All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Oct. 13, 2020 - The Charlie Kirk Show
01:04:55
ACB Confirmation and the Democrats’ Court Packing Scheme
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Unpacking Court Packing Schemes 00:02:03
Thank you for listening to this Podcast 1 production.
Now available on Apple Podcasts, Podcast 1, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcast.
Hey, everybody.
Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, we unpack the Democrats' court packing scheme as well as Amy Coney Barrett's beginning confirmation fight on Capitol Hill.
We go through insight that no one else has and also into the deep history of the U.S. Supreme Court.
If this podcast has impacted you in any way whatsoever, please consider supporting us at charliekirk.com/slash support.
At charliekirk.com/slash support.
It gives you an opportunity to support our program and the work that we are doing to reach young people with truth and American values at charliekirk.com slash support.
Email us your questions at freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to win a signed copy of the MAGA Doctrine, type in Charlie Kirk Show to your podcast provider, hit subscribe and give us a five-star review.
Screenshot it and email it to us at freedom at charliekirk.com.
Important episode in store.
We unpack the court packing tactics of the left and explain Amy Coney Barrett's beginning remarks and her confirmation fight.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Welcome back.
It is a big week for the Republic and a big week for those of us that love liberty and the Constitution.
Right now, as we are doing this show, Amy Coney Barrett is in front of the United States Senate for a confirmation hearing and a confirmation battle.
And already, as predicted, the Democrats have gone out of their way to not yet attack her.
Scalia's Textualist Legacy 00:07:45
They already did that in her prior hearing to become a federal judge, but to attack the entire process, the idea of filling the seats.
Senator Lindsey Graham did a very good job of preempting this attack and rebutting it.
However, before we get into the back and forth of the different senators, which is very important, let's talk about Antonin Scalia.
Antonin Scalia really was one of the most impactful judges in U.S. history, one of the least appreciated.
He was a textualist.
He was an originalist.
He believed that the words that were written in the United States Constitution matter.
Now, Antonin Scalia was confirmed to the United States Supreme Court through the U.S. Senate of a vote of 98 to nothing.
Now, mind you, those were different times.
He was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and swiftly put to the U.S. Senate after a vacancy was opened.
Scalia was kind of a newfound type of Supreme Court justice.
He was not an activist and he was not a constructionist.
And so this is a very important distinction.
A constructionist, a strict constructionist, would believe that you only look at the words of the U.S. Constitution with no reason, no fair reading, and that's a term that Scalia would use.
And it's the words as they say they are.
So Scalia thought this was rubbish and nonsense.
Being a textualist, he argued, would be saying that the First Amendment, of course, applied to speech outside of a government building.
It also applied to the internet.
It applied to mailing a letter.
So, Scalia thought that you must apply the philosophical roots and foundations behind the Bill of Rights and the amendments of the Constitution, not put some sort of reading into it that you want to have some sort of desired policy objective.
But an originalist or a textualist gives a fair reading and a reasonable approach to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Now, constructionists almost went away completely after Scalia.
And Scalia waged a philosophical counterattack against the dominant judicial opinions of the 60s and 70s and early 80s, which were the Warren Court and the Burger Court.
Through those courts, we got Roe versus Wade.
We got a sequence of very, very bad, highly politicized, left-wing, anti-constitutional decisions.
Anthony Scalia was in the vast minority throughout almost all of his career up until his sudden death in, I think, January, February of 2016, right before the presidential election.
Anthony and Scalia argued that the U.S. Constitution was not just the greatest document ever written in the history of the world, but it provided a framework for the decentralization of power.
A question that you should ask a young person in your life is: why are we so free?
Are we free because of a Bill of Rights?
No.
You can go to any banana republic and find a Bill of Rights.
We're free because of the decentralization of power.
The decentralization of power, and Montesquieu talked about this in the formation of the U.S. government, the U.S. Constitution.
He was a French judge, actually.
He talked about checks and balances and the need to be able to have one party being able to hold another party accountable.
The idea of dominating the U.S. government is really hard.
In fact, Scalia argued that we must actually admire the gridlock, that the difficulty of passing legislation is part of the beauty of the United States system.
that it's hard to be able to pass wide-sweeping reforms as you want.
Antonin Scalia was interviewed by Peter Robinson and Uncommon Knowledge from the Hoover Institution.
Listen carefully.
This was back in 2011 or 2012, and he was asked when he came out with his book: Are you optimistic?
Now, mind you, Anthony Scalia had dissented at the time on six major Supreme Court decisions.
Six, things did not look good for the Constitution back in 2011.
Listen to Antonin Scalia's answer.
Listen carefully to his view of the court.
Play tape, play cut 11.
Reading law, quote: Originalism does not always provide an easy answer or even a clear one.
Originalism is not perfect, but it is more certain than any other criterion.
And it is not too late to restore a strong sense of judicial fidelity to text, close quote.
So here's the question: This book, for that matter, your entire career represents a sustained, determined effort at restoration.
Are you optimistic?
How's the process coming?
That's an unfair question.
Especially after last term.
I dissented in the last six cases announced last term.
I don't know.
I don't know that I'm optimistic.
The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.
The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.
Antonin Scalia, you could tell by how he answered, he was being careful.
He didn't want to give a sound bite headline to the activist press back when he was asked that question.
He was not optimistic.
If he would have been optimistic, he would have said it.
Anyone who's optimistic when they're asked that question, they're quick to say, of course, they're optimistic.
Anything but saying you're optimistic means you're something other than that.
And the courts didn't look good under Barack Obama.
Kagan, Sodomayor, were recently confirmed.
Ginsburg had the majority opinion shaping.
Kennedy was still on the court.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were not on the court.
Nine years later, here we are today, where a lawkirk for Scalia is now sitting in front of the United States Senate to give a permanent 5-3 solid constitutional majority for those of us that love the Constitution and appreciate originalism.
Now, mind you, Amy Coney Barrett considers herself to be a student and a follower in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia.
What changed over nine years?
How did we go from Antonin Scalia's pessimism, being the great dissenter?
He was the true dissenter.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was it.
They try to give her that label.
The great dissent always came from Antonin Scalia.
Because Anthony and Scalia believe firmly that you should not use the courts to make America in your image.
That you should not use the courts as some sort of playbox or just some sort of creative paradigm to put forward America how you want it to be done.
It's not what they thought, it's not what he thought the judges should be.
Instead, he said, if you want a certain law to be passed, and that's what Congress is for, what is a judge?
A judge is there to interpret the laws, to analyze whether or not the laws are constitutional, whether or not you have gone outside of the parameters set forth in the framework of the U.S. Constitution.
The Affordable Care Act Debate 00:08:07
And now today, for the first time in my lifetime, in the lifetime of anybody listening, you have a chance to swing the courts back to a constitutional majority.
An opportunity that is only afforded to us thanks to President Donald Trump, President Donald Trump, who has made good on his promise to nominate Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Amy Coney Barrett.
Anthony Scalia was not optimistic nine years ago, but he's smiling down from heaven today, where now he is seeing an opportunity for the courts to go in a direction that will protect individual liberty, that will restrict out-of-control government, freedom of expression, religious liberty.
It happened because conservatives got serious about the courts in 2013 and 2014.
As Mitch McConnell took back the U.S. Senate in 2014, President Donald Trump won in 2016.
Look, you guys have heard me talk about Good Ranchers before.
You guys looking for dinner tonight, dinner tomorrow?
Maybe you're driving from work and you're like, oh, I'm responsible for dinner tonight, or I don't know what I'm going to do.
But what if I told you that there's a website, in a couple clicks, you can get meat delivered straight to your door?
That sounds like nirvana.
It actually sounds like good ranchers.
At goodranchers.com, they love their country.
They think we're the greatest country ever to exist in the history of the world.
That's why we're partnering with them.
And also, the meat is good.
We got a box.
I'm telling you, a massive box delivered to our office.
And the people were excited.
I mean, people were cheering.
They were clapping because we knew meat was here.
And then I said, you take a filet and you take a chicken and you take a filet.
Come back and report to me.
And the Turning Point team and the Charlie Kirk team, they came back and they said, this is American meat the way it should be, delivered to your door, tasty, marbled beef.
In fact, they were doing Instagram stories with their beef.
It was really incredible.
I've never seen anything like it.
And I said, we have to order more.
And that's why we're partnering with goodranchers.com.
Goodranchers.com.
They deliver your favorite meats right to your door.
Perfect for grilling out or dinners at home.
Go to goodranchers.com to view all American beef and chicken packages.
Use the promo code Charlie to save $20 off your purchase.
That's goodranchers.com right now.
Use promo code Charlie, save $20 off for a limited time only.
Goodranchers.com, promo code Charlie.
We are on the road continually trying to get the president re-elected.
So we are bringing this Charlie Kirkshow broadcast to you mobile.
And so we are proud to do that.
And while Amy Coney Barrett continues her hearings, which it really hasn't been much of hearings, it's more been her hearing the complaints of Senate Democrats and the defenses of Senate Republicans.
Let's go to cut one.
Senator Lindsey Graham defends having hearings this close to a presidential election.
Play cut one.
Is that my Democratic colleagues will say this has never been done and they're right in this regard.
Nobody's, I think, has ever been confirmed in election year past July.
The bottom line is Justice Ginsburg, when asked about this several years ago, said that a president serves for four years, not three.
There's nothing unconstitutional about this process.
This is a vacancy that's occurred through a tragic loss of a great woman, and we're going to fill that vacancy with another great woman.
The bottom line here is that the Senate is doing its duty constitutionally.
The Senate is doing its duty constitutionally.
And Senator Lindsey Graham is making the argument that many decent Americans agree with: the U.S. Senate was given to Republicans in 2018, and they advanced their majority because of the courts.
It was the Kavanaugh issue that swung the Senate majority in Republicans' favor, where they were able to win decisive Senate victories in Missouri, in Indiana, in North Dakota, that delivered a victory for Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans to advance their majority to where it is today.
The question is: how far are Senate Democrats willing to go to attack Amy Coney Barrett?
What lengths are they willing to go to?
Well, their opening shot is all about health care, which is politically very smart.
The health care issue is one that Democrats are winning because I think Republicans a lot of times refuse to criticize the corporatist mindset in the medical field in our country, where a lot of hospitals are in very troublesome relationships with pharmaceutical companies and deliverers of medical care.
And patients sometimes end up on the wrong side of that.
Now, the Democrats' policy prescription of this is horrendous.
It's socialized medicine.
It is no price system.
It's one size fits all health care.
However, the Democrats, their opening shot was all about this.
So Amy Klobuchar went on about health care and about Donald Trump getting the Chinese coronavirus, none of which is, by the way, at all relevant whatsoever to the hearing.
And this hearing is supposed to be about Amy Coney Barrett, not about health care.
And they're connecting it through Obamacare, which is a complete and total disaster.
Raised premiums, medical excise tax, individual mandate, and they kind of tie this all together into all of a sudden they think Obamacare is super popular.
Now, mind you, do you notice that whenever Democrats talk about health care, they call it the Affordable Care Act.
They don't call it Obamacare.
Obama went out of his way to call it Obamacare.
He called it on his website in all of the deliberation hearings.
And now that the idea of Obamacare is unpopular, now they call it the Affordable Care Act.
See, we kind of have short memories at times in the conservative community.
We forget how disastrous Obamacare has been for mid-sized hospitals, for middle-class families, expanding the Medicaid roles, over 27 new taxes, raising premiums, making state budgets go bankrupt and broke.
Not to mention doing nothing to actually address the core problem of healthcare in our country.
So in the midst of a financial crisis, back in 2009, when millions of people were out of work, the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression, not because of all of Wall Street's behavior, but also because of bad behavior from Washington and from monetary policy, Barack Obama went out of his way to revolutionize and to bring us on the path to nationalize health care.
Why?
Well, because healthcare, if you are able to have the government take over health care, then you have basically nationalized the entire country.
It's one sixth of the American economy.
It is something that every human being has to deal with at some point.
It is where the most private, most personal decisions are made.
And if you are able to nationalize health care, then you are able to nationalize a country or socialize that country.
Obamacare was hotly debated.
And still to this day, when people know the facts about Obamacare, they believe firmly that it should be repealed in part, in full, with everything except maybe pre-existing conditions.
And the entire issue of pre-existing conditions is one that is completely misrepresented.
So Amy Kolbuchar goes on this long diatribe about Obamacare, about how wonderful it is, but never calls it Obamacare because she knows that term is unpopular in the eyes of the American people.
It has the Affordable Care Act.
You guys have all seen Social Dilemma, Netflix.
Well, maybe not Netflix because they're a pedophile network.
But if you've seen Social Dilemma, which, again, I'm not exactly sure how you square that, they talk about how tech insiders explain how social media is engineered to exploit users' data for profit.
They call it surveillance capitalism.
Look, I'm cool with normal capitalism where I'm willing to participate in the transaction, like every time I go to the store to buy food.
But when my data is being harvested so tech billionaires can get even richer, that's where I draw the line.
Sweden and Surveillance Capitalism 00:06:15
And that's why I put a layer of protection around my data with ExpressVPN.
Every time you use the internet, big tech companies and the surveillance capitalists and the oligarchs, they track your searches, messages, and video history.
But when you run through ExpressVPN, it hides your IP address, which websites can use to personally identify you.
That makes your activity more difficult to trace and sell to advertisers.
ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your internet data to keep you safe from hackers and from prying eyes.
Many VPNs slow down your internet, but not ExpressVPN.
It's incredibly fast and easy to use.
Just one tap of a button and you're protected.
Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S VPN.com slash Charlie.
ExpressVPN.com slash Charlie.
I have an ExpressVPN on right now.
Why don't you?
Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
So Amy Coney Barrett is going through a confirmation fight right now, where mostly it's just senators bloviating about either healthcare, their political preferences, or Republicans defending them.
Senator Ted Cruz said, what speaks the loudest is the dog that doesn't bark.
Let's play cut seven.
Let me observe, as Sherlock Holmes famously observed, that what speaks the loudest is the dog that didn't bark.
Which is, to date, of every Democrat who's spoken, we've heard virtually not a single word about Judge Barrett.
And that's exactly right.
It's all about health care or about their own political preferences.
I think Senator Ben Sasse did a very good job of this on cut eight when he articulated that none of their attacks were about Barrett.
Instead, their opening statements were all about the Chinese coronavirus or about healthcare.
Let's play Cut Eight.
I just want to say, Senator Klobuchar said a number of things about COVID that I agree with.
She cited a bunch of really painful stories in Minnesota, and similar stories could be told from across the country.
I even agree with parts of her criticism of the mismanagement of COVID by Washington, D.C.
I don't know what any of that has to do with what we're here to do today.
And Senator Ted Cruz continued with his remarks after Senator Ben Sasse said this: Democrats' vision of the court is the most undemocratic things we've ever seen.
They want, quote, unelected philosopher kings in black robes with life tenure decreeing policy for 330 million Americans.
Now, a philosopher king is actually a phrase that was first coined by Plato in Plato's Republic, Plato, who was a student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle.
Plato believed firmly that a small, educated group of almost technocratic type individuals should make decisions for the rest of the country or the rest of the citizenry.
These are the Cass-Sunstein types.
These are the Ezekiel Emmanuels.
These are the central planners that think they know how to run your life better than you do.
What's very interesting, and I think Republicans have missed a massive opportunity, we have lived right now in the last seven months through the most awful, immoral, and intentional failure of central planning in the history of our country.
The philosopher kings that the Democrats want to give more power to couldn't even get the virus right.
How are they supposed to get health care right for 330 million people?
Understand, every single policy argument that the Democrats make essentially is based on giving power to an elite ruling class that believe they can make the decisions better than you can.
Healthcare, transportation, technology, firearms, communications, schooling.
They believe that the smaller the group of people with a higher education, the better your life will be, more egalitarian it will be.
We know this is nonsense.
Absolutely nothing the ruling class has said or the experts have said about the Chinese coronavirus has been proven correct.
Death rates, hospitalization rates, whether or not we should open schools, infectious rates.
You go down the gauntlet of issues that the experts have been talking about the last seven months.
They've been wrong about everything.
The one group of people that have been correct are the dissenters.
It's really interesting.
Science has always been about protecting the voice of the minority.
How would Galileo have been treated by these people?
Galileo famously theorized the heliocentric theory of the sun actually being the center of our galaxy, not the earth being the center of our galaxy.
Now, mind you, this was considered to be heretical teaching by many of the people in the scientific community of the Catholic Church.
Galileo was actually tried and imprisoned for his teachings, his scientific discovery on the heliocentric theory of the sun.
Galileo was unapologetic in being contrarian, in showing science.
And the same scientists that warned us that Sweden actually might be onto something, which they have been, Sweden is now the blueprint for the rest of the world.
Thomas Erdnick, reporter for the New York Times, in June said that Sweden is enacting a pariah state.
And last week, he says that Sweden is the model for the rest of the world and they have the scourge under control.
Thomas Erdnick from the New York Times.
What changed?
Science actually trusts science.
Sweden trusted the science.
They didn't just follow the scientists that were supposed to be the ones that had all the answers.
Interpreting the Law Correctly 00:09:01
And so when Senator Ted Cruz says that they want an unelected philosopher king in black robes, they're absolutely correct.
You see, Democrats on the left, they view the courts as instruments to make America in their image.
Now, mind you, an activist or a living constitutional type, they lend themselves to academics, not judges.
There's a big difference.
Academics tend to like the living constitution because they deal in theory, not in practice.
They deal in esoteric ideas, not in tangible dealings of law.
So Anthony and Scalia used to make the argument of there's a difference between academics and judges.
Judges are people that have no bias whatsoever, and they might even make decisions that they know will have negative implications, but that's not what the law warrants.
Whereas an academic will say, how do I make my worldview fit into this tightly worded sentence?
For example, the U.S. Constitution might say that for the provide for the general welfare.
Okay.
Anthony and Scalia will look in time, context, philosophical underpinnings of what does that mean provide for the general welfare.
Anthony and Scalia would say for the basic protection of equal rights under the law.
Where a Democrat or an activist judge would say, provide for the general welfare, they'll say, well, that means that everyone has a right to health care.
And Antonin Scalia would say, the founders and any sort of judge or any sort of republic since then has never said that they want health care to be a human right in that sense.
Where do you find that sort of precedent?
And someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or someone like Breyer or Sodomayora Kagan would say, well, because it says general welfare.
We can make it whatever we want it to be.
That is where the courts have gone wrong in the last 40 years.
And Antonin Scalia, being the voice in the darkness, now through Amy Coney Barrett, is about to have the majority position on the United States Supreme Court, where you don't get to make the laws in your image.
They're not law-making institutions.
They are interpreters of the law.
Article 3 articulates this clearly in the United States Constitution.
And this idea of a living constitution is so unbelievably dangerous for any sort of a society to embrace.
And what we're finally seeing is Republicans standing and fighting on these issues in a very promising way.
Senator Lindsey Graham in cut four also said this is not about persuading each other.
Lindsey Graham basically lays down exactly how this thing is going to go down.
Let's play cut four.
I'm proud of you.
I'm proud of what you've accomplished.
I think you're a great choice by the president.
This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens.
All Republicans will vote yes and all Democrats will vote no.
And that will be the way the breakout of the vote.
He's right.
The only Democrats that might break in his favor might be Joe Manchin, but Joe Manchin's not in an election year, so he's probably a firm no on this process.
Man, I would have loved to have had Joe Manchin and John Tuster be taken out in the 2018 midterms.
And so the Senate Republicans are now going forward to fill this vacancy, which is their constitutional obligation, and it is the moral thing to do.
And John Cornyn, senator from Texas, said, you stand accused of intending to violate your oath before you even take it.
Play TAPA Cut Five.
In the end, a judge's internal compass, her commitment to the rule of law, rather, is the most important constraint upon any sort of judicial willfulness.
But you're being asked to abandon that, judge.
You stand accused of intending to violate your oath before you even take it.
Further, our Democratic colleagues want you to guarantee a result in a case as a quid pro quo for your confirmation.
So you see very clearly the Democrats versus the Republicans.
The Democrats want to use this as political posturing.
And in fact, as I'm watching these confirmation hearings, I'm seeing every Democrat, they have pictures of people that allegedly would lose access to health care if Obamacare were to be struck down.
Let me be very clear.
It's completely irrelevant.
The stories that they might be telling are completely irrelevant to the constitutionality of a law.
This is the difference between radical leftists and activists and constitutional conservatives.
We look at things and say, is it legal?
Is it what the text says?
The Democrats say, well, a lot of people might suffer.
And while that might be a very good argument as to why to pass a different law or public policy, that's not how you're supposed to interpret law.
It's not.
Judges wear black robes for a reason.
Why?
Because they're supposed to be completely dressed down of any prejudice that they enter into, and they're supposed to have an equality and a non-bias and a blindness to bias.
What made the United States Constitution so different is an idea that you could get a fair hearing in our courts.
One of my favorite parts of the U.S. Constitution that is almost never talked about is Article 1, Section 9.
You go to most people in constitutional courses at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and they will not be able to tell you the significance, or even some of them might not be able to recite the actual Article 1, Section 9.
Maybe some of them will.
What is Article 1, Section 9?
That there'll be no titles of nobility given in our country.
I'm paraphrasing.
We'll read the exact text in the next segment.
What's the significance of that?
That bloodline does not matter.
That everyone in our country has equal rights and a fair hearing in front of the court of law.
The U.S. Supreme Court is no different.
That every law must be compared against the U.S. Constitution as whether or not it is constitutional in nature.
It is irrelevant whether or not that law was written by a crony donor, by a K-Street lobbyist, or by a middle-class worker in Sacramento.
In this country, the way it's supposed to be is that the sob stories that the Democrats are parading around are completely irrelevant to the constitutionality of a law.
With the ever-increasing numbers of makes and cars, it could be very confusing.
I don't understand cars.
I'm going to be very honest with you.
Don't understand it.
That's why I love mechanics.
But when I talk to mechanics, I say, my fuse went out.
They say it's not a fuse.
It's a Johnson rod.
I'm like, what's a Johnson rod?
And they say, well, you get one at rockauto.com.
And what's amazing is rockauto.com is like a buffet of options for your car.
You guys know you're paying too much for car parts.
Why would you choose to spend 30 or 50 or 100% more on the exact same auto parts at a chain store or a new car dealership?
I mean, a Delphi FG1456 fuel pump, again, I don't know what that is.
It's all Latin and Greek to me, is less expensive at rockauto.com.
So I want to make sure you guys save money.
That's why we use partners that save people money.
At rockauto.com, chain stores have different price tiers for professional mechanics and do-it-yourselfers.
So rockauto.com is about equality.
Rockauto.com is about good prices.
Rockauto.com is about transparency.
And rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps.
Rockauto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
So if you guys are do-it-yourselfers or you want to save money, go to rockauto.com.
Prices are always reliably low.
Tell them that our show sent you.
It's rockauto.com.
That's rockauto.com.
And again, rockauto.com.
Go to the website right now, rockauto.com.
Okay, I want to go to cut 12, if we can, of Jake Tapper talking to the Biden campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, is that right?
Deputy campaign manager about court packing and flooding the court play tape.
The election, millions of people have already cast their votes.
And you see that the vast majority of people say that they want the person who wins the election on November 3rd to nominate the justice.
That's a poll.
That's not the Constitution.
Senate Math and Court Filling 00:15:43
By trying to, by trying to, that is their con there.
There is the constitutional process of advising consent.
The American people get to have their say by voting for president, by voting for senators.
We are now 23 days from the election.
But it's not unconstitutional.
Millions of votes, millions of votes.
Voters are being denied their constitutional right to have a say in this process.
They elected to do it.
So the Democrats say that if you dare confirm Amy Coney Barrett, we will pack the courts.
They're lying.
They can't and they won't.
Well, I shouldn't say that.
They constitutionally can.
The U.S. Constitution does not specify how many seats there should be on the U.S. Supreme Court.
There is plenty of history to try and they can go back to where there used to be 11 seats on the U.S. Supreme Court and FDR tried to pack the courts unsuccessfully in the 1930s.
And it's been nine ever since.
However, the Democrats cannot make good on that threat.
They can't.
If Democrats win back control of the U.S. Senate, it'll be very narrowly.
In fact, Senate Republicans have such a narrow, Senate Republicans have such a wide margin in Senate terms.
It is easy to say that the Senate Republicans, if they lose the majority, it'll be by one or two seats.
So let's just go through some U.S. Senate math right now.
The U.S. Senate is currently under Republican control, about 53 votes.
That's if you count Murkowski and Collins, they caucus with Republicans.
Whatever.
Fine.
Doug Jones is almost assuredly going to lose in Alabama.
So Tommy Tuberville wins.
You start from a working number of 54.
So there are some very hotly contested races.
I think Tom Tillis is going to win in North Carolina.
Stays at 54.
Colorado, Maine, and Arizona are the three potential biggest pickups for the Senate Democrats, followed by Iowa and Montana.
I'm going to tell you right now, Joni Ernst is going to win in Iowa, and Steve Daines will win in Montana.
That takes those two off the boards, off the board.
Therefore, in order for Chuck Schumer to become Senate majority leader, and that would only get them to 50, so they'd have to take the White House with it, they'd also have to probably flip South Carolina or Texas or Georgia.
Now, Lindsey Graham's in a tough race right now.
Jamie Harrison is raising money like it's going out of style.
He raised $74 million last quarter.
I mean, that's Robert Francis O'Rourke-style numbers.
But let's say that Lindsey Graham holds on with South Carolina.
Even if Republicans lose Maine, Arizona, and Colorado, they are still at 51 votes.
So I would say right now, because of Tom Tillis in North Carolina and Cal Cunningham's, let's just say, interesting news stories that have come out on Cal Cunningham, which are not good at all for him.
I think that the Republicans stay in control of the U.S. Senate.
But let's say that Tom Tillis does lose.
Well, then it goes down to 50.
Then it becomes the tiebreaker as the vice president of the United States.
So the tiebreaker would then be either Mike Pence or Kamala Harris, who would then become the president of the Senate, is their technical term.
They actually have, they're the only person in the entire U.S. Constitution that actually has overlap between two separate branches of government, is the vice president.
Kind of an interesting fun fact.
It's the unicameral idea.
Anyway, so if Democrats win back the U.S. Senate, they will only do so by getting right at 50 votes.
Now, they could get to 51 if they win in Iowa or they win in Montana or they win in South Carolina.
Based on everything that we are analyzing and seeing, that's probably not going to happen.
But let's just say for argument's sake, they get to 51 votes.
That would require a clean sweep.
It would require McSally losing, Collins losing, Corey Gardner losing, Joni Ernst losing, Steve Daines losing.
Whoa, 51 votes.
Well, in 2022, the map is hard for Republicans.
There's a lot of seats to defend, but it's not easy for Democrats to pack the court.
Because of the unusual election in Arizona, if Mark Kelly were to win, which he could win, Martha McSally could win too.
It's going to be a very tight race.
If Mark Kelly were to win in Arizona, he would be seated almost immediately because it's a special election.
And Mark Kelly would be up again in 2022.
So if Mark Kelly were to win as he campaigns as a moderate in Arizona, all of his advertisements are about bringing people together and finding common ground and not disrupting the status quo.
Do you think Mark Kelly, being a newly minted U.S. Senator, is going to be quick to all of a sudden vote for packing the court?
So even if the Senate Democrats were at 51, they immediately go to 50.
And then you're trying to tell me that other at-risk Democrats in Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire are going to be sudden to pack the U.S. Supreme Court alongside Joe Manchin and John Tester.
Here's what I'm getting at here.
The Democrats do not have the votes, and they do not have the wherewithal to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.
They don't.
They are fearful that their indulgence in radicalism will lose them the House of Representatives in 2022.
And Nancy Pelosi will send a memo to Chuck Schumer saying, do not do this.
Because more so than even the Senate casualties of Mark Kelly probably losing in 2022, if he were to win, I want to preface that.
Or Joe Manchin losing eventually in West Virginia, or John Tester losing eventually in Montana or New Hampshire or Colorado and Nevada, all of which are up in 2022.
Nancy Pelosi would almost assuredly lose her House majority in 2022 if they were to pack the courts.
And if Nancy Pelosi was okay with it or voiced support for that.
This is only more evidence of why Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans should confirm Amy Coney Barrett.
They are threatening decent Americans and reasonable Americans saying, we will pack the Supreme Court if you do this.
Try.
Do it.
Show us who you are.
You don't have the votes.
I just went through the map.
It won't happen.
We will flood Washington, D.C.
We will activate our activists.
We will run primary challengers.
We'll do whatever it takes.
The Republican Party will be more unified than ever before.
And when the Republican Party is unified, Democrats always lose.
They try to add seats to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even if they were to win back the Senate, I just went through the math, it would take a clean sweep because we're dealing from a 54-majority.
If you count the flip in Alabama, which is just going to happen, Tubberville's up 18 points in Alabama in a presidential year, Doug Jones is a dead man walking.
Not going to happen.
So that means they have to win Colorado, Maine, Arizona, and pick up either an Iowa or a Montana or a South Carolina.
And that also doesn't factor in maybe John James winning in the great state of Michigan, which can completely change the balance.
And it doesn't count Tom Tillis in North Carolina.
So this idea of the Senate going into Democrat hands, I say to you, Chuck Schumer, you know, in order to pack the courts, you got to control the Senate.
And there is no assuredness, there is no guarantee, I should say, that's a better way to say it, that you are going to control the U.S. Senate coming into 2022, coming into the next cycle, 2021.
Mitch McConnell knows what he's doing.
The more that Amy Coney Barrett is shown on television, the more Republican favorability goes up.
But even if it meant that the Republicans were going to lose the Senate to add a Supreme Court seat, I am always a believer you pick the tough fights and you win the tough fights, regardless of the political cost, because almost always the political reward is more seats and more promise and more votes of approval, I should say, from voters.
Voters give Republicans power.
Voters give Republicans majorities when they do what they say they're going to do and they defend the United States Supreme Court.
Chuck Schumer is blowing smoke here.
He cannot and will not pack the U.S. Supreme Court.
The math isn't there.
And if he does, Pelosi will lose her majority and he would lose whatever majority he has.
And the only way they would do this too is if Joe Biden wins in a convincing landslide.
Very unlikely.
It is always the right time to do the right thing.
And for Senate Republicans that are fighting right now to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, it is the right fight at the right time.
Let's go to cut 16.
Joe Biden was asked again about court packing.
It's like the activist media has actually found a question they enjoy asking.
Play Tate.
Sir, I've got to ask you about packing the courts.
And I know that you said yesterday you aren't going to answer the question until after the election.
But this is the number one thing that I've been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.
Well, you've been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don't want me continuing to talk about what they're doing to the court right now.
Well, sir, don't the voters deserve to know?
No, they don't.
I'm not going to play his game.
He'd love me to talk about, and I've already said something on PACOPA.
He'd love that to be the discussion instead of what he's doing now.
He's about to make a pick in the middle of an election.
First time it's ever been done.
First time in history it's ever been done.
No, they don't deserve to know.
I'm going to send out a tweet right now that says Donald Trump and Joe Biden should find some way to debate again before the election.
I really believe that.
It is very needed.
Joe Biden has intentionally dodged this question.
And mind you, did you notice what happened there?
This is Joe Biden's contempt for the American people.
Scranton Joe.
Everyone loves Joe, right?
As soon as he finds a question he doesn't like, if you listen to that sound very carefully, he attacks the questioner.
I'm hearing from a lot of viewers that they're worried about packing the court.
Well, those people must be Republicans.
You don't know that, Joe.
They could just be normal people that are worried that you might back the U.S. Supreme Court.
And yeah, what if they are Republicans, Joe?
You are running ads trying to get Republicans to go vote for you.
You have John Kasich in your advertisements.
You have Cindy McCain in your advertisements.
You have several former Republicans trying to go vote for you.
And yet you're the one, Republicans.
Well, yeah, that's actually kind of a big deal to conservatives: whether or not you're going to add seats to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Joe Biden has been asked about this repeatedly.
Joe Biden has been put on the spot and he refuses to answer.
It's kind of the new equivalent of the Nancy Pelosi deal.
Nancy Pelosi taught when she was talking about Obamacare.
She said, we must pass Obamacare to find out what's in it.
Well, now we must elect Joe Biden to find out what he's going to do.
Can you believe millions of people are voting for this guy?
Can you believe that millions of people are voting for a power-hungry, ladder-climbing socialist co-running alongside a person that will not tell you whether or not they'll pack the U.S. Supreme Court?
And today, I don't know if we have sounded this.
Joe Biden couldn't remember Mitt Romney's name.
He called him the Mormon who was governor.
Now, mind you, that doesn't necessarily narrow it down.
It very well, it could have been not just Mitt Romney.
It could have also been other former governors of Utah, John Huntsman.
Was it John Huntsman?
Do you run against John Huntsman, Joe Biden?
Because he's a former Mormon governor.
Or maybe he met Jeff Flake.
Jeff Flake is a Mormon.
He's not a governor.
So Joe Biden's got to be more specific.
And it's from Arizona.
Let's play tape of Joe Biden having another senior moment.
Play tape.
You may remember, I got in trouble when we were running against the senator who was a Mormon, the governor, okay?
And I took him on.
The Mormon.
Yeah, that guy.
That's what he thinks of him.
He doesn't think of him as anything else.
My gosh, he's right now.
Millions of people are voting for Joe Biden.
He's the crumbling republic that we live in.
Let's get to cut 14.
Josh Hawley, Republican senator from Missouri, who has been phenomenal, by the way.
I'm a huge Josh Hawley fan.
This guy is the future of the Republican Party.
He gets it.
And quite honestly, I've been very surprised.
He was always described to me as kind of a moderate corporate type, and he's been the exact opposite.
He's been a grassroots conservative, so articulate, and he loves the tough fights.
So let's play clip 14, Josh Hawley from Missouri.
Bedrock principle of American liberty is now under attack.
That is what is at stake when we read these stories attacking Judge Barrett for her faith.
That is what is at stake when my Democratic colleagues repeatedly questioned Judge Barrett and many other judicial nominees about their religious beliefs, about their religious membership, about their religious practices, about their family beliefs and practices.
That is an attempt to bring back the days of the religious test.
That is an attempt to bring back the veto power of the powerful over the religious beliefs and sincerely held convictions of the American people.
And that is what is at stake in this confirmation hearing.
So I think it would be helpful if we get, we'll pull tape of Diane Feinstein attacking Amy Coney Barrett.
Because a lot of these senators are kind of just dancing around what was the pre-existing attack on this nominee's faith back when she wanted to become, when she was becoming a federal judge.
Almost every senator is mentioning it.
And Diane Feinstein, who, of course, might have been driven to the confirmation hearing this morning by her Chinese agent, Driver of 20 years, went out of her way to attack Amy Coney Barrett for her Catholic beliefs and her Catholic faith.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is that really his name is White House?
I just thought it was something different.
Sheldon, Senator Sheldon, okay?
Is he from Rhode Island or he's from, yeah, he's from Rhode Island.
This guy's a real piece of work.
He has made it his career to attack anyone that wants constitutionals, constitutionalists, or textualists on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Play cut 13.
God-Given Rights Explained 00:03:47
Going the ACA.
The senior senator from Texas introduced in committee the circuit court judge who wrote the decision on appeal, striking down the ACA.
Senator Cornyn has filed brief after brief arguing for striking down the ACA.
He led the failed Senate charge to repeal the ACA in 2017.
He said, I've introduced and co-sponsored 27 bills to repeal all, to repeal or defund Obamacare and have voted to do so at every opportunity.
And now, talking about socialized medicine, the old Republican battle cry against Medicare, Senator Cornyn and all of our colleagues on this committee are pushing to get this nominee on.
So their entire line of argumentation is all about health care.
It's all that Republicans want to take your health care away, Republicans want to take your health care away.
And I just get exhausted by this argument.
It's not a proper role of government to administer you health care.
It's not a popular argument.
It's not one that Republicans like making, but quite honestly, it's not the role of government to give you free stuff.
It isn't.
Allow markets to do that.
Now, with that being said, Republicans should challenge corporate interests more to be able to make it easier for you to be able to get market-based health care, price transparency, challenging the pharmaceutical lobbies, favored nation clauses.
All those things I think are perfectly good uses of time, and some of those can be done on a bipartisan consensus.
But to all of a sudden say that Republicans want to take your health care away, well, maybe they're just challenging the idea of what is a right?
Is healthcare a right?
And you might be listening.
It's like, yeah, healthcare is a right.
No, it's not.
A right is not something that can be given to you.
It's not.
A right is what you have naturally, because rights are given to you by God, not by government.
You have a right to speech.
You have a right to assembly, a right to consciousness, a right to property, a right to self-defense, a right not to be accused of something falsely without the ability and the capacity to defend yourself, the right of due process.
The Ninth Amendment, which is the most forgotten amendment.
The Ninth Amendment is that there are rights that are given to you naturally that are not always articulated in the U.S. Constitution.
It's actually the forgotten amendment, but one of the most important amendments that basically says there's all sorts of other God-given rights that we weren't able to cover in this document.
Meaning, the Founding Fathers were not arguing that they had an exhaustive list in the Ninth Amendment.
The 10th Amendment, that all rights that are not that are not specified in the U.S. Constitution, are given to the people or the states, the states of the people.
The question is: where do rights come from?
John Locke made the argument that our rights were given to us by God.
His treatise on who we are in the state of nature was transformational.
So there are three social contract theorists, and every single human being that votes in our presidential election should be able to tell you the three social contract theories, who they are, why they thought what they did.
Now, mind you, I would venture a guess less than 1% of 1% would be able to tell you the three social contracts, three solar contract theories.
What's the significance of it?
There's Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke.
Without getting too deep into the philosophy of it, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke disagreed completely as to where rights come from, therefore, what is the proper role of government.
Thomas Hobbes believed that human beings were awful in the state of nature, that life was nasty, brutish, and short, and therefore he argued for a very big government to take care of people.
Dogma Lives Loudly 00:05:25
We have lived through in the last nine months the greatest erosion and the greatest attack of our natural rights, God-given liberties, and freedoms in the history of our country, and we let it happen.
They closed down our churches, our schools, our gyms, our gatherings, kept weed stores open, liquor stores open.
BLM Incorporated could march through the streets, yet Christians weren't allowed to celebrate Easter.
And that's really what's at the heart of this.
It's an attack on faith.
And Diane Feinstein has attacked Amy Coney Barrett previously for having dogmatic beliefs.
Let's go back in the time machine and play Dianne Feinstein attacking Amy Coney Barrett.
Play tape.
When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.
And that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.
The dogma lives loudly within you.
Now, mind you, they never attack Catholic Democrats.
Do you ever notice that?
Do you notice that they don't go to Joe Biden and say the dogma lives loudly in you now?
Whether or not Joe Biden's actually a Catholic, I don't actually decide that because I'm not a Catholic, so I'm not a Catholic referee.
So I'll let you guys sort that out.
However, I do have my question.
I do have my concerns about a guy that believes in post-birth abortion, keeping borders wide open, taking wealth forcibly away from people, perfectly okay with rioting, looting, and arson, calling yourself a Catholic, but I'm not exactly well-versed in the Second Vatican.
Not exactly my strike zone.
But I will say this: that Dianne Feinstein attacking Amy Coney Barrett on her deeply held Catholic beliefs is reprehensible, but it's predictable.
And the Democrats, I think, are trying to be disciplined here in this hearing.
And as we are watching this very long hearing, it's really not even a hearing.
It's only a hearing for one person.
It's Amy Coney Barrett listening to all of them.
It's these senators bloviating, getting their television time.
And again, these Republican senators, God bless them, I think, are doing a great job.
These Democrats are fear-mongering endlessly.
But here's exactly what's going to happen this week: they are going to put Amy Coney Barrett on the stand, specifically on the issue of Roe versus Wade and healthcare.
Those are the two big things.
And there will be a third: firearms.
They are going to put her on the stand on firearms.
They're going to try to say, Do you think firearms or the ownership of firearms is a constitutionally guaranteed or protected right?
And she's super smart.
I mean, she's brilliant, beyond brilliant.
She was rated by the American Bar Association with a very high standard and rating.
She will be phenomenal.
And I think the more that we hear from Amy Coney Barrett, the better.
I mean, poor Amy Coney Barrett, here's the tragedy.
She has to sit wearing that mask all day long, listening to Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar.
She should be confirmed just for that.
Could you imagine sitting in a U.S. Senate court hearing wearing, I mean, could they have given her a bigger mask?
She looks like a bond villain.
And I love it.
I mean, she's phenomenal.
We can get a picture up of it.
I mean, on the live stream here, I think she's terrific.
I just think that it's punishment to make her.
And here's, I mean, this is just ridiculous.
I'm going to say this.
I'm going to get in trouble.
I don't care.
She was probably tested.
Why do they test her and make her sit wearing a mask all day long and she's 96 feet away from people?
I know why, because they want you to be scared.
They want you to be scared.
And I'm not saying the virus is not a real thing.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't take proper precautions if you're at the at-risk category.
I know better than anyone else that you can have real casualty and real tragedy at the hands of this virus.
But I also will not defend foolishness.
So whoever's in charge of this whole thing, where you have to wear the Batman mask and sit 95 feet away from each other.
And by the way, on top of that, you have to listen to Senator Harris all day long while she doesn't have to wear a mask and she gets the Skype and zoom in.
So Senator Harris isn't wearing a mask while she's asking the questions.
Or you say, well, she's Skyping and zooming in.
Well, then why couldn't they have Amy Coney Barrett do that?
Anyway, I just think it's silly.
Mike Lee from Utah made some great points.
He's the first one to raise the point.
He was the first one to raise the point about separation of powers.
We take this for granted in our country.
We do.
Separation of powers is kind of the brilliance of the American system.
It really is.
Three branches of government.
Almost every European system, when I visit Europe, explaining the three branches of government is very difficult because for them, the chief executive is an adjunct of the legislative.
Meaning the chief executive, if they don't like the chief executive in the legislative branch, they just do a vote of no confidence and they remove them.
It's that simple.
There is no disagreement between the executive and legislative.
There is at times that if they don't like them, they'll just call a no-confidence vote and they're gone.
This idea that every branch is co-equal, however, exists together for the same purpose.
Freedom Requires Restraint 00:06:08
Where do you think they got that idea from?
Where do you think the idea of a triune executive comes from?
Well, originally, it came from the Old Testament, in the book of Isaiah, where God is the lawgiver, the law interpreter, and the law, you could say, implementer.
When Israel lived for 400 years without a standing army or a police force, they did it because everyone knew the law.
And that idea of the American system of government eventually originally came from there.
It was articulated through Aristotle, who conjectured it.
Cicero really laid it out really well.
Cicero, one-year Roman Council, right before the fall of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire, and eventually Montesquieu.
And Mike Lee articulated this better than I think anyone else.
And by the way, congratulations, Mike Lee, for overcoming the Chinese coronavirus.
It's a very good thing.
For months, we have been warning that these lockdowns that we have been enforcing across the country are not just draconian, they are dreadful.
They are harmful to the backbone and the spirit of humanity.
The World Health Organization now has come out and said the Chinese coronavirus lockdowns are against public health, as if it's a matter of fact, by the way.
You understand how evil this whole thing is, right?
How immoral this entire exercise has been.
Dr. David Nabarro said this.
We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means to control the virus.
Hold on a second.
Since when?
You have allowed the entire Western world to shut itself down.
100 million people are going to go back into poverty because of food supply chains and energy supply chains being completely disrupted.
100 million people are going to go back into poverty on the planet because of lockdowns.
And you said, the only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, and rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted.
But by and large, we'd rather not do it.
Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people a lot awful poor.
He's wrong.
It has more than one consequence.
It's not just making poor people poorer.
It's the depression, the suicide, the alcoholism, the social isolation, the childhoods that are robbed.
Do you know that there are schools, there are parks that are not allowing children to play with each other?
If we would have said a year ago that we are not going to allow kids to play with each other, we would have called DCFS, the Department of Child Family Services.
The World Health Organization comes through and says the last thing any country needs is to continue to be shut down.
Oh, really?
We shut down our country the last nine months, which will go down as the worst mistake in the history of our country in the Western world.
150,000 small businesses have gone under and they will never recover.
Families are on the verge of bankruptcy.
The entire economic landscape will be permanently disrupted for a generation.
We will lose more people, young people, to suicide than the Chinese coronavirus.
And yet we are convinced, we've convinced ourselves that staying at home, sheltering in place, not trying to develop therapeutics or better means of dealing with the virus instead of running away in this idea of safetyism, sacrificing liberty, sacrificing responsibility, sacrificing humanity.
And I have learned something, and Dennis Prager convinced me of this, and I would have disagreed with him five years ago.
Human beings don't want to be free.
They don't.
It's a tough thing for those of us that are conservatives to recognize and realize.
Human beings want to be taken care of.
Freedom is difficult.
If you have freedom with no moral backing, if you have freedom with no virtue, then that just becomes indulgence.
And eventually people want out of the indulgence by being taken care of.
If you do not have self-control, when you have abundance, the country will shatter within a generation.
Think about it.
You have a smartphone or a supercomputer in your right-hand pocket.
You can order anything you want in any period of time.
It'll be delivered to you in a moment's notice.
And if you do not have the proper restraints, you will not be free.
And that is why written in the halls of Harvard Law School, it says the law is the wise restraints that keep men free.
Think about that.
It's paradoxical.
Restraints keeping you free?
We're taught the exact opposite in modern indulgence culture.
We're taught that you're free if you don't have restraints.
You're free when you can do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it.
But the biblical principle remains true today as it did when Harvard Law School was founded, that you are actually free when you have self-control.
They're actually free when you put restraints on yourself.
Freedom comes from sometimes not doing something.
Freedom actually comes from freedom from addiction, freedom from certain possession of bad material or bad behavior.
And yet, in the last nine months, we have convinced ourselves that we can micromanage and centralize all of humanity because we want to keep people safe.
They were lying to you and us when they said they could keep us safe.
And President Trump was always on the right side of this.
He wanted to reopen the economy.
Remember, after 10 days, he said, we can't let the disease be worse than the cure.
Let's go.
Or the cure worse than the disease.
Yet today, as we do this broadcast, California and New York are still locked down primarily with indoor dining, schools barely reopening because they value power and control, and the citizenry is allowing it to happen because liberty is difficult.
Liberty is hard.
It requires responsibility.
It requires maturity.
It requires morality and virtue.
What a great episode that was, everybody.
Trump vs. The Disease 00:00:35
If you guys want to get involved with Turning Point USA, where we play offense with a sense of urgency to win America's culture war, where we strive every day to make our kids love America again, go to tpusa.com, tpusa.com.
Turningpoint USA is fighting for freedom across the country.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you guys want to win a signed copy of the MAGA doctrine, type in Charlie Kirk, show to your podcast provider.
Hit subscribe, screenshot, and email it to us at freedom at charliekirk.com.
And finally, please consider supporting us at charliekirk.com/slash support.
Thanks so much, everybody.
God bless.
Talk to you soon.
Export Selection