1
00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:22,079
We're back with another edition of The
Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily Jasinski,

2
00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:25,320
culture editor here at the Federalist.
As always, you can email the show

3
00:00:25,320 --> 00:00:29,199
at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on Twitter at fdr LST.

4
00:00:29,600 --> 00:00:33,240
Make sure to subscribe wherever you download
your podcast into the premium version of

5
00:00:33,280 --> 00:00:36,799
our website as well. Today,
I'm really honored to be joined by Kristen

6
00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:40,520
Wagner. She is the CEO and
president and General Council of Alliance Defending Freedom.

7
00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:46,399
She also argued the successful case three
or three Creative. You likely remember

8
00:00:46,439 --> 00:00:49,439
we talked a lot about that a
couple of weeks ago. But Kristen,

9
00:00:49,799 --> 00:00:53,960
thank you so much for joining the
show and congratulations on that case. Well,

10
00:00:54,000 --> 00:00:57,679
thank you, and thanks for having
me of course, great ADF victory,

11
00:00:57,799 --> 00:01:02,560
and you also order you also argued
master P for ADF and for Jack

12
00:01:02,600 --> 00:01:04,560
Phillips. I want to get into
all of that because there's an interesting sort

13
00:01:04,560 --> 00:01:11,239
of arc from Masterpiece to three h
three. But maybe the best way to

14
00:01:11,280 --> 00:01:14,159
start here is just if you could
tell us a little bit about how you

15
00:01:14,439 --> 00:01:19,599
and ADF ended up connecting with Laurie
Smith here. Well, Laurie Smith had

16
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:26,719
a front row seat to the aggressive
prosecution by Colorado of Jack Phillipson Masterpiece Cake

17
00:01:26,799 --> 00:01:32,560
Shop, and that began in two
thousand and twelve, and Laurie wanted to

18
00:01:32,599 --> 00:01:38,719
be able to expand her her website
business into creating custom wedding websites that promoted

19
00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:42,319
her faith view of marriage, which
is marriage between a man and a woman.

20
00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:48,519
And as she was watching what Colorado
was doing with Jack Phillips, and

21
00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:53,560
she told her pastor that she was
planning to expand her business into wedding websites.

22
00:01:53,599 --> 00:01:59,319
Her pastor was actually the one that
connected her to Alliance Defending Freedom.

23
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:01,959
He said, you know, I'm
concerned that what's happening with Jack Phillips and

24
00:02:02,040 --> 00:02:07,079
Masterpiece Cake Shop that you would be
putting yourself in legal jeopardy, So I

25
00:02:07,079 --> 00:02:10,560
think you should seek some advice,
and he actually let her know about adf

26
00:02:12,919 --> 00:02:16,680
Okay, that's so interesting, and
actually it gets to some of what we're

27
00:02:16,680 --> 00:02:22,120
going to talk about in a moment. But if you could about the sort

28
00:02:22,159 --> 00:02:24,000
of origins of the case and where
the media's head has gone on all of

29
00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:27,439
that, But if you could also
just tell us a little bit about the

30
00:02:27,479 --> 00:02:30,439
basic facts of the case, there's
absolutely nobody more qualified to do that other

31
00:02:30,439 --> 00:02:35,159
than you because you actually argued it. But just to kind of catch people

32
00:02:35,199 --> 00:02:38,800
up to speed, maybe first on
what she was watching with Masterpiece another case

33
00:02:38,840 --> 00:02:44,280
again that you argued and what it
was being kind of stress tested, but

34
00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:49,360
stress tested actually cheapens it actually tested
in three oh three. Yes, yes,

35
00:02:49,439 --> 00:02:52,080
I mean it's it's been checking to
see how the least head to have

36
00:02:52,280 --> 00:03:00,319
absolutely exploded over the modern concept of
reaffirming free speech, but it's been rising

37
00:03:00,319 --> 00:03:05,800
even for us. In terms of
Lorie's case, Lorie was a part of

38
00:03:05,879 --> 00:03:10,960
She actually worked for the state of
Colorado designing websites. She worked in a

39
00:03:12,000 --> 00:03:15,120
sort of in the private sector,
and just found that she wanted to be

40
00:03:15,199 --> 00:03:21,599
able to have her own business and
to create websites that included projects she was

41
00:03:21,639 --> 00:03:25,599
passionate about and that she wouldn't have
to promote ideas or projects that she didn't

42
00:03:25,599 --> 00:03:30,599
believe in, and so she opened
her own business, which was three or

43
00:03:30,639 --> 00:03:35,240
three Creative. She's a native to
Colorado. Three or three is Denver's first

44
00:03:35,319 --> 00:03:38,360
area code, which is where that
comes from. And in starting the business

45
00:03:38,360 --> 00:03:44,120
in two thousand and sixteen, well, I should say the case started in

46
00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:49,520
two and sixteen. She started much
earlier in the business, and when she

47
00:03:49,599 --> 00:03:54,000
wanted to expand that business to extend
into weddings, she again saw what was

48
00:03:54,039 --> 00:03:59,599
happening with Jack Phillips and became concerned
that Colorado might prosecute her. So she

49
00:03:59,639 --> 00:04:08,159
actually filed her lawsuit challenging Colorado's law
before the Supreme Court even heard Jack Phillip's

50
00:04:08,199 --> 00:04:12,560
case, which is something that most
people don't know of. So those cases

51
00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:16,600
we're going on at about the same
time and have now extended over the last

52
00:04:16,639 --> 00:04:20,360
decade. So we're thrilled with the
wind and happy to go into that more.

53
00:04:20,399 --> 00:04:26,839
I'll just say in terms of Laurie
herself, she serves everyone. She

54
00:04:27,040 --> 00:04:31,199
has clients who identify from all walks
of life, including existing clients that identifies

55
00:04:31,360 --> 00:04:36,439
LGBT. But she has never been
willing to design websites that promote ideas and

56
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:42,360
projects that violate her beliefs or that
she thinks are unhelpful or unloving to her

57
00:04:42,399 --> 00:04:46,879
neighbor. And yeah, I have
a lot of questions about you know,

58
00:04:46,240 --> 00:04:49,600
they want to get into in a
little bit about like the ACLU and where

59
00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:53,319
they stood on this. And you
have a great up ed in Bloomberg with

60
00:04:53,439 --> 00:04:57,199
Nadine Strawson. But we'll get to
in just a second. What is the

61
00:04:58,839 --> 00:05:02,360
I guess that is interesting. I
hadn't realized that she filed before Jack's case,

62
00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:05,399
was I mean, that's I actually
didn't know that. But that is

63
00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:11,120
really well, it seems really important. And also it seems important is this

64
00:05:11,199 --> 00:05:14,959
question of standing, and this gets
into the false media narrative, and this

65
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:18,040
was a whole fake controversy gended up
by a national I'm sorry, a New

66
00:05:18,040 --> 00:05:23,279
Republic article after the case. But
on that point, there was a question

67
00:05:23,319 --> 00:05:28,399
about and some people anticipated maybe descents
would get into this question of standing.

68
00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:36,040
But Laurie's standing is it rooted in
interpretations or Colorado's interpretations of its own law

69
00:05:36,600 --> 00:05:40,600
as they related to Jack Phillips.
Am I write on that I'm probably watching

70
00:05:40,639 --> 00:05:44,079
it in some way, but it
is part of the question. Oh,

71
00:05:44,120 --> 00:05:46,920
you're not watching it at all.
I think that is important to understand.

72
00:05:46,959 --> 00:05:50,399
First of all, is that Laurie's
case is a pre enforcement challenge, and

73
00:05:50,480 --> 00:05:56,040
what that means is that when in
Jack Phillips case, Colorado came after him,

74
00:05:56,079 --> 00:05:59,360
they threatened the loss of you know, most of what he owns.

75
00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:01,639
He asked us agnificant portion of his
business during the pendency of the case,

76
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:05,439
because he was a defendant in the
case. When Laurie saw what was happening

77
00:06:05,439 --> 00:06:09,360
and she said, I don't want
to wait to be a defendant. I

78
00:06:09,439 --> 00:06:12,879
want the court to clarify my rights
so that I don't put myself in legal

79
00:06:12,959 --> 00:06:15,839
jeopardy. And the law allows that, and that's what's called the pre enforcement

80
00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:20,560
challenge. The Laurie is a plaintiff, she sued Colorado, rather than being

81
00:06:20,560 --> 00:06:28,319
put in the position of facing punishment
from Colorado. So a pre enforcement challenge

82
00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:33,199
is a staple of civil rights litigation. The Left has historically used it significantly

83
00:06:33,279 --> 00:06:39,759
in all kinds of different areas.
And it's just incontrovertible that this exists because

84
00:06:40,160 --> 00:06:43,959
we believe in America that you have
the right as an American to challenge an

85
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:48,160
unjust law without putting yourself in legal
jeopardy. And in the course of that,

86
00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:53,160
the way that you prove standing is
essentially to prove that there's a credible

87
00:06:53,199 --> 00:06:58,079
threat of enforcement against you, that
there's a credible threat the government might use

88
00:06:58,160 --> 00:07:02,480
this law to punish what you're asking
to do. And that's an easy test

89
00:07:02,519 --> 00:07:08,399
for Laurie to meet, as we've
already mentioned, because they're literally punishing Jack

90
00:07:08,439 --> 00:07:13,959
Phillips, trying to the most aggressive
state in the nation in that moment to

91
00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:17,680
punish someone that has the same beliefs
that Laurie has. In addition, another

92
00:07:17,759 --> 00:07:23,079
way that the court looks at it
is to say, is the government disavowing

93
00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:25,839
the law? Is the government telling
the court, oh, don't worry,

94
00:07:25,879 --> 00:07:29,720
nothing to see here, we are
not going to prosecute this plaintiff. And

95
00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:32,519
Colorado did the opposite in this case. For seven years, they have fought

96
00:07:32,560 --> 00:07:36,720
this tooth and nail, and they
have said they would go after Laurie if

97
00:07:36,800 --> 00:07:44,079
she created website celebrating her face teaching
on marriage, she would be required to

98
00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:49,079
also celebrate custom websites that have same
sex weddings in them. So it's not

99
00:07:49,160 --> 00:07:53,600
even a question on the law.
And we can get into the facts later

100
00:07:53,720 --> 00:07:57,399
on that. But the law is
very clear that she had standing, which

101
00:07:57,439 --> 00:08:01,879
is why not one of the twelve
appellate judges that what did this case ever

102
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:07,160
thought there was an issue of standing? And this is where the false narrative

103
00:08:07,720 --> 00:08:13,519
enters the picture. And again it
really started at least maybe you saw something

104
00:08:13,560 --> 00:08:16,720
different, but since you're on the
inside of this. From the outside,

105
00:08:16,720 --> 00:08:22,800
it seemed like that New Republic article
really kicked off a news cycle of very

106
00:08:22,839 --> 00:08:26,959
smug and sort of condescending mockery on
behalf of not just the left, but

107
00:08:28,040 --> 00:08:31,799
a lot of people who purport to
be like neutral in media running articles saying

108
00:08:31,879 --> 00:08:35,639
that Laurie's case is undercut by the
fact that, you know, if you

109
00:08:35,840 --> 00:08:43,240
call this man who submitted a complaint
that was listed in the lawsuit or a

110
00:08:43,360 --> 00:08:46,519
request I'm sorry for a website for
a gay wedding that was listed in the

111
00:08:46,600 --> 00:08:50,360
lawsuit, he says he had first
he heard of it, and he had

112
00:08:50,399 --> 00:08:54,320
never he's married to a woman,
and blah, blah blah. And there

113
00:08:54,399 --> 00:09:00,480
was this, you know, narrative
that Laurie Smith's case was fake and all

114
00:09:00,519 --> 00:09:03,919
of this. But I mean,
everything you already explained sort of undercuts that

115
00:09:03,039 --> 00:09:07,399
too. But I just wanted to
get your thoughts on how that news cycle

116
00:09:07,519 --> 00:09:09,960
took off. You have a great
up ed in the journal with your calling

117
00:09:11,039 --> 00:09:13,600
Aaron Holly on all of this,
but it gets into kind of the nitty

118
00:09:13,639 --> 00:09:20,399
gritty details. But what on earth
happened with that media cycle. Well,

119
00:09:20,440 --> 00:09:24,320
we knew they would come out with
something if the court decided to affirm the

120
00:09:24,399 --> 00:09:30,120
time honored principle that free speech applies
to everyone, and assumed that it would

121
00:09:30,120 --> 00:09:35,399
be something about the pre enforcement challenge
because they especially didn't like that, again

122
00:09:35,440 --> 00:09:39,240
ignoring the fact that Laurie's case has
been going on nearly, you know,

123
00:09:39,720 --> 00:09:45,080
before Jack's case was even decided.
But what I didn't expect is them to

124
00:09:45,240 --> 00:09:50,840
use this situation involving Mike and Stewart
so for the listeners. The day after

125
00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:58,159
Laurie filed her case, she received
a request for custom wedding website and some

126
00:09:58,240 --> 00:10:05,200
other materials to be created for a
wedding between Mike and Stewart. And that

127
00:10:05,279 --> 00:10:09,120
came in through her website through a
form that comes in an electronic request,

128
00:10:09,120 --> 00:10:13,240
and it included the names, It
included an email, and it included phone

129
00:10:13,279 --> 00:10:20,799
number and a website. So obviously
looked very legit, and Laurie included in

130
00:10:20,840 --> 00:10:24,879
a separate motion later that that request
had come in and that's all she said

131
00:10:24,960 --> 00:10:28,840
was, I received this request through
my website, well, just a couple

132
00:10:28,879 --> 00:10:33,279
of days before the Supreme Court ruled
in Laurie's case. Seven years later,

133
00:10:33,799 --> 00:10:39,200
this activist calls Stewart and Stuart now
claims that he never made the request,

134
00:10:39,360 --> 00:10:41,399
never mind that he's still at the
same number, it's his name, and

135
00:10:41,440 --> 00:10:46,399
that after the ruling came out he
suggested that what Laurie had done was terrible.

136
00:10:46,440 --> 00:10:50,759
I can't remember his exact words,
but essentially he was very much against

137
00:10:52,039 --> 00:10:56,440
Laurie winning this case. So my
suspicion is he's too embarrassed to own up

138
00:10:56,480 --> 00:11:01,679
to the fact that he was making
a request and essentially got caught. But

139
00:11:01,879 --> 00:11:09,440
nonetheless, the activist is claiming that
because this wasn't a legitimate quote unquote request

140
00:11:09,480 --> 00:11:13,480
for a real wedding, that the
case was built on some sort of false

141
00:11:13,600 --> 00:11:16,960
narrative, which is just not true
because standing has to be established on the

142
00:11:18,080 --> 00:11:22,039
day you file a case, not
the day after, so one that makes

143
00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:26,519
zero sense too. Under pre enforcement
challenge, you don't have to have a

144
00:11:26,639 --> 00:11:30,559
request, that's the whole point.
The whole point is that you don't want

145
00:11:30,559 --> 00:11:33,159
to wait until you get the request
and then decline it because that puts you

146
00:11:33,200 --> 00:11:39,080
in violation of the law. So
another reason it makes absolutely no sense to

147
00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:45,240
suggest that. And then finally,
the left is tried to fault Laurie because

148
00:11:45,279 --> 00:11:50,000
she didn't actually call Stuart to verify
that this was a real wedding, as

149
00:11:50,039 --> 00:11:52,600
if Stuart would have owned up to
it in that moment. But the reason

150
00:11:52,639 --> 00:11:58,200
that she couldn't follow up demonstrates the
whole point of a pre enforcement challenge.

151
00:11:58,679 --> 00:12:03,919
Jack Phillips had the same thing happened
to him On the day the Supreme Court

152
00:12:03,000 --> 00:12:07,480
agreed to hear his first case.
He had a call from a transgender attorney

153
00:12:07,519 --> 00:12:13,159
and that attorney asked for a gender
transition cake that violated Jack's fate, and

154
00:12:13,360 --> 00:12:18,080
he spoke to him, declined the
request, and three weeks after we won

155
00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:22,720
at the Supreme Court, Colorado prosecuted
Jack a second time. So there was

156
00:12:22,799 --> 00:12:28,120
no requirement for this request to come
in. No judge ever relied on it

157
00:12:28,159 --> 00:12:31,639
because it wasn't a requirement. And
second, it would have been irresponsible for

158
00:12:31,799 --> 00:12:37,000
Laurie to follow up in some way
seeing what Colorado had done. When Jack

159
00:12:37,080 --> 00:12:41,120
followed up on that kind of a
request, Oh, that's a that's super

160
00:12:41,159 --> 00:12:45,360
super interesting. And this, yeah, I have a question, just as

161
00:12:45,360 --> 00:12:50,960
a journalist, sounds to me like
the New Republic piece, which was attempted

162
00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:54,600
to kind of break this news was
never news to begin with. It actually

163
00:12:54,600 --> 00:13:00,279
sounds sort of like journalistic malpractice,
that there's nothing newsworthy whatsoever, because in

164
00:13:00,320 --> 00:13:05,720
the day after it's filed, you
have the preemptive already a situation that's,

165
00:13:05,759 --> 00:13:11,480
as you said earlier, staple of
civil rights litigation, and that all of

166
00:13:11,519 --> 00:13:18,759
that suggests to me that the journalist
didn't care to consider the facts and how

167
00:13:18,759 --> 00:13:22,200
they might have undercut the narrative,
and all of those other outlets that ran

168
00:13:22,279 --> 00:13:28,559
with the narrative and promulgated the narrative
either didn't take maybe they didn't even reach

169
00:13:28,559 --> 00:13:31,720
out to a DF or when they
did, didn't take that seriously enough,

170
00:13:31,799 --> 00:13:35,480
didn't reach out to balanced experts.
Because as a journalist, if you're digging

171
00:13:35,480 --> 00:13:39,840
into the story and you're pursuing the
facts without any sort of bias clouding your

172
00:13:39,879 --> 00:13:43,919
judgment or you know, actually putting
truth ahead of any kind of narrative,

173
00:13:43,000 --> 00:13:46,159
it seems to be like you would
hit a brick wall and just say this

174
00:13:46,200 --> 00:13:50,440
isn't newsworthy. It has to be
really frustrating from your vantage point to watch

175
00:13:50,720 --> 00:13:58,960
journalism like that snowball. It's not
just frustrating, it's I don't even know

176
00:13:58,000 --> 00:14:03,039
that they have words at this point, still processing that in the sense that

177
00:14:03,120 --> 00:14:07,320
you know, to see in a
headline. For example, Newsweek ran with

178
00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:13,679
the headline something to the effect of
attorneys facing possible disbarment and criminal penalties.

179
00:14:13,960 --> 00:14:18,159
What's according to us who litigated the
case. I mean, it's the most

180
00:14:18,279 --> 00:14:26,440
irresponsible, willful, ignorance, medium
outpractice that I have ever seen. And

181
00:14:26,480 --> 00:14:31,440
it's all to delegitimize the Supreme Court. And now I'm even hearing that there

182
00:14:31,480 --> 00:14:35,360
may be follow up pieces that you
know, New York Public is more about

183
00:14:35,480 --> 00:14:43,279
being a laptist activist than reporting the
news. It is just it's malpractice and

184
00:14:43,679 --> 00:14:50,159
frankly, we're looking into it closely. The washed Aldom Wall Street podcast with

185
00:14:50,320 --> 00:14:54,480
Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps
unpack the connection between politics and the economy

186
00:14:54,519 --> 00:14:58,279
and how it affects your walt.
As Biden continues to tout his bidomics plan,

187
00:14:58,399 --> 00:15:01,840
does any of it sound familiar?
How about the Soviet style five year

188
00:15:01,879 --> 00:15:07,919
plan? State run capitalism is not
capitalism. Command and control economics fails every

189
00:15:07,919 --> 00:15:11,159
time it's tried. Bidonomics equals chinonomics. Whether it's happening in DC or down

190
00:15:11,159 --> 00:15:13,840
on Wall Street, it's affecting you
financially. Be informed. Check out the

191
00:15:13,840 --> 00:15:18,519
Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apples, Spotify or wherever you

192
00:15:18,559 --> 00:15:24,799
get your podcast. Yeah. Absolutely, It's just it's one of those things

193
00:15:24,799 --> 00:15:28,120
where like when you know the facts
of a situation in the media reports on

194
00:15:28,120 --> 00:15:31,039
them, it gives you a great
window into how corrupt and broken the media

195
00:15:31,279 --> 00:15:37,240
is because you see it up close
and personal. Another question I have is

196
00:15:37,320 --> 00:15:41,960
about, as you said, doing
this kind of proremptively is a staple of

197
00:15:41,960 --> 00:15:46,240
civil rights litigation, and it reminds
me of your op ed with Nadine Strawson.

198
00:15:46,320 --> 00:15:50,919
It's in Bloomberg, you write,
consistent with the free speech Golden Rule,

199
00:15:50,039 --> 00:15:54,039
this decision ensures that an LGBTQ website
designer can't be forced to create a

200
00:15:54,080 --> 00:15:58,279
website criticizing same sex marriage. But
this case also protects speech for being on

201
00:15:58,600 --> 00:16:03,919
the marriage contexts. A democratic artist
need not designed posters promoting the Republican Party,

202
00:16:03,159 --> 00:16:07,080
nor must a videographer who supports Robe
Wade film a pro life rally.

203
00:16:07,480 --> 00:16:12,120
And what sort of baffling about the
media narrative here, And I'm sure the

204
00:16:12,159 --> 00:16:15,440
case in general, the media narrative
about the case in general. The less

205
00:16:15,440 --> 00:16:22,000
reaction to the case in general is
they seem to be forgetting the history of

206
00:16:22,320 --> 00:16:29,840
civil rights litigation and just on this
question of testing laws preemptively or protecting rights

207
00:16:30,000 --> 00:16:33,159
pramptively. Is it surprising to you
that none of that came up, the

208
00:16:33,200 --> 00:16:38,279
history of that didn't come up in
the media coverage of Laurie's standing in that

209
00:16:38,360 --> 00:16:44,960
case. Absolutely, I mean again, I think it's just willful ignorance to

210
00:16:45,159 --> 00:16:48,519
it. And you know, what
we can say is that the United States

211
00:16:48,559 --> 00:16:55,240
Supreme Court reaffirmed a time on or
principle that free speeches for everyone, the

212
00:16:55,279 --> 00:16:57,559
government can't force you to say things
that you don't believe, and it simply

213
00:16:57,600 --> 00:17:03,200
applied that principle to cultural moment.
And when we can look back at previous

214
00:17:03,279 --> 00:17:07,000
culture moments, even at the height
of the civil rights movement, we never

215
00:17:07,160 --> 00:17:12,640
the government never compelled artistic expression or
ideological speech, and it certainly shouldn't do

216
00:17:12,680 --> 00:17:18,839
so. Now, I imagine you've
spent a lot of time thinking about how

217
00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:23,160
the ACLU of your for all of
the faults it may have had, became

218
00:17:23,200 --> 00:17:26,640
the a CLU of today. And
of course you're writing with Nadine Stratton in

219
00:17:26,680 --> 00:17:30,079
this case. But the ACLU was
on the other side of three or three

220
00:17:30,079 --> 00:17:34,480
creative in the most baffling way.
And again, I'm sure this is a

221
00:17:34,559 --> 00:17:37,839
question you've spent a lot of time
thinking about over the years. What is

222
00:17:37,880 --> 00:17:44,920
your best explanation for what happened to
the left free speech protectors? What happened

223
00:17:44,920 --> 00:17:48,039
to the civil libertarians who purport to
love free speech but fell on the other

224
00:17:48,079 --> 00:17:52,559
side of this case. I mean, the only thing I can think of

225
00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:56,920
is sort of a cancel culture moment, is cowardice that comes into play over

226
00:17:57,039 --> 00:18:03,319
time, that it's the subject matter. But again, the First Amendment is

227
00:18:03,359 --> 00:18:07,680
big enough to protect the lesbian photographer
as much as the Catholic calligrapher. And

228
00:18:07,119 --> 00:18:11,319
if we give up on that idea, which is also something required by the

229
00:18:11,359 --> 00:18:17,720
First Amendment, we are handing the
government this unfettered authority, and the political

230
00:18:17,759 --> 00:18:21,400
and cultural win shipped. And that
was the whole point of that abed in

231
00:18:21,440 --> 00:18:26,200
Bloomberg Law with Nadine Strasson's Nadine used
to be the president of the ACLU,

232
00:18:26,400 --> 00:18:33,200
and we disagree on many different issues
ideologically, but the importance of free speech

233
00:18:33,440 --> 00:18:36,799
is one that we should be able
to align on on the left and the

234
00:18:36,880 --> 00:18:40,519
right. And you know, as
Nadine made the point many times to me,

235
00:18:40,559 --> 00:18:45,319
in the course of our conversations,
in our drafts. It is the

236
00:18:45,319 --> 00:18:49,240
world in which we live where today's
heresies become tomorrow's orthodoxies, and we ought

237
00:18:49,319 --> 00:18:52,920
to take heed that that is the
world in which we live, which is

238
00:18:52,920 --> 00:18:57,720
why the First Amendment is so important. Yeah, it's hard to understand,

239
00:18:57,880 --> 00:19:03,559
especially you make these very obvious points. A democratic artist need not designed posters

240
00:19:03,559 --> 00:19:07,920
promoting the Republican Party, And it
just seems to be lost on people who

241
00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:11,200
claim to promote free speech and be
civil libertarians. And I guess, on

242
00:19:11,440 --> 00:19:15,880
the one hand, maybe it's it's
mostly the media's fault for misinforming willfully misinforming

243
00:19:17,000 --> 00:19:18,599
many, many people about the facts
of the case so that they have a

244
00:19:18,680 --> 00:19:23,160
very different idea. You know,
they think Laurie was just turning gay customers

245
00:19:23,160 --> 00:19:27,000
away for being gay, as opposed
to like the actual facts of the case.

246
00:19:27,319 --> 00:19:30,240
What did you make of the descents? That has to be as somebody

247
00:19:30,240 --> 00:19:34,000
who argues in front of the Supreme
Court, that has to be one of

248
00:19:34,039 --> 00:19:38,440
the most frust frustrating aspects when a
decision goes your way, is reading the

249
00:19:38,559 --> 00:19:42,279
disense. What did you make of
them in this case? Well, you

250
00:19:42,319 --> 00:19:45,440
know, sometimes when I read descents. I'm like, oh, this is

251
00:19:45,680 --> 00:19:49,039
good in the sense that they bring
up the best arguments about the case.

252
00:19:49,119 --> 00:19:53,200
And I mean it is an advocate. You know what you're what those points

253
00:19:53,200 --> 00:19:56,599
are, and you are prepared to
address them. And we did, which

254
00:19:56,640 --> 00:20:02,079
is why we have six votes.
But in reading Justice Son of Myrs descent,

255
00:20:02,400 --> 00:20:06,720
I mean she's writing on a different
case. Most descent has nothing to

256
00:20:06,759 --> 00:20:11,720
do with the legal issue at hand. It simply reinforces the history of public

257
00:20:11,759 --> 00:20:15,960
accommodation laws, which we wholeheartedly agree
with. Public accommodation laws though have coexisted

258
00:20:15,960 --> 00:20:22,200
with the First Amendment for years,
and the Court's decision doesn't weaken those laws

259
00:20:22,240 --> 00:20:25,200
at all. In fact, it
says that they are still applicable. That

260
00:20:25,279 --> 00:20:30,599
you can't deny people's service because of
a protected characteristic and you can't compel speech

261
00:20:30,880 --> 00:20:34,799
because of the message. As Justice
Scorsage points out in the majority, those

262
00:20:34,839 --> 00:20:41,480
are very different, different reasons for
declining. One is what the messages and

263
00:20:41,519 --> 00:20:45,240
the other is who the person is. And I would just say too,

264
00:20:45,599 --> 00:20:49,119
in terms of comparing the majority in
the discent, someone told me, and

265
00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:53,720
I haven't actually counted for myself,
but someone suggested that seventeen times. Justice

266
00:20:53,759 --> 00:21:02,680
Scorsage cited the facts of the case
seventeen times, and Justice Sotomayor cited the

267
00:21:02,720 --> 00:21:07,640
facts of the case and her descent
zero times. That tells you all you

268
00:21:07,680 --> 00:21:11,200
need to know about the credibility of
the descent. Okay, So I have

269
00:21:11,240 --> 00:21:18,200
another question that I feel just silly
asking, but I'm curious how that happened.

270
00:21:18,240 --> 00:21:22,839
How does somebody who is you know, qualified legal minds so much that

271
00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:26,359
they're nominated to the Supreme Court,
confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court,

272
00:21:26,680 --> 00:21:32,000
listens to you give the facts of
the case. Maybe this is an overly

273
00:21:32,119 --> 00:21:36,160
psychological question, but I mean,
just somebody who's there at the Supreme Court

274
00:21:36,759 --> 00:21:41,960
being questioned and has done it before. How on earth does Justice Sotomayor end

275
00:21:41,000 --> 00:21:47,920
up writing a descent that is basically
about another case. Because I think if

276
00:21:47,920 --> 00:21:51,599
you write on this case, it's
an easy answer, it's an easy win.

277
00:21:52,400 --> 00:21:56,920
As I mentioned, the government has
never been able to compel speech ever

278
00:21:57,240 --> 00:22:00,480
in our history. It not even
at the height of the Civil rights movement.

279
00:22:00,480 --> 00:22:03,720
The First Amendment has protected all kinds
of speech, even speech that all

280
00:22:03,759 --> 00:22:07,799
of us would agree is offensive.
We've protected it because we've realized that the

281
00:22:07,839 --> 00:22:11,559
First Amendment follows the golden rule that
if you want freedom for yourself, you

282
00:22:11,680 --> 00:22:15,599
have to extend it to those you
disagree with, and the choice, the

283
00:22:15,680 --> 00:22:18,720
only other choice, is to give
the power to the government. And if

284
00:22:18,759 --> 00:22:22,039
we look abroad, we see that
those who don't have free speech, they

285
00:22:22,039 --> 00:22:26,519
don't have other freedoms as well.
You know, the First Amendment is one

286
00:22:26,680 --> 00:22:33,519
strong aspect of how we curb government
authoritarianism. Otherwise the government can silent discent,

287
00:22:33,640 --> 00:22:37,559
and that's the first thing it does
is try to silence discent. So

288
00:22:37,440 --> 00:22:41,000
I can't speak to how she could
write something like that other than I think

289
00:22:41,000 --> 00:22:48,839
that every American should read The Majority
and the Descent is easy reading. It's

290
00:22:48,000 --> 00:22:52,920
not that long, and it just
tells you all you need to know.

291
00:22:52,039 --> 00:22:57,480
I think absolutely what is the I
know you guys, you're doing a lot

292
00:22:57,519 --> 00:23:00,599
of work in Europe, obviously a
lot of work in the United States.

293
00:23:00,680 --> 00:23:06,960
What is the next kind of frontier
in Are there any cases on your guys's

294
00:23:07,000 --> 00:23:11,440
docet that you think people should be
paying attention to, any laws that you're

295
00:23:11,480 --> 00:23:17,240
particularly challenging or you think are the
biggest threats going forward in religious liberty cases?

296
00:23:17,519 --> 00:23:21,920
What's next really for ADF in this
fight. Well, we do have

297
00:23:22,000 --> 00:23:26,559
an entire international division that works around
the world, and having just done a

298
00:23:26,640 --> 00:23:29,920
retreat with them, I can tell
you what was so surprising to me is

299
00:23:30,240 --> 00:23:36,039
as they're listing out their priorities and
I'm looking at the US priorities, those

300
00:23:36,039 --> 00:23:41,839
priorities are pretty much the same in
the sense that we are seeing global censorship.

301
00:23:41,920 --> 00:23:48,359
Governments use censorship to silence descent around
the world, and that is of

302
00:23:48,680 --> 00:23:52,359
significant concern here in the United States, and that we are the last western

303
00:23:52,400 --> 00:23:57,759
country in the world that is resisting
the type of government censorship that we see

304
00:23:59,079 --> 00:24:03,319
in Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, the very last country

305
00:24:03,359 --> 00:24:07,759
in the world. And then I
look over at what the international team is

306
00:24:07,799 --> 00:24:11,720
doing. They're going to trial next
month in a case involving Pibe Rossman.

307
00:24:11,160 --> 00:24:15,119
It's her second trial. She won
the first, but in Finland, where

308
00:24:15,160 --> 00:24:21,920
she's a member of parliament, a
prosecutor can appeal a victory and continue to

309
00:24:21,960 --> 00:24:27,000
prosecute you. And basically she's been
prosecuted because she tweeted out some Bible verses

310
00:24:27,039 --> 00:24:33,720
in an objection to her church sponsoring
a pride parade, and now she's facing

311
00:24:33,799 --> 00:24:38,720
criminal prosecution for it in Finland.
So we're seeing this global censorship play out

312
00:24:38,759 --> 00:24:42,799
around the world. And again I
just want to emphasize here in the US

313
00:24:44,279 --> 00:24:48,519
we have always been the leader in
protecting these inalienable rights, and right now

314
00:24:48,720 --> 00:24:52,839
we're the last man standing and we
need to continue to do so. And

315
00:24:52,880 --> 00:24:56,200
we're so thankful that the Supreme Court
issued this ruling to protect free speech here.

316
00:24:57,480 --> 00:25:00,759
Yeah. Absolutely, How is Laurie
doing in the wake of all of

317
00:25:00,759 --> 00:25:04,240
this? I mean just a deluge
of media attentions, certainly, and I

318
00:25:04,279 --> 00:25:11,240
can only imagine given how passionate,
passionate people are about this particular issue,

319
00:25:11,720 --> 00:25:15,880
some of it has been brutal to
be on the receiving end of. But

320
00:25:15,000 --> 00:25:19,680
do you know how Laurie has been
in the wake of the decision. I

321
00:25:19,799 --> 00:25:25,559
was with her at this weekend,
and I think that her spirits are up,

322
00:25:26,720 --> 00:25:30,240
but it has been a rock two
weeks. I've never seen a client

323
00:25:30,319 --> 00:25:36,519
face so many threats and threats to
her life, threats to her physical safety,

324
00:25:37,000 --> 00:25:41,119
just the type of hate that has
come her way, largely in response

325
00:25:41,160 --> 00:25:48,039
to the media's irresponsible coverage of her
case, including the New Republic. There

326
00:25:48,079 --> 00:25:52,960
are you know, I think the
New Republic is continuing to try to continue

327
00:25:52,960 --> 00:25:57,240
its story or its scoop, and
that's deeply concerning because it's just bult in

328
00:25:57,759 --> 00:26:03,119
what they're suggesting. So it's been
rough, and it's been shocking to me

329
00:26:03,240 --> 00:26:08,160
to see even the difference between where
we're at right now in twenty twenty three

330
00:26:08,240 --> 00:26:11,519
and where we were when Jack won
his case. Now, he won his

331
00:26:11,640 --> 00:26:17,359
case on the basis of the free
exercise of religion in twenty and eighteen,

332
00:26:17,799 --> 00:26:22,480
but even the elevation or escalation of
the threats here against LORI are just so

333
00:26:22,599 --> 00:26:26,079
concerning. And yet on the other
hand, I think it demonstrates how broad

334
00:26:26,160 --> 00:26:34,279
the victory is in protecting speech for
everyone. Now, there's some of my

335
00:26:34,319 --> 00:26:38,839
colleagues, when I mentioned you were
coming on the podcast, wanted me to

336
00:26:38,839 --> 00:26:44,440
ask about the future of Bostock interpretations. A lot of people, as I'm

337
00:26:44,480 --> 00:26:47,400
sure you know better than I do, in the conservative movement and especially the

338
00:26:47,400 --> 00:26:52,640
conservative legal movement, have a lot
of concerns about the ongoing challenges posed by

339
00:26:52,759 --> 00:26:59,119
Justice Gorsich's Bostock decision. In fact, one of my colleagues actually asked the

340
00:26:59,240 --> 00:27:04,920
hypothetical if the military decided to draft
women or decided to reinstate the draft.

341
00:27:06,039 --> 00:27:11,039
Would Bostock require the military to draft
women? I know that's a very specific

342
00:27:11,119 --> 00:27:15,240
hypothetical, but in general, is
there a reason to be concerned about these

343
00:27:15,279 --> 00:27:21,880
ongoing uses and interpretations of that decision? Well, there's two questions there.

344
00:27:21,880 --> 00:27:23,880
One was a hypothetical and the second
one was your last question, which is

345
00:27:23,920 --> 00:27:26,720
there reason to be concerned? And
I would answer them differently. So I

346
00:27:26,720 --> 00:27:30,200
would say there is reason to be
concerned. We believe that Bostock was wrongly

347
00:27:30,240 --> 00:27:34,960
decided, and we are having to
litigate all around the edges of that decision

348
00:27:37,039 --> 00:27:41,079
right now because of the chaos that
has resulted from it. But on the

349
00:27:41,119 --> 00:27:45,960
other hand, we can look at
that decision that justice scores a trot and

350
00:27:45,559 --> 00:27:51,200
in that decision he talks about it
applying in a very specific circumstance and employment.

351
00:27:51,440 --> 00:27:53,920
When a decision is made solely on
the basis of sex and no other

352
00:27:55,960 --> 00:28:00,799
no other characteristics or distinctions can be
made there. So I do think that

353
00:28:00,920 --> 00:28:06,759
Bostock reserved the principle of when there
are legitimate biological distinctions to be made between

354
00:28:06,799 --> 00:28:11,799
the sexes, the government can make
those distinctions, and in fact should so.

355
00:28:11,960 --> 00:28:18,000
In your hypothetical, the military,
I think makes a legitimate biological distinction

356
00:28:18,039 --> 00:28:22,039
between the sexes when it's determining who
who can draft and who can serve in

357
00:28:22,079 --> 00:28:26,480
which positions. I think that's what
you're also seeing play out in the sports

358
00:28:26,480 --> 00:28:30,880
litigation, which we have a number
of cases across the United States, and

359
00:28:30,960 --> 00:28:37,240
also you'll see it play out in
other areas involving this warped gender identity ideology

360
00:28:37,319 --> 00:28:44,759
that is essentially being put into the
law by activists. Yeah, there's so

361
00:28:44,880 --> 00:28:48,880
much of that. It has to
feel sometimes like playing whackamle, like what's

362
00:28:48,960 --> 00:28:52,640
you do and you've dealt with Colorado
and now you have to deal with Connecticut

363
00:28:52,799 --> 00:28:55,960
or another sting. I mean,
it just it's probably overwhelming. Is there

364
00:28:55,960 --> 00:29:00,680
a concerted effort on the left to
I mean, obviously people see this when

365
00:29:00,680 --> 00:29:03,000
it comes to like criminal justice reform, but on the left to come up

366
00:29:03,039 --> 00:29:07,599
with laws like you know, the
ones in Colorado or in other parts of

367
00:29:07,680 --> 00:29:14,279
the country that create challengers for people
like Laurie and Jack Phillips. How sort

368
00:29:14,319 --> 00:29:18,559
of coordinated as the left for their
big groups that are pushing to get these

369
00:29:18,640 --> 00:29:22,400
laws changed in these laws in place, and it has to be I guess

370
00:29:22,519 --> 00:29:23,759
this is more of a statement than
a question that has to be really hard

371
00:29:23,799 --> 00:29:27,240
to keep up with. It is, I mean, thankfully, we have

372
00:29:27,440 --> 00:29:30,279
a large team and it continues to
grow up by the day. We have

373
00:29:30,279 --> 00:29:34,880
about four hundred and fifty team members, and you know, we're active in

374
00:29:36,039 --> 00:29:41,039
courtrooms across the United States and again
around the world, but also in state

375
00:29:41,160 --> 00:29:45,920
legislatures, and we're seeing how people
in their own states can do things to

376
00:29:45,039 --> 00:29:49,680
protect women and girls from this dangerous
ideology. We have twenty two states now

377
00:29:49,720 --> 00:29:56,480
that have passed laws similar to our
model bill on recognizing legitimate distinctions between men

378
00:29:56,519 --> 00:30:00,440
and women, particularly in athletics,
which I think that the left saw is

379
00:30:00,519 --> 00:30:06,759
kind of the low hanging fruit to
begin with. And so again ensuring that

380
00:30:07,000 --> 00:30:11,319
we all understand it's okay to recognize
legitimate distinctions between the sexes and that the

381
00:30:11,400 --> 00:30:15,599
law should infect do so, and
if we don't, it's women and girls

382
00:30:15,640 --> 00:30:17,799
who are going to suffer the most. I mean, we'll all suffer,

383
00:30:17,880 --> 00:30:21,000
but women and girls will suffer the
most. So this is a fight worth

384
00:30:21,079 --> 00:30:25,880
having, and we're privileged to be
a part of it. I'm thankful every

385
00:30:25,960 --> 00:30:27,240
day. It is whack a mole
in some ways, but I think we're

386
00:30:27,279 --> 00:30:32,920
also we have a strategy as well. We are outgunned and we are outnumbered,

387
00:30:33,720 --> 00:30:36,839
but we do have an alliance.
We do have a strategy, and

388
00:30:36,880 --> 00:30:40,839
we're seeing victories. I mean,
you may have seen we've had the first

389
00:30:40,880 --> 00:30:45,319
win this year on women's sports in
the BPJ case out of West Virginia after

390
00:30:45,359 --> 00:30:48,960
a trial. We just had a
win in the Sixth Circuit in a Tennessee

391
00:30:48,960 --> 00:30:56,599
case involving stopping the permanent and irreversible
harm to children in medical transitions of children.

392
00:30:56,960 --> 00:31:00,359
So my hope is we're turning the
corner and the American public is beginning

393
00:31:00,359 --> 00:31:04,720
to see the harms of this dangerous
ideology and they're going to reject it.

394
00:31:06,759 --> 00:31:11,119
I want to ask about this is
a tweet from someone you know, David

395
00:31:11,160 --> 00:31:14,319
French, who tweeted maybe a couple
of weeks ago, an article that he

396
00:31:14,359 --> 00:31:17,279
wrote with The New York Times,
and his quote on the article was at

397
00:31:17,279 --> 00:31:19,799
the exact time when religious liberty is
enjoying a historic winning streak at the Supreme

398
00:31:19,839 --> 00:31:23,559
Court, a cohort of Christians has
decided that liberty isn't enough. It's power,

399
00:31:23,680 --> 00:31:27,359
even more than freedom that they crave. This definitely represents I think a

400
00:31:27,400 --> 00:31:34,200
sentiment among folks on the kind of
never Trump right that conservatives are right now

401
00:31:34,319 --> 00:31:41,759
just hungry for power. You know
that it's it's a lurched towards authoritarianism.

402
00:31:41,000 --> 00:31:45,039
And I just want to ask you, as somebody who works so closely on

403
00:31:45,079 --> 00:31:48,000
these issues, if that's something.
Are you picking up on this, this

404
00:31:48,160 --> 00:31:53,960
alleged lust for power that conservatives who
have been obviously I'm sort of betraying my

405
00:31:53,960 --> 00:32:00,000
own opinion here, but beating up
time and again legally and have had their

406
00:32:00,079 --> 00:32:06,160
rights challenge just for being faithful Christians, for being faithful Muslims, for being

407
00:32:06,160 --> 00:32:09,799
people of faith in general. Are
you seeing that anything that concerns you that

408
00:32:09,839 --> 00:32:15,039
people are sort of tilting towards authoritarianism
at all? Or do you think that's

409
00:32:15,039 --> 00:32:20,079
overblown? I do think it's overblown, and I think that you know it.

410
00:32:20,119 --> 00:32:22,400
At ADF, we try to call
balls and strikes. We don't have

411
00:32:22,440 --> 00:32:28,680
a vested interested in where we're writing
or publishing or you know, who we're

412
00:32:28,680 --> 00:32:31,480
trying to curry favor with in the
moment, and we will continue to do

413
00:32:31,519 --> 00:32:35,200
so. So I do think that
there are fringes on the left and on

414
00:32:35,240 --> 00:32:38,799
the right, and for us what
matters is that we follow the principles that

415
00:32:38,839 --> 00:32:42,839
have made this nation great, and
that is also grounded in the fact that

416
00:32:42,839 --> 00:32:45,640
we're image prayers of God. We
have inalienable rights. There are some things

417
00:32:45,640 --> 00:32:51,759
the government just can't do, and
we need to make sure that that stays

418
00:32:51,759 --> 00:32:55,920
true. And so that's the way
to protecting freedom is to follow those principles,

419
00:32:55,960 --> 00:33:01,400
regardless of, you know, whether
we agree with a particular speech or

420
00:33:01,440 --> 00:33:06,240
not. So you will see a
stand up for free speech even for those

421
00:33:06,279 --> 00:33:09,799
that we disagree with. That's not
an assertion or a craving of power.

422
00:33:10,240 --> 00:33:15,200
That's based on principle. And I
think what we're seeing from some commentators is

423
00:33:15,279 --> 00:33:21,799
they suggest that it's about power when
it is about principle, and it's just

424
00:33:21,960 --> 00:33:25,200
not in vogue to recognize that that
principle applies to both sides of a debate

425
00:33:25,240 --> 00:33:30,240
any longer. My last question is
one that I'm pretty sure I've asked you

426
00:33:30,279 --> 00:33:34,680
before, but I'm still fascinated,
intrigued by it, and that is just

427
00:33:35,000 --> 00:33:38,119
how awesome is it to be arguing
a case and from the Supreme Court?

428
00:33:38,119 --> 00:33:42,759
I mean, what's it like?
It has to be absolutely you know that

429
00:33:42,839 --> 00:33:46,960
I'm sure there are advantages and disadvantages
has to be maybe overwhelming. You've done

430
00:33:46,960 --> 00:33:50,440
it before those you're kind of an
old pro in that sense. But what

431
00:33:50,960 --> 00:33:53,119
is it, you know, just
getting before them and arguing, what is

432
00:33:53,119 --> 00:33:59,400
that like? It's amazing. I
mean, it is just these are the

433
00:33:59,480 --> 00:34:04,839
best in our nation and to be
able to look them in the eye and

434
00:34:04,920 --> 00:34:07,679
to make your case in front of
them, to answer what For the most

435
00:34:07,719 --> 00:34:13,880
part, most of them have very
careful questions that are thought through that they

436
00:34:13,960 --> 00:34:17,880
genuinely want answers to. To be
in that position, it's just a very

437
00:34:17,960 --> 00:34:22,239
high privilege. I will say.
It takes a whole lot more preparation than

438
00:34:22,280 --> 00:34:28,119
most people realize. And even in
this particular instance, you know, to

439
00:34:28,880 --> 00:34:31,559
have a case like this come before
the court, it it requires so many

440
00:34:31,679 --> 00:34:37,639
people, not just on the legal
team, but in other areas to again

441
00:34:37,679 --> 00:34:40,360
with the media, you know,
willfully ignoring what the law is, to

442
00:34:40,360 --> 00:34:44,800
try to get the word out in
op eds and other things about what the

443
00:34:44,840 --> 00:34:47,719
truth is. But lastly, I
just want to say this, even more

444
00:34:47,760 --> 00:34:52,719
so than the privilege of arguing before
the Supreme Court, the highest privilege for

445
00:34:53,199 --> 00:34:58,400
me and I know for those of
us at ADF is to stand beside people

446
00:34:58,519 --> 00:35:02,199
like Laurie Smith and Jack Billips.
I assume it would be a privilege to

447
00:35:02,280 --> 00:35:07,199
argue a breach of contract case in
front of the Supreme Court, but the

448
00:35:07,280 --> 00:35:13,800
privilege to stand beside and to represent
an advocate for someone who loves everyone and

449
00:35:13,880 --> 00:35:16,920
has such courage in this moment,
and who's not just standing for herself but

450
00:35:17,079 --> 00:35:22,119
standing for those who disagree with her. That's the ball game. I mean,

451
00:35:22,159 --> 00:35:25,480
that's why you go to law school. Christ And I don't normally do

452
00:35:25,559 --> 00:35:30,119
this, but I just with guests
because it's showing too much biased. But

453
00:35:30,199 --> 00:35:34,880
I just have to say I admire
you, your work, your character so

454
00:35:34,960 --> 00:35:37,599
much. Just an honor to get
to talk to you after this big one

455
00:35:37,639 --> 00:35:42,400
at the Supreme Court. ADF is
an incredible hands under your leadership. Thank

456
00:35:42,440 --> 00:35:45,960
you so much for coming on the
show and for all that you do well.

457
00:35:45,960 --> 00:35:49,679
Thank you for bringing truth into the
public square. Emily, of course

458
00:35:49,760 --> 00:35:52,719
that's the goal. Thanks so much, Kristen, thank you. You've been

459
00:35:52,719 --> 00:35:57,280
listening to another edition of The Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Emily Joshnski, culture

460
00:35:57,360 --> 00:36:00,599
editor here at The Federalist. Back
soon with more. Until then, the

461
00:36:00,800 --> 00:36:13,320
lovers of freedom and Anxious in the
O that you bought today, staring