16:25.120 I mean, they sent the can and that could have been the end of it.

01:16:27.980 But this is what happens when companies go woke.

01:16:30.360 Now everyone is mad at them because now Dylan has made his fans all mad at Anheuser-Busch,

01:16:36.660 the LGBTQ, whatever community is mad. 1.00

01:16:39.420 All the right wingers are mad.

01:16:40.820 Everybody's mad.

01:16:41.600 And so I suspect that now this is now that Dylan has released that video, we're going to

01:16:45.580 see another tumble in the stock of Bud Light and they deserve it.

01:16:49.460 I want to know more.

01:16:50.300 He says I took a brand deal, a sponsorship.

01:16:53.040 What exactly happened?

01:16:54.280 Did you get some sort of money for promoting Bud Light in those posts?

01:16:57.480 And if so, were laws complied with some of my audiences pointed out when you're marketing

01:17:02.400 liquor, there are all sorts of restrictions on you as a promoter, a marketer or an advertiser.

01:17:07.580 And I'm sure he didn't comply with any of them.

01:17:10.080 So let's find out.

01:17:10.880 Like now that he's admitted this was a partnership, a brand deal and a sponsorship.

01:17:16.140 What did he get out of it?

01:17:17.240 And were laws complied with this Anheuser-Busch CEO?

01:17:20.100 I'm sorry.

01:17:20.880 I know he's a former Navy SEAL, but he's no Rob O'Neill.

01:17:23.900 OK, he's he is not my idea of the nation's best and brightest.

01:17:26.960 He says their response at the company in response to Dylan, this latest hit, is that Anheuser-Busch

01:17:32.860 is committed to the programs and partnerships we have forged over the decades with organizations

01:17:36.880 across a number of communities, including those in the LGBTQ plus community.

01:17:41.360 That's it.

01:17:42.160 They don't mention Mulvaney.

01:17:43.300 They just say they're committed to their partnerships, including those in the LG. 1.00

01:17:47.240 They're so pathetic and weak. 1.00

01:17:48.900 Take a damn position. 1.00

01:17:50.340 Are you sorry you did it? 1.00

01:17:51.540 Are you not?

01:17:52.400 Whose side are you on?

01:17:53.460 How do you think I would love to get this guy in my in my clutches? 1.00

01:17:56.400 So I could just put it to him. 0.99

01:17:58.340 Like, give me a damn answer, sir. 0.99

01:18:00.920 Yeah, I bet that. 1.00

01:18:01.860 Gosh, I bet the SEALs like hate that he's a SEAL. 0.99

01:18:04.580 I know that SEALs are all about they've got balls. 0.99

01:18:08.320 They're known for their ginormous balls. 1.00

01:18:10.400 I know. 1.00

01:18:11.540 Yikes.

01:18:12.340 I don't know what happened with Brandon.

01:18:14.900 OK, let's talk about a couple of other things that are in the news.

01:18:19.340 Hunter Biden sits down for an interview with Nicole Wallace, not Hunter Biden, Joe Biden.

01:18:23.340 Joe Biden sits down with Nicole Wallace.

01:18:25.520 And in the course of the 20 minute exchange, she doesn't raise anything about Hunter Biden

01:18:30.800 or the scandal.

01:18:31.900 And one of the pieces of the Hunter Biden scandal I know that you gals have been covering is

01:18:36.580 Hunter Biden's love child that Joe Biden and it while everybody in the press lectures

01:18:42.000 us about his father ship and he's just a loving father.

01:18:45.040 And really, this is just, you know, a story about father and son want to ignore the love

01:18:49.780 child.

01:18:50.720 Hunter won't let the girl have his last name.

01:18:53.380 Jill and Joe don't refer to this girl.

01:18:55.680 And he didn't even want to acknowledge paternity or pay anything for this girl.

01:19:00.400 So what do you make of it?

01:19:02.340 It's awful.

01:19:03.200 I mean, I think he gave her he offered the mom and I think she took it, which we don't

01:19:07.260 understand why she did this.

01:19:08.440 But he offered her one of his paintings, one of his blow art paintings or something.

01:19:14.520 And she took that.

01:19:15.540 I would have been like, yeah, I would have been like, I think I'll take the cash.

01:19:19.420 Thanks very much.

01:19:20.240 If you think you can sell one of these awful things.

01:19:22.280 But, yeah, she took one of those. 0.77

01:19:24.080 I feel so sorry for this little girl because the mom wanted to take the Biden name, which

01:19:28.740 I can sort of understand if you want to get the notoriety for the name.

01:19:33.220 But at the same time, that little girl's grandfather is the president of the United States.

01:19:37.560 Right, exactly.

01:19:38.740 But I mean, I guess.

01:19:39.580 But honestly, let's get real.

01:19:41.060 She's probably better off just not being any part of that family. 0.97

01:19:44.100 Don't you think?

01:19:44.780 I don't know.

01:19:46.400 I feel like she probably is not going to have a lot of advantages with her single mom, who's 1.00

01:19:50.500 a stripper, who got pregnant out of wedlock with Hunter Biden, who's a hot mess of a man.

01:19:55.380 I mean, it's like it's not looking all that promising.

01:19:57.400 But being part of that family, I mean, being a child or a grandchild in that family, I feel

01:20:01.740 like none of those children have fared very well either.

01:20:04.320 I mean, they've not really made much of themselves if you're a child, a Biden child either.

01:20:09.380 It's also very suspicious that this deal happened because it seemed like that mom of Navy was

01:20:16.140 so we were cheering her on because she was so aggressively going after Hunter and, you

01:20:22.340 know, going after him for when he tried to lower the child support.

01:20:25.160 And she was all about going and getting full discovery of, you know, show me what you make

01:20:29.800 then and where you get your money.

01:20:31.240 And so we were we were on our show just absolutely cheering her on.

01:20:35.320 And so then all of a sudden for her to now be basically agreeing to a huge cut in the

01:20:42.100 monthly child support and not be allowed to take the name for her daughter, it just feels

01:20:47.120 very sketch.

01:20:48.780 Yeah, like something happened.

01:20:50.000 Like what happened to her?

01:20:51.140 Like, was somebody saying something to her or were they strong or we just we feel like

01:20:56.420 there's something more there that we don't know.

01:20:58.840 You never know with the Biden family.

01:21:00.760 I mean, his detractors call it the Biden crime family, given all the allegations that have

01:21:04.860 been thrown.

01:21:05.500 We just we don't know.

01:21:06.560 And hopefully we will.

01:21:07.460 But we don't know yet.

01:21:09.220 Let's talk about what's happening with respect to women's rights and the trans community

01:21:13.420 beyond Dylan Mulvaney.

01:21:14.600 We touched on this the other day, but it's now in the Daily Mail and it's getting more

01:21:18.840 attention over in the UK.

01:21:20.860 A teenage boy has reportedly been arrested over allegations that female pupils were sexually

01:21:26.660 assaulted in gender neutral toilets.

01:21:30.060 Now, this to me is very interesting because some have said, OK, if you don't if you're

01:21:34.860 a restaurant or you're a school or a YMCA and you don't want to have to have, you know,

01:21:40.820 male and female locker rooms or male and female bathrooms because you're going to get

01:21:45.820 the trans people using the one that they align with under these laws that require that

01:21:49.840 maybe you just do gender neutral.

01:21:52.300 You know, there's one bathroom.

01:21:54.160 Everybody uses it like on the airplane.

01:21:56.420 You know, you're stuck, you know, which, by the way, I object to you go in there.

01:22:00.920 The urine is everywhere.

01:22:02.560 It's like you step on you like the on the floor, the pee that's on the floor of the 0.98

01:22:06.100 bat. 0.79

01:22:06.440 That is from the men.

01:22:07.440 That is not from the women. 0.93

01:22:08.600 Like it's got its own problems.

01:22:10.540 OK, unless there's turbulence, Megan, unless there's the shaking, the shaking, Megan.

01:22:15.620 Well, it could be the squatters.

01:22:16.840 I'm totally against the female squatters to just clean up the seat and put your bottom 1.00

01:22:21.120 down on it.

01:22:21.660 Otherwise, you're hashtag part of the problem.

01:22:23.140 OK, anyway, on a more serious note, they tried to do this over in the UK in this school

01:22:32.360 said, OK, we'll just have a gender neutral bathroom where everybody can go. 1.00

01:22:35.580 And that is where a quote for quote serious sexual assaults took place in these unisex

01:22:43.900 toilets that can be used by both the girls and the boys.

01:22:46.780 So this is not the future.

01:22:48.820 And this will be buried because the mainstream press doesn't want us talking about stories

01:22:53.160 like this.

01:22:54.360 If only someone could have predicted this.

01:22:56.640 Right.

01:22:57.200 If only.

01:22:58.340 It's just like, yeah, who saw this happening?

01:23:01.140 You know, like we we interviewed Riley Gaines a couple of months ago.

01:23:05.840 And, you know, one of the things that stood out to me just about that whole debacle with

01:23:11.220 her and, you know, with Leah Thomas is when she was in the locker room with with him is

01:23:16.920 that there are, what, 34 girls on the team.

01:23:20.900 And what stood out to me the most was that there there was nobody else that that spoke

01:23:26.620 out but her and 34 girls on the team.

01:23:29.680 I think there are more than 34 girls on the team. 1.00

01:23:31.100 But she said that there are at least 34 that agreed with her.

01:23:33.780 And I thought to myself there.

01:23:35.340 OK, so there's 34 girls.

01:23:36.600 That means there are 68 parents that obviously agreed with those girls that had to be mad that

01:23:44.060 there was a biological boy in the locker room with those girls.

01:23:48.200 If as a parent, I have a swimmer, a state level swimmer.

01:23:53.000 She's 13.

01:23:53.840 And I have discussions with my husband a lot about this.

01:23:57.580 And I always say, what are we prepared to do if this happens to our daughter?

01:24:01.180 And I can guarantee you, I will not sit by just because I'm afraid that somebody is going

01:24:06.340 to call me a name or that I'm afraid that my daughter is not going to be able to get

01:24:09.900 a job because she spoke out.

01:24:12.640 Because, I mean, that's that's the reason that all of this is is taking off so much.

01:24:17.300 And we've all been silenced is because people are wusses.

01:24:21.320 Say, you know, it's because they're afraid.

01:24:23.040 It's an interesting point because Riley Gaines, she didn't she's a hero.

01:24:28.140 Don't get me wrong, it took her a couple of weeks to find her voice and actually speak

01:24:31.680 out about what had happened to her.

01:24:33.000 But she did.

01:24:33.980 And now one of the other girls is speaking out, too, over with Matt Walsh at The Daily

01:24:38.100 Wire.

01:24:39.140 But the others are nowhere to be found.

01:24:42.420 You know, you're raising a good point.

01:24:43.580 Like all this time after, where where's her army? 0.99

01:24:47.040 You know, we're part of her army.

01:24:48.860 But where are her fellow women who were the who had standing to object like in a court of 1.00

01:24:53.960 law?

01:24:54.620 They're just letting her take all the slings and arrows. 1.00

01:24:57.280 They're afraid.

01:24:57.720 They're afraid of getting canceled.

01:24:59.300 And I think parents are, too.

01:25:00.600 Parents are afraid of standing up for their children because they're afraid of getting

01:25:04.500 canceled in their workplaces.

01:25:05.780 They're afraid of being called transphobic.

01:25:09.360 They're afraid, Megan.

01:25:11.100 So, I mean, that's I think that we just have to stop being so afraid because of this small

01:25:17.020 minority that has they just they feel like they have such a stronghold on the culture now 0.62

01:25:24.680 because they're like, we're in charge now.

01:25:26.620 Like we get to say, because if you say anything against us, we will cancel you.

01:25:32.260 We will call you all the names.

01:25:33.880 We will cancel you. 0.95

01:25:34.640 We'll make sure that you lose your jobs.

01:25:36.280 You lose your standing in the community.

01:25:37.840 And people feel I mean, they feel as though that will actually happen.

01:25:41.960 And they just won't stand up.

01:25:43.560 They won't stand up for their children, which is just astounding for me.

01:25:47.240 I just can't believe that that's happening.

01:25:49.280 They're starting to like these Supreme Courses today with Laurie Smith.

01:25:51.900 I mean, and like your previous guest talked about it, one person you said it, one person

01:25:57.240 can make such a difference.

01:25:58.240 And you're starting to see the trickle effect.

01:26:00.540 Right.

01:26:00.840 From Riley speaking out, there's other athletes that are starting to come and speak out.

01:26:04.860 And we encourage it every day on our show.

01:26:07.160 We're always saying to our audience, please, if this matters to you, don't be quiet.

01:26:12.820 You have to use your voice, because I think it as soon as one person speaks out, they're

01:26:17.620 no longer people out there who have been quiet, no longer feel alone.

01:26:21.680 And then they feel like, OK, well, if she can say it, then I can, too.

01:26:24.900 And then it creates a groundswell.

01:26:26.760 That's the only way to get the point across.

01:26:28.180 Call Alliance Defending Freedom.

01:26:30.520 Yeah.

01:26:31.000 Yeah.

01:26:31.460 That's literally the reason that we started our website.

01:26:33.820 That's literally the reason that is the the the nucleus for us.

01:26:38.760 That's the that's the nucleus for chicks on the right. 1.00

01:26:40.840 I mean, we have this little this little group of, you know, misfits where we're like we

01:26:46.260 we started speaking out and then people started going, OK, these are just two best friends

01:26:50.840 who started talking about this stuff.

01:26:52.200 And, you know, they are they they speak for me, either saying all the things that I want

01:26:57.400 to say, but I don't really want to say out loud.

01:26:59.640 And so we do that.

01:27:00.860 And I think that's one of the reasons that we appeal to people is because, you know, we

01:27:06.080 we say the things and we do it in kind of a funny way. 0.96

01:27:08.460 Because you also have the Navy SEAL balls.

01:27:12.480 This is what we do on our show. 0.98

01:27:13.820 We just kind of hold up our hands and say, we got to have balls. 0.98

01:27:17.220 Right. 0.99

01:27:17.640 Hold them up.

01:27:18.700 Squeeze them a little bit.

01:27:19.580 We do that.

01:27:20.480 But so another.

01:27:21.640 Another motivating factor is what's happening to the women in the prisons. 1.00

01:27:27.940 And just because they committed a crime and went to prison doesn't mean they don't deserve

01:27:31.340 our help because they're being molested and raped and abused by men, by men who tend to 0.73

01:27:37.520 be the violent criminals. 0.99

01:27:38.520 They just do.

01:27:39.520 And so this latest case is, of course, out of California, because that's where they all

01:27:42.940 are happening, because that's the state that's sending the men into the women's prisons in droves. 1.00

01:27:47.100 And the latest case has to do with a man named David Warfield, who changed his name to Dana

01:27:53.180 Rivers.

01:27:53.940 He's 68.

01:27:55.360 So this is a man who was a union leader for the American Federation of Teachers, Randy

01:27:59.920 Weingarten's organization.

01:28:02.460 He was a teacher out in Antelope, California and wound up getting fired.

01:28:09.340 Um, then they settled out of court and he agreed to resign and receive a big settlement.

01:28:17.420 He went on to murder a 57 year old woman named Patricia Wright, her wife, Charlotte Reed,

01:28:24.400 and their 19 year old son, Benny.

01:28:26.400 So this man who went as a woman is commits this hideous murder. 1.00

01:28:33.120 They say that they found their bodies riddled with bullets and stab wounds.

01:28:36.500 Reed, Charlotte Reed, the wife, had over 40 stab wounds on her body that the son, Benny's

01:28:42.140 19 years old, had been shot to death.

01:28:44.120 And when police arrived at the home at the home, they found the man rivers drenched in their

01:28:49.180 blood running from the doorway of the house to an awaiting motorcycle where he was found

01:28:53.680 with knives, ammunition, and a set of metal knuckles charged with three counts of murder,

01:28:57.380 arson, and so on pleaded, not guilty, goes to jail.

01:29:01.960 Um, nobody was persuaded that he didn't do it, I guess.

01:29:05.340 I'm not sure exactly.

01:29:06.260 Yeah.

01:29:06.580 He was sentenced to 33 years.

01:29:08.900 The judge called it the most depraved crime I've ever handled the most depraved crime I've

01:29:12.380 ever handled.

01:29:13.360 Well, of course, this month he was transferred from the men's prison to the California women's

01:29:20.600 facility and, um, the Gavin Newsom, uh, approves of this, the ability for him to go, uh, was

01:29:28.980 thanks to this California transgender respect agency and dignity act.

01:29:32.100 And it was co-sponsored by wait for it.

01:29:34.820 Scott Wiener, the same guy who was pushing this legislation to make parents who don't affirm

01:29:41.840 it's seen as a criminal abusers in the eyes of the law.

01:29:47.340 What do you make of it?

01:29:49.220 It's just vile and it's, and it's predictable.

01:29:53.140 I mean, that's, what's so aggravating.

01:29:54.660 I think about all of these situations that we hear about everyone that is against moving

01:30:00.660 biological men into a women's prison, every single one of us who stands up and says, Hey, 0.98

01:30:06.140 that might cause a problem.

01:30:07.360 And here's what it might cause.

01:30:08.820 It's like, we're completely ignored because we have to protect the feelings of this crazy 0.99

01:30:14.200 person who doesn't even know what gender he wants to be, or he's just a sexual deviant 1.00

01:30:19.860 who wants to have an opportunity to hurt more women. 0.71

01:30:23.300 I mean, this is so predictable and I don't understand why we have to cater to the feelings

01:30:28.100 of this tiny minority of people when it puts so many others at risk.

01:30:32.680 Yep.

01:30:33.640 One third, one third of male inmates who have requested transfers into the women's prisons

01:30:38.880 since that California law passed are registered sex offenders.

01:30:42.480 Oh my gosh.

01:30:44.860 And how, and can, I mean, can they not see it?

01:30:47.860 So evident, like that's exactly what they're doing.

01:30:50.640 They don't care.

01:30:51.460 And yet people like Gavin Newsom and the left want to tell us they're pro women.

01:30:57.140 They're the ones fighting misogyny and for the, you know, the rights of equity of what

01:31:02.380 women, what the equal right to be raped while you're behind bars and you can't get out. 1.00

01:31:07.520 What? 0.98

01:31:07.980 We don't want that right. 1.00

01:31:09.220 It's a bunch of crap. 1.00

01:31:10.680 It is. 1.00

01:31:11.080 It's just a bunch of crap. 1.00

01:31:12.780 It's infuriating. 1.00

01:31:13.980 How can they not see it?

01:31:15.580 That's it's just right there in front of your eyes. 0.98

01:31:18.060 Well, it's like Riley told us about Leah Thomas that clearly with Leah, it is a sexual fetish. 0.68

01:31:24.220 He actually gets off on being around those women and making them uncomfortable.

01:31:30.220 And so this is, it's so common.

01:31:32.400 And, and, and the fact that there's people who are so hell bent on protecting the deviance

01:31:38.320 is hugely problematic.

01:31:40.420 And I, I, it's, it baffles me that we continue to make these mistakes over and over again with

01:31:45.140 obvious consequences.

01:31:46.460 And again, I don't understand where, like, if that is the case, if that actually happened,

01:31:51.120 and if they saw that this guy was getting turned on in a locker room with a bunch of 0.98

01:31:55.340 girls, where, where are the freaking parents? 0.97

01:31:58.840 I have to tell you, I know I'm older and you know, I'm in my, forgive me, my F at 50s. 0.96

01:32:04.720 So like, I'll say anything now, but if I ever saw, I mean, if I saw Leah Thomas sitting 0.98

01:32:09.960 there with an erect penis in his women's bathing suit in my locker room, I'd go over there. 1.00

01:32:13.460 I'd be like, you get that thing out of here. 1.00

01:32:15.360 Get out of here.

01:32:16.100 Exactly.

01:32:16.800 This is put that thing down and you get out.

01:32:20.120 Yeah.

01:32:20.560 And can you imagine if you saw him with your, with your girl, one of your girls?

01:32:25.320 Oh, no.

01:32:25.960 I mean, or what, what would your husband do?

01:32:29.500 Because I know what my husband would do.

01:32:31.420 I know.

01:32:31.680 I shudder to think.

01:32:32.980 Well, here's my question for you.

01:32:34.440 Let me end it on a politics note because we have a couple minutes left.

01:32:37.360 I'm curious as to what you ladies think about the GOP race and who you like, because, you 1.00

01:32:43.660 know, I know so many people love Trump.

01:32:45.660 He was, you know, the president that obviously gives him a huge advantage.

01:32:48.640 He's pacing, outpacing DeSantis by between 30 and 40 points in most of these polls.

01:32:53.120 But on this issue, DeSantis so far seems like he's to the right of Trump.

01:32:57.200 He's come out very clearly and said, a man can't become a woman.

01:32:59.960 This is nonsense.

01:33:01.160 And I'm going to shut this stuff down.

01:33:02.820 Trump has not yet said any of that.

01:33:04.460 So, and I know that's not the only issue, but where are you guys floating right now

01:33:08.940 on the politics race?

01:33:11.580 Mom, you can start.

01:33:13.420 Well, I was a DeSantis girl well before he even declared that he was running for his second

01:33:19.180 term as governor.

01:33:20.800 But I will say at this point, because I, like you, Megan, I'm very angry at him for not coming

01:33:25.380 on our show.

01:33:26.380 So, and I'm losing my patience with that.

01:33:29.280 And so I, at this point, I, he's still, I think from a policy perspective, he's still my

01:33:34.320 favorite, although I have huge, awesome regard for many of the other candidates in the field.

01:33:40.340 And so at this point, I just want anyone but Biden.

01:33:44.400 I'm sort of a never Biden person at this point.

01:33:46.920 And so whoever ends up winning the nomination, even if that's Trump, who is not my favorite,

01:33:52.000 I'm going to get behind him because we have to get Biden out of office.

01:33:56.880 Yeah, that's kind of where I supposed to be the angry suburban Republican women who hate 1.00

01:34:01.160 Trump, but he could still get your he could still get you.

01:34:04.640 Yeah, yes.

01:34:05.620 Yeah, he yeah, he could.

01:34:07.100 Because I exactly I just don't want to a commie and off.

01:34:12.040 I don't ask for a lot.

01:34:14.060 Right.

01:34:14.540 I really feel like that's not asking for a lot.

01:34:16.540 I just don't want this this country to be on the road to socialism and like just put under.

01:34:21.200 I just want to make sure my kids have a decent country to live in in the next, you know,

01:34:25.000 20 to 30 years.

01:34:26.080 So I for me, I think same thing.

01:34:28.660 I just I feel like, you know, DeSantis is great.

01:34:31.140 I think Vivek is awesome.

01:34:33.480 He I mean, he gave us the time of day.

01:34:35.480 We're nobodies.

01:34:36.500 And so he actually sat and talked with us at CPAC.

01:34:39.580 And I think that that is a really lovely thing for him to do.

01:34:43.020 He will talk to anybody.

01:34:44.020 And I really like that.

01:34:45.760 You know, DeSantis is great.

01:34:47.420 I just I would like to see them all debate.

01:34:49.120 That's one thing I would like to see Trump do.

01:34:51.640 I've heard him talking about not debating.

01:34:53.240 And I really think that that is not in his best interest.

01:34:56.440 He should get up there and debate with the rest of them.

01:34:58.480 If that's something that he's not thinking about doing, he should do that.

01:35:01.040 All of them should.

01:35:01.800 It's their responsibility to get up there and show us what they got.

01:35:05.160 So what do you hear from your friends?

01:35:06.720 Are they like are you know, you're in the middle of America.

01:35:09.720 You're talking to these other women.

01:35:10.960 Are they open minded now to Republicans, to Trump?

01:35:14.700 You know, DeSantis, I think, is generally acceptable to most Republicans.

01:35:17.620 But is has there been a shift given the radicalism of this administration?

01:35:22.540 It's interesting, you know, from a friend and just like personal relationship standpoint,

01:35:27.140 I I hear mostly from people who are like minded and they don't want Trump to be the nominee,

01:35:34.860 even though that looks really, really likely.

01:35:37.020 But in our audience, they have a huge audience of Trump, of like loyal Trump supporters to

01:35:43.780 the point where I get worried about them sometimes because I'm like, you guys are treating him

01:35:48.300 as as though he's entitled to just be like the monarch.

01:35:52.320 And I and I feel like he we don't owe him a second term.

01:35:56.460 I mean, he should be earning that second term.

01:35:58.320 And so I get a little turned off by our the own members of our audience sometimes when

01:36:02.540 they get a little bit crazy, but they also get very mad at me whenever I criticize him.

01:36:07.060 So we walk this where it's all part of it.

01:36:09.320 It's a long term relationship, right?

01:36:11.860 You get mad some days, you get love some days, but it's long term.

01:36:15.400 And I hope your show is to Miriam and Amy Jo.

01:36:17.980 Thank you so much for coming on.

01:36:19.220 Chicks on the right. 1.00

01:36:19.920 Great meeting you.

01:36:21.260 Thank you so much.

01:36:22.300 Great to meet you.

01:36:23.540 Have a great weekend.

01:36:24.660 And all of my audience have a great weekend, too.

01:36:26.400 We'll be back on Monday with Mark Stein.

01:36:28.480 We love Mark Stein.

01:36:29.780 Have a wonderful weekend.

01:36:32.540 Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. 0.94

01:36:35.300 No BS, no agenda and no fear.

The Megyn Kelly Show - June 30, 2023

Supreme Court's Historic Free Speech and Student Debt Decisions, with Charles C.W. Cooke, Judge Amul Thapar, Kristen Waggoner, and More ｜ Ep. 579

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript