WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:03.759 I don't know if this is a serious thing or 2 00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:07.519 if this is a senator just trying to kind of 3 00:00:07.519 --> 00:00:11.039 make a name for himself by throwing spaghetti against a wall, 4 00:00:11.080 --> 00:00:13.400 knowing that probably most of it's not going to stick. 5 00:00:15.439 --> 00:00:18.079 But I think it needs to be hung around the 6 00:00:18.120 --> 00:00:22.519 necks of every single Democrat like an absolute anchor. This 7 00:00:22.559 --> 00:00:27.440 is in reference to a bill, a bill that has 8 00:00:27.480 --> 00:00:30.480 been put forward in the United States Senate by Senator 9 00:00:30.600 --> 00:00:37.640 Ron Wyden, Democrat from Oregon. And let's be clear, the 10 00:00:37.719 --> 00:00:40.719 person who's created the environment for something like this to 11 00:00:40.759 --> 00:00:50.840 be proposed is Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden 12 00:00:51.079 --> 00:00:55.079 both sort of announced their support for a court packing 13 00:00:55.719 --> 00:01:03.039 plan of Biden's devising in the weeks when Biden, right 14 00:01:03.079 --> 00:01:05.799 after the debate, Biden was flailing. He was trying to 15 00:01:05.840 --> 00:01:08.519 do something to shore up his extreme left wing of support, 16 00:01:08.519 --> 00:01:13.200 and he threw out this proposal for quote, reforming the 17 00:01:13.280 --> 00:01:18.840 Supreme Court. This proposal basically to have eighteen year term 18 00:01:18.879 --> 00:01:23.920 limits for Supreme Court justices and every two years for 19 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:29.319 a president to be able to appoint someone to the court. 20 00:01:29.760 --> 00:01:34.200 So nine justices each with eighteen year term limits. Every 21 00:01:34.200 --> 00:01:39.560 two years, someone would roll off the court. The big 22 00:01:39.680 --> 00:01:44.000 question that Biden was dodging, answering that Harris is dodging answering. 23 00:01:44.280 --> 00:01:46.560 You know, it's amazing how much stuff Harris doesn't have 24 00:01:46.599 --> 00:01:50.239 to answer for. Is what to do about the justices 25 00:01:50.280 --> 00:01:52.879 on the court right now who have already been on 26 00:01:52.920 --> 00:01:56.680 the court for more than eighteen years, or the existing justices, 27 00:01:56.879 --> 00:01:58.640 how their time on the court is going to work, 28 00:01:59.120 --> 00:02:02.879 particularly given the three justices who've been serving for more 29 00:02:02.959 --> 00:02:10.680 than three years are Sam Alito, who I believe was 30 00:02:10.680 --> 00:02:13.400 appointed in two thousand and five, two thousand and six, 31 00:02:13.560 --> 00:02:16.360 something like that, John Roberts who was a little bit 32 00:02:16.400 --> 00:02:20.080 before him, and then Clarence Thomas was appointed I believe 33 00:02:20.120 --> 00:02:23.919 in nineteen ninety one, in the early nineties. So three 34 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:28.680 Republican appointees are over the eighteen year limit. What do 35 00:02:28.719 --> 00:02:34.080 we do with them? Presumably they'd be retroactively kicked off 36 00:02:34.080 --> 00:02:38.159 the court. I think that's part of what Harris and 37 00:02:38.199 --> 00:02:43.000 Biden want. They realize adding more seats maybe that's too extreme. 38 00:02:43.719 --> 00:02:48.800 So here's a system to get hurry these conservative justices 39 00:02:48.840 --> 00:02:52.800 off the court. And they're doing it out of some 40 00:02:52.840 --> 00:02:55.520 purported as, Oh, we need to perform the Supreme Court, 41 00:02:55.759 --> 00:02:59.319 Supreme Court, it's s troubled by ethical scandals from Justice 42 00:02:59.319 --> 00:03:06.680 as Thomas. There's no ethical scandals. These are blowney ethical 43 00:03:06.680 --> 00:03:11.960 scandals where, yeah, Clarence Thomas is hanging out with a 44 00:03:12.039 --> 00:03:16.000 rich guy and flying on his private jet, a rich 45 00:03:16.039 --> 00:03:17.960 guy who has no business before the court, who has 46 00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:24.280 not had any business before the court. You're allowed to 47 00:03:24.280 --> 00:03:26.400 do that. I don't know, I mean, it just seems 48 00:03:26.400 --> 00:03:32.000 to me bizarre that we're making this huge ordeal over 49 00:03:32.039 --> 00:03:35.360 Clarence Thomas hanging out with rich people, as if Ruth 50 00:03:35.360 --> 00:03:39.960 Bader Ginsburg didn't, as if all these other liberal Supreme 51 00:03:39.960 --> 00:03:42.439 Court justices didn't do the exact same thing, which most 52 00:03:42.479 --> 00:03:46.080 of them did. But we breathlessly report on stuff like this, 53 00:03:46.120 --> 00:03:49.520 which isn't really necessarily an ethical violation at all, but 54 00:03:49.639 --> 00:03:53.800 only when conservative justices do it anyway. So Harris has 55 00:03:54.520 --> 00:04:00.599 one supported this idea of screwing around with membership of 56 00:04:00.639 --> 00:04:06.439 the Supreme Court in order to attain a more ideologically 57 00:04:06.520 --> 00:04:10.400 favorable position for liberals. She wants to do something to 58 00:04:10.520 --> 00:04:13.719 shove the conservative justices off the Supreme Court. And we 59 00:04:13.800 --> 00:04:16.480 all know for a fact, if liberals had a majority 60 00:04:16.480 --> 00:04:19.120 on the Supreme Court, right now. Harris would not be 61 00:04:20.279 --> 00:04:24.600 promoting these policies. It's not like she cares about some 62 00:04:25.040 --> 00:04:29.319 value neutral concept of the Supreme Court. Oh, we really 63 00:04:29.319 --> 00:04:31.759 do need term limits for Supreme Court justice. Liberals were 64 00:04:31.839 --> 00:04:36.040 totally fine with lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices when 65 00:04:36.079 --> 00:04:43.600 they fundamentally controlled it for the last seventy years. So 66 00:04:43.839 --> 00:04:48.120 Harris has created this environment with her own proposal for 67 00:04:48.199 --> 00:04:51.399 sort of messing around with the Supreme Court a very 68 00:04:51.480 --> 00:04:58.079 questionable const constitutionality, as well as her openness to breaking 69 00:04:58.079 --> 00:05:02.959 the filibuster. So the only way a proposal like that's 70 00:05:03.000 --> 00:05:06.199 going to work is if you can abolish the filibuster 71 00:05:06.319 --> 00:05:08.399 rule in the Senate. The philibuster rule in the Senate 72 00:05:08.439 --> 00:05:12.399 is basically debate in the Senate can theoretically go on forever. 73 00:05:12.800 --> 00:05:17.839 One can filibuster a bill to death, so effectively to 74 00:05:17.959 --> 00:05:20.800 advance a lot of most kinds of legislation in the Senate, 75 00:05:20.879 --> 00:05:23.319 you actually need sixty out of one hundred votes rather 76 00:05:23.360 --> 00:05:27.279 than fifty one out of one hundred votes. Harris has 77 00:05:27.279 --> 00:05:32.639 announced she is in favor of using the filibuster at 78 00:05:32.680 --> 00:05:37.720 least for certain things. So here's the bill that Ron 79 00:05:37.759 --> 00:05:42.480 Wyden has proposed for the Supreme Court, and I think 80 00:05:42.519 --> 00:05:45.160 we need to ask every single Democrat running in a 81 00:05:45.199 --> 00:05:51.879 competitive race what they think about it. His proposal includes 82 00:05:52.240 --> 00:05:55.199 increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court by six, 83 00:05:58.319 --> 00:06:06.759 mandating yearly irs audits for each Supreme Court justice, requiring 84 00:06:06.839 --> 00:06:10.000 a ruling by two thirds of the Supreme Court and 85 00:06:10.120 --> 00:06:14.120 the Circuit Courts of Appeals to overturn a law passed 86 00:06:14.160 --> 00:06:20.319 by Congress rather than a simple court majority. To expand 87 00:06:20.360 --> 00:06:23.480 the number of federal judicial circuits in the United States 88 00:06:23.480 --> 00:06:32.160 from thirteen they're thirteen judicial circuits currently to fifteen, also 89 00:06:32.240 --> 00:06:35.480 adding more than one hundred district court judges and more 90 00:06:35.519 --> 00:06:42.439 than sixty appellate level judges. Weaken the Senate's power of 91 00:06:42.480 --> 00:06:46.720 advice and consent by requiring Supreme Court nominees to be 92 00:06:46.759 --> 00:06:56.319 automatically scheduled for a vote if their nominations stall in committee. 93 00:06:56.560 --> 00:06:59.759 So that this is wild. This is a wild proposal. 94 00:07:01.319 --> 00:07:05.240 Harris's existing proposal is already wild. Harris's proposal for term 95 00:07:05.240 --> 00:07:09.000 limits on Supreme Court justices that's wild in the sense 96 00:07:09.040 --> 00:07:16.759 that it's probably unconstitutional. The Constitution itself says in Article 97 00:07:16.800 --> 00:07:22.519 three that justices of the Supreme Court and the judges 98 00:07:22.680 --> 00:07:25.759 appointed to any inferior courts that Congress may create in 99 00:07:25.759 --> 00:07:33.920 the future enjoy that can exercise their office quote in 100 00:07:34.000 --> 00:07:39.959 good behavior. And what that means, what that has always meant, 101 00:07:40.199 --> 00:07:43.560 That has always been interpreted to mean. That effectively means 102 00:07:43.600 --> 00:07:47.079 lifetime tenure. Okay, you keep your office as long as 103 00:07:47.079 --> 00:07:49.360 you're as long as you're in good behavior. The only 104 00:07:49.399 --> 00:07:54.120 way to remove a Supreme Court justice or any other 105 00:07:54.839 --> 00:07:58.560 Article three federal judge. So that the different kinds of 106 00:07:58.600 --> 00:08:01.839 federal judges. You've got Supreme Court justices at the tippy top, 107 00:08:01.839 --> 00:08:04.839 the nine Supreme Court justices. You've got the judges for 108 00:08:04.959 --> 00:08:08.800 the thirteen different federal circuit courts, so the first Circuit, 109 00:08:08.800 --> 00:08:10.959 second Circuit, third Circuit, fourth or blah blah blah blah blah, 110 00:08:11.000 --> 00:08:17.319 the DC Circuit, and then you have the federal district courts. 111 00:08:17.639 --> 00:08:23.319 Those are the trial level judges in the federal system. 112 00:08:23.720 --> 00:08:25.879 So those are sort of the three levels. All of 113 00:08:25.920 --> 00:08:31.079 those judges enjoy lifetime tenure, and that's baked into the 114 00:08:31.079 --> 00:08:40.559 Constitution itself. So the current Harris Biden proposal to limit 115 00:08:41.080 --> 00:08:44.240 the terms of office for Supreme Court justices to only 116 00:08:44.279 --> 00:08:46.720 eighteen years, but then after you're done with eighteen years, 117 00:08:46.960 --> 00:08:51.000 you get to go be a circuit court judge. Well, 118 00:08:51.320 --> 00:08:56.399 that's infringing on the constitution. Okay, the Constitution says you 119 00:08:56.440 --> 00:09:00.639 get to exercise this office for good behavior. The only 120 00:09:00.679 --> 00:09:02.879 way you can remove a federal district court judge, a 121 00:09:02.879 --> 00:09:05.720 circuit court judge, or Supreme Court justice from their office 122 00:09:06.679 --> 00:09:09.360 is through the impeachment and removal process, like the same 123 00:09:09.360 --> 00:09:13.039 process for you know, impeaching and removing a president. A 124 00:09:13.120 --> 00:09:15.919 majority of the House of Representatives has to impeach you, 125 00:09:15.960 --> 00:09:17.559 and then a two thirds vote of the United States 126 00:09:17.600 --> 00:09:19.840 Senate has to remove you from office. The only time 127 00:09:19.840 --> 00:09:22.440 that's ever happened to federal judges has been with federal 128 00:09:22.519 --> 00:09:26.759 judges who've been found to have been accepting bribes or 129 00:09:26.759 --> 00:09:36.039 committing some other kind of crime. Outside of impeachment and removal, 130 00:09:36.600 --> 00:09:42.440 which is provided for in the Constitution, federal judges enjoy 131 00:09:42.639 --> 00:09:50.480 lifetime tenure, and they enjoy lifetime tenure in that office. 132 00:09:50.519 --> 00:09:53.559 By the way, So for Congress to try to pass 133 00:09:53.600 --> 00:09:55.840 a law, which is what Harris and Biden are proposing, 134 00:09:56.240 --> 00:10:01.320 just to eighteen years and you're done. No, that's ridiculous. 135 00:10:01.360 --> 00:10:04.320 That infringes on you know, one of the things the 136 00:10:04.320 --> 00:10:07.960 Constitution's really big on is if someone's got a job 137 00:10:08.200 --> 00:10:11.759 legally granted to them and you take away that job, 138 00:10:13.279 --> 00:10:16.600 that's a problem. That's like a legal problem that can 139 00:10:16.639 --> 00:10:20.279 be vindicated by law. So the idea of a Supreme 140 00:10:20.279 --> 00:10:23.440 Court saying that, oh, this doesn't violate the Constitution in 141 00:10:23.440 --> 00:10:26.480 lifetime tenure, because yes, the Supreme Court justice only can 142 00:10:26.519 --> 00:10:29.399 serve eighteen years and then they have to leave that job, 143 00:10:30.120 --> 00:10:32.639 but they still enjoy lifetime tenure because they're still a 144 00:10:32.639 --> 00:10:36.200 Circuit Court judge. Well, no, you have lifetime tenure for 145 00:10:36.360 --> 00:10:44.600 that job. Being on the Supreme Court's a bigger deal. Now. 146 00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:50.720 The Ron Widen's bill, the Senator from Oregon is far 147 00:10:50.840 --> 00:10:54.399 more extreme even than what Harris and Biden have initially proposed. Again, 148 00:10:54.919 --> 00:11:00.559 just flat out adding six more justices, not futzing around 149 00:11:01.000 --> 00:11:08.120 futs futz, not anything worse, FCC, it's all right, futson 150 00:11:08.200 --> 00:11:13.360 around with you know, term limits or age restrictions or 151 00:11:13.360 --> 00:11:20.840 anything like that. Now six more justices yearly, So six 152 00:11:20.879 --> 00:11:24.759 more justices. That is one thing Congress could actually do 153 00:11:24.879 --> 00:11:27.240 by statute. The number of justices on the Supreme Court 154 00:11:27.320 --> 00:11:30.919 is not actually set by the Constitution. Congress can simply 155 00:11:30.960 --> 00:11:35.159 pass a law to increase the number of justices on 156 00:11:35.159 --> 00:11:38.399 the Supreme Court if they want to. Now, we've held 157 00:11:38.679 --> 00:11:40.960 ever since FDR tried to do this in nineteen thirty six, 158 00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:43.639 and his own party said, no, this is tyrannical, this 159 00:11:43.759 --> 00:11:46.000 is way too extreme, this is you interfering in the 160 00:11:46.039 --> 00:11:48.799 judicial branch. We should never do something like this again. 161 00:11:48.840 --> 00:11:52.279 And everyone accepted that conventional wisdom until five minutes ago. 162 00:11:54.039 --> 00:11:57.200 That is actually something Congress could do. It's a terrible idea, 163 00:11:57.200 --> 00:12:00.000 but it is something Congress could do. Harass the justice 164 00:12:00.240 --> 00:12:08.240 with mandatory yearly irs audits. I don't know that that 165 00:12:08.480 --> 00:12:12.519 might be like one branch of government unduly interfering in another. 166 00:12:13.200 --> 00:12:15.960 I think that could raise some problems with the independence 167 00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:22.200 of the judiciary. Require a ruling by two thirds of 168 00:12:22.240 --> 00:12:24.480 the Supreme Court and the circuit courts of Appeals to 169 00:12:24.480 --> 00:12:27.240 overturn a law passed by Congress. This is another provision 170 00:12:27.240 --> 00:12:30.799 of Senator Ron Wyden's bill for packing the Supreme Court, 171 00:12:30.799 --> 00:12:33.320 but also saying that two thirds of the Supreme Court 172 00:12:33.480 --> 00:12:35.879 and the circuit courts of Appeals would be required to 173 00:12:35.919 --> 00:12:40.240 overturn any law passed by Congress. I mean this undercuts 174 00:12:40.279 --> 00:12:46.039 the entire system of judicial review. I don't know how 175 00:12:46.080 --> 00:12:56.240 this is possible. I guess I'm not sure to say 176 00:12:56.279 --> 00:13:00.000 it's unconstitutional zone. I mean, it's almost like leading us 177 00:13:00.080 --> 00:13:05.639 into completely different constitutional waters. The idea of being the 178 00:13:05.639 --> 00:13:08.840 Supreme Court would no longer be actually the final court 179 00:13:08.879 --> 00:13:12.279 of appeals. It would be the Supreme Court plus the 180 00:13:12.320 --> 00:13:16.120 circuit courts in conjunction. I think it's kind of fundamentally 181 00:13:16.840 --> 00:13:21.519 reshaping the whole structure of Article three of our federal 182 00:13:22.039 --> 00:13:24.679 court system as a whole. It's reshaping the whole nature 183 00:13:24.679 --> 00:13:28.759 of the Supreme Court. I don't know that that's really 184 00:13:31.120 --> 00:13:38.720 feasible under the Constitution without doing this as a constitutional amendment. 185 00:13:40.679 --> 00:13:46.639 Expanding the number of federal judicial circuits from thirteen to fifteen, Okay, 186 00:13:46.799 --> 00:13:49.200 Congress could do that by a statute, but again, this 187 00:13:49.279 --> 00:13:51.399 is court packing. You're gonna the only reason they want 188 00:13:51.399 --> 00:13:54.879 to increase the number of circuits is so that here's 189 00:13:54.919 --> 00:13:58.480 a whole bunch of new judge ships that President Harris 190 00:13:58.519 --> 00:14:03.600 gets to a point, adding more than one hundred district 191 00:14:03.639 --> 00:14:06.720 court judges and more than sixty appellate level judges. So 192 00:14:06.799 --> 00:14:09.559 Democrats can stack the federal bench with unfit radical with 193 00:14:09.600 --> 00:14:12.279 more unfit radicals. Yeah. I mean, that's the point of 194 00:14:12.320 --> 00:14:15.720 this is. This is beyond packing the Supreme Court. They 195 00:14:15.720 --> 00:14:19.159 want to pack all the circuit courts and the district 196 00:14:19.159 --> 00:14:23.559 courts as well. They want to create new seats and 197 00:14:23.720 --> 00:14:29.399 just fill them all with Democrats. And then lastly, I 198 00:14:29.440 --> 00:14:32.279 think this is another unconstitutional provision. We can the Senate's 199 00:14:32.360 --> 00:14:35.919 power of advice and consent by requiring Supreme Court nominees 200 00:14:35.960 --> 00:14:38.200 to be automatically scheduled for a vote if their nominations 201 00:14:38.200 --> 00:14:45.720 stolen committee. So the Constitution says, the President nominates judges 202 00:14:45.759 --> 00:14:51.720 federal judges, the Senate has its process of advice and consent. 203 00:14:56.639 --> 00:14:59.320 The Senate's process of advice and consent. The way that 204 00:14:59.399 --> 00:15:03.960 the Senate has has devised this is the Senate Judiciary 205 00:15:04.039 --> 00:15:08.240 Committee reviews nominees for federal judge ships. That's where they 206 00:15:08.320 --> 00:15:11.759 have their hearings, where they talk with the judge individually. 207 00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:16.799 That's where they have open hearings. They have a vote 208 00:15:16.840 --> 00:15:21.759 in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then they have a 209 00:15:21.840 --> 00:15:26.559 vote on the floor of the Senate. So I guess 210 00:15:26.559 --> 00:15:32.120 this probably wouldn't actually be unconstitutional. It would be Congress itself, 211 00:15:32.720 --> 00:15:36.799 limiting the nature of the Senate's power of advice and consent. 212 00:15:39.039 --> 00:15:42.519 But it seems as though this is the Merrick Garland provision. 213 00:15:43.399 --> 00:15:47.720 This is the We're mad that Merrick Garland didn't get 214 00:15:47.759 --> 00:15:50.440 a vote in committee. It didn't get a hearing in 215 00:15:50.480 --> 00:15:54.320 the Senate Judiciary Committee when President Obama nominated him after 216 00:15:56.480 --> 00:16:00.519 after Justice Scalia died in February of twenty sixteen. So 217 00:16:00.879 --> 00:16:03.240 we're going to put this provision in because it would 218 00:16:03.279 --> 00:16:06.720 have required that Merrick Garland get you know, an up 219 00:16:06.720 --> 00:16:09.000 and down vote from the floor of the Senate, even 220 00:16:09.360 --> 00:16:12.000 if his you know, even though his committee hearing didn't happen. 221 00:16:14.679 --> 00:16:19.480 This is an insane proposal, Okay, I mean as insane 222 00:16:19.720 --> 00:16:24.679 as the Biden Harris proposal. It's already on the books 223 00:16:24.840 --> 00:16:27.159 that like, this is their proposal, This is what Biden 224 00:16:27.240 --> 00:16:33.559 Harris support. This bill by Senator Widen is far crazier, 225 00:16:34.840 --> 00:16:40.559 far more disastrous, far more meddlesome to our constitutional order, 226 00:16:41.039 --> 00:16:46.399 equally as unconstitutional, I'd say, And I think it's this. 227 00:16:47.080 --> 00:16:49.960 I think it's a gift. I think every Senator in 228 00:16:49.960 --> 00:16:54.039 a battleground state, every Democrat senator candidate in a battleground state, 229 00:16:54.320 --> 00:16:56.000 needs to be asked whether they support it or not. 230 00:16:56.080 --> 00:16:58.440 Kamala Harris needs to be asked she supports it. Tim 231 00:16:58.480 --> 00:17:00.720 Walls needs to be asked if he supports it. When 232 00:17:00.720 --> 00:17:03.679 we return, we will dig into this and how disruptive 233 00:17:03.720 --> 00:17:06.160 to the constitutional order it is next on the John 234 00:17:06.200 --> 00:17:11.720 Gerardi Show. Since Trump kind of entered the political scene, 235 00:17:11.720 --> 00:17:14.880 there's been a lot of ink spilled and a lot 236 00:17:14.880 --> 00:17:20.680 of yapping done about violations of political norms. How Trump 237 00:17:20.759 --> 00:17:23.000 has violated this political norm of that political that this 238 00:17:23.079 --> 00:17:25.960 is disruptive to our republic, blah blah blah blah blah 239 00:17:25.960 --> 00:17:34.000 blah blah. The apex of this was January sixth, and 240 00:17:34.119 --> 00:17:38.880 the idea that Trump was pursuing this certain reading of 241 00:17:40.119 --> 00:17:44.240 federal election legislation about the vice president's role with regards 242 00:17:44.240 --> 00:17:49.440 to certifying the electoral college count and urging Vice President 243 00:17:49.480 --> 00:17:55.519 Pence to not certify the electoral college count, and this 244 00:17:55.799 --> 00:18:01.000 one interpretation of federal law basically to argue that the 245 00:18:01.039 --> 00:18:03.519 vice president sort of had this unilateral power, which I 246 00:18:03.519 --> 00:18:07.119 think a lot of people would. He did have a legitimate, 247 00:18:07.400 --> 00:18:11.559 real legal expert advising him on it, who was not 248 00:18:11.599 --> 00:18:15.519 a schmuck by any stretch. John Eastman, who was proponsing this. 249 00:18:15.960 --> 00:18:19.680 I think most everyone left end right kind of think 250 00:18:19.920 --> 00:18:23.319 Eastman was wrong. I think it's kind of a crazy 251 00:18:23.640 --> 00:18:27.519 argument to make that a sitting vice president can just 252 00:18:27.960 --> 00:18:33.759 unilaterally reject certifying the electoral college as he or she wishes. 253 00:18:35.200 --> 00:18:38.559 That would, you know, especially under our current system with 254 00:18:38.759 --> 00:18:40.480 the president and the vice president always being of the 255 00:18:40.519 --> 00:18:42.920 same party, which was not the original structure of the 256 00:18:42.920 --> 00:18:48.039 constitution necessarily no, that would You could almost guarantee that 257 00:18:48.079 --> 00:18:50.680 an incumbent could never lose an election off his own 258 00:18:50.839 --> 00:18:54.319 his or her own vice president had this unilateral authority 259 00:18:54.400 --> 00:18:59.839 to accept or reject electoral count certification. So that would 260 00:18:59.839 --> 00:19:05.440 be a real structural problem constitutionally, if Trump's interpretation of 261 00:19:05.440 --> 00:19:10.359 that were so. Nonetheless, Trump was trying to get Mike 262 00:19:10.400 --> 00:19:13.720 Pence not to certify the election results. That was seen 263 00:19:13.839 --> 00:19:17.480 as the greatest single example of Trump threatening the constitutional order, 264 00:19:20.880 --> 00:19:24.160 which is amusing because I think if the riot had 265 00:19:24.160 --> 00:19:27.160 not actually occurred on January sixth, no one would think 266 00:19:27.480 --> 00:19:32.359 of that act as being particularly threatening. I don't know. 267 00:19:32.680 --> 00:19:35.279 It seems like the riot that happened on January sixth 268 00:19:35.359 --> 00:19:38.880 was one thing. Trump's pressuring of Pence not to certify 269 00:19:38.920 --> 00:19:41.799 the election results on January sixth was kind of another thing. 270 00:19:43.559 --> 00:19:46.839 It just sort of seems like the two got one 271 00:19:47.400 --> 00:19:51.839 conflated with each other when Jack Smith could not actually 272 00:19:51.920 --> 00:19:54.160 connect them to each other. Notice when Jack Smith charged 273 00:19:54.200 --> 00:19:56.839 Donald Trump with stuff surrounding January sixth, he didn't actually 274 00:19:56.920 --> 00:19:59.519 charge him with anything having to do with the violent 275 00:19:59.640 --> 00:20:04.440 condoct ud by you know, the rioters on January sixth, 276 00:20:04.480 --> 00:20:07.839 The people, the people actually doing bad stuff, the people 277 00:20:07.880 --> 00:20:12.279 who were you know, vandalizing stuff, fighting with police officers, 278 00:20:12.279 --> 00:20:16.759 those guys not you know mem who not not the 279 00:20:16.799 --> 00:20:20.680 Memas and the paw pawse who were waved through by 280 00:20:20.759 --> 00:20:24.519 security and walked into the you know areas, walked into 281 00:20:25.599 --> 00:20:28.599 Congress and said oh that's interesting, and then walked out. 282 00:20:28.640 --> 00:20:32.079 And then all of a sudden, the dj is aggressively 283 00:20:32.119 --> 00:20:36.880 prosecuting them for basically for a kind of trespassed crime. Anyway, 284 00:20:38.440 --> 00:20:40.319 for all the ink spilled about what a threat to 285 00:20:40.359 --> 00:20:47.200 the constitutional order, President Trump represents the way that we 286 00:20:47.319 --> 00:20:51.599 casually skate by Kamala Harris saying I want to propose 287 00:20:52.119 --> 00:20:56.559 court packing by another means I want to propose via 288 00:20:56.880 --> 00:21:01.279 legislation something that almost certainly you could only do by 289 00:21:01.359 --> 00:21:08.559 a constitutional amendment to kick Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas 290 00:21:08.599 --> 00:21:10.920 and John Roberts off the Court as soon as I can, 291 00:21:11.640 --> 00:21:14.319 and just to reshape the court, to get rid of 292 00:21:14.319 --> 00:21:17.160 its current conservative majority, to put in a majority of 293 00:21:17.200 --> 00:21:23.640 my preference. And no one finds this to be the 294 00:21:23.680 --> 00:21:25.960 grave threat to the constitutional order that I think it 295 00:21:26.000 --> 00:21:30.799 clearly is. It's clearly a threat to the constitutional order 296 00:21:32.400 --> 00:21:37.440 if presidents are if presidents working with Congress can just 297 00:21:37.920 --> 00:21:44.079 reshape the judiciary to their liking with a snap of 298 00:21:44.119 --> 00:21:48.160 a finger, then it's going to lead to massive instability. 299 00:21:48.240 --> 00:21:51.880 It's a it's a huge flaw in the constitutional order. 300 00:21:52.240 --> 00:21:58.440 I think the very fact that Congress could really I 301 00:21:58.480 --> 00:22:01.440 think it is a flaw inherent than our constitutional order, 302 00:22:02.240 --> 00:22:05.200 that Congress can just pass a law to increase the 303 00:22:05.279 --> 00:22:08.039 number of justices. I think that's something that should be 304 00:22:08.160 --> 00:22:12.759 corrected via a constitutional amendment. If we actually want stability 305 00:22:12.799 --> 00:22:16.599 there and to take away the possibility for an aggressive 306 00:22:16.640 --> 00:22:21.039 president plus Congress to reshape the judiciary at a whim, 307 00:22:22.359 --> 00:22:25.400 we should actually try to pursue a constitutional amendment saying 308 00:22:25.400 --> 00:22:27.519 the number of justices on the Supreme Court is set 309 00:22:27.559 --> 00:22:30.559 at nine. They have lifetime ten years, you know, clarify 310 00:22:30.680 --> 00:22:33.279 that you can't do all these shenanigans that that Vice 311 00:22:33.319 --> 00:22:40.720 President Harris is proposing, that Ron Wyden is proposing. But furthermore, 312 00:22:40.759 --> 00:22:43.920 I think the constitutional safeguards we do have for lifetime 313 00:22:43.960 --> 00:22:47.400 appointment of justices, Harris wants to just blow past it, 314 00:22:49.359 --> 00:22:52.759 you know, with this idea of her idea of eighteen 315 00:22:52.799 --> 00:22:59.960 year term limits. Eighteen year term limits, which blatantly violate 316 00:23:00.000 --> 00:23:02.759 it's the provision with an Article three the federal judges 317 00:23:03.440 --> 00:23:08.000 serve during good behavior. That means for life. That means 318 00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:10.559 as long as they're not impeached and removed, they get 319 00:23:10.559 --> 00:23:17.640 to keep serving. It's a real, real sorry, I'm going 320 00:23:17.680 --> 00:23:21.920 through puberty on the radio. It's a real serious attack 321 00:23:22.599 --> 00:23:26.519 on our constitutional order that she's just flatly openly making. 322 00:23:27.200 --> 00:23:30.119 And the media is all pretending like it's normal because 323 00:23:30.119 --> 00:23:32.359 they want her to win, because they hate the current 324 00:23:32.359 --> 00:23:35.319 makeup of the Supreme Court. That's all it is. Nobody 325 00:23:35.359 --> 00:23:38.079 on the left is applying any kind of value neutral 326 00:23:38.240 --> 00:23:44.559 analysis to ask like, is this structurally a good idea 327 00:23:44.720 --> 00:23:47.000 for the Supreme Court. Yeah, I know, we don't like 328 00:23:47.079 --> 00:23:49.400 the current makeup of the Supreme Court, but maybe Let's 329 00:23:49.440 --> 00:23:54.079 think about this with the lens of decades rather than 330 00:23:54.119 --> 00:23:56.880 the lens of right now of being mad about something 331 00:23:56.880 --> 00:24:00.839 that happened. In being mad that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had 332 00:24:00.839 --> 00:24:03.000 the bad luck to die in September of twenty twenty 333 00:24:03.200 --> 00:24:07.200 rather than February of twenty twenty one when I return, 334 00:24:08.519 --> 00:24:13.480 How do people pick politicians? How do we self select 335 00:24:13.680 --> 00:24:15.640 for such terrible people to run for office? Next on 336 00:24:15.640 --> 00:24:20.559 the John Girardi Show, it's Friday, so you'll permit me 337 00:24:20.599 --> 00:24:23.160 to have a bit more of a discursive little ramble 338 00:24:23.200 --> 00:24:28.720 of a radio segment here, I'm wondering how it is 339 00:24:28.759 --> 00:24:32.039 that we self select for our politicians. What is the 340 00:24:32.119 --> 00:24:34.880 mindset that pushes someone to run for office? What is 341 00:24:34.920 --> 00:24:40.880 the mindset that convinces people to put people forward during primaries? 342 00:24:40.880 --> 00:24:43.319 What is the mindset that convinces people to vote for people? 343 00:24:44.039 --> 00:24:46.240 And I've got a lot of different sort of politicians 344 00:24:46.279 --> 00:24:48.519 I'm putting in different categories for how I'm thinking about this. 345 00:24:48.599 --> 00:24:56.599 So there's the we don't like this guy, but he's 346 00:24:57.119 --> 00:25:00.000 got our team's flag on him, so we're just gonna 347 00:25:00.160 --> 00:25:05.680 vote for him. I think the best example of that 348 00:25:05.839 --> 00:25:12.240 is Tim Walls. So everything I hear from my wife's 349 00:25:12.319 --> 00:25:15.279 relatives who are who live in Minnesota. So my mother 350 00:25:15.319 --> 00:25:17.880 in law and father in law, whom I love dearly. 351 00:25:19.359 --> 00:25:24.359 By the way, it's an underrated thing to really genuinely 352 00:25:24.599 --> 00:25:27.200 love your in laws, and I really genuinely do. I 353 00:25:27.240 --> 00:25:30.240 love my in laws. I think they're wonderful people. In 354 00:25:30.279 --> 00:25:33.119 addition to raising the most wonderful woman in the whole world, 355 00:25:33.319 --> 00:25:37.640 they are also incredibly nice, kind, good fun people to 356 00:25:37.720 --> 00:25:41.079 hang around. And anyway, I could go on and on 357 00:25:41.200 --> 00:25:42.720 about how much I love my mother in law my 358 00:25:42.759 --> 00:25:47.079 father in law. Now this is not what the segment's about. Anyway. 359 00:25:48.599 --> 00:25:52.160 Talking with my in laws and other people I know 360 00:25:52.200 --> 00:25:56.079 from Minnesota, they always talk about nobody likes Tim Walls. 361 00:25:56.079 --> 00:25:59.119 Nobody likes Tim Walls, and he was so terrible during 362 00:25:59.160 --> 00:26:01.480 the twenty twenty right and everyone's burning stuff down. And 363 00:26:01.480 --> 00:26:04.319 when we go to the Minnesota State Fair, the stopped 364 00:26:04.400 --> 00:26:08.000 him Walls booth whatever, the Republican But the line is 365 00:26:08.000 --> 00:26:10.359 going out the door blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, 366 00:26:10.519 --> 00:26:14.200 And I'm like, yeah, I mean, my observation as an 367 00:26:14.240 --> 00:26:19.480 outsider is like, well, how unpopular is he? I mean, 368 00:26:19.759 --> 00:26:23.319 he got elected in twenty eighteen. They had all the 369 00:26:23.400 --> 00:26:26.400 riots in Minneapolis in twenty twenty and all the post 370 00:26:26.480 --> 00:26:30.319 George Floyd's stuff, and you re elected him after that 371 00:26:30.720 --> 00:26:38.200 in twenty twenty two fairly comfortably, and a lot of 372 00:26:38.240 --> 00:26:41.440 this unsavory stuff we see about him, it is showing. 373 00:26:41.440 --> 00:26:43.279 I mean, I think people are more and more seeing 374 00:26:43.720 --> 00:26:46.920 he's he's kind of a phony. I mean, it's not 375 00:26:47.119 --> 00:26:50.119 like the Liberals are putting him for it as like 376 00:26:50.240 --> 00:26:54.960 this is our liberal answer to the masculinity problems that 377 00:26:54.960 --> 00:26:57.960 we have. That Okay, men are driving, men are leaving 378 00:26:58.039 --> 00:27:05.799 the Democratic Party in hoardes, especially young men. Harris is 379 00:27:06.559 --> 00:27:09.519 really turning off male voters. So here's Tim Walls. Here's 380 00:27:09.519 --> 00:27:13.519 our answer. Here's our liberal vision of what it means 381 00:27:13.559 --> 00:27:16.079 to be a real man wears flannel and stuff like that. 382 00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:19.839 And the vibe I get from people in Minnesota is 383 00:27:19.880 --> 00:27:23.119 just the lack of enthusiasm. It's not like Walls is 384 00:27:23.119 --> 00:27:28.759 this wildly popular liberal governor. He just isn't. He's not 385 00:27:28.960 --> 00:27:31.000 this kind of figure. I mean, he didn't have the 386 00:27:31.079 --> 00:27:34.880 kind of enthusiasm behind him certainly that Barack Obama did 387 00:27:35.079 --> 00:27:37.599 in two thousand. In sort of that two thousand and 388 00:27:37.640 --> 00:27:40.319 four to two thousand and eight era where no people 389 00:27:40.319 --> 00:27:43.480 from Chicago really liked Barack Obama, really pushing him, really 390 00:27:43.599 --> 00:27:48.079 enthusiastic about him. Walls doesn't really seem to me to 391 00:27:48.240 --> 00:27:53.759 have that. I don't think he's actually as popular even 392 00:27:53.759 --> 00:27:56.599 in Minnesota as maybe a lot of people on the 393 00:27:56.680 --> 00:28:00.519 left assumed. But they still vote for him. Why. Well, 394 00:28:00.559 --> 00:28:05.279 I think it's this begrudging You know, we're voting DFL. 395 00:28:05.319 --> 00:28:07.519 We'll never vote for a Republican, come hell or high water. 396 00:28:07.720 --> 00:28:11.960 And the DFL is the Democrat Farmer Labor Party, which 397 00:28:11.960 --> 00:28:15.160 is the Democrat party's kind of name in Minnesota. It's 398 00:28:15.160 --> 00:28:17.799 this weird quirk of Minnesota politics that the Democratic Party 399 00:28:17.799 --> 00:28:22.400 goes by the DFL the Democratic Farm Labor Party. And 400 00:28:22.519 --> 00:28:24.559 I think just people like, we're never going to vote 401 00:28:24.559 --> 00:28:27.039