Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist and
David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. We'd
love to hear from you. Molly, I forgot what my
title was there for a second a second stumbled.
Speaker 2: I'm not a big title person, and I value people,
but I just don't care what their title is.
Speaker 1: It matters less and less in journalism, at least when
I started out, you know, you were like a cub reporter,
then senior this that, and there was sort of a structure.
But now everyone does a little bit of everything. At websites,
it writes about a little bit of everything. When I
first became a columnist in two thousand and four, being
a this was like a big thing, Like I thought
that I'd just sit in that seat for the rest
of my life. And then blogs came along and everyone
was a columnist, so it didn't really mean much.
Speaker 3: I liked blog era.
Speaker 1: Oh, I think it's the I think it was the best.
I mean, I discovered so many interesting voices people I
would have these amazing debates. It really just opened the
world up to me in a way, to a lot
of interesting people. But then it all came falling down
with social media been good for.
Speaker 2: Me personally, but I don't think it's great for everybody,
meaning like for the world. Seems like it's had some downsides.
Speaker 1: I do, I think so. I think it's changing the
way people think. I don't. I'm not smart enough to
know how technically in the brain that's happening. But I
noticed for myself that it makes me miserable when I'm
on it, and I do this thing where I try
not to go on at night where it upsets me.
I think it like highlights all of the most terrible
people things that are going on constantly, to the extent
where people start thinking this is how the world is
when it's not so. Get outside. Now, speaking of the
real world and the weird world, let's talk, if we
can a bit in a very careful way about Christie
Gnomes not in a careful way.
Speaker 3: Why don't we have to be careful.
Speaker 1: We don't have to be careful. Christine Dome's husband is
apparently has a would you call it.
Speaker 2: A fetish, a cross dressing fetish, right where he puts
on enormous tatas and like hot pink tight pants and
then talks to women online.
Speaker 1: It's called it's called bimbo fication, bimbofication. It's a fetish
scene apparently. Uh, there are many people involved. He looks
like such a you know, it looks like a handsome fella,
like a normal man. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I feel like this explains so much.
Speaker 2: Really, sometimes the story a story comes along and you're like, wow,
people are weird out there.
Speaker 3: I am, you know, I'm I never want to be.
Speaker 2: Proud about anything, you know, like related to my marriage,
because I understand how precious each day is. But I'm
really glad that I just have a happy, healthy, normal marriage,
and Mark and I seem to be very happy in it,
you know.
Speaker 3: We enjoy each other. And Christy Nome used to be
so beautiful.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you remember this, but like when
she first ran for office, she was she was legit
beautiful and very natural. But then she started doing a
lot of body modification. And I'm wondering if her husband's
issues played a role in her thinking she needed to
change to be she claimed today that she had no
idea that this was going on, and I'm not sure
I believe that, but you know, I bet she did
at least send something if she didn't know outright, And
so I think maybe she was at first trying to
change herself and then and then it also would explain
why she's having an affair with Corey Lewandowski. I'm not
justifying it. You should not sheat even if your husband
is going through major issues like this. But also, do
you remember when she obstructed that trans bill in South Dakota.
Speaker 1: Ah, yeah, I do, I do.
Speaker 2: It's where her you know, the federalists used to be
very pleased with her in general. She was saying the
right things and doing the right things, and then she
just like did a very weird approach, which I think
had something to do with one of her chief donors
being the hospital system that made so much money off
of mutilating children and other people.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a sudden U turn. I remember, like she
was seemed to be a bored and then all of
a sudden, it's like someone spoke to her about it
and then she changed her mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I don't know, I feel like it all
kind of comes together.
Speaker 3: In her husband's bad behavior.
Speaker 2: Maybe though maybe it was the opposite, Maybe she was
the one who was going off the deep end.
Speaker 3: And this was his response. I don't know, but.
Speaker 1: Uh, I will say this now. I'm going to ask you.
I'm going to phrase this question for him to help me.
There are people who believe that they are a part
of a gender they were not born, which is I
think a mild form of mental illness usually, right, Like,
that's how I view it. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it can be a major form of mental illness too,
but yes, go on, when.
Speaker 1: People are mutilating themselves, I think that's a major form.
But typically I just think it's maybe something even when
you're young, you might think and get over right with
some help or on your own. This doesn't seem to
be that kind of thing, right, It just seems to
be an actual fetish where the guy likes, for whatever reason,
likes to do this sort of thing, right. I mean,
there is a difference to be had between those two
kinds of thinkings, not saying the other one is not
also some kind of sexual component to it. In fetish,
I mean.
Speaker 2: You know, sometimes people say, like, oh, trans stuff has
always been with us, and then they will mention a
cross dresser, and it's like, I get why you would
group those together. There are some issues of overlap, but
cross dressing is actually like a totally different thing than
pretending to believe or believing that you are a different
sex than the one you are. And cross dressing does
have a lengthy history. I mean, you even see references
in the Bible about how you're not supposed to to
do it, like old Testament stuff, But I don't know
about even among cross dressers, there's huge variation. It's also
a sign that things are not operating properly in the
mental health department. And sometimes it's a function of child
abuse and reactions to child abuse or sexual sexual confusion
in terms of being attracted to the same sex and
thinking that if you're dressed as the opposite sex that
that will But.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's also a culture of like drag, right, chitchy.
It seems very different. So going back to Shakespeare.
Speaker 1: Or where where men dressed as women for entertainment purposes,
I think that's also a different strand, which just.
Speaker 2: Like drag for comedy is a big thing, right right right,
whether it's.
Speaker 3: In a you know, for a role or for.
Speaker 2: A drag burlesque show or something that I have a question, David,
what percentage of the world is truly messed up this way?
Sometimes I feel like it's a lot. And maybe also
I feel like in the Washington d C. Slash political environments,
it's over represented the being messed up stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm always so I'll be I'm just walking through life
doing my best, and sometimes I will hear a story
and it will you know, it'll be someone I know.
I don't mean I'm friends with them, but someone I
know in the world or I've maybe met once or something,
and there'll be a story. Yeah, they were you know,
they were involved in threesomes of having affairs this or
they were actually doing this, and I'm just like, what
is going on behind the scenes? I feel like I
am clueless and that the world is much more exciting,
not in a good way really, And I thought it nasty. Yeah, what,
let me ask you a question, was he this is
obviously cheating of a sort, right, because he I think
he's doing it on zoom or whatever it is. That's
not okay, right, There is emotional cheating. There's this kind
of cheating, but it doesn't. It's like you could fix
something like this because there's no physical there was no
physical cheating, right.
Speaker 2: First of all, I think even if there is the
worst betrayal, you could still fix it, and that should
always be the goal, even you know, so even that,
but certainly this could be repaired if they wanted to
kind of get the feeling. Neither of them wants to,
but it's it's sad, And I would say to people
who are struggling with issues, whether it's you know, addiction
to porn or cross dressing or whatever the case may be,
you can fix.
Speaker 3: You can work on it and improve the situation.
Speaker 1: When I was a kid, own people who I've.
Speaker 2: Known, people who've done that very successfully.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, I just because when I was a kid,
I watched the movie Every Everything. You always wanted to
know about sex but We're afraid to ask by Woody Allen.
It was not a healthy way for me to learn
about these things. But one of the chapters is well,
well there's the witty Allen the Gene Wilder chapter where
he falls in love with the sheep, which is very
weird to watch now. But one of the chapters is
are transvest It's homosexuals with a guy who was like
the Sharman squeezer. Do you remember those commercials the old guy.
He he puts on women's clothing and he likes to
prance around, but he is not homosexual. So that's what
I feel like, maybe is going on here? Right?
Speaker 2: I was listening to this I love this podcast, Issues,
et cetera, which is and then.
Speaker 1: Talk about stuff like this Molly well or serious way I.
Speaker 3: Imagine sort of the opposite.
Speaker 2: There was a thing that I was listening to about
that verse from Philippians.
Speaker 3: Is that right? Philippians for eight?
Speaker 2: Well, then let me get the let me get the
actual passage. Finally, Brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things
are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure,
whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report,
If there is any virtue, and if there is anything praiseworthy,
meditate on these things. And so the podcast I was
listening to, which had this great theologian Will weedon On.
He was just going through each phrase and what it meant.
And I think it's good to meditate on good things
and not bad things like the gnome marriage.
Speaker 1: Perhaps there's probably a lot of heard here. I don't
want to be Oh yeah, yeah, So it's very embarrassing
for the person, and I don't really think it's very
much my business. No, No, I'm just saying but because she's
a public figure and she's with you know, she's carrying
on this relationship, she's still married. They're still married, right,
and she's carry carrying on this relationship with Landowski.
Speaker 3: I mean it puts that also, I believe still married, right.
Speaker 1: Uh. I think it becomes our business in a sense
to talk about it, not in the way like the
euro Post puts it up, but just in you know,
in that kind of TMZ way. But but yeah, it's
just something I think that's worth talking about. Maybe I'm
just rationalizing why we're talking about it in a way
or justifying it.
Speaker 2: I think cheating on a spouse, So a marriage is
a public thing. It's a it's a declaration to society
that you are in a bond with this person that
is private and secure and monogamous. And when you are
literally on a zoom cam with other women, there's a
public aspect to that. Even if you think it's private,
you know, these are people outside that contract, outside that
bond of marriage. So yeah, I'm not relishing it, and
I will say I feel just sick for the man
or sorry, the husband, the wife, and their children and grandchildren.
I mean, this is not this has got to be
a horrifying thing to go through to learn this about
your father this way and grandfather and.
Speaker 1: Just tangentially, I guess I read a lot of stories lately,
and you know, in New York kind of magazines or
Vanity Fair wherever, even in the New York Times, about
non monogamous multi partner relationships, why they're okay, what benefits
there are, this and that. But I've never actually seen
a long term, any kind of long term situation where
that people are happy or in that kind of old
than they are in a secure marriage. So I think
we handled that rather delicately, as delicately as one could.
She's terrible, by the way. I mean, I just want
to say this as a political matter, from that moment on,
she's head of Homeland Security, right and she is just
was incompetent, and her messaging was incompetent, and the way
she ran it was incompetent, and she'd just been thrown
out of the administration altogether, there's no way reason for
her to have a job that long, and I kind
of weird because Donald Trump used to fire people left
and right in his first term, and in this term
he barely ever will fire anyone. It seems to me.
Speaker 2: I would say there are two main issues with gnomes
management of DHS. The first and probably more important one
is that the signature policy goal of Trump's campaign was
to close the border and deport the illegal aliens. It
is true that she did a good job of closing
the border, and I will give her credit for that,
but the deportation of the millions upon millions upon millions
of illegal aliens, it does not seem that she had
a very good plan for that. The numbers, you know,
even though some have been deported, that's true. She walked
right into the trap in Baltimore, where, you know, we
got a indication of this during the Los Angeles riots
shortly after Trump first was elected, where we saw like
Antifa was organizing these We know what Antifa's game plan is,
which includes.
Speaker 3: To have martyrs that they can exploit, and.
Speaker 2: They want to create violent conflict, and she didn't really
seem to think that through or a have a pr
strategy that worked, or a way to not again not
give Antifa what they wanted there, and they got kind
of what they wanted. But more than anything, the numbers
are just not there for deportations. And really a lot
had to be done in the first two years because
historically the minority party makes major gains in the midterms,
and already there were such narrow majorities in the House
and Senate that that meant that Democrats are likely to
take over and start to shut down anything from the
deportation angle, even though that's a very popular policy goal
of President Trump's.
Speaker 3: So she let him down on that.
Speaker 2: And I think if you don't have mass deportation of
some of the mass illegal migration here, it's very bad
for the country. So it was a very serious job.
I think Trump should have picked someone much more serious.
Speaker 3: To do it. And now we're all reaping the consequences.
Speaker 1: And also, justin I know this isn't as important though
she is the head of an agency, is that the
messaging looks terrible. The way she could die to herself
was embarrassing quite often.
Speaker 2: I just want to say the second thing is corruption
people who seek to have personal gain instead of the
policy goals. That we have a very limited time to
achieve are sabotaging the Trump presidency. I do not know
in any way the details of allegation. You know, I know,
I know there are allegations that there was grifting going
along going on under her leadership in terms of friends
getting contracts.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, like that.
Speaker 3: So if that is.
Speaker 2: True, that is a horrible betrayal of the MAGA cause
to engage in corruption instead of doing what people worked really, really,
really hard to achieve in terms of deportations.
Speaker 5: Why is home sales at the slowest pace of four years?
The Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. Sales of
newly built homes dropped seventeen point six percent, even with
building prices coming down. Why are young home buyers so anxious?
Is this another housing market warning sign? Whether it's happening
in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 5: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Okay, Molly, let's move on to a couple of supreme
court cases. One was decided on Tuesday eight to one
decision in favor of a therapist named Caylee Chiles in Colorado.
The court decided that it was First Amendment protected right
to engage in quote unquote conversion therapy, which is just
a euphemism for speaking to young people about their biological
sex in real terms. I think it's a huge victory
because there are twenty other states that have similar laws.
Speaker 2: Right, yes, I mean it's a really big victory. During
the height of the trans insanity, states were passing laws
telling men they could be in or in telling males
they could be in female sports and locker rooms that
you could do nothing about it, penalizing speech when it
came to someone saying, you know, if I'm if I
as a man, tell you to call me a woman,
you have to say it. And that was codified into law.
And you also had bands on talk therapy. So in
the case in question, the therapist, the licensed therapist in Colorado,
was not prescribing medication or anything like that, but she
was helping. She wanted to be able to help patients
with gender dysphoria. Colorado banned what they called conversion therapy,
which is sort of a loaded term to make you
think there's something wrong with trying to help someone who's
gender confused.
Speaker 5: Or.
Speaker 1: Therapy intimates that there's something physical going on where it's
just talking to someone, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it prohibited them from engaging in just prohibited
therapists from having speech.
Speaker 3: So you are correct when you said.
Speaker 2: It was a big deal. And I think the fact
that it was eight one was a big deal. And yeah,
she's great, And the ruling itself, I thought was well done,
unsurprisingly by Gorsic. Like whether you like him or don't
like him, or agree with him or not agree with him,
he does a pretty good job with.
Speaker 3: His written opinions.
Speaker 2: And he said that the First Amendment protects individual's right
to decide how best to speak, and it strongly disfavors
content based restrictions on viewpoint. And he pointed out that
the law does discriminate on viewpoint because if you want
a kid to mutilate themselves or to get mutilated by
doctors is how I should say it, or to sterilize themselves,
you have every right to talk them into it or
talk you know, to affirm that or to support that.
But if you think that's an unhealthy idea, which it
is you are penalized and banned by the state of
Colorado from helping that minor.
Speaker 3: And then he also said that.
Speaker 2: Just because you're in a professional setting or a therapeutic setting,
you don't lose protection, and he gave some examples of
how the court had previously ruled on that, and yeah,
it was good.
Speaker 3: It's just great.
Speaker 1: Well Garsch, I love. I think he's the best writer.
I mean, I enjoy reading his stuff better. And he
here's a line he wrote, the First Amendment stands as
a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought
or speech in this country. It's a kind of a
neutral view of speech there. So whether you agree with
what is being done or not, it is clearly speech,
whether it's orthodoxy or not. But think about it. When
I thought, I mean, essentially, what they're saying is that
a doctor, because these are psychiatrists often and they have doctorates,
are not allowed to accept biological reality and talk about it.
I mean, that is mind blowingly Orwellian, right, it's Soviet.
But at the same time, in these same states, they
want to allow you to mutilate physically that same child
and do something to them that can oftentimes never be
corrected when their adult should they change their mind, they
can't change their mind because they're not even allowed to
hear from a doctor that says you should maybe change
your mind about this or not do this.
Speaker 2: Well, speaking of people who feel differently, and how deserving
that is. Yeah, that thirty five page descent from Katanji
Brown Jackson is not.
Speaker 3: Not good from her or her supporters.
Speaker 1: Forget her for a second. Here's NBC News. This is
a news story on the NBC News site. Just their lead.
I'm going to read you. In a blow to LGBTQ rights,
the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Kara's ban on
conversion therapy aimed at your youths struggling with their sexual orientation,
where gender identity violates the free speech rights of conservative
Christian therapists.
Speaker 3: That is not what the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: Media are just awful at being accurate.
Speaker 3: Who wrote that?
Speaker 1: Do you know, Lawrence Hurley?
Speaker 3: I knew it. He's not good.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's insane because first of all, he doesn't
understand the neutrality of free speech at all. Right, he says,
this is lg BTQ against Christian conservative Christian therapist.
Speaker 2: Like if an atheist who does not want to harm
children encourages that child through talk therapy not to go
on hormones, he's not Christian, he's not conservative, he's you know,
it protects everybody.
Speaker 1: I mean, did Neil Gorsuch say that only Christian conservative
therapists can talk this way?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 1: I mean it's just, first of all, Christian conservative therapists
have the same rights as the LGBTQ therapist does. This
doesn't stop anyone from saying anything. As you pointed out,
it just begalls me when I hear this because I
am not I'm a secular person, and I just can't
stand when they bifurcate morality in this way, Like I'm
not on the side of people who mutilate children, and
I'm not a Christian conservative therapist anyway. So there's another
big case, and I think you told me you're going
to be at the court to hear arguments. Is that right?
Speaker 3: Yes, I'll be going to oral argument.
Speaker 2: We're taping this late on Tuesday, so tomorrow morning, and
that's why we're not taping in the morning. And I
am really interested in the birthright citizenship case in part
because I have changed my mind on this topic. I
don't know if you were with us at the Federalist
when we commissioned that piece from now Judge Hoe about
in support of birthright citizenship, but that was in accordance
with my views at that time. It was a long
time ago, like more than ten years ago. And through
reading the arguments, including those of Alan Wrman and Randy Barnett,
John Eastman, you know, there are all these different constitutional scholars,
they have changed my mind on it.
Speaker 1: This is weird. I don't really have a strong opinion
in the sense that if I could write the Fourteenth
Amendment today, I would exclude people here illegally explicitly. It
seems like the political jurisdiction clause or what in the
Amendment kind of already doesn't yes, right, But I would
make that explicit because I don't think it makes sense
that someone can just illegally come here, have children and
make them citizens. But again, and I'm not an expert,
it seems to me like they weren't really thinking about
that at the time, so that this it just seems
to me, if you're here illegally, you're not under the
jurisdiction of the United States technically, so you shouldn't be
a citizen. I think if you're if you're not, like
I actually think, I'm not sure if my parents are
fully citizens. Yeah, when I was born here, they may
still have been in the process.
Speaker 3: Favorite subject to the jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: But they exactly but they were subject. They were getting
a green card, they were or you know, they were
the wheels were turning, whereas an illegal person shouldn't be
here at all. So, I mean, that's just my emotional
response to it.
Speaker 2: If we can back up, it is sort of it
is sort of commonly believed that if you are born
here that you are a full citizen with all the
rights of citizenhood. And believe it or not, this issue
has never ever ever gone to the Supreme Court, whether
the Fourteenth Amendments, you know phrase applying citizenship subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, has anything to say
about that.
Speaker 1: But wasn't there a case where there was a Chinese
railroad worker and they had children and.
Speaker 3: Person was a legal resident.
Speaker 2: Because the child a child of legal residents is a
different issue, who could be argued to be subject to
the jurisdiction thereof that was a particularly great court at
that era.
Speaker 1: But it's my assumption is that there was not any
process like we have now right for citizenship. I assume,
so people would just come and work.
Speaker 3: That's the other thing.
Speaker 2: Our laws regarding citizenship have changed over time, so you
have to calculate that in as well. So we used
to have fairly open borders and now we have non
open borders, and that does affect this issue, right, And
if you didn't have any rules about coming here, well,
here's how One of the one of the briefs that
I read was talking about how it used to be
assumed that if you came here, you were kind of
coming here permanently. That was a wrong assumption, by the way.
Plenty of people would come and go, but that was
sort of the legal assumption. It was like if you
came across on a boat to move here, that meant
you wanted to be a citizen.
Speaker 3: And the.
Speaker 2: Laws of Congress were just set up differently. But if
you look at when the reply brief, I would recommend
if you want to read anything on this, David, I
would read the replied brief that John Sower submitted last week.
And he's the Solicitor General and it kind of goes
through everything, the history, all the different arguments, and it's
very convincing. I have heard so many people say recently
that they had also changed their mind on this issue,
and it's kind of a fun thing to change her
mind or you know, I don't do it often, so
when it happens, I'm always kind of excited that I'm
still being open minded and able to hear arguments and
be convinced.
Speaker 1: But my historical knowledge on this is just the Fourteenth
Amendment was written about slavery and had really nothing to
do with the issued a hand here, so that we
need different laws for this. That just seems like the
most obvious thing from my reading, you know, satting aside
the legality, but also a person who is a citizen
here or wants to be a citizen, pledges some kind
of allegiance to the constitution, and which are the laws
of the country. Right, If you're here illegally, you have
done none of that now, not even in a legal sense,
but you have not pledged any kind of allegiance. And
maybe many people come here want to go back, they
just want to work here for a few months or
whatever it is. And to make those children's citizens automatically
just doesn't seem to make sense practical sense to me.
Speaker 2: The reason why this got to the court is that
shortly after he was inaugurated, President Trump issued in the
executive order saying that the citizenship clause of the fourteenth Amendment,
along with this provision that's related to it in the
Immigration and Nationality Act, grant's birthright citizenship only to children
born in the United States to parents who are domiciled
in the country, and that means permanent allegiance to the
US and complete subjection to US political jurisdiction.
Speaker 3: And that it.
Speaker 2: Excludes children of tourists and temporary visitors and sojournals and
people who are here illegally, and it separates that allegiance
issue from merely being physically present here. And the main
argument that Sour lays out is that the phrase subject
to the jurisdiction thereof requires complete subjection to US political jurisdiction,
which has historically and originally meant domicile and mutual allegiance,
not merely like you're in a place that has a
police that has police, you know, overseeing the neighborhood, or
has a local government, and the primary purpose of the
clause was, of course, and I don't think anyone really
denies this to secure citizenship for the freed slaves and
their children. The historical evidence from the debates on the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six,
all of this supports excluding temporary sojournals and those not domiciled.
It points out what I told you already about that
US versus Wong Kim arc which we only related, which
only held that domiciled resident aliens or citizens.
Speaker 1: So it can well since he was not here illegally,
even if he didn't have the same kind of paperwork, right,
So I get that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And then the really interesting stuff about it is all
about how when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, all the
way up until Congress passed a law I want to
I mean, I can't remember, it was like late twenties
or thirties giving Native Americans US citizenship. They were not
viewed as US citizen, I mean extensively weren't viewed as
US citizens. They were viewed as tribal nations that were
within our borders.
Speaker 3: And they were within our borders.
Speaker 2: In different ways, like some were on reservations, some were
not and some were federally protected in certain ways in
ways that others weren't. So there were all sorts of
different kinds of tribal nations, and none of those people
were considered citizens after the Fourteenth Amendment until Congress passed
a law saying that they were, which is to me
a really strong argument and one that I have to
imagine Gorsich will find convincing.
Speaker 3: But I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean, as if being an originalist doesn't mean being
a literalist. So if I asked someone who was voting
for the fourteenth Amendment or wrote the fourteenth Amendment, I
forgot the Michigan Center's name. And within the amendment, I
think there's immunity right for like foreign diplomats, for instance,
if they have kids. So you're telling me that they
didn't want foreign diplomats who had children to be citizens,
but they wanted someone who was here illegally invading the
country to be a citizen. That just doesn't strike me
as logical at all. And I forget what the other
instances are. I guess, like you said, the Indian tribes,
they never considered it, but also maybe invading armies or
so I forget what's in the in the amendment. But
so yeah, I could see the originalists in the court.
Speaker 3: On that point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the originalist meaning debate on this has never happened
until like a year to two years ago. Did occasionally
have people saying stuff, but it never led to a debate,
never led to real academic insight. And the stuff on
this is super interesting. I mean, you do have five
originalist justices on the court now, people who claim themselves
to be originalist. Now, I don't know how this is
going to go, and I would not be shocked if
it goes like seven to two down, just given how
people are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Roberts score such. Yeah, I don't know if they're
sure things.
Speaker 2: But well, I think Gorse, because he understands tribal law
so well and knows that history so well, I actually
think he'll find the reply brief pretty convincing. I think
Thomas and Alito have already, you know, written things that
suggest that they would take an originalist approach on this.
So then the question becomes the other three, Like I
have to assume today's ruling, notwithstanding that the three Democrat
appointed justices will do exactly what you think they will do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think so, So it goes.
Speaker 2: Down to then the next three I think, again, we
don't know how anyone's going to go on. Yeah, and
I assume John Roberts will go work like if there
are four on one side that firm up, you know,
he might go with them, or he might be inclined
to go Here's the best case scenario, which I'm not anticipating.
I just want to say again, but best case scenario
is one of Robert's former clerks told.
Speaker 3: Me that he has this belief.
Speaker 2: You know, he famously doesn't have a judicial philosophy. He
said he didn't have one and he didn't think you
should have one, which is wondering. I just always wonder
what Republicans were doing by confirming him, Like it turns
out he was telling the truth there. But he does
have this belief that the clerk calls no great nation
would do this, And there is something so absurd about
the fact that there are like a million Chinese citizens
who explicitly, according to the law of their land, have
allegiance to China being able to order mail in ballots
in this country. You know, yeah, no great country would
do that. Or there you know, there's a leader of
a Mexican cartel who has American citizenship because he was
born here. There are absurd things that I wonder if
Roberts will deploy his philosophy of no great country can
tolerate this and then for Amy Cooney Barrett, I also
think she would find that reply brief pretty convincing as
a law professor. And I have no idea on Kavanaugh, sorry,
having written a book about him, I don't know exactly
where he would go.
Speaker 1: I'm a big fan of Randy Barnett, and he wrote
a book I think it's the original meaning of the
fourteenth Amendment or something where.
Speaker 3: She does not include anything on this, by the way.
Speaker 1: But go up. I was going to say, I don't
remember his position, but I never I don't remember reading
that he was thought that this was only concerned slaves
and so on. But I have seen him writing recently
and he seems to have turned a coroner, let's say.
And I think he's become more conservative on it, right,
like he's changed his mind.
Speaker 2: Maybe I don't know if he has changed his mind
so much. I would say that he was writing a
lot about the previous Fourteenth Amendment cases, and like I said,
this has never hit the court before, so also that's
kind of exciting. That's why I want to be there tomorrow.
You rarely get an opportunity to see something that they
have never dealt with in their history, and here we're
going to get a discussion, yeah, on a major issue
that relates to like are you a real republic or not?
And I'm excited to go there. So we'll have to
talk about it next week too.
Speaker 1: To me, it seems the conversion therapy case I'm just
using their nomenclature, is that it is cut and dry
on the First Amendment. Frankly, I just know anyone who
is voting on the wrong side of that, I just
don't think cares about the Constitution. Roberts hasn't out because
it's not explicitly clear right, there is leeway and it
has and he seems like for lack of a better world,
like a traditionalist or someone who would like because it's
been this way for so long that he may want
to preserve it. That's all. I'm just trying to get
into his mind considering the other things that he's done. Though,
to me, again, it seems like this should be a
matter of voters. Voters should decide who becomes a citizen.
Speaker 3: They still could.
Speaker 2: I mean Congress, Like how I mentioned Congress declared Native
Americans to be citizens decades after the Fourteenth Amendment, right,
Congress has a lot of leeway in terms of who
is a citizen or not. So let's say the Court
does say that children who are born to parents who
are here illegally and therefore have allegiance to a different nation,
that they're not citizens, and Congress could immediately say, well,
we're going to grandfather everybody in I'm not saying they should.
Speaker 3: But they could easily do that.
Speaker 2: They just say going forward, we're not going to do this,
or you know, they can do whatever they want. So
determining that the fourteenth Amendment does not grant you automatic
citizen hood, or they could say anyone who's living here
right now is.
Speaker 1: Now that you mention it. This could be a sticky
problem because there are people like let's say my parents
had overstayed their visa when I was born, and so
that means I'm not a citizen, even though I participated
in all these you know, in citizenship for so long.
That seems like a problem for a lot of people.
I wonder if people would be grandfathered in.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying Congress would probably have a lot of
pressure to to do.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna have all the pressure on earth. They're
not going to do. I just don't see them being
able to do anything here.
Speaker 3: Think about we.
Speaker 2: Began this discussion by saying, it's a commonly held idea
that people who were born here are citizens, right, I
had a couple of years ago everyone already thought they were.
Now when people were like, oh wait, why did I
think that? Where did that idea come from? And realizing
that they just were basically taking a Woodrow Wilson policy
or I don't know, FDR policy and just like deciding
that that policy had the strength of permanence. It wouldn't
be that big of a change. It would improve things
going forward.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 3: I said, we're just.
Speaker 2: Gonna yeah, now that it's clarified finally for the first
time in history, from this point forward.
Speaker 1: I think people accepted it as true, and I did,
and I believe that it should be grandfather. I believe
moving forward it should change, not backwards. But I think
it plays on the generosity of the American people right,
just as immigration in general does. But I think people
have taken so much advantage of it that people have
gotten very cynical. Do you want to talk about culture?
Speaker 3: I do? I?
Speaker 1: Well, do you have you want to go first?
Speaker 3: I was like, I do, but I don't have anything
to talk about.
Speaker 1: Oh is that true? Have you been traveling or I've.
Speaker 3: Been traveling like almost NonStop.
Speaker 2: I was out in Arizona after last week's show. I
flew out to Arizona. Oh, Sean Davis and I hosted
or No. Sean Davis and I were guests on the
Charlie Kirk Show, which was fun. I always like being
out there. I also loved just being in the TPUSA complex.
They have this one room that is just filled with
things that people like old men to young kids sent
in after Charlie was assassinated, and it was nice to
see it. I mean, multiple purple hearts that men sent in,
and then also little notes to Erica and you know,
crosses and art. Some of the art was quite good,
which I just loved. It was very nice to be
there and see what they're doing.
Speaker 3: And you know, I just I.
Speaker 1: Don't know if we want to talk about this, but
and I will mention names, but last week and I don't.
I'm not even a TPUSA fan, hon It's like, it's
like some of the people. I find some of the
people that they put forward not that great. But just
seeing what's happening to Erica Kirk and what people do
to her is so enraging to me. I've never witnessed
anything like it in my life. And a widow with
two young children just constantly abused by major voices, alleged
conservatives in the media. It's just it's enraging to me.
It's the biggest bullying job I've ever seen in my life,
and I don't know, just hor horrifying to me. I
don't know.
Speaker 3: I think it's evil.
Speaker 2: And if you ever find yourself in a position where,
literally weeks and months after a woman, a young woman
is having to raise her family and carry on her
husband's legacy after watching him be assassinated in public, and
all the horrible stuff associated with that, like the rejoicing
from people on the left, if you find yourself piling
on against that widow, you're in a bad place.
Speaker 1: I tweeted that and it was crazy how many people
attack me on there like they just there are a
bunch of and there a lot of them are women.
Frankly have been convinced. It seems to me that there's
something shady going on in this and that she's not
acting right, she's not speaking right. How do you know
how you're supposed to speak after you watch your husband
be assassinated. I don't know what you're how you're supposed
to act. Everyone acts differently, and I don't even know
what they're saying is true. I know there's a lot
of AI slop out there, and you know, edited videos
and this and that. I don't know what they want
from this person this. I just I feel bad for her,
and I agree. I think it's evil, something evil out there.
And I don't know if it's always been there in
America or it's just do we.
Speaker 2: Need It's like it's so I have to guard your
heart and work on not being that yourself.
Speaker 1: That's why we were just going back to the beginning.
This is why I can't be on social media all
the time, because it's just really a downer anyway, I
don't know.
Speaker 3: We were out there and then we also had a.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, is this in Phoenix? Is that where they are?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: And we had a Federalists summit which was awesome for
multiple reasons. We had some of our supporters out there.
We got to talk to them about what we do
and what we are planning to do. And also, as
you know, the Federalist is a is like a remote
staff situation. We have people all over the country Alaska, California, Indiana,
New York, Texas. I'm in Virginia, and that means we
don't get a lot of face to face time. So
it was also really great to see wonderful staff. Not
like everybody got to go, but those of us who
were out there, it was nice to have that fellowship.
Speaker 3: So it was just great. I enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: And we really have some great interesting supporters and readers,
and it was very cool to meet them.
Speaker 1: I enjoy Arizona. I don't love the heat sometimes, but
I enjoy going out there. It's just I like the
vibe out there and that in New Mexico. They're just great,
great places to visit. Oh wait, well yeah, more.
Speaker 2: Then I flew to Denver and I got to see
my nephew get confirmed.
Speaker 3: Are not my nephew, he's my cousin's son. And that
was fun.
Speaker 2: Confirmed in the Lutheran in the Lutheran Church, and it's
always this dramatic thing, like you recite that you would
suffer all, even death, rather than depart from this confession
of faith. And I always remember when I like casually
was like, oh yeah, totally, I'll suffer all up to death,
you know, and then as you get older you realize
what you vowed and it just becomes heavier. But it
was beautiful service Palm Sunday, which is the beginning of
our Holy Week, and it was nice to be at
the church that my you know, my dad was at.
Speaker 3: Until he died, and that my mom goes to. And
this is so unimportant.
Speaker 2: I don't even know why I'm saying it, but my
mom and I were flying back in the bulkhead seat
right behind a bathroom. And I will admit that she
is she and I are both sensitive to smell. I
will admit that. But I think every single person on
the plane used that bathroom at least once. I mean,
it was just non stop in and out, and there
was no there was no bad smell coming out of
it other than the fragrance that they use switch is overpowering,
and I.
Speaker 1: Was like, gives me a migraine.
Speaker 2: Light and yeah, anyway, that's my that's how's that for culture?
Speaker 1: I wonder if people can tell if we were startling
to find topics.
Speaker 2: No, I did do a puzzle a puzzles while I
was out there, and it was you might like this,
not that you're a puzzle person, but it was fifty
absurd things that are against the law in each state.
So like about it would be like it's illegal to
ride a camel on the interstate and in missive that
or more, women can't rent an apartment, you know, just whatever.
Speaker 1: When I wrote my book Nanny State almost twenty years ago, now,
I had a list of those kind of laws. I
always found them quite funny. I actually have a strong
recommend and I might have mentioned this a long time ago,
but I want to say and preface all of this
by saying, it's extremely dark this show. It's a dark show.
It's not for children. It is in the i'd say,
breaking bad mold. It's called Mister in Between. Have you
ever heard of this? It's Australian star as a guy
named Scott Ryan and he is a it's on Hulu,
I think, and he is a I guess a hit
man sort of. He used to be in the military
and there's something wrong with him morally, but he knows
that and tries to constantly function in the real world.
He has a daughter and all of this, so he's
in between this really ugly underworld and the regular suburban
world he lives in. Now. It kind of sounds tropeish,
I guess in a way, but it's really well done.
It's Australian funny. Sometimes as he shows do it gets
darker as it goes on. I think there's three seasons.
They're not very long. I binged it in like a couple,
you know, the weekend in a day. I really liked it,
so I would recommend that show. The other thing I did,
and I want to occasionally brandish my cultural my actual
cultural activities. But I went to a place called the
Muscarell Museum of Art in Williamsburg, which is really nice.
It's new. It's on the campus of William William and Mary.
Beautiful facility. If you're into our year around here, you
should go. And I'm a fan of abstract expressionists, and
they had abstract expressionist women and it was a really
cool It was a really cool exhibit if you like
that kind of art, like Elaine de Kooning or whatever.
They had those kind of paintings. It's traveling exhibit and
they have a standing exhibit there. That's kind of cool too,
if you're into it. So I just don't want people
to think I watch shows about hitmen all the time.
Occasionally my wife drags me to a museum.
Speaker 2: You asked listeners for records on procedurals, and I thought
you got some really good recommendations. And I asked listeners
for thoughtful commentary on the war, and I loved, like
loved the responses I got.
Speaker 1: I just was I found, Yeah, no, we got we
got very thoughtful and long and thought out. I don't
mean long, and in my negative way, I usually complained
to long emai else, remember we need to keep it
under five hundred words. But these were longer and very
well thought out. And I think you asked for that
kind of response people gave it to you. And yeah,
there were many procedurals. I actually made a list. Mistery
Between might have been on them, I'm not sure, but
so I look forward to watching some of those as well.
On Wednesday night, I'll be speaking at the Virginia Forum
and the Glent Allen Cultural Center about the history of
guns forged in fire. I think it's called starts at seven.
If you'd like to hear me speak, if you'd like
to reach a show, you can do so at radio
at the Federalist dot Com. We'll have to hear from you,
and we will be back next week. Until then, be
lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.
Speaker 6: Holly came from Miami, FLA hitchhiked away across USA. Plucked
her eyebrows on the way, shaved her legs, and then
he was as she She says, hey, babe, take a
walk on the wild side. He said, hey, honey, take
a walk on the wild side.