Speaker 1: Well, whiskey, come and take my pain. The honeys all right,
Speaker 1: oh whiskey. Don't why think alone when you can drink
Speaker 1: it all in with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour. Join
Speaker 1: your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John, You and the International Woman
Speaker 1: of Mystery, Lucretia. Where this laps it up? And live it?
Speaker 1: Ain't you easy on? The should tap guy to give
Speaker 1: me and let that whiskey? Well? The left is having
Speaker 1: a total meltdown this week, and the three Whiskey Happy
Speaker 1: Hour is here for it. And by here for it,
Speaker 1: I mean, of course John and Lucretia, the International Woman
Speaker 1: of Mystery. Uh, Lucretia, how are you and what are
Speaker 1: you drinking tonight?
Speaker 2: I am well, thank you, and I I decided to
Speaker 2: set up in my little office a whiskey bar, and
Speaker 2: I'm drinking Glen Fidditch eighteen year old.
Speaker 1: See I see it over your shoulder? Some of that right?
Speaker 1: And then John, you thought you were done being out
Speaker 1: numbered today when you left the Fox set at one
Speaker 1: o'clock Eastern time. But no, we may have you out
Speaker 1: numbered a bit here, but we'll see. Are you having
Speaker 1: an a libation to cool off after a long week.
Speaker 3: Oh I wish I were by just ran here from
Speaker 3: something in New York, so I want to go is water?
Speaker 1: Oh oh I didn't.
Speaker 3: I didn't have time to stop and get anything. I'm
Speaker 3: so behind.
Speaker 1: Well, and I would think this is a week to
Speaker 1: celebrate because we have ta free whiskey is back. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: this is important. Do you actually check the stories to
Speaker 1: see if prices?
Speaker 3: Immediately responded, No, I haven't, right, right, but you know,
Speaker 3: let we can let it share for that right.
Speaker 2: Wait a minute, it's terra free Scotch whiskey specifically, yes,
Speaker 2: And I do have to sorry to spring this on
Speaker 2: you guys, but I read a story this morning. I've
Speaker 2: seen a couple of these now, which the basic premise
Speaker 2: of it. I think it was from the Wall Street
Speaker 2: Journal that we needed to bring back the three martini
Speaker 2: lunch because there are actually many people who whose creativity
Speaker 2: who's you know, if you if you're a some kind,
Speaker 2: if you're on Wall Street and you're taking all these risks.
Speaker 2: It's just easier to take risks when you've had a
Speaker 2: few drinks that you shouldn't become, you know, an alcoholic
Speaker 2: and ruin your liver. But we should, we should return
Speaker 2: to the three whiskey lunch like the admin in mad Men.
Speaker 1: Well there's that. I remember. The person who made the
Speaker 1: crusade against the three martini lunch, or made it famous,
Speaker 1: was Jimmy Carter. Right, you wanted to take away the
Speaker 1: tax deductibility of the three martini lunch, to which very
Speaker 1: Goldwater said, we didn't need a three martini lunch until
Speaker 1: Carter became president. I thought it was a good repust writing,
Speaker 1: you know, fun stuff back then. But I do think
Speaker 1: that we need to pat ourselves on the back here
Speaker 1: today because we have to trifecta listeners. All three of
Speaker 1: us appear today on the Civitas Outlook Symposium on the
Speaker 1: Declaration of Independence and Justice Thomas's great speech, which was
Speaker 1: our subject last week. But still I think that ought
Speaker 1: to be said. Uh, and John, you're being accused of
Speaker 1: outing yourself because you talked about how the people attacking
Speaker 1: the Declaration were attacking natural law.
Speaker 3: And no, that doesn't mean I agree with it, though
Speaker 3: I was describing guys don't read carefully enough.
Speaker 2: I read carefully, John, I read.
Speaker 3: I taught you to your conclusions.
Speaker 2: I caught your repeated reference to moral systems, and which
Speaker 2: is your dismissive way of saying that that's just somebody's
Speaker 2: belief system, and why what does it have to do
Speaker 2: with today?
Speaker 3: I caught it. See I'm still consistent, Heyward.
Speaker 2: And not stress.
Speaker 1: Nice try right. Let's see, So mine was about, yeah, well.
Speaker 3: You should describe what each of our pieces.
Speaker 1: I'll go first. Mine was the headline I gave it
Speaker 1: was silent Clarence meets silent Cow, right, I mean Calvin Cooler.
Speaker 1: He quoted Calvin coolidg's speech and I talked about the
Speaker 1: parallels between them, and actually silent cow was wrong about Coolidge.
Speaker 1: He wasn't. I think the left invented that to say
Speaker 1: you shouldn't pay attention to him, because when he did
Speaker 1: speak or right, he said really serious stuff and he
Speaker 1: was the last president to write his own speech as well. Thomas,
Speaker 1: of course, has been attacked for years because he doesn't
Speaker 1: say a lot from the bench. Now he's saying more lately,
Speaker 1: so they kind of call him silent Clarence. They haven't
Speaker 1: really tried to label him that, but of course he's
Speaker 1: not silent in his opinions and they rather you not
Speaker 1: read those. But that's that was That's a very short
Speaker 1: thumbnail sketch, Lucretia, what did you say, I don't remember.
Speaker 2: I talked about Abraham Lincoln. I talked about that I
Speaker 2: had a lot of the same themes as other people
Speaker 2: who ended up kind of focused on one over another.
Speaker 2: I talked about how there was a lot of parallels
Speaker 2: between what Lincoln was trying to do in the anti
Speaker 2: Bellum period and what Thomas is attempting to do now,
Speaker 2: which is alert people to the fundamental, as you would
Speaker 2: call it, john moral systems. That anyway, I'm not in
Speaker 2: the mood to get in a fight about that with
Speaker 2: you today. I do have a I do have a
Speaker 2: slight sort of off topic thing, sort of off topic
Speaker 2: thing to bring up, and that is that they've been
Speaker 2: talking in different areas about the fact that he is
Speaker 2: silent cal you know that that he doesn't speak much,
Speaker 2: and that he's actually been somewhat Clarence Thomas has been
Speaker 2: somewhat vilified for doing that as well. But I read
Speaker 2: a history and it said that those I want to
Speaker 2: see his name is William Johnson. So you know, Marshall
Speaker 2: comes on the court and he tries to get air
Speaker 2: everybody to be unanimous in all their decisions and a
Speaker 2: single opinion written, and not a bunch of opinions. And
Speaker 2: of course Thomas Jefferson is the moment he gets a chance,
Speaker 2: appoints somebody that he's going to hopes can undermine Marshall
Speaker 2: and this young guy, and all he does is talk.
Speaker 2: All he does is talk all the time. And who
Speaker 2: does that remind you of? By the way, and it
Speaker 2: talks about how the rest of the justices thought he
Speaker 2: was an idiot and that he was completely disrespectful, because
Speaker 2: when you're young and stupid, you should keep your mouth shut.
Speaker 2: So I didn't put out of my paper. I just
Speaker 2: wanted to say that because of your ok Calvin Coolidge things.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, so John, Yes, I made the point that
Speaker 4: I thought the Justice's speech was responding to not just
Speaker 4: a sixteen nineteen project, but the Post liberals that ah
Speaker 4: wriking the argument that the founding is neither you know,
Speaker 4: a white supremacist document or that it's morally morally has.
Speaker 3: No content, which is what the Post liberals criticize it for,
Speaker 3: and that he now I'm not saying I agree with it,
Speaker 3: I'm just describing this is what he did, was in
Speaker 3: the speech make the claim that the founding itself had
Speaker 3: moral content to it. It's not just you know, what
Speaker 3: lawyers would call a process based document. So that there
Speaker 3: is some moral values expressed in the declaration, and that
Speaker 3: that and that at least he says, that's the common
Speaker 3: ground we can have in the country is around those. Now,
Speaker 3: I still want to find out where this natural law
Speaker 3: and nat right come from. And he didn't address that
Speaker 3: and his speaks at all.
Speaker 1: He didn't need to. John, That's why didn't you knows
Speaker 1: that you're hope listen.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Well, by the way, I think one thing that was
Speaker 1: left out of some breaking news this week, I have
Speaker 1: for you, you know, the famous letter from Jefferson to
Speaker 1: Richard Henry Lee where he says, oh, my sources were
Speaker 1: u you know the basic elementary writers Aristotle, Cicero, Sydney,
Speaker 1: and Locke. Well, a first traft has been discovered. And
Speaker 1: he said Aristotle, Cicero, Sydney, Sweeney.
Speaker 3: In Locke, Christ, geez, you got a one track mine.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure the mine that's got the one.
Speaker 1: Track Okay, okay, it could be all right. I have
Speaker 1: had enough whiskey to say that Richard Samuelson is telling
Speaker 1: us that we ought to give up on the Sydney
Speaker 1: Sweeney business and just surrender to the fact that she's
Speaker 1: a juggernaut. So all right, everybody, let us take a
Speaker 1: quick ad break and never come back again the serious subjects,
Speaker 1: starting with voting rights and the democratic meltdown and all
Speaker 1: the rest of that. Don't go away. We'll be right back,
Speaker 1: all right. I said at the open that the left
Speaker 1: is having a meltdown, and what they're melting down over
Speaker 1: is the Supreme Court decision here a couple of days
Speaker 1: ago in Louisiana versus Kela, I think, is it probably?
Speaker 1: And that was the Louisiana voting rights case. And so John,
Speaker 1: why don't you give us a quick summary to get
Speaker 1: us started? And then I have a bunch of questions,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure Lucretia does too.
Speaker 3: A quick summary of a ninety page opinion. What are
Speaker 3: you talking about it now? But actually it's both simple
Speaker 3: and complicated. The simple thing is that this is just
Speaker 3: the continuation of two trends and the Supreme Court's cases.
Speaker 3: One is stop using race. The government should just stop
Speaker 3: using race. This is one of the last areas where
Speaker 3: the courts have allowed the government to use race, which
Speaker 3: is in the drawing of congressional districts. Now, the chances
Speaker 3: of the government can do that are in a very
Speaker 3: very small set of cases to basically remedy past discrimination
Speaker 3: on the basis of race, that's the only time it's
Speaker 3: going to be allowed, I think. And then the second
Speaker 3: thing that's happened here that this case is really part
Speaker 3: of the culmination of is the court basically wants the
Speaker 3: lower federal course that get out of the business of
Speaker 3: interfering and districting at all. So what's been going on
Speaker 3: here is that primarily in the South, but not just
Speaker 3: in the South, federal judges were going around and forcing
Speaker 3: states to add more districts, to draw them in a
Speaker 3: way that will produce more minority members of Congress. And
Speaker 3: the way they did that was to say, well, we're
Speaker 3: going to we want states to try to draw districts
Speaker 3: that have a lot of minorities in them to produce
Speaker 3: those districts. So the bottom line holding of the case
Speaker 3: is no longer can federal judges go to states and
Speaker 3: say the Voting Rights Act or the fifteenth Amendment of
Speaker 3: the Constitution require you to maximize the number of minority
Speaker 3: congressmen and congresswomen in your states instead, the court says
Speaker 3: that's unconstitutional. The laws don't require that. All they're there
Speaker 3: to do is to make sure that everyone can get
Speaker 3: to the ballot and vote without regard to their race,
Speaker 3: and that the only time, and then when states draw
Speaker 3: districts that don't involve they don't take race into account.
Speaker 3: The course, you generally stay out and not look at
Speaker 3: them at all. And the only time courts you get
Speaker 3: involved is when the districts are being drawn to make
Speaker 3: up for past discrimination, like if a state had been
Speaker 3: using race illegally, then you might need to use race
Speaker 3: to make up for it to remedy it for a
Speaker 3: little while. That seems to me the only circumstance you're
Speaker 3: going to be allowed to do it anymore. So what
Speaker 3: that means is we're going to have the kind of
Speaker 3: free for all we're seeing all around the country right now.
Speaker 3: Is it's going to continue and the courts are not
Speaker 3: going to get involved. That's the bottom line.
Speaker 2: So I have a question before you ask your Steve
Speaker 2: directly bearing on this, and that is, if the courts
Speaker 2: will only get involved upon a finding of past discrimination
Speaker 2: the illegal use of race to draw districts, can that
Speaker 2: mean the illegal use of race to draw districts, as
Speaker 2: the court just decided was an illegal use of race
Speaker 2: to draw districts. Can we say that there need to
Speaker 2: be race drawn districts where white people or Asian people
Speaker 2: have been you know, systematically pushed out of the you know,
Speaker 2: not have the opportunity to vote for someone who looks
Speaker 2: like them, Which is really what all this nonsense comes
Speaker 2: down to, right, is that you want to have draw
Speaker 2: districts for minorities so they can be assured of voting
Speaker 2: for someone who looks like them. Otherwise it makes no
Speaker 2: sense at all. And so I'm just asking do you
Speaker 2: think when you say that, I wondered that even when
Speaker 2: I read the opinion in myself, do they mean that
Speaker 2: if you have another Southern state that's had these minority
Speaker 2: drawn districts for all these years, that somebody can come
Speaker 2: back and say we need white drawn districts because of this,
Speaker 2: I mean a little bit.
Speaker 3: No, No, I think it's plausible. But if you were
Speaker 3: a state and you just want to get on the
Speaker 3: business with having a normal election, I wouldn't want to
Speaker 3: get drawn into decades more litigation over that. But yeah, suppose,
Speaker 3: for example, that Georgia had been forced by the federal
Speaker 3: courts to have say, five districts drawn on purpose to
Speaker 3: have larger black constituencies so that they might produce a
Speaker 3: black congressman or women in each of those districts. Then
Speaker 3: I guess a white person could say, well, that judge
Speaker 3: was doing that unconstitutionally, and now the state should in
Speaker 3: fact go the other way by two or three districts
Speaker 3: for white people, because that would make up for all
Speaker 3: those years. Generally, the courts don't like to, I think,
Speaker 3: say we did something unconstitutionally, it was retroactive, and now
Speaker 3: we got to make up for it, and so that
Speaker 3: would present this whole new constitutional issue. I would say,
Speaker 3: if you were a state like this, you should just
Speaker 3: go forward and draw the districts like you want without
Speaker 3: regard to race, and then, which is what they I
Speaker 3: think they generally want to do anyway, Otherwise they're going
Speaker 3: to get tied up in more years of litigation about
Speaker 3: their maps based on Lucretia's, you know, very very cynical,
Speaker 3: tricky theory about the voter rights.
Speaker 1: Well, so from the syllabus, I only got a chance
Speaker 1: to read the syllabus, the whole ninety two pages will
Speaker 1: have to wait for another day. But in the syllabus
Speaker 1: it said the fifteenth Amendment bars only state action quoting
Speaker 1: here motivated by discriminatory purpose. I think that's quoting the
Speaker 1: previous cases. And in other words, the fifteenth Amendment prohibits
Speaker 1: intentional racial discrimination. Now, I think some of the cases
Speaker 1: of some of the cases, some of the circumstances from
Speaker 1: seventy years ago were, say a place like Jackson, Mississippi,
Speaker 1: where the entire city council was elected on an at
Speaker 1: large base, which meant you got nine white city councilmen
Speaker 1: even though you had thirty five forty. So I think
Speaker 1: there the argument was, we think we know why they're
Speaker 1: doing that, because not every city did have at large
Speaker 1: elections for all the seats, right, they'd have districts. That's
Speaker 1: the way most people do it. And so then so
Speaker 1: you can see that that makes some sense that you
Speaker 1: can tell, well, that's why they did it, right, So
Speaker 1: there is a men's ray of problem there, right, But
Speaker 1: it's does this decision actually bar any race based districts?
Speaker 1: I mean, what if by coincidence, you do you know
Speaker 1: contiguous or you know, compact districts and two of them
Speaker 1: turned out to be highly concentrated minorities. This decision seems
Speaker 1: to be just ambiguous to leave a problem for so
Speaker 1: the court.
Speaker 3: The Court could have gone even farther than did here
Speaker 3: and just struck down the Voting Rights Act because the
Speaker 3: Voting Rights Act tried to say, stop asking about the
Speaker 3: intention of the legislature, just look at the totality of
Speaker 3: the circumstances along with other things. But initially the first
Speaker 3: version of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in
Speaker 3: sixty five, the Supreme Court right it the way Steve
Speaker 3: was reading the fifteenth Amendment to say, only intentional efforts
Speaker 3: to use race or unconstitutional if there should be racial
Speaker 3: differences in the districts based on the effect, not the intention.
Speaker 3: That's not covered by the Voting Right sick. Then the
Speaker 3: Congress passed a set of amendments, i think in eighty
Speaker 3: two that overruled that meeting, and then they eliminated the intent,
Speaker 3: but they didn't replace with anything really clear. And so
Speaker 3: the Court has struggled ever since then to figure out, well,
Speaker 3: what are you allowed to do? So the Descent claims,
Speaker 3: and I think there's some truth to what the Descent says,
Speaker 3: is that Justice Alito's opinion kind of resurrects an intention requirement.
Speaker 3: But I think you have to do that because I
Speaker 3: don't think the fifteenth Amendment says you have a roving
Speaker 3: mandate to go fix any voting system that happens to
Speaker 3: have a desperate effect based on race. And as you said, Steve,
Speaker 3: often I would suspect the effect is not race. It's partisanship.
Speaker 3: That states are trying to draw districts to maximize Republicans
Speaker 3: or Democrats, and African Americans have a high correlation of
Speaker 3: voting Democrat, so it could look the same. So Justice
Speaker 3: Alito is saying, actually says in the opinion that if
Speaker 3: you're going to bring these cases, you have to show
Speaker 3: that the state was not trying to do it for
Speaker 3: partisan reasons, that it really was just racial reasons. And
Speaker 3: just as Little basically says, the lower courts are getting
Speaker 3: these two things confused because of the high rate of
Speaker 3: voting for Republicans or Democrats by certain ethnic groups, and
Speaker 3: he says, you have to prove that that's not what's
Speaker 3: going on. And in a case, that's a very high standard.
Speaker 2: I think let's take the high road for a moment
Speaker 2: and say that even though over certain periods of time
Speaker 2: you can identify certain minority voting patterns with a certain
Speaker 2: party one or the other, especially Blacks with the Democratic Party,
Speaker 2: but that's changed in the past from Republicans to Democrats.
Speaker 2: And supposedly the one area where Trump is not losing
Speaker 2: according to CNN Harry Enton, right, I can't remember his name,
Speaker 2: that Trump is not losing. In fact, he's gaining support
Speaker 2: in the black community. His support in the black community
Speaker 2: is already higher than it was in twenty twenty and
Speaker 2: moving up since the election. So the idea that you
Speaker 2: should even play that game of noticing race at all
Speaker 2: seems to be it seems to be racist. I'll just
Speaker 2: say it.
Speaker 3: Well, the other thing that Alito nods to, but this
Speaker 3: is really Justice Thomas's view from thirty years ago, and
Speaker 3: you could say, in the way Thomas's view is starting
Speaker 3: to prevail. He said, what's so offensive about racial redistricting
Speaker 3: is that it assumes people of a race all think
Speaker 3: the same, vote the same, and they will only vote
Speaker 3: for people of their skin color. And he's like, that's
Speaker 3: so offensive and actually is under contrary to the fourteenth
Speaker 3: and fifteen. It's totally fine to do it. For the
Speaker 3: you know, well, of course we put the Republicans together,
Speaker 3: we assume they'll vote for Republican there's nothing wrong that
Speaker 3: that doesn't involve skink color, and the courts don't review that,
Speaker 3: right republic Partisan jerrymandering is a political question. There's no
Speaker 3: judicial review over that. Now, most districting is now going
Speaker 3: to fall into the political question doctrine under this opinion
Speaker 3: and won't be reviewed.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, you know, one of the problems here is
Speaker 1: the hardening of racial essentialism on the left. That's decades old.
Speaker 1: But you know, in the good old days by that,
Speaker 1: I mean you know New York City from you know,
Speaker 1: most of the Tammany Hall days, and well in the fifties,
Speaker 1: before the Civil Rights Revolution hardened all this, I know,
Speaker 1: the parties would put together their slates also Chicago, And
Speaker 1: what do you want on your slate for either party?
Speaker 1: Want a Jew, an Irishman, a Puerto Rican, a Protestant,
Speaker 1: a black?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: And and what do you call that? You call that
Speaker 1: a balanced ticket? Why? It's everybody. You want to have
Speaker 1: everybody joining in the you know, to be part of
Speaker 1: the everybody's got a piece of the action. And that
Speaker 1: was just called ordinary politics. But now we have this ideology,
Speaker 1: as you alluded to that you're you're supposed to think ideologically.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, let's face it, and no, Creasey, you were.
Speaker 1: You took the high road. I mustounded uh, look at
Speaker 1: the idea we must have black dextris is simply a
Speaker 1: proxy for Democratic voters, right, based on the propensity of it,
Speaker 1: And well, and.
Speaker 2: It doesn't and it doesn't necessarily pertain in this case,
Speaker 2: but it often pertains. I was thinking about it when
Speaker 2: you were talking about at large elections versus uh, you know,
Speaker 2: a city council, seizure districts, what what have you the
Speaker 2: Depending on the percentages of minorities in the population in
Speaker 2: any given area and so on, it might be the
Speaker 2: case that having a single person who looks like you
Speaker 2: voted as a minority, voted into office means that that
Speaker 2: person no longer has to take account of other people.
Speaker 2: But more important than that, let's just say you have
Speaker 2: I want to make it simple. You have five districts,
Speaker 2: you have at large elections, or you have five districts
Speaker 2: and roughly twenty two percent of that population is black.
Speaker 2: I'll just say it like that, and then you draw
Speaker 2: districts divided into five, and you draw a really strong
Speaker 2: majority black district, that black representative who's voted in, you know,
Speaker 2: under the assumptions, is one amongst four. The other four
Speaker 2: members don't have to pay any attention to the specific
Speaker 2: needs of the black community, et cetera, et cetera. And
Speaker 2: so it's not always the case that having someone who
Speaker 2: looks like you be voted into office is necessarily the
Speaker 2: best way to see your your district represented, your your
Speaker 2: interests represented, whatever legislative thing we're talking about, is my point.
Speaker 1: Yea.
Speaker 2: And that argument was made in nineteen eighty two. That
Speaker 2: argument was actually made by my old professor Ed Ehler,
Speaker 2: who was on the Rights Commission at the time, and
Speaker 2: the Thurnberg. Anyway, I remember it vividly at the time,
Speaker 2: and of course they lost.
Speaker 1: But yeah, well, and then you know the other part
Speaker 1: of this politically, it's ideologically is the country is not
Speaker 1: what it was seventy years ago. So I think the
Speaker 1: numbers are something like this. I remember reading American Black
Speaker 1: and White, the great book by the Fernstroms, that big doorstop,
Speaker 1: the book that talked about black progress. Really that book
Speaker 1: came out what I think in nineteen ninety eight, so
Speaker 1: it's now pretty old. But one of things that pointed
Speaker 1: out was the numbers are something like this, But in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty they are only like one hundred elected black
Speaker 1: officials in the old Confederate States. Today there are several
Speaker 1: thousand in all levels of government, right, local government, state,
Speaker 1: and so forth. And so, in other words, you might
Speaker 1: say the Voting Rights Act of Civil rights revolution has worked,
Speaker 1: and then you know, you go along with the racial
Speaker 1: attitudes and all the rest of that. And so this
Speaker 1: really is an archaic law, but Democrats are paranoid to
Speaker 1: let it go. But of course they like to throw
Speaker 1: the race card around, so that's also useful to them.
Speaker 1: They think, I think it's maxed out, as they say, but.
Speaker 2: I actually don't think they're capable of thinking any other way.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, go ahead, John Well.
Speaker 3: No, I think that the Steve's point is proven out
Speaker 3: by Shelby County, which is the case that's struck down
Speaker 3: a different section of the Voting Rights Act back in
Speaker 3: I think twenty twelve or twenty fourteen, and exactly the
Speaker 3: same response. This guy's falling blacks will be driven out
Speaker 3: of public office. They'll be terrible things done to black
Speaker 3: voting patterns. Nothing happened as far as I know. I
Speaker 3: think the court said, you know, you look at black
Speaker 3: participation rates in registration and voting, and it's basically the
Speaker 3: same or even higher than whites in the Old South. Now,
Speaker 3: and if the Democrats went in the House this in
Speaker 3: the term election, we're going to have the first black
Speaker 3: Speaker of the House in American history.
Speaker 1: This is not the collapse of.
Speaker 3: Voting rights that the left predicted was going to happen
Speaker 3: after Shelby County.
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh, don't even ruined my whole night.
Speaker 1: Well, let me let me, let me, let me go
Speaker 1: to an ad break so you can collect yourself with
Speaker 1: a cretia.
Speaker 2: I just can't stand that guy.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, Two more questions that I have on
Speaker 1: this voting rights matter. One is, isn't uh the next
Speaker 1: frontier of trying to sort out the corruptions of civil
Speaker 1: rights to attack the disparate impact doctrine and the famous
Speaker 1: Griggs president from the early seventies, right, I mean, for
Speaker 1: listeners who don't know the Griggs case, actually what did
Speaker 1: it say? But it gave us the desparate impact principle,
Speaker 1: which was a there's a statistical disparity between say, the
Speaker 1: percentage of a minority employed in the local workforce and
Speaker 1: their percentage in the local population. It's thought to be
Speaker 1: prime e facient evidence that discrimination may be taking place. Now,
Speaker 1: that standard as a trip wire only lasted about thirty seconds,
Speaker 1: and that became assumed to be proof that discrimination is
Speaker 1: taking place, and that became the cudgel for endless consent,
Speaker 1: decrease changing employment testing, and lots of things like that.
Speaker 1: I will house it that I housing well, I will
Speaker 1: add that I do recall a civil senior civil rights
Speaker 1: enforcement official. This is back in the eighties and talking
Speaker 1: to this official who was saying, yeah, disparate impact as
Speaker 1: fine as a trip wire. But then you have to
Speaker 1: investigate to see, like the fifteenth Amendment says that, as
Speaker 1: we mentioned a moment ago, intentional discrimination, and this person
Speaker 1: said yeah, And investigatings, I found there were companies where
Speaker 1: they were clearly discriminating on a racial basis. And that
Speaker 1: official was EEO seat chairman Blarence Thomas. But the problem
Speaker 1: is this has been corrupted, right badly corrupted as things
Speaker 1: have gone on. So I mean it seems to me
Speaker 1: that you know, Edward Gloom or our friends at the
Speaker 1: phil Hamburger and those Civil Liberties Alliance ought to be
Speaker 1: looking for a case to attack the Griggs case. Does
Speaker 1: that make sense, John, Or is Griggs just unassailable? What
Speaker 1: do you think?
Speaker 3: No? No, I don't think it's unassailable. And you could
Speaker 3: argue that the court right, this is a Burger Court
Speaker 3: precedent when Brennan and Thomps, Brennan and Marshall were still
Speaker 3: kind of in control, and the statute doesn't say that
Speaker 3: you can you just bring impact. And in fact, right,
Speaker 3: I believe that when Title seven was pasted, Hubert Humphrey
Speaker 3: on the floor clawing up and down, this would never happen,
Speaker 3: and that you know Hooper, he was the floor manager
Speaker 3: for the bill. It is surprising, she stev point, I
Speaker 3: had just had thought about it that that president is
Speaker 3: still there and has not been overturned. But I ask you, actually,
Speaker 3: wouldn't conservetives now benefit from disparate impact more? Yes? If
Speaker 3: you right? If you think about like what's going with
Speaker 3: school admissions now after Harvard case, we all knows universities
Speaker 3: are still cheating and emissions and hiring to use to
Speaker 3: favor certain races over others, but they can't prove it
Speaker 3: because they're all doing pretextually now and trying to get
Speaker 3: her of all standards and use just a whole person examination.
Speaker 3: So disparate impact might be actually the benefit conservatives to
Speaker 3: try to sniff out the ways that these institutions are
Speaker 3: still cheating about Harvard and so on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now, John, you are being you're you're being your
Speaker 1: usual mischievous miss uh mischievous self. But well, I'll see
Speaker 1: how this unfolds, because you know, Megan the Cardinal the
Speaker 1: Washington Post says, I keep hearing all these people, especially
Speaker 1: at universities, saying, oh, no, we won't hire any white people.
Speaker 1: You know. It's just a lot of people openly admitted this,
Speaker 1: And Meghan would say to herself and say to them,
Speaker 1: why do you openly confess to breaking the law. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like what, it's amazing, and you know there should be Well, oh,
Speaker 1: I think they don't Actually I think or they don't care.
Speaker 2: I've been in those conversations. I do think that they
Speaker 2: know it. But I get what you're saying. These people
Speaker 2: who who buy the Dei agendas a hook like hook
Speaker 2: line and sinker, I do not believe that there is
Speaker 2: an alternative to it. And so the idea that they
Speaker 2: should cheat in order to continue DEI to them is
Speaker 2: an active esoteric justice, shall we say? Uh? And you
Speaker 2: know I've reported on this before. I've been in meetings
Speaker 2: where they say you have to go through your net
Speaker 2: I D, your log in, your second factor authentication, just
Speaker 2: to see what our policies are in regard to continuing
Speaker 2: to discriminate on the basis of race and on behalf
Speaker 2: of DEI. And so I think they believe it is
Speaker 2: the prime and that's what makes it even harder.
Speaker 1: Yeah. All right, Well, here's my mischievous question back to
Speaker 1: John or also to you Lucretia, either one of you,
Speaker 1: this Devil's advocate question. Is there anything to be said
Speaker 1: about cynical Republican complicity and race based districts? And I'm here,
Speaker 1: I'm casting my mind back to the early nineteen nineties, when,
Speaker 1: of course, after the Jingles case said oh, we've got
Speaker 1: to have some of these race based districts, and Republicans
Speaker 1: after the nineteen ninety census said oh, we're all for this.
Speaker 1: It was Ben Ginsberg, I think, when he was general
Speaker 1: counsel for the RNC and he said, no, we should
Speaker 1: do that because they anticipated, I think correctly, that the
Speaker 1: changing voting patterns of demographics and the rural vote was
Speaker 1: going to shift towards Republicans. And if you packed more
Speaker 1: high propensity Democratic voters, and the most hyperpensity of all
Speaker 1: were black voters into race based districts, that would be
Speaker 1: good for Republicans, and that way well be true. I
Speaker 1: have never gone back to look at things like.
Speaker 3: No, that's yeah, I know, there's like I think people
Speaker 3: wrote about it at the time at New Gingridge right right,
Speaker 3: the NAACP basically in the South had an unholy ALLIANCEACP
Speaker 3: wanted to have more black representatives and Gingrich was happy
Speaker 3: to have all the other districts in the suburbs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they got more Republican and and right, that's another
Speaker 1: variation the bootleggers and Baptist coalition, if you know that story.
Speaker 1: But here's the question, was this unacceptably unprincipled or is
Speaker 1: it just hoisting democrats by their own petard? I could
Speaker 1: see Lucretia you going either way on that question. I
Speaker 1: don't find by the way, I remember, sorry, I remember
Speaker 1: the time people like Terry Eastland and Bill Bennett were
Speaker 1: saying this is a bad idea. We should not be
Speaker 1: for doing this, on on on on the sound.
Speaker 2: Princi gentlemen as always, aren't they Well okay, I mean,
Speaker 2: what are we going to say that Florida shouldn't have
Speaker 2: a partisan gerrymandered their legislative districts in response to Virginia
Speaker 2: or I mean, here's the problem. John has said it
Speaker 2: very well himself that until we play their game better
Speaker 2: than they will, they're never going to stop. So no,
Speaker 2: of course, of course you had individual Republicans. This was
Speaker 2: especially true in California for the longest time. Who who
Speaker 2: you know, in order to preserve their own safe Republican district,
Speaker 2: would you know, vote along with the redistricting plans of
Speaker 2: the Democrats. I mean that happened many, many times, at
Speaker 2: least when I was still there. I don't pay as
Speaker 2: much attention now to you people as I used to
Speaker 2: when I when it affected me. But I I want
Speaker 2: to bring up one other quick point that's related about
Speaker 2: back to universities for a moment, you know anymore, it's
Speaker 2: not the issue so much of having minorities and persons
Speaker 2: of color and LGBTQ and all those other things. It's
Speaker 2: there's too damn many old professors who won't retire. All
Speaker 2: the mandatory retirement laws are gone, and so this is
Speaker 2: causing in and of its self problems because as long
Speaker 2: as you have an old professor like me, and they
Speaker 2: talk about people in their sixties hanging barely hanging on,
Speaker 2: you know, being sane Alzheimer, et cetera, demented, And I
Speaker 2: am preventing some lgbd Q plus plus plus woman of color,
Speaker 2: they them from getting a job in political science. Yeah, yeah, well,
Speaker 2: by the way I feel about that. Sorry. Yeah.
Speaker 1: There is an op ed in the New York Times
Speaker 1: in the last few days by Sam Moyne of ye
Speaker 1: Law School. I think is a very sinister person. He's
Speaker 1: very smart, but he's very evil, I think. And it
Speaker 1: was there's too many old people in academi and elsewhere.
Speaker 1: They need these old baby boomers need to get out
Speaker 1: of the way. Some other time we can talk about him.
Speaker 1: But your point, lucretia, uh, and then we'll move on
Speaker 1: to a new subject after a break. And it's all right,
Speaker 1: I'm doing this a little out of order from what
Speaker 1: I propose. But your point about yeah, being gentlemen by
Speaker 1: the way. I think that's too wrong. About Bill Bennet
Speaker 1: and Terry Eastland thirty years ago. I mean, they wrote
Speaker 1: some of the earliest books about what was wrong with
Speaker 1: the race racket. But okay, and I thought maybe we
Speaker 1: could win in those days by making those arguments, but
Speaker 1: I think experience has shown that the left is impervious
Speaker 1: to those And so yeah, during the Reagan years, I
Speaker 1: would get very frustrated when Reagan people would they say, oh,
Speaker 1: you're you're you're hurting the environment. They say, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we're spending more for this, We're doing the rules for that.
Speaker 1: They're always in defensive crouch posture, accepting the premises of
Speaker 1: the liberals who attack them. And that's happened on civil riots,
Speaker 1: that's happened on welfare programs. Trump has brought an end
Speaker 1: to this. And so I told you I'd skip over
Speaker 1: Lee Zelden, the EPA director, and Rosa de Laurel the
Speaker 1: other day, because it involves that statute. That's the language
Speaker 1: of Mordor to John who was that?
Speaker 2: I thought that was Keith Richards with purple hair.
Speaker 1: The Laurel, you know, she's right out of She's clearly
Speaker 1: wants to be part of the canteena scene in Star Wars.
Speaker 1: So here is if you know, most of our listeners
Speaker 1: may not be on Twitter, but here's Lee's Eldon, head
Speaker 1: of the EPA, who put out a tweet two days ago.
Speaker 1: I'll just read. It's a long one, but I'll just
Speaker 1: give the first two paragraphs theez Eldon. I told Senator
Speaker 1: Sheldon White club today that I won't be listening to
Speaker 1: or caring about any of his lessons on morality, knowing
Speaker 1: that he joined an all white Rhode Island country club. Boom,
Speaker 1: that's me saying boom. Next paragraph. I'm also done with
Speaker 1: the likes of aoc Al Gore, John Kerry and the
Speaker 1: rest of the line ball that made stupid climate predictions.
Speaker 1: I put it stupid like Lucretia does under tens of
Speaker 1: billions of tax dollars, enriched their well connected allies, and
Speaker 1: are committed to strangulating out of existence entire sectors of
Speaker 1: our economy. It goes on from there in that same vein.
Speaker 1: But darn it, this is the way we should have
Speaker 1: been fighting for a long time, and now we're finally
Speaker 1: doing it, and I think it's going to set the
Speaker 1: present move forward.
Speaker 2: You know your it's kind of like why John wins
Speaker 2: every debate with everybody but us not because he knows
Speaker 2: his facts, he knows the law, he knows how to
Speaker 2: bring it.
Speaker 3: And strangely doesn't work on this podcast, strangely because.
Speaker 2: We know the facts and the law and the esotericism.
Speaker 1: All right, let's have a very quick ad break here
Speaker 1: because we have to to make it work with our format,
Speaker 1: and we'll come back in just a moment, So don't
Speaker 1: go away, everybody, all right, time for our lightning round.
Speaker 1: And I looked up at the news this week and thought, gosh,
Speaker 1: it turns out that Anthony Fauci really did need that
Speaker 1: pardon from President Biden. Take it away, Lucretia.
Speaker 2: Well, there's there's there's several aspects to the story, one
Speaker 2: of which is the fact that it's pretty clear that
Speaker 2: Fauci and his minions were responsible, along with the Chinese,
Speaker 2: for producing the virus and accidentally letting it go. They
Speaker 2: tried to hide that through emails, and one of Fauci's
Speaker 2: somebody assistants has been indicted on it. But then there's
Speaker 2: the other side of it, which is the cover up
Speaker 2: within the scientific the federal establishment, scientific community of the
Speaker 2: fact that the vaccine itself can't even call it a vaccine,
Speaker 2: but they did was turning out to be incredibly dangerous
Speaker 2: that there were, you know, that the data were proving
Speaker 2: that people were not just getting all the other things
Speaker 2: we know happened to them, but dying suddenly. And there's
Speaker 2: massive emails now that where they talk about how they're
Speaker 2: not going to put any of these things in emails
Speaker 2: anymore because otherwise they're going to be foyer requests. And
Speaker 2: it's just it's all so despicable when you look at
Speaker 2: the mandates and the crap that came out of the
Speaker 2: disinterred by mouth about you know, the winter and then
Speaker 2: the all you people that are going to make us
Speaker 2: die because you're not getting a vaccine that's going to
Speaker 2: keep us from getting sick from you. You know, none
Speaker 2: of it even made sense, but they shut down every
Speaker 2: possible person who might have any credibility questioning that so
Speaker 2: much so that you know, my my university and I'll
Speaker 2: lightning round, you know, I'll be done. My university was
Speaker 2: led at the time by a man for whom I
Speaker 2: have great respect, world renowned cardiac surgeon. He knew what
Speaker 2: was going on, was BS he absolutely knew. He tried
Speaker 2: to push back at the beginning and then completely folded,
Speaker 2: completely folded, as did the dean of the medical school.
Speaker 2: He said, at the beginning of fall twenty twenty, the
Speaker 2: thing we need to do is let all these students
Speaker 2: come in, have their parties, get as drunk as possible,
Speaker 2: do everything that students do, get over it, and then
Speaker 2: we'll be fine. But instead, of course, you know, we
Speaker 2: went through the jont anyway, so that and I'm going
Speaker 2: to add one last quick thing, and that is the
Speaker 2: whole business that we have also known about about the
Speaker 2: Biden administration's persecution of traditional Christians.
Speaker 1: That didn't right, go ahead, well, I mean yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean we knew during while Biden was in office. We
Speaker 1: knew that they were harassing Catholics and putting got documents saying,
Speaker 1: you know, the Catholic Church is a subversive, extremist organization
Speaker 1: and until the new pope started criticizing Trump and now
Speaker 1: they love them. But the point is now we're getting
Speaker 1: some additional details and I haven't mastered them. But a
Speaker 1: question for John is if there's documentary evidence and maybe
Speaker 1: you could depose some of these people in Justice Department
Speaker 1: that they really did have an animus against certain Christian
Speaker 1: denominations and Christian organizations. Are they vulnerable to any kind
Speaker 1: of civil rights or civil liberties lawsuits, criminal or civil.
Speaker 1: Do you have an opinion? Are you following any of
Speaker 1: this at all?
Speaker 3: John, And I mean I saw the report that was
Speaker 3: issued by the Justice Department this week which suggests that
Speaker 3: the Biden administration just sort of systematically, across multiple cabinet agencies,
Speaker 3: was almost deliberately trampling on the civil you know, the
Speaker 3: right to free exercise of religion, and particularly with against Christians.
Speaker 3: I don't think that they could be prosecuted for it.
Speaker 3: I mean, it is illegal to deprive people of their
Speaker 3: constitutional rights. What they're going to say, I assume is
Speaker 3: that we don't believe that the Constitution requires what you
Speaker 3: think it requires. So we just had a different good
Speaker 3: faith view that the constitutional right to free exercise is
Speaker 3: much narrower than what you think it is. Or it
Speaker 3: might have been that the laws changed in the Supreme
Speaker 3: Courts broad in it. So I think you could kind
Speaker 3: of bring us you could bring to civil I don't
Speaker 3: think criminal work at all. You could bring civil, but
Speaker 3: I think they would be hard to win. Also, generally
Speaker 3: federal officers have immunity from lawsuit for damages options except
Speaker 3: in very narrow circumstances, and so you know, like you
Speaker 3: would have to show that this was a clearly established
Speaker 3: right and that the government. So I think it's really
Speaker 3: hard to win cases like this. So it's called it's
Speaker 3: called Biven's action, is what we call it. I remember
Speaker 3: that's the case where the government, the Supreme War did
Speaker 3: allow lawsuits for against FBI agents for violating your right
Speaker 3: against search and illegal search and seizure. But the court
Speaker 3: has really chipped away of Biden Biven sorry creature, which
Speaker 3: it was called Biden's but in the Bivns case over
Speaker 3: the years to make it really hard to bring these
Speaker 3: kind of cases. So I think the main punishment is
Speaker 3: the political process, you know, oversight hearings and making clear
Speaker 3: who did it and why they did it, and it'll
Speaker 3: have an electoral effect, which I think it did have
Speaker 3: an electoral effect, you know, going for liberty for being right,
Speaker 3: you know, some kind of seditious group and or hate group.
Speaker 3: And I think that's the main remedy of I think fortunately,
Speaker 3: actually I think it's better for it to be a
Speaker 3: political result rather than.
Speaker 1: Right, just one sentence. I would like to see a
Speaker 1: hearing where they're pressed on the question of I'd like
Speaker 1: to hear you explain why you thought it was a
Speaker 1: good faith effort to say you don't like people of faith.
Speaker 1: That would be a good boo opening, Cracia.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I actually heard you're the only other person who
Speaker 2: gets as much FaceTime on legal issues as you on Fox.
Speaker 2: And that's Jonathan Turley today talking about this very thing.
Speaker 2: And one of the things he said was that it's
Speaker 2: really much worse than you're you're hearing because they went
Speaker 2: so far as to do things to say that a
Speaker 2: Christian family who wanted to adopt or foster a child
Speaker 2: that their religious beliefs were per se all problematic because
Speaker 2: they didn't, for instance, embrace transgender rights and all of
Speaker 2: these other things. And I wanted to actually ask John though,
Speaker 2: as I recall, the court has never been quite as
Speaker 2: strong as it should be on the idea that think
Speaker 2: about some of the Colorado cases and the cake Maker.
Speaker 2: I know he won every time, but he didn't win
Speaker 2: any astounding victories. That's how they managed to keep taking
Speaker 2: him back to court. The idea that you would not
Speaker 2: have an absolute free exercise right based upon history and tradition,
Speaker 2: along with the you know, the First Amendment Free exercise
Speaker 2: clause to say I believe that marriage is between a
Speaker 2: man and a woman. I believed X, Y, and Z
Speaker 2: and and in order to practice my faith, if I
Speaker 2: want to adopt a child, this is the way I'm
Speaker 2: going to raise them. And and the state has no
Speaker 2: right to tell me that this other trendy thing that
Speaker 2: they're all in favor of, all of a sudden supersedes
Speaker 2: my First Amendment free exercise rights. Yeah, as clear as
Speaker 2: they should.
Speaker 3: Am I wrong? I agree with the Biden administration to
Speaker 3: I think what their defense is going to be is, well,
Speaker 3: you know there's this case called Smith, right, that's oh,
Speaker 3: the government is allowed to pursue these generally applicable policies
Speaker 3: and they're not targeting religion, so they was I mean,
Speaker 3: I don't. I actually Smith is wrong, and I think eventually,
Speaker 3: of course can overrule it. But Biden's the bite puple say, look,
Speaker 3: we can't be prosecuted, we can't be suitsivilly because we
Speaker 3: understood Smith to mean that this was okay, that you know,
Speaker 3: we weren't singling out religion. We're just saying religious groups,
Speaker 3: you have to follow our transgender policies that we apply
Speaker 3: to everybody, right, Like, that's that's gonna be argument that
Speaker 3: I think the courts would be sympathetic, even though they
Speaker 3: just I think a lot of the judges would disagree
Speaker 3: with the way they went about it because they're gonna
Speaker 3: biden people say we didn't single out religion. We just
Speaker 3: wanted everybody to follow right transgender policy.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, yes, right now, one last issue
Speaker 1: before we have to head to a close. I think
Speaker 1: I am probably guilty of thinking that wokery peaked a
Speaker 1: few years ago and is on the decline, or at
Speaker 1: least on the defensive. And certainly the Trump administration has
Speaker 1: been trying very hard to beat down on DEI and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. But I'm not sure I'm
Speaker 1: right about that if I did say that, And the
Speaker 1: data points just from this week are severalfold. First well,
Speaker 1: first of all, general proposition, A lot of what went
Speaker 1: by WOKERI and defund the police and all the rest
Speaker 1: of that has now transmographied into the anti semitism that's
Speaker 1: overtaken the Democratic Party in a big way. Lead that
Speaker 1: aside for the moment. But this week we've saw a
Speaker 1: New York Times editorial or an op ed article praising
Speaker 1: micro looting. Right, we're back to the you know, no,
Speaker 1: that's what it was, called micro looting. And then there's
Speaker 1: this Hassan Piker guy who's apparently very popular on social media.
Speaker 1: I've paid no attention to him, but he had a
Speaker 1: moment on the New York Times podcast where he set
Speaker 1: some really way out there stuff, equivocating about whether the
Speaker 1: CEO of the United Health deserved to be murdered a
Speaker 1: few months ago. You have this cram plot and that
Speaker 1: we deserve nine to eleven, he said, lots about horrible stuff.
Speaker 1: You have this grand Platner guy in Maine who has
Speaker 1: chased the governor out of the Senate race. The governor
Speaker 1: hand picked really by Chuck Schumer to be a credible
Speaker 1: candidate against Susan Collins, which is probably right, and this
Speaker 1: guy's way out there, we'll just stipulate that. And then
Speaker 1: finally there's the Trump they would be Trump assassin from
Speaker 1: last weekend. And you know, some of these other assassins
Speaker 1: look like they were, you know, kind of wacko people,
Speaker 1: but this guy's manifesto sounds like the talking point of
Speaker 1: every show on MS now and what many Democratic politicians say,
Speaker 1: or even the New York Times columns, right, And I'm
Speaker 1: sitting here thinking, Ah, this, this suggests to me that
Speaker 1: this is so deeply rooted. It's not going to go away,
Speaker 1: but just one term of Trump, it's going to come
Speaker 1: back with a vengeance, especially if you have some wacko
Speaker 1: when the presidential election in twenty twenty eight, which I
Speaker 1: think is the possibility. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think I do think that there's actually a deeper
Speaker 2: issue there. Steve kind of ties it all together, and
Speaker 2: that is that because there is so much Trump arrangement
Speaker 2: syndrome out there, that the left has been more successful
Speaker 2: at reaching so many more people with the complete complicit
Speaker 2: support of the media, that that it is going to
Speaker 2: give wokery a more of a stronghold than it I
Speaker 2: think it would otherwise have. I think the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four election was an indication that the average American is
Speaker 2: way smarter than the average liberal, There's no doubt about that,
Speaker 2: and certainly way smarter than the average progressive in Congress.
Speaker 2: Of God, those people are dumb.
Speaker 3: But anyway, Wait, you thought liberals are just more immoral,
Speaker 3: not dumber.
Speaker 2: Oh god, they've had to be stupid, you know, they'd
Speaker 2: have to be stupid to believe the things that they
Speaker 2: do and to believe everything that the media pushes out
Speaker 2: at them. I mean, just think about the Deloro Zelden
Speaker 2: back and forth. She's been in Congress for how long
Speaker 2: and she doesn't know what the major Supreme Court opinions
Speaker 2: about the administrative state and the powers of Congress and
Speaker 2: all those other things that you know, Lee Zelden could
Speaker 2: just pop off like that and she doesn't even know that.
Speaker 2: She doesn't bother she's not even embarrassed to pretend she
Speaker 2: doesn't know them, you know, I mean, just anyway, So
Speaker 2: I do think, by the way, I the TDS is
Speaker 2: making what you're talking about a much more problematic kind
Speaker 2: of thing, Steve, that's my point.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, well I did think Zelden, who he was fantastic,
Speaker 1: but I thought he had missed one opportunity because she
Speaker 1: was saying, oh, you're like, you're not protecting the environment,
Speaker 1: blah blah. He said, well, I don't have the legal authority. Two.
Speaker 1: I thought the next sent should have been, this is,
Speaker 1: by the way, the people who do have the authority
Speaker 1: to give us that authority. Are you in Congress, We
Speaker 1: could do this if you will pass a statute that
Speaker 1: would have had would have been an embarrassing moment for
Speaker 1: but for another time probably. But what we want to
Speaker 1: do is go to our last quick ad break, and
Speaker 1: then we're going to go to our show clothes with
Speaker 1: a couple of new features. So don't go away, We'll
Speaker 1: be right back, all right, Lucretia, what levity does the
Speaker 1: bee have or us today to letigate our spirits?
Speaker 2: All of these are pertaining, op ed. If we stop
Speaker 2: discriminating based on the color of people's skin, the racists
Speaker 2: will have won. Democrats na inciting violence and say anyone
Speaker 2: who thinks they do must be eliminated by any means necessary. Well,
Speaker 2: now the liberals progressives are applauding the diversity of would
Speaker 2: be Trump's assassins.
Speaker 1: But jeez, back up, by the way the previous one.
Speaker 1: I mean, you must know the story of the time
Speaker 1: Professor Jaffa was in Voidier for a jury and one
Speaker 1: of the lawyers are saying, I see that you're a professor.
Speaker 1: How do you evaluate, say, the expert testimony of a
Speaker 1: psychiatrist and Jaffa's answer was anyone who would believe the
Speaker 1: testimony he've a psychiatrist, ought to have his head examined.
Speaker 3: He was.
Speaker 1: He was dismissed instantly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sorry, it's quite all right. Uh A nice commentary.
Speaker 2: This one is a little bit personal, but very very
Speaker 2: reflective of reality. Lucretia splits commute time between worshiping the
Speaker 2: Lord Jesus Christ and cursing out bad drivers. And I
Speaker 2: cannot tell you how true that is, even having like
Speaker 2: Christian music playing. And then also, you know, especially in
Speaker 2: my town with the old people. Okay, sorry it is
Speaker 2: Is it too late? This is my favorite? Is it
Speaker 2: too late to ask? Who this guy? Jerry mander is
Speaker 2: Ky whispers to Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 1: I saw that that was fun so great.
Speaker 2: Pole Show's majority of Democrats believe Lincoln assassination stage. It's
Speaker 2: so funny, you know. Anyway, I have to failed Assassinationmocrats
Speaker 2: observed customary five minute pause on calling Trump hitler. Okay,
Speaker 2: the last two are a little bit. We didn't even
Speaker 2: talk about this. John didn't accuse us again wrongly of
Speaker 2: being Anglo files or something or you know, Monarka.
Speaker 1: Sorry monarch.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Trump presents King Charles with gift of toothbrush.
Speaker 1: I don't get that.
Speaker 2: Oh have you never seen Austin powers?
Speaker 3: Well I did, but a long time ago.
Speaker 2: I mean that was just the easy answer, Steve. That's nothing,
Speaker 2: I get it.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, yeah, this totally.
Speaker 2: Non political one. But for those of us who travel
Speaker 2: in and out of Austin, not you anymore because you
Speaker 2: have your own car there, John, but architect carefully designs
Speaker 2: airport so rental car center is conveniently located seventy five
Speaker 2: miles away.
Speaker 1: That's yeah, that's right. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Right, Well, always drink your whiskey meat, buy more books
Speaker 3: than Steve. You have a land grant, I mean land
Speaker 3: acknowledgment grant.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I challenged AI to give us a land acknowledgement.
Speaker 1: I wasn't happy with most of the results, but there's
Speaker 1: one that's halfway good. You'll like it, John, as kind
Speaker 1: of a law and econ version of it. So I
Speaker 1: think we can adopt this for a while. We would
Speaker 1: like to acknowledge that this land was once inhabited by
Speaker 1: people who, regrettably for them, did not file the proper paperwork,
Speaker 1: secure enforceable property rights, or develop a sufficiently aggressive zoning strategy.
Speaker 1: Through a series of entirely peaceful, mutually beneficial, and definitely
Speaker 1: not historically contentious transactions, stewardship of this land has been
Speaker 1: transferred to its current, far more efficient custodians. We recognize
Speaker 1: the original inhabitants deep connection to this land, a connection
Speaker 1: we now honor through thoughtfully named subdivisions, artisanal coffee shops
Speaker 1: and interpret plaques place just far enough from luxury parking
Speaker 1: structures to avoid inconvenience. There's more to it, but I
Speaker 1: kind of like I love that one's free. I think
Speaker 1: it's not bad. But to sign off for good, you
Speaker 1: have been listening to the three Whisky Happy Hour dedicated
Speaker 1: to single malts, singular metaphysics, advanced Sydney swinging studies, and
Speaker 1: other nonsense. I will just say, we really would like
Speaker 1: it if you would give us a five star review
Speaker 1: on Apple, iTunes and other places. But you know that
Speaker 1: by now, so I want to say that every other
Speaker 1: week or every third week.
Speaker 5: But that's it for this week, by everybody.
Speaker 1: Ricochet joined the conversation, sh