Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 28, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

50:23

The Biggest Move In A Generation | Ep. 570

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Justice Anthony Kennedy steps down and the world goes insane.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Today's show is now in order.
	I'm not saying that I have inside information on who the president's going to pick or anything like that.
	I'm not saying anything like that.
	I'll give you all the updates on the news and we'll go through what this means.
	The Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, as I have said many times on this program, made up his mind on how to vote based on whether he had his Metamucil that morning.
	He's going to step down.
	I'll explain everything that means in just a second.
	First, I want to remind you that we have a special live stream this coming Monday, July 2nd, 7 p.m.
	Eastern.
	We'll be joined by special guest Jordan Peterson to celebrate Independence Day.
	God King Jeremy Boren will host a new edition of Daily Wire backstage with me, Andrew Klavan, and Michael Knowles to look back on our country's birth and look ahead to its future with the world's most prominent Canadian.
	Subscribers will even be able to write in live questions for us to answer on the air.
	Again, that is Monday, July 2nd, 7 p.m.
	Eastern, 4 p.m.
	Pacific, with Jordan Peterson.
	You can find our special live stream on Facebook and YouTube, so don't miss it.
	And if you haven't heard this already, I will be taking The Ben Shapiro Show live to audiences in Dallas and Phoenix this August.
	You'll be able to see me in person and join an audience Q&A.
	Tickets are going fast.
	Visit dailywire.com slash events to get in those last ticket orders right now.
	Dailywire.com slash events to get your additional seats and info.
	Alrighty, so before we jump in, first, let's talk about life insurance.
	Now, Normally, if you're sitting on the Supreme Court, you stay there until you die.
	Anthony Kennedy, however, did not.
	But we all, at some point, will pass.
	And when we do, it will be a good idea for us to have had life insurance.
	Because 71% of people say they need life insurance.
	The real answer is 100% of people.
	If you have family, if you have people who you'd like to benefit if you die, then Policy Genius is the place to go.
	Because it's the easy way to compare life insurance online.
	You can compare quotes in just five minutes.
	When it is that easy, putting it off becomes a lot harder.
	You can compare quotes while sitting on the couch watching TV or while listening to this podcast.
	So go check it out.
	Policygenius.com.
	They don't just make life insurance easy.
	They also compare disability insurance and renter's insurance and health insurance.
	If you care about it, they can cover it.
	So if you need life insurance, but you've been putting it off, check out Policygenius.
	That's Policygenius.com.
	There's no sales pressure.
	There's zero hassle.
	And it is free.
	Again, there's no reason for you not to have life insurance.
	The fact is that if something should happen to you and you leave your family without any sort of financial recourse, that is your own fault.
	And there's no excuse for it.
	Check out policygenius.com.
	When it's this easy to compare life insurance, no reason to put it off.
	Policygenius.com.
	Okay.
	So, yesterday, after we finished this podcast, Anthony Kennedy stepped down and blew up the world.
	So, I was not expecting Justice Anthony Kennedy to step down from his position on the Supreme Court.
	And the fact is that I think most people were hit by a truck over this.
	Most people in the Trump administration were very surprised by this.
	Maybe President Trump was not, because maybe he'd be having discussions with Justice Kennedy.
	But there are a lot of people who are very surprised by Justice Kennedy stepping down, specifically because most of his legacy is going to be the gay rights stuff, right?
	He was the lead writer in Obergefell, which was the case that suggested that same-sex marriage had to be the law of the land.
	He was socially liberal on issues like abortion.
	He stepped down while Trump was president and there was a Republican Congress.
	And that cut against a lot of the conventional wisdom.
	I, for example, thought that he was going to stick it out until there was a Democrat who was president so that his legacy would be maintained.
	Instead, he decided to step down.
	The reason I think he decided to step down, besides the fact that he's 81 years old, is because I think that he looked at the spate of rulings that the Supreme Court has issued over the last three weeks.
	And what he saw was that there were four votes to overturn a lot of First Amendment protections.
	There have been three major cases in the last couple of weeks in which five to four, the Supreme Court had decided in favor of free speech.
	But if he were to be replaced by somebody from the left, then the left would immediately curtail the right to free speech.
	So, for example, there was a case that I discussed at length yesterday on the podcast, this case in which the Supreme Court decided that you could not be forced to pay into a union for which you did not vote.
	And Anthony Kennedy was on the majority side of that opinion.
	He said that that was a violation of the First Amendment.
	Well, there are four votes to say that the government can force you to pay money to an association like a union that you don't want to pay into.
	Anthony Kennedy probably looked at that and he said, I'm not sure that I want to leave when a Democrat's in office because then there will be five votes in favor of the proposition that the government can force you to pay money to an association that you don't like.
	And then there was a case that came down in the last couple of weeks, in which, for example, it said that it mastered the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, where it said that if you are a religious baker, you do not have to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, but only, this was decided on narrow grounds, only because the regulation in question was badly promulgated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
	There were four votes in that case to basically suggest that any religious baker in the country can be forced, at point of government gun, to cater a same-sex wedding.
	And Anthony Kennedy, even though he's a gay rights advocate, So I think Anthony Kennedy looked at the radical left of the court and he said, I don't want my legacy to be the radical left of the court.
	I'd rather that my legacy be the gay rights legacy.
	okay, if I step down when a Democrat is president, then there will be five votes for the proposition that the government can force any religious person in the country to violate his or her prescriptions when it comes to business.
	So I think Anthony Kennedy looked at the radical left of the court and he said, I don't want my legacy to be the radical left of the court.
	I'd rather that my legacy be the gay rights legacy.
	My guess is that he went to Chief Justice Roberts and he got a guarantee from him that Roberts would become the new swing vote if same-sex marriage were to come back up for reconsideration and Roberts will work to tamp that down.
	The same-sex marriage stuff will stay enshrined in law and his legacy will be enshrined and he'll be fine and he will be able to step down from the court and be replaced by somebody who is more in line with his thinking on First Amendment issues.
	Now all of that is speculation but that is my strong inclination is that that's what happened here.
	In any case, The Kennedy steps down and that of course opens up a slot on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on the Supreme Court because Kennedy has been the swing vote.
	Kennedy has been the guy who makes the decisions in these 5-4 cases.
	He's been the most powerful guy in the country for a long time and that is a testament to the fact that the Supreme Court has become far too powerful in American life.
	You saw an enormous amount of gnashing of teeth and wailing and rending of garments from the left and tremendous excitement from the right at the fact that this seat is now open on the Supreme Court and Trump is going to get to fill it.
	And the reason for that is that the Supreme Court has become entirely too powerful in the structure of American government.
	If you go back and you look at the Federalist Papers, and we go through them every week here on the Ben Shapiro Show, when you go back and you look through the Federalist Papers, what you see is that they thought that the judiciary was going to be a relatively powerless arm of the government, that its job was basically going to be to sit there and say, this is constitutional and this is not, but not on the grounds that they don't like a piece of legislation.
	In fact, the federal constitution didn't even apply to the states.
	So the federal courts, And the Supreme Court in particular, we're supposed to be relatively toothless.
	Now the Supreme Court gets to decide whether everyone in the country is able to obtain an abortion, is able to kill babies.
	The Supreme Court gets to decide whether anyone in the country is able to get married to anybody else.
	The Supreme Court has entirely too much power.
	And that is reflected in all of the focus on the Supreme Court.
	That's because the left has taken the Supreme Court and used it as a tool in order to promulgate its agenda.
	The left sees the Supreme Court as its chief tool in pushing legislation it can't get passed through popular means.
	The reality is the left was pushing same-sex marriage, for example, for years and years, and they weren't getting any place with regard to federal legislation.
	So they went to the courts, and the courts gave them what they wanted, and the same thing was true on abortion.
	Well, because you rely on the courts, when the courts flip to the other side, there's now a lot of power in the hands of the right.
	I'll talk about what that means and what the courts should be doing in just one second.
	First, I want to point out that, you know, Some of us have been dreaming of being on the Supreme Court our entire lives.
	So, Mr. President, if you're listening to this, I would just remind you that when 12-year-old Ben Shapiro was playing at the Israeli Bonds Banquet in 1996, Larry King talked specifically about the dreams of that young man.
	Shapiro is 12 years old.
	He'll be accompanied by his father, David.
	He began training on the violin at age five.
	In addition to the violin, he plays chess, loves baseball, completes in track and field.
	His goal is to become the first Orthodox rabbi to sit on the Supreme Court.
	Meeting of court.
	Court will have to close at three o'clock on Friday.
	So I'm not saying that it's something that I would take.
	I'm not saying it's a job that if it were offered to me, I would take.
	I'm not saying that both Ann Coulter and David Limbaugh said in 2005, when I was still at Harvard Law School, I should be on the Supreme Court.
	I'm not saying that I'm 34 years old and I'd be on the Supreme Court for the next 60 years, Mr. President.
	But if you chose to make that pick, would I turn it down?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I mean, it's not like I'm, I don't know.
	I'm not that enthusiastic about it.
	But OK, in any case, in any case, Mitch McConnell says that the vote is going to come this fall, that this fall there will be a vote on President Trump's replacement justice.
	And you can you can just see the glee on Mitch, on cocaine Mitch's face.
	So Mitch McConnell snorted a full line and then he went into Capitol Hill.
	And this is what Mitch McConnell sounds like when he's very, very excited about something.
	The Senate stands ready to fulfill its constitutional role by offering advice and consent on President Trump's nominee to fill this vacancy.
	We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor this fall.
	OK, that is amped up Mitch McConnell right there.
	That is Mitch McConnell on an 11 on a skeleton.
	He's got that spinal tap.
	He's got that spinal tap volume turned all the way to the top.
	And look, Mitch McConnell deserves a lot of credit for this because it was Mitch McConnell who said, I am not going to move forward on the nomination of Merrick Garland.
	And he stood strong in the face of a lot of press attacks.
	And it's Mitch McConnell who is largely responsible for the fact that there will be two picks for the president of the United States.
	President Trump says he's going to pick from the current list, which makes a lot of sense.
	He has a list of 25 possibilities.
	There are top five that I'm going to explain in just a few minutes here.
	I'm going to go through the people who are being looked at with the most scrutiny, according to Fred Barnes over at the Weekly Standard.
	We'll talk about how a justice should be selected.
	But here is President Trump saying that he's going to pick from the current list.
	Unfortunately, there are those of us who are not on the list, but President Trump says that he will pick from the list that he's got already.
	To replace him, sir.
	Thank you.
	Thanks, everyone.
	Well, we have, obviously, numerous people.
	We have a list of 25 people that I actually had during my election.
	I had to 20, and as you know, I added five a little while ago.
	And President Trump also said last night, he had a big rally last night, and he said that he was honored that Kennedy chose to step down on his watch.
	I'm very honored that he chose to do it during my term in office because he felt confident in me to make the right choice and carry on his great legacy.
	That's why he did it.
	One of the things that's amazing about President Trump, you really have to admire, the man has the devil's luck.
	I mean, there's just no question that he has incredible luck.
	Now, that doesn't mean he doesn't have skill.
	I mean, the president is very skilled at a good many things.
	But he's also damned lucky.
	I mean, the fact is that George W. Bush, in his entire eight-year term in office, got to replace two justices.
	President Obama, in his entire eight-year term in office, got to replace two justices.
	Neither of them swing justices.
	President Trump gets to replace two justices in the first year and a half of his term.
	That's an amazing, amazing thing.
	And one of those is Justice Kennedy, who is a swing justice.
	President Trump was lucky enough to have Jeb Bush to beat up on in the primaries and then get $2 billion of free media coverage.
	He was lucky enough to run against the worst candidate in American history, who was under full FBI investigation.
	And a week before the election, it was revealed that she was under renewed FBI investigation.
	President Trump was lucky enough to be there when Kim Jong-un accidentally blew up his own nuclear mountain.
	And now he is lucky enough to be there.
	When Justice Anthony Kennedy steps down.
	So, you know, Lefty Gomez, famous New York Yankees pitcher, once said, it's better to be lucky than good.
	It's better to be both lucky and good.
	President Trump is definitely lucky, and he certainly has the opportunity to be quite good here.
	Now, how should justices be selected?
	How should we determine which justices should be selected?
	Because the fact is, Republicans have blown opportunity after opportunity on the Supreme Court.
	I may be the only conservative in America who came out against the nomination of Judge Roberts for Chief Justice Roberts.
	Way back when, way back in 2005, when Bush nominated Roberts, I opposed Roberts because I said the man did not have a long track record of textualism and originalism, and he wasn't on record supporting strong textualist positions.
	When it came to controversial cases, and anybody who is not openly conservative, and I don't mean conservative in the sense that they're politically conservative, anybody who is not textualist or originalist, which I'll explain in just a second, those people tend to move to the center relatively quickly.
	And I'll explain why that matters in just a second.
	First, I want to talk a little bit about zip recruiters.
	So your business needs to get better, right?
	You need to recruit a new justice to the Supreme Court.
	So where do you look?
	Well, you could rely on your friends, you could rely on people that you know to recommend somebody for a job, or you could actually canvas the entire country for the best candidates.
	And that's why you need ZipRecruiter.
	ZipRecruiter learns what you are looking for, identifies people with the right experience, and then invites them to apply to your job.
	80% of employers who post a job on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site in just one day.
	And ZipRecruiter doesn't stop there.
	They even spotlight the strongest applications you receive, so you never actually miss a great match.
	The right candidates are out there, and ZipRecruiter is how you find them.
	Businesses of all sizes trust ZipRecruiter for their hiring needs.
	That's why we use ZipRecruiter here at The Daily Wire.
	Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free.
	So go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
	That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
	You can try it out for free.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
	Again, there's a reason that we use it here at the office, and there's no reason For you to waste a lot of time sifting through a bunch of bad resumes when you could have ZipRecruiter basically do it for you.
	ZipRecruiter knew there was a smarter way.
	They built a platform that finds the right job candidates for you.
	Go check them out right now.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	They are the smartest way to hire.
	Again, ZipRecruiter.com.
	And when you use that slash DailyWire, you can try ZipRecruiter for free.
	Okay, so when it comes to selection of justices, here's what you need.
	You need an Open and obvious commitment to originalism and textualism.
	Originalism and textualism are the basic notion that when you read a text, when you read the Constitution of the United States, you're not reading poetry.
	It is not a living document where you get to reinterpret the provisions as you see fit that day.
	That's not what the Constitution was for.
	And you wouldn't interpret any other piece of legislation that way.
	You wouldn't take the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1907 and take that piece of legislation and then say, you know what?
	I think the Sherman Antitrust Act means that gay marriage is now legal, because the document evolves.
	That's not how documents work.
	The whole point of writing something down in a document, the whole point of legislation, is that it is a piece of law promulgated at a particular time, with a particular meaning, in a particular place.
	And if you want to change that meaning, then you can always pass another piece of legislation.
	You can have a constitutional amendment, for example.
	This is why the Constitution has so many amendments, because it needed to be changed in many ways.
	The fact is that the Constitution of the United States does not explicitly prohibit, for example, women from voting.
	But the Supreme Court didn't just go back and reinterpret the Constitution and say, the Constitution now means women can vote.
	There was a constitutional amendment that had to be passed in order so that women could vote because that's how legislation works.
	The way legislation works is that it is the legislature that should be doing the legislating.
	It is the job of judges to look at the text, see what it means, not what they wish it meant, not what they hope it meant, not what they would like it to mean, but what it actually meant at the time that it was written.
	And then they implement that text.
	And again, if you want to change that text, well, that's why you have a legislature.
	That's why you have an elected branch of government.
	The left doesn't believe in this.
	The left believes that reading a text as it is meant to be read is instead an exercise in conservatism.
	It's an exercise in judicial activism to read the Constitution as it was written.
	Now, if that sounds backwards to you, it's because it is.
	It's stupid.
	It's the idea there should be an oligarchy that rules us from above and gets to determine what everything means in their own heads.
	So the latest example of that?
	I mean, the Obergefell decision that Kennedy decided is a great case of this, where Kennedy looked at the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was about preventing discrimination against black people, and said the 14th Amendment to the Constitution mandates that a man can marry a man all across the country.
	Now, maybe you believe that a man should be able to marry a man.
	That's your prerogative.
	Vote for a legislature that says it's fine.
	That's fine.
	But the idea that a judge is going to determine that from a document that was written in 1789 And a Bill of Rights that was promulgated in 1791, and you're going to take that document and reinterpret it to mean whatever you think it ought to mean, that is a fundamental breach of judicial duty.
	And that's why when we look at the judges, what we should be looking at is who is going to implement the Constitution as written.
	That's their job.
	Okay, so how does this play out?
	is for the judge, is for the judiciary, the Supreme Court, to bring back its focus to what it was supposed to do, for the Supreme Court to be just as constrained as it originally was.
	What the left wants the Supreme Court to do is implement leftist values.
	Okay, so how does this play out?
	Well, let's talk about some of the potential nominees that President Trump is considering.
	So according to Fred Barnes over at the Weekly Standard, You figure that all of them will spend probably 30 years on the court barring serious health problems.
	53 on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Amul Fapar, who is 49 on the Sixth Circuit.
	Amy Barrett, who's 46 on the Seventh Circuit.
	Thomas Hardiman, 52 on the Third Circuit.
	And Raymond Kethledge, 51 on the Sixth Circuit.
	So all of these folks are relatively young.
	You figure that all of them will spend probably 30 years on the court barring serious health problems.
	This is why the idea that Trump gets to shape the court for a full generation here is exactly right.
	Now, all of that assumes, of course, that Chief Justice Roberts isn't going to become a Kennedy-like swing vote, which I think is the dubious assumption.
	But it's possible that you may actually have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the first time in legitimately generations.
	So here is what we know about the people who are being discussed.
	Brett Kavanaugh is apparently the frontrunner.
	He is also the person who is the most icy.
	Okay, so I do not think the president should select Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C.
	Circuit Court of Appeals.
	He's a former clerk for Justice Kennedy.
	He was elevated to the federal bench in 2006 after a three-year delay.
	The reason his nomination was delayed was because Democrats were upset over the fact that Kavanaugh used to work for Ken Starr in the office of the Solicitor General, and he had the temerity to say that the Clinton administration targeted Ken Starr.
	So Kavanaugh has been on the court for quite a while.
	He has a long record.
	He's authored about 300 decisions.
	He recently dissented when the circuit decided that a 17-year-old illegal immigrant detainee had a right to an abortion.
	He said that the decision was, quote, based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong.
	He held in 2011 that the Washington, D.C.
	ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement were unconstitutional under the Supreme Court Teller decision, which recognized that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was an individual right.
	All of these are good decisions.
	He also held that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau structure was unconstitutional, which of course is true as well, and holds administrative decision-making to a minimum.
	Here's where it starts to get a little bit dicey.
	Kavanaugh, like Chief Justice Roberts, is known for working across the aisle.
	He is, on the downside apparently, a general believer in Chevron deference.
	Chevron deference is the idea that you have these administrative courts, these administrative law courts, that get to decide your fate, and you can't appeal that directly to the judiciary.
	So, administrative law courts exist in the executive branch.
	There's a whole branch of thought that says Chevron deference is stupid.
	That if something is decided by, for example, the EPA, that is reviewable by a judge because the EPA is not a judicial system, the EPA is a regulatory system.
	Kavanaugh reportedly does not use textualist methods nearly as much as conservatives might wish, and worse, He upheld Obamacare in Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services, as well as 7th Sky v. Holder, in which he may have actually crafted the rationale that Chief Justice Roberts eventually used in calling the Obamacare penalties a tax.
	Remember that Chief Justice Roberts rewrote Obamacare to make it constitutional, suggesting that it was a tax rather than a penalty, and it appears that Kavanaugh may have actually created that rationale.
	I'm not saying that Kavanaugh would certainly be another Chief Justice Roberts, but I think it's more likely he would be another Roberts than another Gorsuch.
	Hey, now, Amul Thapar, he's relatively new to the appellate courts.
	He voted to uphold Ohio's method of legal injection, lethal injection, and in Michigan, government's meetings opening with a Christian prayer.
	He said that's legal as well.
	He's ruled that monetary donations are a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.
	Now, because Thapar's record is relatively thin on the Court of Appeals, he's only appointed in the last year and a half, there's not much to go on with regard to issues like abortion and religious freedom.
	With that said, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School described Thapar as very Scalia-like and very Thomas-like.
	And Thapar has criticized Richard Posner's pragmatism.
	Posner is on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and is a terrible judge.
	He criticized Posner's pragmatism in judicial theory because using pragmatism rather than text would, quote, elevate judges to the position of co-legislator.
	Which is exactly right.
	Judges should not be legislating, they should be interpreting the law as it is written.
	He is a textualist who has praised Scalia himself.
	So, if I have to choose between Thapar and Kavanaugh, I choose Thapar.
	The best of the bunch, it seems to me, is Amy Barrett.
	So, Amy Barrett...
	is on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
	She was a cause celeb, you recall, when Democrats began suggesting that her Catholicism was a bar to her ability to be an objective judge.
	And she was supposedly so Catholic that she was going to use her Catholicism to rule in particular cases.
	She says that life begins at conception.
	She signed a letter from the Beckett Fund criticizing Obamacare's requirement that employers provide contraceptive coverage, calling it a, quote, grave violation of religious freedom.
	Barrett has written in depth on Justice Scalia's originalism.
	She's evidence support for textualism as well.
	She clerked for Scalia.
	So Amy Barrett would just be first rate.
	She's the youngest of the bunch.
	She's a woman.
	And it would drive Democrats up a wall because she's Catholic as well.
	So I think Amy Barrett is my number one choice.
	Now, in just a second, I want to get to the last two possibilities for the Supreme Court, according to Fred Barnes.
	These are the top five that we are going through right here.
	First, I want to talk a little bit about Dollar Shave Club.
	So let's talk about the fact that you look like a schlub.
	Okay, the reason you look like a schlub is because every time you go to the drugstore, you forget to pick up a razor, or you forget to pick up the right soap, and then you run out of it.
	You're in the shower, you look around, there's no soap, or you're about to shave, and you realize that your razor blades are all blunt.
	Well, you don't have to do that, okay?
	Dollar Shave Club makes sure you have everything you need to get ready in the bathroom.
	Any particular product that you want, they've got, right?
	Dollar Shave Club delivers everything you need.
	They've got shampoo, conditioner, body wash, toothpaste, hair gel, even a wipe that leaves your butt feeling tingly clean.
	I am a particular fan of their amber and lavender calming body cleanser.
	It really is phenomenal.
	It is delightful.
	It smells just wonderful and it is calming indeed.
	I mean, you may get the impression from me that I am high energy and a giant stress ball of a human being.
	Well, let me tell you, once I start using that calming body cleanser, I mean, it's zen in there.
	All of Dollar Shave Club's products are made with top-shelf ingredients that won't break your budget, and you will feel the difference.
	So the best way to get started is for five bucks, you can get their Daily Essentials Starter Set.
	It comes with Body Cleanser, One Wipe Charlies, those are the amazing butt wipes, the world-famous Shave Butter, and their best razor, the Six Blade Executive.
	Keep the blades coming for a few bucks more a month.
	Add in shampoo, toothpaste, anything else you need for the bathroom.
	Check it all out at dollarshaveclub.com slash Ben.
	That's dollarshaveclub.com slash Ben.
	Use that slash Ben so that they know that we sent you in to get that special deal.
	Okay, so we have been going through The five judges that President Trump is looking at for the Supreme Court, according to Fred Barnes.
	I'm hearing the same thing from from the folks that I know in the White House, that these are the judges who are being considered.
	So we've already gone through.
	We've already gone through Brett Kavanaugh, of whom I'm deeply skeptical.
	Amul Fopar, who sounds good, but his record's a little bit thin.
	Amy Barrett, who is a who I think is a deep textualist, a deep originalist and would be a very, very solid pick.
	Now we get to Thomas Hardiman.
	So Thomas Hardiman, you recall, was one of the last two.
	It was down to Hardiman and Gorsuch for the last seat.
	I opposed Hardiman.
	I supported Gorsuch.
	Good for me.
	OK, that was right.
	Gorsuch has turned out to be a tremendous justice.
	I'm very skeptical of Thomas Hardiman.
	Leonard Leo, who's one of Trump's chief advisors, has described Hardiman as very much in the mold of Justice Scalia, well-schooled on the doctrines of originalism and textualism.
	But Hardiman has never spoken openly about originalism and textualism, never heard his judicial philosophy.
	So I need to hear his judicial philosophy.
	Now, in some cases, he's done great.
	He stood against a New Jersey law that required showing a justifiable need to allow carrying a handgun publicly.
	He said that violated the Second Amendment.
	In another Second Amendment case, he specifically stated that the threshold question in a Second Amendment challenge is one of scope, adding that the inquiry, quote, reflects an inquiry into text and history.
	So that sounds originalist, but it's still a little bit thin.
	Here's where we get dicey.
	He also ruled that a plaintiff could sue for sex discrimination on the grounds that he was a male treated badly for being effeminate, thus broadening the class of claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
	So Title VII of the Civil Rights Act says you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of sex.
	He broadened that to include you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their perceived effeminacy, which is not the same thing at all.
	The whole point of Title VII is that men can't discriminate against women in employment.
	That was the point of Title VII.
	It's not that you can't discriminate.
	It may be bad, but Title VII doesn't say anything about you made fun of a guy's shirt because you thought that it was pink or something.
	There's nothing in Title VII about that.
	That kind of logic is not textualist or originalist.
	down a fire department's residency requirements, which he termed racially motivated.
	In that particular case, he equated disparity with discrimination by statistical modeling, stating, quote, minority workforce representation that low suggests discrimination.
	That kind of logic is not textualist or originalist.
	If you look at disparity and you immediately jump to it must be discrimination, then I've got a problem with your legal reasoning.
	He also ruled in favor of an illegal immigrant seeking asylum on the grounds that he was targeted by MS-13.
	There was an illegal immigrant who said that he wanted asylum in the United States, and he was refused asylum.
	He said he was being targeted by MS-13 in Honduras, and he was refused asylum because they said, well, the government's supposed to protect you down there.
	Anybody targeted by MS-13 doesn't just get to claim asylum in the United States.
	And Hardiman overruled that.
	He said that this guy got to claim asylum.
	Hardeman is also good friends with President Trump's sister, who sits on the, I believe, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And they are good friends.
	I'm skeptical of Hardeman.
	I don't think that Hardeman would be a strong pick.
	So two out of the four, I think would be great picks.
	Two would not be particularly strong.
	Then we get to Raymond Kethledge.
	So Raymond Kethledge, like Kavanaugh, He's a former Kennedy clerk.
	Unlike Kavanaugh, he's actually expressed his judicial philosophy.
	So in his original confirmation testimony, he said, I would make sure that the values I would be enforcing if I were a judge are not just my values, that I'm not striking something down simply because I don't like it.
	That is a counter-majoritarian aspect of our system of government.
	I would start with the text.
	He also said before the Federalist Society, the quote, the court tries to find the best.
	We don't have a lot in terms of his, in terms of his particular decision-making.
	We do know that in 2016, Keflage slammed the IRS for failing to turn over materials necessary for determining whether they discriminated against conservative groups.
	down by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved.
	Okay, that's sort of definitional originalism.
	We don't have a lot in terms of his particular decision-making.
	We do know that in 2016, Kethledge slammed the IRS for failing to turn over materials necessary for determining whether they discriminated against conservative groups.
	As far as abortion, we don't have much on Kethledge.
	Keflige was the Judiciary Committee counsel for Spencer Abraham when he was a senator, when Abraham was pushing for a federal abortion ban.
	So, here is the bottom line.
	The most outspokenly textualist judges on this list are Barrett and Thapar.
	Barrett by a long shot.
	Kavanaugh has the most red flags.
	Hardiman has red flags too.
	We don't know enough about Keflige at this point from his rulings, but his talk of judicial philosophy is promising.
	Here is the problem.
	Since Justice, since Judge Bork was nominated in the 1980s and and Ted Kennedy, the worst of all Kennedys, came forward and started bashing the hell out of Judge Bork and coined the term Borking him.
	He just went after him and destroyed him on the public stage.
	Since then, there's been a tendency by Republican presidents to nominate people who are stealth candidates, to nominate people who do not have a long, historic record of originalism and textualism.
	And you're not even allowed to ask people tough questions.
	You're not allowed to ask them whether you think that Roe was wrongly decided.
	You see this in judicial hearings all the time, in Supreme Court judicial hearings.
	Somebody will say, well, was Roe wrongly decided?
	And the left uses it as a litmus test.
	If you say Roe was wrongly decided, they won't vote for you.
	Well, the right should have a litmus test, too.
	Of course, Roe versus Wade was wrongly decided.
	It's a garbage case.
	It is one of the worst recent cases in the history of the United States and it inculcates a moral standard that is simply not based in the Constitution.
	There's nothing in the Constitution that grants a right to kill your baby in the womb.
	The founders would have been appalled at such a notion.
	Literally nothing is there.
	They said there's an emanation from a penumbra that ends up... What does that even mean?
	Basically what that means is there are a bunch of justices on the Supreme Court who decided they felt like legalizing abortion that day so they went ahead and they legalized abortion that day.
	It seems to me that you should be able to ask judicial nominees who are going to be sitting on the court for the next 30 years what they think of critical cases, that they should be able to give honest answers to those critical cases.
	But because Democrats have made it such a cause celeb to destroy people over their positions on controversial cases, the easiest way of getting on the court is to be a stealth candidate who's never said anything controversial, and then we never have to ask you about the things you've said that are controversial.
	Here's my recommendation.
	There are 51 United States senators who are Republicans.
	That means that President, and thanks to Harry Reid, which I'll explain in a moment, President Trump does not need 60 votes to get anyone through the Senate.
	So let's ask every question we've got to ask.
	Let's vet these candidates all the way down to the ground.
	We cannot afford to blow this.
	If we get another Justice Souter, if we get another Sandra Day O'Connor, if we get another Anthony Kennedy, If we get another John Paul Stevens, this will have been a massively blown opportunity.
	A massively blown opportunity.
	A historically blown opportunity that will not come around again because there's this sort of ghoulish death watch that happens on the Supreme Court where we sit around waiting for somebody of the other party to die.
	But the Supreme Court needs to be hemmed back into its constitutional role.
	And it's constitutional role is not to implement stuff that I like or stuff that you like.
	It's constitutional role is to read the Constitution and apply the words of the Constitution clearly.
	This is why, for example, if I were going to go off the board here, but still on President Trump's list, I would be going for Senator Mike Lee.
	I think Senator Mike Lee would be the best pick of anybody that's been brought up.
	We know where he stands politically.
	We know where he stands constitutionally.
	I know where he stands constitutionally because I've discussed the Constitution with Senator Lee.
	Senator Lee is a deep textualist, a deep originalist, and you know that he would vote to constrain the federal government's powers when it violates the Constitution of the United States.
	And he would also not use his own political preferences as the guidepost for determining what the law allows.
	So I like the idea of Senator Mike Lee.
	I know people are saying, well, then you won't have that vote in the Senate.
	Are you kidding?
	Utah?
	Yeah, right.
	Utah is going to appoint a Democrat senator to fill Mike Lee's spot.
	No chance.
	So if you want to guarantee that this is a pick that goes through and a pick that votes the way that justices should all be voting, then it should be Mike Lee.
	Mike Lee would be the best pick.
	Of the people on the list, Amy Barrett would be the best pick as far as I am concerned.
	Now in just a second, we're going to talk about the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left.
	I have this right here, this leftist tears tumbler, and it has been refilling non-stop.
	This is the first time in 24 hours that it's not spilling over onto the desk.
	I've literally just left it here, and it's just overflowed.
	And we had to have a plumber come in and everything, and they couldn't stop it.
	The magical leftist tears were just flowing into it.
	I had to drink them hot.
	There was no time to let them cool.
	That's how amazing it was.
	If you want to hear all of that, all you have to do is go over to dailywire.com right now and subscribe.
	$9.99 a month gets you a subscription to dailywire.com.
	That means you get the rest of this show live, the ex-Grooble Michael the Moles show live, Andrew Klavan's show live.
	And it also means that you get to ask us questions in the mailbag.
	I have a mailbag tomorrow.
	It'll be awesome.
	You want to ask those questions?
	Make sure you go over there.
	And with the annual subscription for $99 a year, you get this leftist tears hot or cold Tumblr.
	And as I say, sometimes the tears are so salty and so rich and so sweet at the same time, You could experience that yourself if you just spent the $99 to get the annual subscription.
	Also, please check us out over at YouTube and iTunes.
	Please subscribe and leave us a review.
	We have a Sunday special coming up that's going to be great this week with Adam Carolla stopping by on Sunday, and it's a lot of fun.
	So check that out as well.
	as well, we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So the best part of all of this is how we got here.
	So the way that we got here is that Democrats in 2013 decided they were tired of Republicans filibustering judicial nominees.
	Now the process of filibustering judicial nominees did not start with Republicans.
	It started under George W. Bush.
	It started with Democrats trying to filibuster people like Miguel Estrada, who was nominated to the D.C.
	Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And when it came time for Barack Obama to stack the courts, Republicans, who had enough votes in the Senate to stop him, filibustered.
	So Harry Reid went forward and he said, you know what?
	We need to get rid of the judicial filibuster.
	There will be no more filibuster.
	He used what's called the nuclear option.
	He went to the Senate parliamentarian and got a ruling that suggested that there would be no need for 60 votes to shut down a filibuster.
	Instead, he just got a 51 vote vote.
	Let him do it!
	Why in the world would we care?
	We were trying to protect everybody.
	I mean, do they want a simple majority?
	did it at the time.
	Harry Reid was excited about it at the time.
	Here is Harry Reid.
	He was asked about changing the GOP.
	He was asked about changing the filibuster and whether he was worried that maybe at some point this would turn around and bite him right on the ass.
	And here is what Harry Reid had to say about that.
	Let them do it.
	Why in the world would we care?
	We were trying to protect everybody.
	I mean, do they want simple majority?
	Fine.
	I mean, all these threats about we're going to change the rules more.
	And As Senator Schumer said, what is the choice?
	Continue like we are or have democracy?
	OK, so he said, let him do it.
	If the Republicans ever get in charge, let him do it.
	Oh, yes, indeed.
	Let them do it.
	And Mitch McConnell, cocaine Mitch, right, cocaine Mitch, he said at the time, looking exactly the same, he said at the time, you're going to regret this a lot sooner than you think.
	He looks a little more peaked now because he's done a lot more coke.
	But here is Mitch McConnell saying, Harry Reid, you are going to regret this.
	And Orrin Hatch sitting in the background looking just as alive then as he is now.
	Here is Mitch McConnell.
	If you want to play games, set yet another precedent that you will no doubt come to regret.
	Say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.
	Boom!
	Mitch McConnell, prophet!
	You may regret this a lot sooner than you think.
	Indeed, indeed.
	Harry Reid tweeted this out.
	Harry Reid owned the libs yesterday.
	So Harry Reid tweeted out, Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform.
	It had to be done.
	Harry Reid owning the libs circa 2013.
	Just, just wonderful.
	Just wonderful.
	Here's an entire montage of leftists at the time suggesting how much they love the idea of nuking the filibusters.
	This is 23.
	Democrats and this president are going to war with their enemies finally.
	This is a move Democrats had to make.
	Republicans put them in a position where basically Republicans were saying we are not going to honor the power of the president.
	All this really does is say that the president that we elected to actually run the government gets to run the government.
	Once the majority is blocked all the time on relatively ordinary things, it's not going to tolerate the protection of the minority.
	Ted Cruz is sort of exhibit A for why the Democrats and why Harry Reid did what they had to do.
	What we had in the Senate, which likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body, we had paralysis instead.
	I think the escalated use of the filibuster has more or less made it obsolete.
	On the other hand, the actual history of how the filibuster is used is mostly nasty, ugly, and racist.
	I love it so much.
	They couldn't stand it.
	The filibuster was the worst thing that ever happened.
	It had to be stopped.
	It just had to be stopped.
	Because it was so bad.
	It was so bad.
	And then, they stopped it.
	And guess what?
	Ah yes, I can feel the weight of this right here.
	It grows in my hand, the weight, because the tears are filling up.
	It was here, and just in the last five minutes, it's gone all the way up to here.
	Soon it will overflow.
	President Obama at the time said, we need to eliminate the routine use of the filibuster for judicial nominees, because come on guys, we have to stop this.
	We need, we, it can't, it can't go on.
	It can't go on.
	Probably the one thing that we could change without a constitutional amendment that would make a difference here would be the elimination of the routine use of the filibuster in the Senate.
	Excuse me for saying a little bit of schadenfreude here, but yes, you all deserve this.
	You had it coming.
	But the richest schadenfreude came courtesy of people wailing yesterday.
	Now listen, I understand why people are upset.
	The fact is that when you believe that an institution is dedicated to the promulgation of your political ideology, and then that institution might be hemmed back into its constitutional boundaries, where it won't just declare that gay marriage is the law of the land based on nothing, or it won't just declare that abortion is the law of the land based on nothing.
	When all of that happens, then I understand why you'd be upset, but that's because you were stupid about what you think the Supreme Court should have been doing to begin with.
	This was not the job of the Supreme Court.
	But DNC members, who thought that they were, like, basically, Anthony Kennedy was the last bastion of hope.
	So, this audio broke yesterday of DNC members legitimately wailing after Kennedy announced his retirement, and it is just delicious.
	All the more reason.
	Yeah.
	He just announced this in NBC.
	Oh my god.
	Got it.
	OK, guys, we-- Not that he's done us any good on these recent-- not that he's done us any good on these recent decisions, but he was the one occasionally persuadable.
	Huh?
	Yes.
	Oh no!
	Oh, yes.
	Okay, so, people were going crazy yesterday.
	Tommy Veeder got out of his van and decided, from Pod Save America, folks, he decided to tweet, F U U U U U U U U C K.
	To which I tweeted back to him, Tommy, get back in the truck.
	So Tommy Veeder really doing yeoman's work there.
	It is funny to watch as Tommy Veeder's boss's legacy is peed on like a mattress in Moscow by a Russian prostitute.
	It's pretty astonishing.
	And then the best tweet yesterday was definitely from some rando named Matty K, who tweeted out, literally in tears, haven't felt this hopeless in a long time.
	With Justice Kennedy leaving, we now have two options as Americans.
	Get fitted for your Nazi uniform or report directly to your death camp.
	How do you fight the darkness without light?
	My spark is going out.
	Hashtag SCOTUS.
	Yeah, yeah, that's probably, that's probably what's gonna happen here, is that the constitutional boundaries will be restored, and then we'll make you into a Nazi and put you in a death camp.
	That's not an exaggeration at all, guys.
	Now listen, there are some of us who've been prone to exaggeration about Supreme Court decisions in the past.
	I think my reaction to the Obamacare decision, well, I think I was right about the general reaction, was probably overstated on Twitter, but at least I wasn't saying that we were living in a Nazi death camp, so there's that.
	In any case, the level of leftist ire is insane, and the proposed solutions to stopping this are just as wonderfully delicious.
	So let's get into how the left has decided that they are going to hold up the nomination of Kennedy's replacement.
	So Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, he says that he's begging Republicans now that they should follow their rule.
	What exactly does he think was their rule?
	He thinks that Mitch McConnell said that we shouldn't vote on a judicial nominee in an election year.
	Well, no.
	What Mitch McConnell said is you shouldn't vote on a judicial nominee in a presidential election year.
	Now, I thought that rule was stupid from the beginning.
	I don't think you should vote on a judicial nominee that you don't like if you don't have to.
	Because why would you?
	Why would you vote to confirm a bad justice just because that's the way things are supposed to go?
	That's not the way things are supposed to go.
	This is why the Senate advises and consents.
	They are not mandated to give their consent.
	But Chuck Schumer says, no, no, no.
	I'm going to pretend that what Mitch McConnell actually said is that we can't vote on a justice in any election year at all, midterm, General, we can't, we can't, none!
	There will never be another vote on a judicial nominee.
	Now, somebody remind me, when was Elena Kagan confirmed?
	Oh right, that was in 2010, in a midterm election year.
	Here's Chuck Schumer begging Republicans not to clock him with the tool he gave them back in 2013, along with Harry Reid.
	Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016.
	Not to consider a Supreme Court Justice in an election year.
	Okay, so, yeah, that's not gonna happen.
	So, congratulations to you, Chuck Schumer.
	You handed the baseball bat to the other side, and now you are just begging not to be clocked with it.
	Kamala Harris, she is, of course, the leader of the crazy caucus of the Democratic Party, and she says, it's time to play hardball.
	The only problem is that all they have at this point, as someone observed on Twitter, is a wiffle bat.
	So, good luck with that.
	Here's Kamala Harris saying that somehow, using votes they don't have, in a filibuster process they themselves nuked, they're gonna try to work to stop this.
	Are you guys going to play hardball this time and say, we're not going to let you pass this?
	You're not going to rush this through us in a few months before election day?
	Based on every conversation I've had with my colleagues so far this afternoon, everybody's prepared to play hardball.
	They have no tools.
	There's no way for them to play hardball.
	They don't have the votes.
	It ain't going to happen.
	So Elizabeth Warren.
	She was sending up some serious smoke signals that she was upset about this entire thing.
	In fact, it sounds like she really wants to refight the battle of Little Bighorn here.
	Elizabeth Warren, our Native American senator from Massachusetts, who's not Native American in any way, makes a mockery of Native American background with her claims that she is.
	Here she is explaining that Donald Trump is about to destroy the country wholesale.
	This woman taught at Harvard Law School when I was there.
	She was obnoxious then, she's obnoxious now.
	Donald Trump has the opportunity to remake the Supreme Court for a generation.
	A woman's right to decisions over her own body are at risk.
	Equal rights, equal marriage is also at risk.
	This is the fight of our lives.
	If you want to be in this fight, then now's the time.
	Raise your voice.
	We do not want an extremist judge on the United States Supreme Court.
	Raise your voice as much as you want, Cain.
	You ain't got 51 votes.
	You ain't got a majority.
	So listen, eventually this will all be turned around and there will be a time when Democrats are in power again and we'll suffer the same way the Democrats are now.
	The difference is that Republicans aren't interested in the Supreme Court becoming a tool of their political agenda.
	Republicans just want the Supreme Court to go back to the original text of the Constitution and read the Constitution like any other law would ever be read, like the Bankruptcy Code would be read.
	It is Democrats Who have mandated that the Supreme Court is supposed to read the Constitution as a piece of leftist legislation written in 2017.
	It's absurd.
	And you can see the media response here is so over-the-top and crazy.
	Comedy Central, you know, the place for comedy, they tweeted this out.
	That's literally what they tweeted out.
	So, well done.
	There's so much comedy in there.
	I mean, can't you see the comedy?
	They're so great at comedy, these people.
	And I know Trevor Noah also lost his mind.
	He said, it feels like all hope is dead.
	Yeah, sure.
	All hope is dead for comedy on your show.
	But here's Trevor Noah.
	I know this news is very painful for a lot of people.
	It feels like for the next 30 years, America is going to change in a horrible direction.
	In some ways, it feels like all hope is dead, and nothing can bring it back.
	Or, alternatively, you could get people elected to office who pass the laws that you like.
	Alternatively, you could vote.
	Alternatively, you could stop relying on nine leftists on the Supreme Court to pass your legislative agenda, and you could actually go and have that legislative agenda passed by a bunch of Democrats.
	Or you could whine about it, really loud, and cry and whine.
	You could have Chris Matthews go out there and say, it's time for Democrats to play hardball.
	Yeah, go, Chris Matthews, get up, come out of the show, come in here all angry.
	Oh, I'm so angry.
	Go, Chris Matthews, go!
	It's time for Democrats to play hardball.
	I'm Chris Matthews urging them to do just that.
	It's time to play hardball.
	It's time for me to stop coming out of the show, and I will finally go and buy a comb, because that's how serious I am about this situation.
	The reality is the Supreme Court never should have been this important.
	It is Democrats who made it this important.
	It is leftists who made it this important.
	And now they are reaping what they sow and it is well, well deserved.
	OK, time for some things I like and then time for some things that I hate.
	So the thing that I like today is a book called The Hollow Hope by Gerald Rosenberg.
	OK, there are a lot of people who believe that the Supreme Court is the great Hope for their agenda, that the Supreme Court is going to save them.
	The Supreme Court is going to make the country a better place, that they're going to do justice.
	There's a very famous story about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that he was deciding a particular case, and he was at a dinner party, and he goes out from his dinner party, and he hops in his carriage, and he's about to ride away, and some guy starts running after him, and the guy starts screaming at him, do justice, Mr. Holmes, do justice!
	And Holmes looks back at him and he says, it's not my job to do justice, it's my job to enforce the law.
	Yes, this is correct.
	Historically speaking, for all the talk about how the Supreme Court has radically changed things, people radically overestimate how much the Supreme Court has changed things.
	It is my belief that even if same-sex marriage had not been passed on the federal level by the Supreme Court of the United States, that is the direction that the country was moving anyway.
	It is my belief that even without Brown v. Board of Education, the country would have moved away from segregation.
	In fact, Brown v. Board of Education happens in 1955.
	It takes until 1964 and the Civil Rights Act to forcibly desegregate the South.
	That's the argument that Gerald Rosenberg makes.
	Gerald Rosenberg is not a conservative.
	He's a professor, I believe, at the University of Chicago Law School.
	And he writes a book called The Hollow Hope, Can Courts Bring About Social Change?
	And his real answer is no.
	The courts cannot bring about social change.
	The best that they can do is sort of lag behind and then rubber stamp the direction they think the country is going anyway.
	So the left that wants to use the courts as their tool of social change, the answer is if you want social change, go out and make social change.
	Don't rely on a bunch of non-elected oligarchs who sit there for life to make your agenda happen.
	That's not the job of the Supreme Court.
	It is the job of the Supreme Court to enforce the greatest document ever conceived of by human beings.
	And that, of course, would be the Constitution of the United States.
	OK, time for a couple of things that I hate.
	So Jeffrey Toobin just made an ass of himself on CNN.
	Not a great shot.
	So Jeffrey Toobin is a legal analyst and he is going crazy just like everybody else in the media about how the end of the world is nigh.
	The Democrats have all become that weird guy from the New Yorker cartoons carrying around the placard that says the end is here.
	So here's Jeffrey Toobin doing his the end is here routine with Justice Kennedy gone.
	It will be Mad Max beyond Thunderdome.
	People will be beating each other up.
	It will be massacres in the streets.
	Gay people will be running from crowds armed with pitchforks and torches.
	Abortions will be unavailable for anyone.
	I mean, from his mouth to God's ears.
	Here's what he says about abortion.
	You are going to see 20 states pass laws banning abortion outright.
	Just banning abortion.
	And because they know that there are now going to be five votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
	Okay, so let's be straight about this.
	Roe v. Wade does not mandate that abortion becomes illegal again.
	Roe v. Wade, if it were overturned, simply kicks the issue back to the states where it was from the beginning.
	So if you think abortion is going to be illegal in California, if you think abortion is going to be illegal in New York or Massachusetts, Or a wide variety of other lefty states.
	You're out of your mind.
	It ain't gonna be illegal.
	There might be heavier restrictions in places like Alabama and Mississippi and Texas.
	And those restrictions may conceive of exceptions for life of the mother, for example, which is probably the most common exception.
	But...
	For Jeffrey Toobin to suggest that it's going to be this hellscape where if you want an abortion, you can't get one.
	It's just not true.
	First of all, I wish it were true.
	I wish it were true.
	But how about the left can make its case in public?
	See, here's the thing.
	The left doesn't actually like democracy.
	When the left talks about how much they love democracy and how this is going to impose on our democracy some sort of burden, the reality is they can't get people to vote for their policies, so they want judges to do it for them.
	And when Jeffrey Toobin whines about this, I don't see why Jeffrey Toobin's value set should govern what people in Texas think.
	I don't see why my value set should necessarily govern what people in Massachusetts think.
	I think on the issue of abortion, it's a little bit different because if you consider abortion to be a form of murder, then you actually do require federal legislation on these issues because it is the job of the government to protect life, liberty, and property.
	And under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, there's equal protection of the laws, which in my view should be applied to the unborn as well.
	But with all of that said, there's this weird antipathy toward people voting for issues that Democrats don't want them to vote for.
	So they're all pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but they're anti-pro-choice when it comes to everything else.
	They're anti-choice when it comes to religious bakers.
	They're anti-choice when it comes to whether you should have to join a union or pay a union.
	They're anti-choice when it comes to whether you should be able to vote on issues like abortion in general.
	So they are utterly inconsistent on these issues.
	So, you know, it's it's it's just it's ridiculous.
	But this sort of crisis mentality on the left has been exacerbated.
	I mean, we had we had Maxine Waters talking about violent uprisings, essentially mob justice happening a week ago.
	Imagine how bad things are going to get now.
	I mean, I said to somebody in the White House, I hope your Secret Service protection is great, because I do not trust that there aren't going to be an increased number of nuts who are looking to kill somebody based on the level of and tenor of politics in the modern American state.
	I'm not going to blame that on the media.
	I'll blame the raised temperature on the media, but I'm not going to blame, you know, assassination attempts on the media, but the temperature is just too high for something not to blow.
	That's the direction in which this is moving.
	And now with all of that said, President Trump gave a rally last night, and President Trump's rallies are always basically hour-long comedy routines.
	I don't think that President Trump is really cooling down the rhetoric at all.
	And this is what his fans love about him.
	His biggest fans love the fact that President Trump likes to engage in the same sort of fisticuffs that the left engages in.
	And I understand the tendency of the id to resonate to this stuff.
	So I think this is helping the country move forward in any positive way.
	Probably not.
	Here is Donald Trump going after Joe Crowley, who was just defeated in a primary by Alexandria Sanchez, Asya Sanchez, I can't remember her name, the socialist 28-year-old who's the new face of the Democratic Party.
	He goes after Joe Crowley.
	Here's what he had to say.
	Last night, we had a great evening because we watched that television and we were winning left and right.
	They didn't know what the hell happened.
	And one of my biggest critics, a slovenly man named Joe Crowley, got his ass kicked.
	This slovenly man named Joe Crowley.
	I love that he has to stick his boot on the guy.
	First of all, Crowley was less anti-Trump than the person who replaced him.
	But, you know, is any of this really going to make the country better?
	Not really sure.
	I also do love the blindness of some people to the fact that President Trump is not exactly Captain Civility.
	So President Trump himself says, can you imagine if I said what Maxine Waters said?
	Here's what he said at his rally last night.
	Maxine, she's a beauty.
	I mean, she practically Was telling people the other day to assault.
	Can you imagine if I said the thing she said?
	We demand that he immediately drop out of the race.
	Can you imagine seriously if I said that or?
	Somebody else said that.
	Horrible, what you said.
	I can imagine that, because it happened.
	A lot.
	So while I enjoy President Trump's comedic timing, I am going to remind people that the President of the United States did say things about punching people with whom you disagree.
	Knock the crap out of him.
	I promise you I'll pay your legal fees on June 30th.
	I'd like to punch him in the face.
	Maybe he should have been roughed up.
	Yeah, the President...
	Is not quite Captain Civility.
	So before we before we say that all of this is on the Democrats, I think a lot of it is on the Democrats, but I don't think that it is bringing down the temperature in any real way for the president of the United States to use that kind of language.
	All right.
	So I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	We'll see you here tomorrow.
	Court is hereby adjourned.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Alex Zingaro.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.

▲