Well, Whiskey Coming Fame by Paine my Brain, Oh Don't let Me Go
from Powerline blog dot com and produced by Ricochet dot Com. This is the
three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and Powerlines International
Woman of Mystery Lucresha. You gotta give me and let that whiskey blow where
you've been in love down in low? Well? Was this the week that
Joe Biden finally face planet such that he's not going to get back up again?
And why is the Supreme Court continuing to disappoint us and keep us waiting
on all the big stuff that we've been waiting for all year? Well,
the three Whiskey Happy Hour is going to take it on right now with Lucresha,
the International Woman of Mystery. Hi, Lucresha, how are you with
Steve and with John You? Who's working on what is it? Angels Envy
whiskey or angels Envy? Yep? Because I've been drinking the same bourbons too
much, I try to set. I decided to get a new one,
so I got a leader and a half bottle of Costco angels Envy Kentucky straight
Bourbon whiskey finished in port wine barrels forty three point three alcohol. Oh,
the listener when recommended that to me. Honestly, John, it's very nice.
Yeah. Often you see, like when you go to a nice bar
restaurant, this is usually one of the more higher end bourbons available. It's
not like a rare one or anything, but does taste awfully good. Yeah,
I have to enjoy that by Steve. Yeah, see, that's just
it. I'm on the road and so sadly I am drinking water tonight,
which is really lame. But is it tap water from your room? Yes?
But hey, this way, you don't have a mini bar. There's
no mini bar in there. You know, I'm any bar. I haven't
even checked y out. I should, that's uh. They're like at me.
All right, let's get down to business, though, Lucia, what's
lucreastia trouble right point? And it's oh, looks like the same thing.
You're drinking water too, Because it's okay, it's late, and I,
like John, I'm not a night person, so I didn't want to put
myself to sleep. I already had four glasses before earlier. But oh okay,
well then yeah, then you're ready to go, right, I'm ready
to go. I'm not going to disappoint tonight. Don't you worry? Well,
when do you ever? So? Look, this is uh. Normally
I don't much like to spend time talking on to the immediate news. That's
what you know, the McLachlin group and all those silly old shows are for.
But this was a strange week. It seems to me. The week
began with everyone thinking Donald Trump is on the ropes, boy is he in
a heap of trouble? And then came the news what was a Tuesday or
Wednesday that Hunter Biden got the sweetheart plea deal with you know, probation and
a fine, and he showed up at the White House state dinner for Prime
Minister Modi from India. I want to come back at that point because I
think that's actually significant. But then by the end of the week, when
Moore was coming out about some real sounds like smoking guns about Biden corruption and
Hunter Biden, they've got the what's apt message of Hunter Biden shaking down some
Chinese businessman in the most crude way, saying I'm sitting here with my you
know, my father and you know where's the money, And it came out
late on Friday that in fact, the money was delivered days later, you
know, five million dollars rather than them. So and the media is starting
to beat on the White House spokespeople about this more than just the Fox newspeople
of Newsmax. And I think they smell blood in the water. And so
I'll come back to all that. But by the end of the week,
Kirby ran off the stage rather than yeah, that's right, Kirby ran away,
and U and Jean Pierre, the bloodhead doesn't have to she's just so.
She's so dumb she can say anything and they just accept it. Well,
I've noticed that, you know, she has an odd sentence structure.
This or run on sentences that she does that are now all the same.
But never mind that. But by the end of the week, the point
is is, I didn't look like he was in some trouble, and all
of a sudden the fortunes seemed to be reversed. So I'm going on too
long, look like he was in some trouble, but now it seems the
fortune right exactly. Okay, Now I said a note to both of you
that you know, I'm so old. I remember when Watergate turned because you
know, throughout the fall of seventy two, in the early months of seventy
three, the Democrats were holding hearings on Capitol Hill. They're making a big
fuss about Watergate, and the media said not much to it. You know,
there's these burglars, they're gonna get sentenced. Then they were sentenced,
and then I think it was James McCord wrote the famous letter that got released
to Judge Serrica saying there's so much more to this, and we've been paid
hush money, and the whole thing suddenly blew up, and I'm starting to
think that that's what's just happened here, or is about to happen. And
one little thing to remember is one of the things about Watergate that people forget
now is who's the movie about. Right, Woodward and Bernstein. Who are
those two guys. They were metro reporters. They were this is why Bob
Woodward was at the courthouse. They were covering DC City news. It wasn't
any national political reporter or White House reporter who broke any of the important Watergate
stories. It was these two city reporters. And by the way, Bernstein
was about to be fired because he wasn't really any good, which all his
subsequent books showed right exactly. And the point is is that the rest of
the past press corps, a lot of them, they were already already bad
and already hated Nixon, but they felt like they'd been had and they got
so surly and I think, let's continue to get worse ever since. And
so that's one part of the story is the media suddenly became a feeding frenzy.
And although Woodward and Bernstein had the lead on all that, and you
know, the New York Times broke one or two stories, but it was
these two city reporters. Well what does that tell you, if you're a
national political reporter or a White House reporter, that these two young, unknown
city guys, people in the city desk are the ones who beat you to
the biggest story in journalism in fifty years. Well they were mad about that.
So I don't know. I'm um, last thing I'll say, I'm
not following you, just so you know, Steve, go ahead, what
well you're not following me? Following the point? Who are the metro city
reporters? And and how is the White House good today and Biden. Well,
no, I mean I think that it was press corp. It was
around March or April seventy three, even the National Press Corps said hey,
we've been had here, there's this, this is a big story. And
they you know, they were you know, they were already hated Nixon,
but then they really did. And yeah, but they don't hate Biden,
and they they will protect Biden at all costs. And they've been shown over
and over and over and over again how corrupt the the Biden White House was
before. Yeah. Well look, well we'll see about that. I mean,
remember the Clinton scandal in ninety eight and ninety nine, you know,
the blue dress and all the rest of that. When there's a good story,
when there's blood in the water, journalists, some journalists will set asideer
ideology and go after the good story. I think that's true even with liberal
reporters. M But then the other thing, Cresia, I'm gonna are on
this, but for a different reason, which is I think that the popular
culture has mythologized the importance of Woodward and Bernstein and put him down Mixon and
made it seem like it was the media that brought him down. Of course
the media is going to think that. And they made a movie. I
thought it was pretty good movie, and you know, Woodward wrote these books.
But the thing they had that I don't think we have here yet is
you had a criminal trial with a judge, John Judge Sirca, right.
The seems was like maybe either in public or in private, was releasing details
of the investigation into Watergate while it was going on. What you're not supposed
to do, but that drove this story. And then you had hearings in
Congress, which we don't have right now, which also right, both of
those events kind of officially drawing to good hearings. There's something give it time,
I think. I mean that maybe these impeachment hearings that where you might
talk about might be the ones. I don't think the hearings we've had so
far the trick yet, because they don't seem to have the Oh if they're
not putting enough resources and time into it, or they do more, they
should be doing more, or or if Steve's theory about the media will finally
pick up on it is completely wrong because they're just not willing to pick up
on it, and they're not willing to do anything that might infect endanger.
I don't think they have any love, especially for Biden, but they're just
so afraid of the possibility that Trump might get back in there that that you
know, they'll they'll protect Biden and Hunter at all Trump. They want Trump
to run, though, because he's so good for business. I think I
do think that's true of some of them, But it's certainly not true of
those White House reporters and those people who have you know, who make it
their business to protect the left democratic politicians at all costs. I don't think
it's true of them. I just and I don't see what Steve is saying
very often happening lately. Maybe maybe I will, I will acknowledge that there's
a possibility it's moving in that direction. But I only heard about the press
conference today. I heard about it. I didn't see it. I heard
about it reported, and I didn't hear anybody but Fox News reporters actually trying
to press mop Head for answers. So you could be right, and I
just don't know about it, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of
that. I am still seeing the New York Times, the Washington Post,
even The Wall Street Journal is not highlighting any of this stuff. Yeah.
Well, my point it's just that I don't I don't think it can be
media driven to you know, OUs to president or to do them serious harm
or her serious arm. It's got to be some kind of governmental power with
the ability to force witnesses to answer questions and not lie, to have to
bring them to prosecute somebody first, Yes, exactly, I don't know.
I mean, I was shocked when I saw Hunter Biden show up. Let's
move on this way. Hunter Biden shows up at the state dinner for Prime
Minister Modi. Biden hasn't had a lot of state dinners because he falls to
sleep at seven thirty in the evening. I think most of the time.
You know, almost all presidents have had someone in her family, often a
child or a sibling, who has tried to capitalize on brother or brother.
Billy Carter right, Roger Clinton right, got singing gigs in and you know,
presidents have often worried about this, and he always usually had somebody tasked
with lookout for the kids, look out for my brother, or find out
what they're doing, trying to keep them out of trouble, try to keep
them from embarrassing me. So that was the care or they they screwed up
because they could have just pulled a Kennedy and made them attorney general in charge
of law enforcement. Right. But by the way, that's what Joe Biden
went wrong. He should have made Hunter Biding an attorney general. Right.
Well, but I mean, you know, it's uh, you know,
Ronald Reagan was always worried about his adopted son, Michael Reagan, trying to
trade on his business. Yeah, that's right. And you know when they
remember the daughter, right, well, of course she was just out for
grandstanding and it was a political embarrassing. It was a ballet dancer. That
was his son, Ron junior, right, yeah, yeah, and he
was fine. It was the other two. Yeah, that's why I meant
the son, right, Ron Reagan Junior. Yeah, right. And but
they were mostly political challenges, not ethical ones. There is, by the
way, still oft in the mists a Donald Nixon link to the whole Watergate
story that I want to go into now, possibly right. So, but
the point is, I don't think that any of those presidents would have had
one of their ethically challenged offspring to a White House, state dinner. I
mean, they're throwing it in our face. Yeah, except that that they've
also got Again, My point is, how many articles did you see saying
it's time to lay off poor, poor suffering Hunter Biden and all. There's
all of these articles out there trying to create sympathy for Biden's sympathy for Hunt
and making it look like anybody going after him is just a horrible, mean
person, because don't you know, we've all had children that were challenges and
it's just crap. But those against what you're saying, Steve, is the
problem. I guess. I guess I lead a charmed life only reading the
New York Post in the Daily Mail. Is they're not running those kind of
articles. Oh no, yeah, you should read the Times, in the
Journal and the Post. They're full of really we lay off full stories like
what do parents do when they have children like Hunter? How do they show
support? I'm like, I'm a lucre. I almost wretched when I read
that article. Ah, I sold them five of them, all right.
But then the other thing is I woke up what Thursday morning and read or
maybe Wednesday afternoon, I don't know, and read that the House had voted
to impeach the president. And I wait a minute. You know, Margie
Marjorie Taylor Green had introduced the resolution as a privileged motion, meaning it had
to be voted on by the full House, and I thought, well,
she's gonna get sixty votes or something, and this is kind of a stunt.
But in fact they've voted by a majority of the whole house. Now
they didn't. It's not actually, I misspoke slightly. It's not actually impeachment
now going to a Senate trial. It's referring a question of impeachment to a
judiciary committee and one other committee. And that's the way impeachment should be done,
right and the way they've always been done in the past except for Trump.
Um, So you know, that's an end of three or something.
Frankly, Steve, I had never I had not heard that. Now.
It's been a busy week. But when I tried to look it up,
I couldn't find it. It took me a good twenty minutes of reaching to
find anything about that story. Really, I wonder how I saw it.
I get I get constant New York Post emails. I must get fifty or
sixty of them a day. Nothing, nothing from the New York Post on
it. Nothing. Yeah, well, I mean I think they're impeaching.
Well, it'd be great if you could center I got, but not the
Yeah, I think they're impeaching the wrong person. I think mayorcus is now
should be impeached. We'll turn to that in a moment too. But well,
I don't know, you know, we'll see if that goes anywhere.
Um, the impeachment hearings could turn into the hearings about the corruption of the
Biden family. We'll just have to see. I was going to say,
one thing you could have impeachment on that doesn't have to do with the bribery
is just the what's the blowers that testified yesterday and today about pressure being brought
on the Justice Department not to fully investigate by I mean that's for and after
the election. Yeah, yeah, it's it's this conduct of Biden as president.
That's not you're not impeaching him for. It's not clear to me you
could impeach someone for taking a bribe before you were a president, right,
because you're not president yet. But yeah, I don't think that's the best
grounds. It's if you're an investigate, but obstruction of utilizing the levers of
government to prevent that an investigation, prosecution from occurring, and and utilizing them
further to cover that up and prevent the story about it from um being in
any way sort of broadcast, you know, working on social media and everyone
else to keep the story from from getting out there. That seems to me
quite clearly to be impeachable conduct. Right, Yeah, you're right, take
a bribe when you're president. That was under a that was on Obama's watch,
and he should be held accountable. But we can't hold him accountable anymore
either. He obviously knew that was going on, but the fact that he
did those things was a political fact that should have been allowed to be discussed
prior to the election, because well, you know, if you believe the
polls, if people had known about the Hunter Hunter Biden laptop, if they'd
known more about to Biden, the what's is Joe Biden's corruption in with parisma
with China, etc. Etc. They wouldn't have voted for him because the
whole thing is he's a good moderate guy, nice guy, blah blah blah,
human being. That's beside the point. Well, you know, I
mean, I want to move on I will say that one avenue investigation might
be to explore the rumors, which is to say, is there any paperwork?
Are there people from the White House Council's Office under Obama who can testify
to their worries expressed that Biden was cutting corners ethically when he was vice president.
There's no stories about this for for years, going back to the Obama
years, and someone should ask about that. See if there any documents,
I don't know, have to pride them out of the Obama well presidential library,
I suppose, and that will be difficult, but still they're probably hidden
in clinton sock roar by this point, I don't know you know that story.
H All right, let's turn to the court because that's what prompts my
idea that we need to impeach Marc, I said Homeland Security. So don
John, we keep waiting for the big cases and they keep They're all going
to come next week and it's going to be flood the zone. It's going
to be horrible to do a special issue issue. Maybe at the Court is
not running along the three whiskey happy hour schedule. I don't know what the
hell is wrong with those guys. I thought they were listening. I know
we have a lot of listeners in the federal and state judiciaries. I was
hoping one or two of them were on the Supreme Court and they knew we
were taping tonight, expecting they were going to announce some of the things and
one thing. Yeah. So one of the things that happened was they just
we were all talking about this, they just added another opinion announcement date for
next Tuesday, So there's two more days that Before that happened, it was
reasonable soon we'll be talking about the student loan case and the wedding planner case
tonight and maybe the Harvard case on Monday. But now your rights seems all
going to be next week and more of the West Virginia is this term also,
right, that's the one about more of us Harper, more of us
the North Carolina. A lot of people expect that one to be kicked out
on And this goes to something we're talking to talk about about things like standing
ripeness and mooteness that the court may well decide they can't hear that case anymore.
You have a little bit of context, John, Yeah, so uh,
you know Lucretia before, but people might not remember Lucretia's anxious because the
one case to discuss, the one case today that is interesting is called US
versus Texas. Right, Well, I meant the more case. You guys
mentioned the more case. Yeah, oh, well, the more cases about
what's called the independent state legislature theory. And this is a case about in
North Carolina, the state legislature, as it says, under the constitution,
drew the congressional maps, and then the North Carolina Supreme Court overruled the legislature
threw their map out, and so the North Carolina legislature says, well,
the Constitution says the state legislature, right does every regulates a time, place,
and manners of elections. There's there's no right of any other branch of
government to overrule us. So the reason people are in a tizzy about that
case is not just its redistricting, but a parallel provision says the state legislatures
also decide how you pick presidential electors. And so that was the theory that
our friend John Eastman proposed to President Trump, which was well, it says
in the Constitution the state legislatures picked the electors. So the more versus Harper
case has obvious implications about the twenty twenty and maybe the twenty twenty four elections
too. Yeah. Right, so we'll see if they is your prediction that
they will decide or the predictions you are mentioning that they will decide. It's
a nonjiciable issue because of the there's been a new election in North Carolina and
some of the justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court have changed and they just
overrule themselves. And so they said, no, no, your map,
your legislature, legislature, your map is okay now, and so that's right,
might be yeah, because no, no, just because the Supreme Court.
The way you think of mootness is no matter what the Supreme Court does,
it wouldn't change the outcome of the case that was ross waiting. It
didn't stop them. So there's an exception for pregnancy. It actually is,
it's not called the pregnancy exception, but there's an exception for things like pregnancy,
because they say inevitably, every nine months the case will become moot.
So it's so, and you'll like, this is the name of the doptrine
is called the exception to mootness is called repetition yet evading review. So the
idea was you could be continuously getting pregnant, having a kid and never come
up for review. Because I mean, well that's why the case in nine
months. Well that's why the Harvard admissions case comes. I mean, it's
a case brought nine years ago. And by now the original plaintiffs have finished
law school and right, okay, well let's talk to them about Texas.
Well, yeah, let me let me explain the Texas case because I don't
want to give a lecture or anything. So, but there's a there's a
lucretia mentioned non just dishability. So there's this idea that the court federal courts
apply, which is we will not hear a case unless it has a standing
and it's not moot and it's ripe. So this case Texas, which is
a case by Texas against the Biden administration for what Texas claims is reducing the
enforcement of the immigration laws along the border. And so Texas essentially said,
we want the court to order the Biden administration to increase enforcement of the immigration
laws along the border because they should, and nobody disputes us because the costs
to Texas in terms of higher healthcare in terms of higher crime has gone up.
Texas has been injured in fact, is the phrase. And so we
should be Texas as. We should be able to go to court and sue.
Maybe we'll lose on the merits or not, but at least we have
the right to come into court. That's what standing is about. So the
court here, this is actually I really dislike this opinion. I started thinking
I was really gonna like it because I have I'm not sure Texas, like
states should have the right to sue the United States on things like this.
But I think Kavna got it very very wrong, like really badly wrong.
And this is one of the times when I think uh Alito has things right.
And even though he's dissenting all by himself, none of the other conservatives
went with him. Thomas went with Kamina on this well, so Horsh Thomas
and Amy Coney Barrett went off on a different ground. They also thought there
was no standing, but for a different reason. Okay, so there is
really and I'm I'm only and I'm not saying this because I only recently discovered
because it's on the second to last page that I was cited in the alito
descent eleven. Yeah, I mean totally misines. But like in the weeds
of Theotno eleven, I've got it right in front of me. I've sited
there. Well, I'm then go back and excited. But let me let
me explain that. Let me explain what Kavanaugh said. So, um,
the three components of standing are we call injury in fact, which means you
suffer some harm. So everyone says Texas suffer to harm. They have to
they have higher you know, healthcare costs, higher crime costs. It has
to be traceable, uh, which means it has to the conduct of the
defendant. Here, the government can be traced to your harm. It's like
causation, what the government did cause your harm. The third ground is called
redressability, which means and the court can order something that to cure your harm,
to stop the government's action and cure your harm. Cavanaugh kind of makes
up a fourth reason which is not in standing doctrine, which is, well,
is this legally cognizable? This is his phrase, is a legally cognizable
harm. That's actually not part of standing doctrine. It just doesn't really make
any sense exactly. It's circular because it's a legally cognizable harm if the court
says it's legally cognizable. The point of standing was it didn't matter what your
legal claim was at all. You could be You could say my legal claim
is to be King Charles the First of America. But standing is just about
are you suffering some kind of harm? Are you injured in some way?
It doesn't have to do with the law. It just has to do with
are you losing money, did you get hit by car? You know,
something like that. So to say it's a least makes no sense. Actually,
the Crestia is completely right about this. Yeah, And if the more
you look into it, the real argument, I think the kind of the
central thing that that Alito says that really hit me that they Texas didn't just
say they need to enforce the law and you know, arrest more people.
They went to a very specific part of what Congress said the executive must do
because of Congress had passed a law specifically because of a failure to do that
in the past. So what they did was they said, if an illegal
alien has committed these kinds of crimes, they must be subject too. And
all that the Biden administration ever claimed was. Besides, the standing issue was
we just don't have the resources and to be able to do that. Now,
the fact that the court emen took that up because they did not not
a lot, but they took it up. You don't have the resources because
you're not securing the border. That's the problem. So why you even would
make that argument. But back to the point at hand, what Kavanaugh says
is, we're not saying that states might not ever have the ability to show
an injury. In fact, that what it comes down to asking for the
executive to enforce the law. We're not saying that you could never bring a
case to try to get the executive to enforce the law. But if that
would be like if they weren't enforcing it at all or hardly at all,
and they made up this ridiculous sort of indefinite well, you know, it's
just they'd have to prove more lack of enforcement than they proved here and some
crop like that. I mean, there's just all these faults with it,
and I just don't understand the general idea. Well, you guys wrote back
and said, maybe there's a separation of powers issue here, and I try
to take that argument seriously, But I don't think so here um to Congress.
I mean, this is this is kind of the argument. I don't
I don't think I agree with the Lucuia. I'm not persuaded by Kavanaugh's opinion.
At the m R just says, well, it's not so bad.
Congress can do something about it. I think the real separation of powers issue
here that the Conservatives have really promoted for forty fifty years in favor of standing,
is that you have to limit the judicial power. And you have to
understand that's a world where they're trying to limit the war in court, and
so standing became really important to conservative judges and justices. Justice Scalia that was
like one of his most important articles probably helped Scalia created the three pronged tests
that you just mentioned. Yeah. The one that brought him to the attention
I think of conservative justice department people is he wrote about standing in the seventies
as an obscure administrative law professor. But if you think about it, so
the tion of powers argument is you have to limit the courts to deciding real
cases. Article three says the judicial power extends to cases and controversies, and
so they're reacting to a world under the warrant Court where the judges were just
they're trying to take over society. They were running prisons, school districts,
right, they were finding emanations of pnumbers of constitution arts. So this was
part of the general pushback of the Reagan years against judicial activism. But this
is a thing. It has no roots in the original understanding. As far
as anyone can tell, the founders did not. This phrase standing doesn't exist
at the time of the Founding, and they were much more i think,
much more accommodating to lawsuits coming into the federal courts. And it's not until
this is the part stevil like, it's not until the New Deal and really
the Great Society, when courts start getting flooded with all these made up new
kinds of laws and causes of action that did never that never existed before,
and that's when you start to see the phrase standing appear in the cases.
It's it's really a response to the Left and what they did to the law.
Well, when you were talking about standing, John, one of the
things I always try to explain to students when I'm trying to get them to
understand the concept is the whole the whole concept of third party. A third
I cannot sue. You cannot sue if John Eastman is disbarred for the harm
it was done to you, just because maybe you happen to testify in his
case you were not harmed in fact, speaking speaking hypothetically here, but I
mean, I can't if my neighbor is talking down the street and trips in
front of somebody else's property and gets hurt, I can't sue on my neighbor's
behalf. That's a silly example, but it's the idea that you have to
be a party that is actually injured so that in this case there can be
a genuine remedy offered to you by the legal process, right. And Scalia
had, Yeah, Scalia had this great line about this. He said,
if anybody is allowed to basically sue to enforce the rights of other people,
his view was, then every single decision of the executive branch and the legislature
will be challenged by somebody in court. And then he has this great phrase.
He said, that would be tantamount to making the Supreme Court the third
house of the legislature because they will get to vote and effectively veto anything the
other two houses want to do. I don't know if that's actually true,
but that's what he that's the rhetoric he used about why you need standing doctrine.
Well, this is what I was going to bring out. You mentioned
lou the way I always translate Luhan, which is what nineteen eighty nine or
ninety I think to Blake said, Yeah on the calendar two. Yeah,
the way I always restated is uh, it says you can't any old citizen
just sue for a generalized harm to society. That's maybe a little overbroad.
But I'm wondering if and I've seen a couple of people today comment that this
decision, although it's disappointing on the merits on immigration, is actually bad news
for the left. And I'll give you a couple of examples. You don't
think so, Lucretia, Well, let me give you a couple of examples
and work through them. One is, as someone said, remember the Mass
versus EPA case from two thousand and seven. That's what gave the EPA the
authority to regulate greenhouse gases. And some i think Jonathan Adders said it may
cast that case into some doubt. Yeah, and then there's two current ones
that are on my mind. I wrote about this last week. You may
I don't know if you saw this case John out of the DC Circuit a
week ago Friday. It was the main lobsterman's case. And what happened there.
It was the main lobstermen against the National Marine Fishery Service or whatever bureaucracy
it is in Department of Interior that wants to introduce some very aggressive new regulations
of the lobster industry, which by the way, is thriving in the Northeast.
I know a lot about that story that I will not mention any about
now. But they don't need regulation. Is that just because you eat lots
of lobsters that doesn't count. Steve, he's a kind of guy. He
would put his face in the Atlantic Ocean and come up with a lobster in
his mouth like a bear with a salmon in the elasti. Anyway, what
was interesting about this decision was the bid administration was pushing a very aggressive regulatory
scheme based on essentially what the court noticed was the worst case scenario. A
parade of horrible is about how horrible conditions are going to be ten fifteen twenty
thirty years out right, whales would be dying left and right, and all
these ecological harms to the seabed. And the judges said, you know,
essentially, they almost said it this straightforwardly, you don't get to pick the
worst case scenario just because it's the most convenient for you. And they also
rejected Chevron difference and lots of other things, a three zero decision, and
a lot of people said, huh, that's interesting because we have all these
climate suits going on on behalf of kids. I don't know if you're following
this, but they're in district court. Judges have allowed them to proceed to
trial, and I think they're trying to get around the Luhan problem by saying,
we have kids, we're gonna you know, we're gonna be a live
for sixty seventy years, and the government is not securing our future. They
want a judge to issue an injunction too. I don't know what double the
gas tacks put oil companies out of business. Actually, one of the claims
is we should hold the hold the major energy companies liable for climate damages,
which means pay US billions of dollars. So it seems to me by Oakland
against the energy companies for exactly it's and yeah, right now, but all
of the factual claims about what's going to happen are based on a particular scenario
of future environmental damages that even the UN's science body has backed away from.
So, in other words, they're using an unrealistic, overly pessimistic forecast.
And I think you take that DC circuit case and say, you know,
you can make all those claims, but you can't. You can't just cherry
pick some crazy scenario case dismissed. It seems to me in this case today
and always together, let me ask Let me ask you, guys, you're
the political scientists here. If it was just purely matter of politics, I
could see how standing is a useful tool to cut back on the activism of
the war on court, which was not which was solely based in the caprice
of judges. But now the activism, if you want to call it,
that is in the hands of originalists who want to return the Constitution back to
the original understanding. So let me ask you, does it make sense for
a judiciary now with a majority of originalists, to limit itself with standing shouldn't
they get you know, my argument was John to in actual answer to that
is it doesn't because just because they create a whole series of precedents re establishing
standing as a as a self imposed judicial restraint. There have been self imposed
judicial restraints before, and the left will ignore them whenever it suits their purposes,
which I think will happen again. They ought to take advantage. First
of all, I didn't find the argument by any of the people on either
the majority opinion or the concurrence to be compelling. I thought Alito's arguments were
very much more compelling. The other thing I would say is I have yet
to hear a standing case, and maybe I'm missing them where it hasn't benefited
the left. I think that these standing cases are actually being encouraged, shall
we say, by Roberts, because of his stupid obsession with the integrity of
the court at the expense of the Constitution. I'm all in favor of the
integrity of the Court too, and I get that the Court is under a
tremendous amount of criticism the Conserve members and so forth. But have a set
or grow a pair, or whatever you want to say, because the point
of the matter is there's no point in having integrity in the court if the
Constitution is not their guide. And I think in this case, the Constitution
is clearly not his guide. It wasn't And I don't think Kavina. I
think Kavna just does what Roberts tells him too. Personally. I don't know.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but his arguments were terrible. This is
this is a good point Lucretian makes, and there's I mean, this is
what passes for theory in law schools. You know, we don't reach the
exalted heights of talking about Maki valley or house or so on. You know,
there's a famous book by a guy named Alexander Pickle, Oh yeah,
called The Least Dangerous Branch, which is taken from Federal's number seventy eight,
and he explains it's ironic. Yeah, it is ironic. Yeah, the
Bickle specific Bickle and his thought is what influenced his influence in Roberts. Now
there's a direct line to it. And he said the Supreme Court should try
to use as little power as possible because it's not elected. Every time it
does something important, it's blocking the majority. So they should try to keep
their power to a minimum. So he said, use standing, use rightness,
use whatever reason you can to escape deciding cases, especially controversial cases.
But I don't interpret, don't interpret the constitutions exactly what you're describing. Big
goal. But he's in legal John, here's my problem with it, and
I don't think you'll disagree. I'm going to start with the horrendous cases that
Robert's in, both cases authored during COVID, where he refused on procedural grounds
to issue injunctions against some of the most egregious violations of First Amendment rights in
our history. Where again Nevada is saying casinos can remain open under an executive
under governor's executive order, but churches have to close, and we're not going
to second guess that he did it twice in California as well. Then,
of course we have the Texas versus Pennsylvania case where they refused standing, where
even they don't. Justice is don't often published assents on a denial of Sershuari,
and I know maybe it wasn't that, maybe they actually you shouldn't.
Descent was two Justices Thomas and Alito, I believe it was came out and
said we don't have. We do not have the discretion not to take this
case. It's a case of original jurisdiction. It's a case between two states,
which under the Constitution is not discretionary. Okay, but again gets Roberts
out of having to step into any kind of controversial decision. Last week,
I think it was they refused to on standing grounds again take up a case
where the American Medical Association is arguing that even though under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, gender identity is not a protected category of disability, the AMAS says,
well, there's gender identity and then there's gender dysphoria, and just gender
dysphoria is should be protected under the ADA, and they're using that in all
sorts of ways to just bludgeon schools and everybody else into these horrific policies,
letting, you know, naked men who pretend to be women into little girls
dressing rooms and all sorts of horrible things, and the court wouldn't take it
up. Why standing issues. It's just getting a little bit old. I
wonder if you could work out a theory and then I'm sorry, Lessing.
Though the case you talked about last week, Steve the indigenous what is it
called the Native American Act. Yeah, can't sue on behalf of another standing
case. But this is also what Lucretius pointing out. I think it is
going to be a constant challenge for conservative justices on the Supreme Court. It's
just like the Chevron case. The Chevron case also comes from the Reagan era,
and it was courts, restrain yourself, stop interfering with the administrative state.
And then we said that was you. And so I think the court,
we have, all three of us, probably don't like the Chevron doctrine
and may think that the Court's going to overrule it next term. That's a
but getting rid of standing is a whole order of magnitude harder for conservative justices
than getting rid of Chevron. Well, you know, I've got scribbled down
on my notes here, John that don't we need to be pointing towards or
somebody need to be pointing towards the equivalent of the Major Questions doctrine, which
is now the full rum to reeves at Chevron. Don't we need to do
that with standing? That's an interesting idea, Steve like The problem also was
conservatives have not thought about what should replace it. Yeah, well, okay,
well we need to start thinking. I mean, because you remember,
I mean, for the longest time, one of the biggest defenders of the
Chevron doctrine was Scalia. People, by the way, I think he thought
it up, but he wasn't on the court when that case was heard,
but he defended it for a long time, and then was supposedly changing his
mind fast at the time of his passing in twenty sixteen. I know I've
done it before, but I'll remind people who may have missed it or just
joined us. Recently, the Chevron case has won the Reagan administration, one
that was supposed to be a victory over the bureaucracy, and look what happened.
It turned out exactly the opposite, which is why I think I'm with
Lucretia. I sort of worry about how we fix all this. One observation
before we press on a little bit, is I guess, well, let
me go out it this way. Kavanaugh is kind of turning out what we
thought he'd be a little squishy and the tourmament. Gorsuch is still a little
bit of an enigma. He seems to be very pro Native American you know,
whatever, whatever their position is, they win. That seems to be
But in other areas he seems more interesting and better and except for the Bossons
decision. But here's my question, which is Roberts was a clerk for Rnquist,
who was an open, direct positivist, a guy who liked a side.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were clerks for Anthony Kennedy and it
really shows in both cases. I think I think the boss talk is a
direct lineage of Kennedy type thinking, who do the leader Further, Yeah,
I just want to point out that our own John Yu was a clerk for
Clarence Thomas and that didn't have the impact. Well, I feel I feel
like the two of you totally set that up before, because when I want
the listeners to know that when I signed on to Zoom, they were already
taught and then they stopped immediately when I stand on, had the guiltiest looks
on their faces, and I was wondering what they were up to. Now
we know. Well, anyway, I was trying to say, is the
way to make a field theory that the lineage of these people who they clerked
for. Uh, you know the legal doesn't matter. Yeah, clerk from
the court. But I think it doesn't matter because I mean, having gone
through it. You know, you go to law school, you're like twenty
five years old, and then you clerk for a justice. It can't help,
but you know, profoundly influence how you think about the law. It's
actually unusual. I mean, it's rarer than you would think when you find
clerks who really violently disagree with their justice. You know, there's you you
enjoy finding like someone like uh Ralph Winter. Ralph No, like a Ralph
Winter, one of the great conservative law professors and judges who clerked for They're
a good marshal. See, that's that's the they're so rare. Most books
do sort of seemed to fall all in the same stream of thought as their
judges. Well you do, you do too, Actually, John, the
problem is is that you've made more progress in the direction of Clarence Thomas's judicial
philosophy under me than you get under Clarence Thomas. That is actually true.
When I was I you know, I'm not revealing confidence as I was seen
as the squishy moderate the year I clerk to believe it or not, and
I am. I was through and through positivists at the time I clerked,
and now I am about ninety five percent positivista. Well what do they call
it? You you're opening notorious or is that there there's a word for someone
who's uh um, questioning their sexuality? What's not saying that John's doing that?
But it's the same. What is the word? Come to me?
Yeah? I know what you mean. I can't remember it either, because
it doesn't I never I never click on those stories on my feet. All
right, what else is on your guys mind? This week? John wanted
to discuss some dabs a year later. It's a year later, Yeah,
when they're all the stories, it will be in exactly a year. Yeah,
And my question is what effect do you guys think it's head? Did
it turn out to be a net plus for the progressives? Actually, twenty
five states twenty half of the states have passed legislation that has made how should
I say this has provided greater protections for unborn children a whole variety of different
different things that you know, some of them are just merely outlawing partial birth
abortion. Some of them are the you know, the unborn children, Save
Save the Unborn Children Acts. Some of them are twelve weeks, some of
them are heartbeat legislation. But twenty five half of the states in the past
year have passed legislation that would not have been allowed prior to rovers as Wade
being um being overturned. Now some states have gone the other way on in
spades, but but not that many, not twenty five for sure. Yeah,
um, your state, your state has Oh yeah, well, but
that's to be expected. There's another interesting guy. I just wanted to mention
you guys really quickly because this is one of those things that for me,
HiT's really close to home. For a funny reason. So Tuberville's Senator Tuberville
from Alabama, Tommy Tuberville, that that ridiculously stupid and competent affirmative action excuse
for a Secretary of Defense that Biden appointed Lloyd Austin. I believe under Biden's
direction. I don't know this for sure, but he um, he put
together a policy for the DoD that provides funding for any I can't even say
women, because you know, men can get pregnant too, don't you know.
Anyway, mothers, birthing persons, birthing persons, who get pregnant in
the army and they happen to be stationed against their will, of course,
in a state that doesn't allow whatever abortion services they need. They get full
full payment, reimbursement, healthcare, etc. To travel to another state for
those abortion under under Pentagon policy. Now, and Tuberville says, a it
violates the UH that Commendment, High Amendment, the Hide Amendment. It hasn't
been voted on by Congress, so Tuberville has been holding up right a whole
bunch of promotional motions of officers to star and above generals promotions and reassignments.
And a very good friend of mine has been promoted to three star and is
awaiting a very big Pentagon job, but is still stuck in bug Buck,
little town I live in, because his thing has been held up for months.
And his bosses, who's also a very good friend of mine, hers
is being held up because she's being promoted to four star. And it doesn't
have implications across the army. Of course, Austin saying that this is a
direct threat to our national security. What a stupid argument that is. But
anyway, so it's an impasse, and it's been going on for some time.
There's about two hundred and fifty of them in another four hundred in the
pipeline. Schumer could do them one at a time, but that takes time
and he's refusing to do that. So it's actually a very funny situation.
But all of it because the eating Biden administration decided to respond to Dobbs with
some completely biased partisan crap against the law. So they John, I can
I introduced some facts here because so I think I've said before, I'm basically
pro choice, well, but differently, I'm pro states deciding the abortion question.
I would have thought after DABS there would have been a significant drop in
the number of abortions in the United States, But according to the studies I'm
seeing, it says that after DABS there have been about five thousand fewer legal
abortions per month on average, which is only about six percent drop in the
number of abortions nationwide per month, which actually really surprised me. I first
of all, I didn't realize there were that many abortions going on, right
because if it's six with, that means there's one hundred thousand abortions a month.
Basically there were before DABS. What I would have thought, dabbs,
you know, which produced the number of changes in the law that Lucretia mentioned.
I'm surprised that only five thousand fewer, well or sixty thousand a year
out of it. Yea, it sounds like, yeah, I think there's
three. I think there's three parts of this to look at, and we'll
start with that part there, which is abortion. The number of abortions had
been slowly declining for quite a while. A whole bunch of reasons for that
which will break apart. But so it doesn't surprise me that I actually think
that's a significant drop, because that's faster than the rate of decline that you
saw beforehand. But the second thing to be said about the numbers is is
that even if you have said, what was the Alabama statute that was brought
to the cordon dobs? Was it ten weeks I think, or it was
a fifteen weeks, you know, something like, I don't know the exact
number, but it's an overwhelming majority, like eighty or ninety percent of abortions
are done in the early weeks. And that, by the way, brings
you to the politics of it, which is why have the I call them
the abortion absolutists on the left. You know, the issue came up of
a late term abortion starting, you know, twenty five years ago. And
it's true that there aren't very many late term abortions out of the total number.
It's just a very few thousand a year in total. But they wouldn't
even compromise on that. And we've now seen a couple of states past statutes
saying, you know, abortion up to the moment of birth and maybe even
after. That was Barbara Boxer's position actually for a long time. And so
I would not surprise that even the new laws that say fifteen weeks, ten
weeks, six weeks in Florida got signed into law won't actually cut the total
number abortions down that much. Abortions, late term abortions, and partial birth
abortions. That's a big deal, I agree, absolutely. And then and
then the other part of the politics of it is, you know, I'm
surprised that we haven't seen some of the quantitative political scientists who like to run
the regression models and run the data haven't really gotten into this question. Because
it's now supposed in the media and elsewhere that the dab's decision prompted a lot
of younger women, especially to get off the sidelines and go vote. They
voted massively democratic. Abortion was said to have been a great motivator in the
last election. I am skeptic. I think there's some truth to that,
just it's my sense in some places, but and where they you know,
they spend a jillion dollars in Wisconsin. But I'm skeptical that a that it's
true, that's the extent that people attributed, and be whether it's going to
last. For the very reason you just mentioned, John, people are going
to wake up in three or four years and say, oh, um,
I can still get an abortion. Well, what's all the fuss about.
Why are we screaming from the rooftops. I think the left has to do
it because it's an article religion for them, and two it's to motivate their
voting base, the same way the racial question is used. So I think
it's going to settle down. But you know, we'll see, And I
wait to see some of the quantitative friends of ours who get into this because
they, you know, in the past, political scientists who you know,
we don't. I don't like that particular way of studying political science, but
it is occasionally useful, and they often debunk why they held views of what's
really going on with voters and voting behavior. And I think we'll find that
out here. But that's just the guess. And then we mentioned that there
have been legal changes and that's the easiest thing to look at and see and
count out. So and that's my short course on it. So just so
you know, it's not the end of the podcast yet, but our good
friends at the Babylon Bee have ten devastatingly horrible things that have happened since the
DOV decision. Dobs decision was passed. Inflation. You know whose fault that
is? Babies? Right? Millions of dads now have less time to play
video games. Hundreds of innocent corporations had to pay maternity lead. Why didn't
someone think of the corporations more toddlers were driving those annoying little pop popping vacuum
things were certainly it'll be plenty of those toys in hell. The implosion of
the Ocean Gate submarine. We're sure this is related somehow. Yeah, okay,
and I want meet them off, but you get the idea hasn't really
been quite the apocalypse that the left imagined and which is kind of what you're
saying too, John, I mean they've made progress in some states, like
Steve says, I don't know that there's any state that has outlawed abortion from
the moment of conception. Yeah, there and so, And as far as
it goes, most Americans, the majority of Americans are not in favor of
abortion on demand to up until the moment of birth or or after they are.
They usually will take a moderate stand, which is prior to viability,
prior to the hearing of a heartbeat, prior to twelve weeks, you know,
whatever that might be, um, prior to quickening. Uh. And
you know, even though the those aren't my positions, I can consider all
of that good news that we are no longer allowing babies to be born and
die on it operating table. I mean, remember what Norfolk about that?
John? Do you remember you don't when when Governor Blackface was in office and
someone asked him about, yeah, his refusal to sign or was it.
I forget what the actual legal issue was, but it was the way he
described it was really ghoulish. Right. He says, Well, the you
know, the child will be made comfortable while the parents decide what to do,
which the mother, the mother, doctor decide what to do. The
baby born a lot. I didn't hear that. Oh yeah, that's why
you're moderate. You don't pay attention to the news that it's that Pixie Glass
Dome County where he lives, you know, they filter out. Yeah,
that was actually John. I mean he really did say that we're just gonna
let that baby die on the on the operating table if that's what the mother
and the doctor decide is best for the mother. Even people who are pro
choice should not be in favor of that. Yeah, that's kind of the
point Je and I are making, and they're not in many cases except for
the worst of the worst leftist, the ones, the ones who insisted that
those laws not be passed to protect children who were born out of botched abortions,
which which happens here like a dozen times a year. And yeah,
no, they would they would countenance not a single limitation I had. I
had two more different issues to talk about, and if Steve's run out,
I don't know if you want to talk about because I was go ahead.
So one is any comment on the continuing attacks on the ethics of the justices
so we got two new ones. One that was right quite remarkable is a
matter of just you know, the history of the Supreme Court was that Justice
Alito was attacked by Pro Publica for going on a fancy hunting trip with a
billionaire named Paul Singer. Is that Paul Singer, who's um was the head
of something is maybe still the head of something called Elliott? Oh yeah,
I think Elliott Investments, which I actually teach these cases. I had no
idea who he was or his firm's name, but he bought up Argentinian bonds
that were defaulted on, and then he I teach it because it's so great
all the stuff that they did to try to collect on the bonds, and
eventually Supreme in the case went to Supreme Court multiple times, and eventually he
won and Argentina eventually paid up. But the remarkable thing I thought about it
was not the ongoing attacks on the justices, but that Justice Alito preemptively wrote
an op ed in the Wall Street Charm, Yeah, attacking the article and
which appeared before the Pro Publica story. I think that's got to be a
first. I mean, that's really got to be a first. And about
that that's just unethical, Like really, come on. And then just today,
I don't know if you saw, there's stories attacking Justice Barrett and this
is really again, I don't know what. I'm curious what you guys think
about the whole story, this whole line of attack, what you think people
should say about it. But Justice Barrett was attacked for her ethics. Forget
this. When she left Notre Dame to become a professor, to become a
Supreme Court justice, she sold her house and the person who bought it was
a conservative. Yeah, that was that. I mean, we're talking about
Notre Dame here, right, like who's buying houses around Notre Dame conservative activists.
Interesting takes on it today, and I'm interested to see what you think
of it. The first one was is that all of the attacks on Clarence
Thomas have been not really making a whole lot of dent into what the way
left wants it to work, number one. But number two, you started
seeing resistance from different African American groups saying this seems to be a little bit
racist, this seems to be a little bit So that was I don't know
if that's true. That's one argument I saw and then the other one was
it's a little bit like do you remember one of those Tom Clancy novels begins
with the idea that nobody can take down the lion. A hyaena can't take
down a lion, but a whole bunch of hyenas can come and just nip
here and nip there, and nip here and nip there. And it's basically
the idea is that even though all of these accusations like the one you just
said, are complete crap and anybody who's really paying attention to them knows their
complete crap butt, they have the effect overall of making it look like it's
just a cesspool of ethical violations there on the conservative wing of the court,
and that that's really the strategy here. Well, I think there's one thing
that I mean, if the allegation is they're buying justices votes in the case
of Paul Singer, the irony here is is that Paul Singer generally a conservative,
but uh, and this is publicnology. As a gay son, he
was a big supporter of the drive for same sex marriage, gave a lot
of money to groups, you know, lobbied Republicans to not oppose it,
and so forth. Well, Alito didn't vote over with it, he didn't
vote with Singing on that issue. In fact, he filed them one of
the more vigorous descents against same sex marriage and overca fail. So that didn't
work very well for them. Uh, they're gonna keep at this. Uh.
And I don't know. I like the I like the feistiness the court
is showing of or you know, our friends on the court, so to
speak, or showing and getting getting out ahead of it and punching back,
which is, you know, all to the good. Well, we're we're,
we're out almost an hour. You didn't speak to either one of my
things. What I didn't even my silence is silence is violence. No,
it's it's perfectly sensible, right, I had missed these. I am surprised.
I haven't seen these stories that you mentioned, though, Lucretia about African
American groups supporting Thomas on this, I'd be very surprised because they have treated
him so badly over the decades. I would like to be part of the
issue there, though John is quite frankly that there are groups of African Americans
out there that are no longer shall we say, allied with the Black Caucus
or you know, the NAACP or the Southern Law Poverty Center, that that
there are in fact, many more intelligent conserva maybe not even conservative, moderate
um groups sort of representing African Americans, Black Americans who just want to see
success for middle class Black Americans. I don't know exactly, there's a lot
more of those than there used to be. Yeah, I mean, it
makes intuitive. It reminds me of a story now from when Thomas was nominated
back in nineteen ninety one. My late friend Michael Cromartie, who worked in
Washington for years and there's always a great conversation as he talked to everybody and
was very he was a charmer. Well, he was telling me at the
time that he had a black shoe shine guy used to go to maybe in
Union station. I'm not sure, and you know, rightly in the nominations
announced, he's talking to a shoeshine guy and a guy singing, yeah,
I'm not so sure about this guy. He's, you know, a conservative
Republican and I don't know, and so you know, we're talking. Then
the Anita Hill out accusations came out three weeks later, and Mike went back
to the same shoe shine guy and brought it up and he said, put
that man on the court. This is crapping, you know, put it
more colorfully than that, Right. I think a lot of black men responded
that way, and I think a lot nowadays maybe thinking the same thing.
So just to home, there's years I think. I don't know how directly
related this is, but you also saught increase in blackmail voters for Trump in
the last election, right, and you know, you get it. I
was always new Ginger Choice used to say, if Republicans could capture twenty percent
of the black vote, there will no there will no longer be competitive of
that. And remember what Trump did for the African American community. He brought
them to the lowest unemployment in history in history and highest waves games in fifty
years too. Yeah, yes, And you know you'd have to be stupid
and or not to ignore that sort of thing and say, yeah, well,
we just need to continue to be uh, the whipping boys of the
Democratic Party because they've been so good to us. All right, last item,
maybe before we sign off, everybody wants to talk about the submersible.
I don't really care to, but either either you have anything particularly you want
to say about all of that. Uh No, but I will say that
Ocean Gate offers twenty percent coupon off twenty percent off coupon for their next tour.
I've been I've been trying to avoid the jokes on this because I think
they're, you know, kind of distasteful. There is one thing I do,
There is one bit that I would write about this, but I haven't
had time. The Wall Street Journal reported what a day or two ago that
oh, and I wondered about this immediately, by the way, because you
know, my dad's a little navy man, I know a little read some
of the detailed histories about the two submarines we lost in the sixties, the
Thresher and a Scorpion, and in both cases are underwater listening devices heard them
implode, although in the case of the Scorpion, supposedly there's still some murky
aspects of that story. And that carries over to this current week. Uh
that you had to go back and review the tapes because you know, there's
a lot of noise in the ocean, and there's not somebody necessarily listening live
all the time, and and you know you need to computers to wash it
out and all that. Uh, and it seemed to be misreported. It
though the Navy heard the sub explode on Sunday when it went down, and
I think that's actually not correct. I think what they did was they said,
oh, they're missing the submarine. Let's go check our tapes of our
underwater microphones. And it took a while to find it out. I'm not
sure when, but I don't think they had a contemporaneous awareness that some sub
had just imploded at the bottom of the ocean. Because a lot of our
you know, conspiratorially minded friends saying this has been a cover up from the
beginning. It was used to distract the news from Hunter Biden and blah blah
blah. And I think that's overwrought and probably wrong. But that's my one
wrinkle on the thing. And I have to make a correction. And something
I said because about the votes. So actually I didn't realize this, but
President Trump did not increase any share of the black vote, actually black males.
Yeah, but so it says I'm looking at the data. It says
that Trump's share of the black mail vote fell from fourteen percent twenty sixteen to
twelve percent in twenty twenty, so it actually went down where actually, now
this is interesting, where Trump's share the vote went up. This is I
see. This I had not realized was that it went up amongst Hispanics.
So Trump got ten percent more vote. He got, his share the vote
went from twenty eight to thirty eight percent amongst Hispanics, even though he was
portrayed by the media as being anti Hispanic and anti immigrant. I mean,
that's an incredible increase ten percent, you know, to go to thirty eight
percent amongst Hispanics. I mean he got a little bit more than there's still
there also would not be competitive elections between but apparently his Trump's share the black
vote actually went down between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty. I didn't realize that.
Yeah, there's there's some people can test those results, but and there's
other surveys that get different numbers, and also there's sort of generic surveys that
show Republican support rising, and also I think in different places too. I
don't know. Yeah, well, I just didn't want to lead anyone a
straight Yeah, well, all right, other than you tube. So Kemla
Harris had something this week about frogs. It was about the old frogs and
a business, and she ended by saying, so we should think more about
frogs. I've been thinking about frogs ever since the commalism is so I did
a little more research on the quote, which was making the rounds on Twitter.
So she was giving a speech to the SEIU, one of the worst
union rights right, the Service Employees International Union. They had a meeting of
union leadership in Philadelphia. And what she was trying to talk about was she
what she was thought she was describing. It's not apparent from the quote is
she was talking. She was criticizing conservatives for attacking the rights and freedoms of
Americans. That's what the that's the context of the quote and which exactly.
So then she's trying to explain how conservatives are attacking rights and she says,
I here's the code. I think of those two frogs. You know that
story about two pots of water and two frogs. So here's how it goes.
There are two pots of water, two frogs, and in one pot,
you put the frog in the water and you slowly turn up the heat,
and that frog is just hanging out as the heat just slowly gets hotter
to the point that water starts to boil, and that frog perishes in the
other pot of water. You first turn up that heat real high. The
water is boiling. You drop that frog in, he'll jump right up.
The lesson there, As far as I'm concerned, don't be that first frog.
The first frog. By the way, I think that there's no why,
not clear at all what this has to do with the rough attack on
rights and freedoms? Whose rights and freedoms are being attacked and by whom?
And you know, frogs are people too? Are supposed to eat insects now
not you know frog legs. Oh, you're not supposed to eat insects.
You're supposed to eat fun guy. They make bacon out of fun guy and
chicken. Grown frog could be endangered frog could be endangered frog? Well right,
all right, you have a special Babylon be for us. Lucretia's so
hard, it's I can't it's so hard. But I think I'm gonna go
since you mentioned, uh, but Biden inviting or letting Hunter come to the
state dinner. There's two. The first one is Biden don's feathered headdress to
welcome Indian Prime Minister. I'll just have to fake it. I love it.
Hunter Hunter Biden causes chaos at the Delaware District courtroom when he tries to
weigh his cocaine on Lady Justice's scale. Oh boy, or Zelenski has already
spent the next three accounting arrows. So, by the way, I'll just
mentioned apropos that I don't miss. Dan Mahoney's article on the whole Ukraine situation
just out in the American mind. I think it's really good, a really
good balance piece. Dan really knows that part of the world well, and
our erstwhile occasional well once a podcast guest Kelly Jane Torrence is over in Ukraine
right now, as we saw, so sure that all of our defense contractors
are getting tons of money. I don't know, but I was gonna say,
that's that's why they're having a civil war rush. All of a sudden
thought too, isn't it all right? Which one who is going to send
us out for the night? John, always drink your whiskey, meat man,
let's go, Brandon and Lucre. I never got your part right.
It's a don't forget to milk the soft served power dividend. I never get
it right either. But remember we got to add one more. God save
the queen. Man. Oh all right, you're nice. Next week.
My family's always been whiskey. It's a simple, honest way to turn it
down. The only trouble's been myncle Sam. Now e've been trying to collect
taxes all the time. Now this ain't no ordinary shaping. The motor and
suspension ain't the same whiskey, as you know. It's very heavy and getting
crew. It's what they call the game. It's a dark rainy night.
But like injins l and I to get yeah, and in my making room
to save work, I have to bear aways. Kee Ricochet joined the conversation.