Among the signs of desperation that you're starting to see from Democrats and that you're
starting to see from Biden, is this uh signaling the subtle signaling of support
for some policy proposals that may come out soon. Storing. The Washington Post
reports on this that President Biden is going to announce support for some major changes,
major legislation to alter the terms of service for the Supreme Court. And
it's part of this narrative of like there are several the Democrats whole strategy for
winning seems to be focused around issues that people don't care about, and that
might be their fundamental problem with winning this election. They don't have much success
that's tangible to run on at all. As much as they want to keep
saying that the economy is good, people are not going to believe that the
economy is good. People are going to keep going to the grocery store and
see that ground beef is four dollars a pound and be angry and upset.
And that's not going to change between now an election day. It's not like
the price of ground beef is going to suddenly decrease to two dollars and fifty
cents a pound. Inflation has happened. It doesn't matter if the rate of
inflation slows down. Inflation has happened, So that's it. Unless deflation happens,
which it's not going to. People are going to be really ticked off
about the economy and its state, as well as the Afghanistan withdrawal was a
disaster. Ukraine is still ongoing, war in Israel doesn't seem to be moving
towards any kind of peace, etcetera, et cetera. Now, the stuff
that the Democrats are focusing on is we need to defeat Donald Trump quote to
save democracy, which I just think is a very general sounding concept that I
don't know how much it resonates with people. I don't know how much people
still today think of January sixth as this signature dangerous event. So saving democracy,
what are the things Democrats have to run on? Saving democracy? Restoring
Roe v Wade? Abortion a topic that I think most Americans just don't want
to think about. Project twenty twenty five. That's their other biggie is how
Project twenty twenty five is bad, which I don't know how that is going
to connect with like any voters at all. Like Project twenty twenty five,
which is a set of policy papers published by the Heritage Foundation that Trump isn't
even all that enthusiastic about. But Democrats are convinced that this is the most
evil and heenous thing that has ever been produced by the hand of man.
I'll talk about it a little later in the show. But the other big
thing they're trying to run on is that the Supreme Court is corrupt. That's
the other biggie. The Supreme Court is corrupt, That there's corruption at the
Supreme Court. That sam Alito's wife was flying a flag upside down, that
Clarence Thomas has a buddy who's a billionaire, that you know this, that,
and the other. Basically to try to raise as much smoke as they
can, as much phony, fake smoke as they can, to sort of
give the impression that there's a real fire. I think we have a hard
time appreciating how apoplectic a Republican appointee takeover of the Supreme Court at the level
that Trump accomplished, Trump slash McConnell accomplished. I think we have a hard
time appreciating just how insane that drives most liberals. They really fundamentally controlled the
Supreme Court for fifty sixty seventy years, and for Conservatives to have control of
it for one nano second makes them utterly apoplectic with rage. The idea that
Rov. Wade was overturned is to them the greatest wrong that has ever happened
in the whole history of this country. So all of a sudden, all
these innovative ideas come forth from the Democrats about may, oh, well we
should maybe we need to, and very conveniently timed when Biden is in office
and Democrats we're in control of Congress. Well, perhaps, you know,
there are thirteen federal circuit courts but only nine Supreme Court justices, and each
Supreme Court justice sort of has some administrative role for each of the circuits.
We should, therefore, really think about increasing the number of justices on the
Supreme Court to thirteen so as to match the federal circuits. Oh yeah,
oh yes, this is just a politically neutral argument, not an obviously partisan
hack job argument that we just cooked up because we want to add for Supreme
Court seats and have Joe Biden pick them all. You know. So,
here's a story from the Washington Post about President Biden talking about Court reform,
and I think what it reveals is Biden trying. Biden's trying to consolidate power
right now because obviously everything's kind of collapsing around him. His control on the
Democrat Party is slipping. Pelosi, I think, is his chief foe right
now. I think Pelosi is actively working to try to unseat him, and
I think Biden is trying to run out the clock so that she runs out
of time. So he's trying to do stuff to shore up support from various
corners. And Biden was always kind of when the topic of packing the Supreme
Court came up, Biden was always a little bit nervous about full throatedly saying
yes, I want to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court.
Yes, I think we should term limit Supreme Court justices. Yes. I
think he was always he was always cagy and he didn't want to just flat
out say it. So he'd say, oh, I set up a commission
to study whether the Supreme Court should be reformed. But he wasn't quite willing
to come out out and say, yes, I support packing the Supreme Court.
Kamala Harris was more willing to do so. Other Democrats were more willing
to do so, but Biden was always a little nervous about it, I
think because he realized it's a very radical, lefty, destabilizing proposal. It's
also totally contradicts stuff that Joe Biden himself has said repeatedly, including in twenty
nineteen when he was running for president. So Biden's always been cagy about it.
But now that his political support is kind of crumbling around him, I
think Biden is going to make a pitch for some pretty radical reforms to the
Supreme Court in order to get the super liberal wing of the party back in
his corner, because he needs people to support him right now. If he's
I mean, he's got the Congressional Black Caucus, and that's always been African
American voters have always been the basis of Joe Biden's presidential power. Okay,
how did he become the nominee in twenty twenty. It was because Jim Cliburn
from South Carolina endorsed him before the South Carolina primary. He wins the South
Carolina primary that vaults him to victory on Super Tuesday. It takes his moribund
primary campaign and he becomes the nominee he becomes the president. Now, let's
read this Washington Post story about what Biden is proposing for the Supreme Court.
President Biden is finalizing plans again. This is Washington Post, finalizing plans to
endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for
legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code. According
to two people briefed on the plans, he is also weighing whether to call
for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders.
That people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the
Senate Judiciary Committee who has long resistant calls to make substantive changes to the High
Court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about
recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that
have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers. Biden previewed
the shift in a zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I'm going
to Ajor Hall upon Supreme Court because I'm about to come out. I don't
want to be prematurely announced. I don't want to prematurely announce it, but
I'm about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the Court. I've
been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some
help, Biden said. According to a transcript of the call obtained by the
Washington Post, term limits in an ethics code would be subject to Congressional approval,
which would face long odds in the Republican controlled House in a slimit democratic
majority in the Senate. Under current rules, passage in the Senate would require
sixty votes. A constitutional amendment requires even more hurdles. All right, now,
will this also include packing the Court? I don't know. I think
I kind of doubt it, especially given the fact that Republicans might actually,
you know, Republicans might actually retake the Senate this election. So I think
Biden would be leery about actually flat out calling for an expansion of the number
of seats on the Supreme Court. Now, the problems Biden faces, first
of all, term limits for Supreme Court justices. The Constitution of the United
States addresses the establishment of a Supreme Court and the judges of both the Supreme
Court and any courts that Congress may establish. It says the judges both of
the Supreme and inferior Courts shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall
at stated times receive for their services of compensation. So they hold their offices
during good behavior, meaning it's a lifetime appointment. The lifetime appointment of Supreme
Court justices stems from the Constitution, it doesn't stem from an Act of Congress.
So I don't know that you can just pass a law establishing term limits
for the Supreme Court. I think you'd need to amend the Constitution now.
And actually, this is kind of an interesting thing because I think there's a
lot of stuff about the Supreme Court that people some that people assume is in
the Constitution, but it's not. If you want to spanned the number of
justices on the Supreme Court, you can do that just by passing a simple
law. Okay, majority in the House, majority of the Senate, and
the President signs it. The Supreme Court has not always been at nine justices.
We've been stuck at nine justices since shortly after the Civil War. But
you could theoretically just pass a law and increase the number of justices. And
the last time that an effort was made to do that was under FDR.
FDR wins re election in I believe it was, yeah, FDR wins reelection
in nineteen thirty six. Democrats have massive majorities in the House and the Senate.
FDR's new Deal proposals, various of them, keep getting blocked by the
Supreme Court. So FDR comes out with this propose to add six new seats
to the Supreme Court, which presumably he would fill all of those vacancies,
and his own Democrats told him, no, absolutely not, do not do
that. That's manipulation of the court, that's politicization of the court. We
will not go along with this. And throughout history it's been deemed like trying
to pack the Supreme Court. And that's what that term of art means.
Liberals have recently tried to redefine what quote court packing means. Basically, liberals
tried to make this argumentative point, well, Donald Trump was packing the court.
No, Donald Trump was aggressively filling vacancies. He wasn't creating new judicial
seats in order to shift the balance of power in his favor. No,
he had vacancies, he filled them. Ruth Bader Ginsburg died during his administration.
He replaced her. End of story. So Biden is going to be
proposing all So here's the We'll get to this more after the break, but
here's the summary. Biden's going to propose a bunch of stuff that he's never
actually going to accomplish. But it's a sign of his desperation. I think
it's a carrot that he is tossing. It's this bone that he is tossing
to the ultra libs within his coalition in order to shore up his support.
When we return, how does Joe Biden get away with encouraging term limits for
Supreme Court justices? Next on the John Girardi Show. I've been laughing my
butt off at this proposal from these rumblings. Anyway, I don't know that
there are any formal proposals yet, but there are these rumblings that Biden is
going to come out with a set of new proposals for reforming the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court an institution that has far better approval ratings than Congress might
be better approval ratings than Joe Biden himself, because liberals have convinced themselves of
this narrative that the Supreme Court is hopelessly corrupt. Oh, Clarence Thomas has
a friend who's a billionaire. Let him who goes fishing with him, flew
him around on a private jet. Oh, Sam Alito, his wife flew
an American flag upside down, which is obviously a pro January sixth insurrection symbol.
Is it? I don't know. I've hung out with a lot of
maga right wingers. I've never heard of that. So liberals have so thoroughly
convinced themselves. They've convinced themselves of the Supreme Court. Is this so corrupt
and it's a need of reform and a real ethics code and blah blah blah
blah blah. So there's this rumbling that Biden is going to introduce a policy
proposal for term limits for Supreme Court justices, and that Donald Trump is calling
up his buddy Lawrence Tribe. So here's eighty how old is Biden? Eighty
one year old Joe Biden calling up eighty something year old Lawrence Tribe from Harvard
Law School to talk about, Oh, we gotta put term limits on these
old geezers on the Supreme Court. These lifetime appointments, you'll get someone too
old serving. Yes, what a shock Joe. Also for Joe Biden,
who served in the Senate for thirty six years, to say that anyone needs
term limits for anything, for any kind of job is rich, to put
it mildly. But again, I think this is Joe trying to shore up
This is President Biden trying to shore up support among liberals because a lot of
the rumblings we're hearing is from Biden Land is that they are sort of shrinking
their circle of confidants and they are basically just going to try and run out
the clock. They're going to try and stay in and resist calls for Biden
to drop out long enough that Democrats don't have any option to get rid of
him anymore. So I guess basically the threshold is the Democrat convention is supposed
to be in mid August, but before that, before that they were going
to actually do the formal nomination. The formal nomination of Joe Biden was supposed
to take place before that. Basically, all the Democrat delegates were going to
get on like a massive zoom call and cast their delegate votes for Biden earlier
than the actual Democrat convention, I think because the state of Ohio has a
filing deadline that is earlier than the actual Democrat convention. So the actual Democrat
conventions dates or August nineteenth through twenty second. The idea was, let's have
the formal nominating process be sooner. So Democrats have like a month, not
even a month possibly to get to convince Biden to drop out, and their
only options are convince him to voluntarily drop out or the other options get real
ugly, real fast. Okay. The other options are try to set up
some kind of civil war during the convention itself. Now, to do that,
whoever wants to be the Democrat nominee needs one nine hundred seventy six delegate
votes at the Democrat convention. Biden has already secured about thirty nine hundred delegate
votes. There are about seven hundred and forty non committed delegate votes. Those
are the so called super delegate votes, which is basically they represent like individual
Democrat lawmakers and party officials. So for Biden to actually lose at the convention.
I mean, now, Biden won all those states. They Democrats technically
had primaries in all those states. Biden won all those states. So all
those delegates, he's like, he's got enough delegates to be the nominee plus
another two thousand. All those delegates are committed to him. But there is
a possibility within the DNC rules that those delegates can vote quote in good conscience,
to represent the best interest of the state that elected them, that sent
them there of the Democrat voters from the state that sent them. So the
California Democrat voters come, the California Democrat delegates come as a big group.
Biden won California, so all those delegates are supposed to vote for Joe Biden.
Maybe they can say, well, in good conscience with the party,
what the people who voted for me want is actually to do X, loy
and Z. So I think the odds of getting you know, something like
two thousand. You know, let's say all seven hundred and thirty nine of
the uncommitted delegates decide to vote against Biden. He would have to convince twelve
hundred delegates to change their minds and decommit and I don't think that's going to
happen, and it would lead to a very messy, very chaotic, a
near train wreck of a Democrat convention if there was an actual civil war at
the convention to unseat him. And I just don't see that happening, especially
given that Biden likely controls a lot of the levers and mechanisms within the Democrat
convention itself. I just don't I don't see it happening. Now. The
only other option to get rid of Biden is even more destructive. That's invoking
the twenty fifth Amendment, where under the twenty fifth Amendment, there are mechanisms
for the vice president and the president's cabinet to declare that he is unfit for
office and basically depose him. That would be enormously destructive and destabilizing, and
Biden is probably mentally with it enough to protest that act, and that you
know, could lead frankly, even to a many little constitutional crisis of you
know, is was this legally done? And I just don't see that actually
happening. So I think the path of least resistance is the most likely.
I think Biden is going to be the guy. I don't think I don't
think he's going to be convinced to drop out. He seems committed to not
dropping out, and I think his strategy is to just run out the clock
for another month until the Democrats can't get rid of him. So this dynamic
is indeed what we're going to face when we return. Governor Newsom signs AB
nineteen fifty five banning schools from telling parents when their kid is having a gender
transition at school if the kid does not want their parents to know. We'll
talk about that next on the John Girardi Show. Governor Newsom signed AB nineteen
fifty five, which is a bill that says schools may not tell a kid's
parents that the kid is engaging in a social quote gender transition at the public
school if the kid doesn't want the parents to know. So what this means
is that this only impacts public schools, just after the y to the Eye
only impacts public schools. So your kid goes to a public school, your
kid tells someone at the school the administration, my name is not John,
my name is now Joan. I am Joan. I am a girl.
I will dress like a girl. I will use the girl's bathroom. You
will put me on a girls sports team. You will let me on school
trips, sleep with girls in their hotel rooms. You will let me use
girls' locker rooms. My name is not John, my name is Joan.
This will be reflective in your school records, and don't tell my parents.
The school officials will then have to to click their heels, say yes,
sir, Joan, Yes, ma'am excuse me, yes, ma'a'm that was
an honest mistake there, Yes, Joan, We will call you Joan.
You will wear a dress. You will use the girl's bathroom. You will
sleep with other girls on overnight trips. You will use the girl's locker room.
We will call you Joan. All of our internal records will refer to
you as Joan the girl, but all of our communications with your parents will
still refer to John. You will come out to everyone at this school.
Maybe you're at you know, Clovis High School, and there's you know,
thousands of kids walking around here. Yes, all these thousands of kids know
you as Joan. Thousands of kids, teachers, the janitor knows you as
Joan. But your own parents, Nope, we won't tell him. We
won't tell them. A darn thing. That is what Abe nineteen fifty five
does. Now, this is insane, obviously, but this is a fight
that conservatives already lost, and it's this fight over. It's this fight over
basically, when do parents need to give their consent for children's activities? Do
parents need to give their consent for their children to do certain kinds of things?
Historically in America, kids cannot consent to various kinds of activities that involve
long term and long range consequences, And we don't sort of view children as
having a kind of legal independence from their parents. Any kind of important decisions
governing the child's legal rights impacting the child's long term benefit, financial benefit,
physical well being we put into the hands of parents kids. Traditionally, in
common law countries, kids were not able are not able to sign contracts.
Kids cannot legally sign contracts. Kids cannot agree to waivers, to legal waivers
or things like that. You need your parents to sign. If you're going
on a school trip and there's a liability waiver, well, the kid can't
sign it. The parent has to sign it. When Kobe Bryant was drafted
into the NBA, he came right out of high school. He was only
seventeen years old. His mom and dad had to sign his contract for him.
Also cannot traditionally consent to medical care for themselves. Their parents have to
consent. This is why the school nurse needs to call mom and dad before
she gives the kid a tilinol. This extends to things like sex statue,
the whole theory of statutory rape as a crime in the United States, and
establishing what is the legal age of consent for agreeing to sexual conduct in some
states at sixteen, some states at eighteen, and basically states have to draw
some kind of red line to divide between you know, when you're legal,
when you are old enough and have enough maturity to actually agree to sexual conduct.
But the basic idea is children lack the judgment, the long term,
judgment, the short the ability to weigh short term benefit to long term burdens.
They lack judgment to such an extent that having sex with a child is
basically having sex with a person who is incapable of consenting. The consent that
a child can give to sexual activity is basically so inadequate because children lack judgment,
and so we don't deem it if a twenty four year old has sex
with a fourteen year old, we don't say, well, you know,
she really thought about it really hard, and she talked with her friends about
it, and she, you know, she was really you know, she
really considered it, and she's a very mature fourteen year old, and you
know, she decided that, you know, maybe it would be this would
be a healthy, loving relationship, and so she decided to sleep with it.
No, we don't do stuff like that. She's fourteen, she is
incapable of consenting to this kind of activity, and so we deem sexual activity
between a fourteen year by any child in California, it's anyone under the age
of eighteen, and the basically the penalties just get worse for younger and younger
children, and the larger the age gap is between the child and the adult.
But any sexual activity by someone who is a minor in California is deemed
to be statutory rape. It is deemed to be non consensual sexual activity.
But liberals want kids to engage in certain kinds of activities. There are certain
kinds of activities that are lefty codd where the left cares more about that activity
happening than anything else. And what they hate most of all is the idea
of a conservative parent intervening to say no, this is not right on behalf
of a kid. They hate that. They hate the idea that there are
conservative parents out there whose idea of the good is different from theirs, who
would make different decisions for their child than they would make for themselves. They
see in conservative parents out there, their own conservative parents that many of these
liberals are still rebelling against. And so the idea of a fourteen year old
being pregnant and a conservative parent saying, honey, we love you, but
we sincerely and deeply believe that abortion is wrong. We're going to do everything
in our power to help you and love you and take care of this child.
They see that a conservative parent would want to do that, and they
view that as monstrous because it's not what they would do, and they think
it's not what they would want for themselves, or maybe you know, they
they view that as e and so they can't call such a thing flat out
child abuse because it would be ridiculous, it would be insulting to millions of
Californians. They don't flat out do that. So what do they do for
abortion? And now for gender transitioning social gender transitioning. I'm not talking about
surgeries, I'm not talking about hormone therapies. I'm just talking about being at
school and saying, you will treat me like a boy when biologically i'm a
girl. You will treat me as a girl when biologically I'm a boy.
For both abortion and now for gender transition stuff, liberals have basically said,
we know that kids are dumb, but the default will be that the child
keeps this from the parents if the child wants, the kid holds the privacy
privilege. I think this is monstrous in the realm of abortion. I was
just talking, in fact with a school nurse earlier this week about this very
topic that you have. Some poor fourteen year old at a junior high school
finds out she's pregnant. School nurse is not allowed to tell the parent,
and the nurse says, well, here's your options, and here's this fourteen
year old who's supposed to navigate a pregnancy, A fourteen year old who might
not really understand what health insurance is, whether she has it, what her
health insurance plan is, where's her insurance card? Hey, fourteen year old,
make your own decision about your abortion, go to an obgyn and when
they ask, hey, fourteen year old, what medications are you allergic to?
I don't know. Do you have any family history of this that or
the I don't know. They don't know. What's your social Security number?
I don't know. My mom has my Social Security card? Do you see
how cruel this is? How cruel it is to allow children to navigate the
healthcare system by themselves, and under what theory? Under the theory that if
a child is pregnant and needs st is pregnant and wants an abortion, or
is sexually active and wants treatment for an STD, that a parent might overreact,
that a parent might get abusive, and that the child knows best to
gauge the child's own safety, and that therefore the child should hold the privilege.
It's asinine. It takes a legal California takes this legal default posture that
a parent might be an abuser just because the parent might disagree with the child's
conduct or be upset with the child's conduct, which is insane. Short of
actual evidence of child abuse in the home, there is no reason to adopt
such a posture, whether it's for a pregnant teenager, whether it's a sexually
active teenager who has an STD. Oh, we're not going to tell the
parent that this sexually active teenager has an STD. The kid needs to do
it, this kid who's well, my mom will be upset at me.
No, it is an act of cruelty not to tell that kid's parent about
what's going on, because guess who's gonna have to pick up the pieces when
it all goes bad. It'll be the parent. It won't be the school
nurse, it won't be the losers over at planned parenthood. It'll be the
mom and the dad. Within schools. Now, we're just going to say
that the privilege should be yours child. So so that that has been the
case with abortion for all this time. But now what we're going to say
is in school for the decision of who you are, your fundamental identity,
your name, who you are as a man or a woman. We're not
going to tell your parents that you are fundamentally altering your conception of who you
are. When we return Elon Musk's reaction to all of this, which I've
found curious. Next on The John Girardi Show, Governor Knwsom signed ab nineteen
fifty five. This is a bill that says that if a student decides to
socially gender transition at a California public school, everyone at the school can know
about it. Thousands of kids and teachers and administrators at the school are allowed
to know about it, but if the kid doesn't want his parents to know,
then the school can't tell the parents. Elon Musk, of all people,
reacted very negatively to this and said, that's it. I'm drawing a
bunch of business out of California. We're gonna have X head Twitter's headquarters now
X. I guess I still hate the name. I can never call it
X. Anyway, We're removing Twitter's headquarters, SpaceX's headquarters out of California.
We're going to move a bunch of stuff to Austin. I'm sick and tired
of California. Musk's posture in this presidential campaign is really kind of this looming
sort of sleeping giant for Trump. So after Trump's assassination attempt, Musk announced
that he was endorsing Trump. And given that he's the richest man in the
world of like, well, the richest man in the world just said he's
supporting Donald Trump, is it? I mean, could he just give Donald
Trump five hundred million dollars for his campaign? I mean, give give five
hundred million dollars to a superpack or something and lo and behold. As I
was, I was texting with my buddy Jonathan Keller about this, and I
raised the possibility, Gosh, this seems like an enormous thing if Elon Musk
is actually endorsing Trump, Like what if he could he totally shift? And
then yes, About three hours after I said this to Jonathan Wall Street Journal
story, Elon Musk has committed he's going to give the Trump certain Trump superpacks
forty five million dollars a month from now until election day, which is,
you know, going to add up to about a quarter of a billion dollars.
That's huge. Okay, that's a game changer for Trump financially. And
I sort of wonder about if Musk is going to get super politically engaged.
That's a guy who could have a kind of impact on the right, maybe
for good, maybe for ill, in a way similar to Bill Gates and
Warren Buffett have had on the left. It's a big thing and it's something
to watch. That'll do it, John di already show see next time on Power Talk