BREAKING: SCOTUS Deals Devastating Blow to New York Gun Grabbers
To kick off the day, Charlie dives into the breaking story of the Supreme Court striking down the unlawful New York gun legislation, which would have required citizens to show “proper cause” to conceal carry. Charlie is joined by Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute, to discuss the long term effects of this 6-3 SCOTUS ruling, as well as other significant cases that are going on right now. Charlie walks through the dramatic shift that has happened in the Supreme Court over the last ten years, the key players that made it happen, and what to expect in the next ten years.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Supreme Court Religious Liberty Victory00:15:27
Hey everybody, Tana Charlie Kirk Show breaking Supreme Court Strikes Down New York concealed carry restrictions.
Kelly Shackelford joins us to break down what it means, including another victory he enjoyed earlier this week in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that is great for religious liberty.
And then we are also going through in great detail.
How do we get here?
10 years of fighting and actually a victory.
It's amazing.
Freedom at charliekirk.com is my email.
I read all the emails personally.
I love hearing from you.
Support the Charlie Kirk Show at CharlieKirk.com slash support.
Get involved with Turning PointUSA Today at tpusa.com.
Start a high school chapter, start a college chapter right now at tpusa.com, and come to our student action summit in Tampa, Florida.
We have Greg Gutfeld, we have Kayleigh McEnaney.
Turning Point Action is also hosting Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump.
It's going to be amazing.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
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 is 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.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
Breaking news today: the United States Supreme Court has a landmark decision, one that will live for quite a long time, God willing.
The Supreme Court strikes down New York's gun-carrying restrictions.
The Second Amendment applies outside of the home, the court says, a 6-3 decision.
It is the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin.
The Supreme Court has officially struck down a New York gun control law that required people to show proper cause to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside of the home.
Marbury versus Madison was a landmark Supreme Court decision that established the principle of judicial review.
The idea of judicial review is essential to a constitutional republic.
An independent judiciary must be able to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution.
It set the precedent, of course, by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was not the first Chief Justice, but he was one that most people reference as the first because he's the best known, because of the precedent of judicial review.
Now, we do not like judicial activism here on this program.
We believe the Warren Court and the Burger Court acted with judicial activism in the 60s and 70s.
But throughout the last couple of years and decades, conservatives and constitutionalists have been taking the issue of the courts more and more seriously.
And now, finally, we are seeing the fruit of those fights come to bear.
Someone who actually just won a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, we're going to ask him about that.
And also about this amazing victory, Kelly Shackelford from the wonderful firstliberty.org.
Kelly, welcome back to the program.
Happy to be on, Charlie.
Kelly, tell us about the significance of this decision today when it comes to the Second Amendment.
It's huge.
This has been a battle for a long time.
Most of you probably don't remember, but for many, many decades, we really had no decisions on the Second Amendment.
And it was only in recent years that we had that.
But since that, we really haven't had a lot of development of that.
But one of the things that Justice Thomas has been saying over and over again, even when they've not taken cases, he'll a denial of cert, he'll put a comment in, which is very rare in a denial of cert.
Normally, I just say cert denied, you know, seven, eight thousand times a year.
The point he's made over and over is, why are you treating this right, this individual right, differently and like it's some sort of second class constitutional right?
You know, you do things to Second Amendment rights of individuals that you don't do to like First Amendment rights of individuals.
And this is a great example of that.
I mean, think of what they're doing here, Charlie.
The government is telling citizens, you have to show, give us a proper cause why you can carry a concealed firearm.
You have to prove why you get the right versus like, I mean, can you imagine that if they did that with free speech?
Well, you can speak, but you have to show us that you have a proper cause for what you want to say.
We don't do that.
And so Justice Thomas finally kind of got, I think, somewhat of a rebalancing of the rights here and saying that this individual right is like our other fundamental constitutional rights.
You don't get permission from the government to exercise it.
And so I think it's a really important ruling.
And what's so John Roberts sided with the majority here, 6-3.
John Roberts is always there when we don't need him.
And however, he did rule correctly, which I will say, that's good.
Talk about, so you had a big victory recently, last couple of days ago, right?
The main case that's going to have implications for religious freedom nationwide.
And that is another question I have about the Second Amendment case.
So maybe you could answer both at the same time while telling us about your case.
Is it now true to say that the case in New York will then apply to all other, is now concealed carry a constitutional right in every American state?
Is that right?
No, no.
It didn't say that you can't have requirements, for instance, that you have an ability that, you know, for instance, mental illness or, you know, a weapons charge, you know, maybe you're a felon or it didn't say that you can't have restrictions.
It just said that you can't have a restriction that's not based upon like your ability to carry a firearm, but instead is like, show us your reason, your proper cause.
It's like, this is not an authority.
So there will still be concealed weapons, concealed carry requirements in states, but it definitely, again, puts the power back in the individual and their Second Amendment rights.
And it strikes down this idea that you have to prove to the government why you have a right, which is the more important issue there.
So then tell us about your main case.
And is your main case, does that have a precedent now that could apply to the rest of the country?
It will.
The main case was a, it was a law that said in Maine, most of the public school districts, they call them SAUs, but most of us refer to those as school districts, don't have public schools, especially in the rural areas.
So they've allowed for years parents to choose where to send their tax money, public or private schools.
Even out of state, they could even, you know, even out of country was okay.
But then they decided to put in a provision that said, but we're not going to allow you to pick a school where they teach from a religious viewpoint.
That's amazing.
And again, think about this.
Justice Salito did a great job in the oral argument pointing out.
So a Marxist school is okay.
A white supremacist school, okay.
But a religious school, not okay.
And they had to admit, yes.
And so it was just clear discrimination.
It's a program that was available to everybody.
Instead of treating everybody the same, they discriminated against religion.
And the Supreme Court struck that down.
That's really important in one obvious way, and then I'll go a broader way.
In an obvious way, because this means every school choice program in the country, wherever they exist and wherever they're passed in the future, it's very clear you cannot exclude religious schools from the parental choices.
So that does apply to the rest of the country.
Why would that apply?
And the Second Amendment case won't.
Is it a technical difference?
No, it'll apply because it's a constitutional provision, in this case, free exercise.
Got it.
Okay.
That says it's going to apply everywhere.
The Second Amendment applies everywhere, but not everybody has this show us your proper cause provision.
And that's really what was at play in New York.
To the extent any state tried to do that, it would apply to that.
So, but the main school choice, religious liberty case will affect every school choice program.
And again, they said you don't have to do school choice, but if you choose to do any program, not just school choice, notice this, any program where the government provides benefits generally to everyone, you cannot put religious restrictions upon people.
The people are making the choice.
The parents are making the choice.
And so realize, Charlie, that means this will apply outside of just the school choice context.
There's lots of government programs where they offer benefits to everyone, and then they try to come in and say, but we don't want you to use that for some religious purpose.
You know, let's take, let's say they were dealing with people who were having problems with drugs and they were teenagers.
And they had this big program of people who were really helping and showing results with teenagers and getting them off of drugs.
There are people that would say, well, the religious group shouldn't be able to participate in that program.
This would say, you can't do that.
That's amazing.
And so it's going to have broad implications.
First Liberty is the one that brought it to victory, and it's going to have amazing implications.
We're blessed to live in the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the world.
Luke 1248 says, quote, to whom much has been given, much will be required.
We as Christians can shape our world.
One of these ways is how we steward our finances and our money.
If you have money and stocks, you have the power to affect change through your investments.
Jesus spoke about money in roughly 15% of his teachings and 11 out of 39 of his parables.
How do we follow his teachings about money?
Well, my friends at PAX Financial can help.
I've opened an account with them.
I think very highly of them.
They are fiduciaries that will make sure you have a responsible plan to retire.
I trust them with my money, and I hope you will as well.
But look, they'll also help you invest in companies that align with your beliefs.
No companies that engage in pornography or in excessive drinking or in a degenerate lifestyle.
If you have $150,000 to invest, please text my name, Charlie, to the number 74868.
And even if you don't have $150,000, maybe they'll make an exception for you.
I don't know, but just learn more about them.
Look, text Charlie to 74868.
Take advantage of the power to make a difference with your money.
PAX Financial.
It was great for me.
I think it will be terrific for you.
I want to play some tape and have Kelly react to it.
89.
That's right.
Let's play Cut 89.
Today, the Supreme Court is sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence.
And it's particularly painful that this came down at this moment.
This decision isn't just reckless, it's reprehensible.
It's not what New Yorkers want.
Have a moral responsibility to do what we can and have laws that protect our citizens because of what is going on, the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone all the way up to even to the Supreme Court.
Kelly, your reaction.
It's a foolish comment by a government official who's got thrown into office, not even through an election.
I mean, we have a constitution to keep the government from taking away people's individual rights.
And that's what they did today.
You know, if you don't want your statute struck down, maybe pass one that's constitutional.
But to tell citizens they can't defend themselves unless they show proper cause and prove to you that they have a right to a firearm and violates the Second Amendment.
You know, I'll tell you, Charlie, something very similar happened.
You know, we won the lawsuit on Tuesday at Supreme Court against Maine.
You know what?
There's a news article today that shows Maine speaking out.
They said that to rule in that way and allow religious schools to be treated the same was, quote, inimical to public education.
And then they pushed for it, said, we need to go to the legislature and we need to make sure and pass laws to make sure that no money in any of these religious or Christian schools are used for this backward thinking like LGBT and other issues where the church disagrees.
So if you wonder if there was animus behind the discrimination against the religious groups, there it is on display.
So this is the kind of reaction you get from tyrants and people who don't like the Constitution.
Well, I mean, but can they do that after the Supreme Court decision?
I mean, don't they have to honor it?
They do have to honor it.
They're going to have to follow it.
I think what New York ended up saying is that they're going to try to figure out other ways, the restrictions that they can put in, that will be upheld.
And they're going to try to work on that.
But, you know, it just shows all that's going to be evidence.
Just like if Maine goes back and discriminates again, all of these hostile statements are going to be evidence of their own intent to violate the Constitution.
So, you know, we just, we love it.
Go ahead.
Speak on.
Yeah.
My fear, Kelly, my long-term fear, and we saw this with Sanctuary Cities, where cities and states were totally defying federal immigration law and Supreme Court decisions, that they're just going to defy the Supreme Court when they don't like the decisions they don't like and they'll pick and choose.
Are you afraid we might be going in that direction?
Because as you know, the Supreme Court has the least enforcement capabilities of any branch.
Let Marshall send his army.
What's your thoughts on that?
Yeah, I mean, that's always a danger.
And to be honest, conservatives are just as guilty of kind of saying that they want to go there at times.
But if you'll notice, they're not going there.
I mean, you've got this New York mayor saying that the decision is horrible and all these things, but she's not saying we're not going to follow it because, you know, the federal courts, the state courts, everyone would apply those and say you will follow it.
So while that sentiment is definitely there and there is a danger if we ever go there, I do, I don't think we're certainly there yet.
And people are, I mean, if you look at all these decisions, and there's going to be more that are going to be coming down that they're not going to like, but they're following them.
Framers Observed Human Nature00:10:34
I mean, we still got an EPA decision to come down.
We have the decision on the border to come down.
We've got our Coach Kennedy case that's going to affect all the school districts across the country.
That's going to come down.
And then, of course, Dobbs.
So we've got some big ones coming down, and my prediction is they will follow it.
I think their reaction, Charlie, from the Marxist left is they're going to explode over this, but I think they're going to realize we've got to take over the courts.
And so they're going to push heavy for court packing.
You're going to see that really explode over the next week or so when all these decisions are out.
Keith Olbermann, who's a nothing, said it's become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court.
The first step is for the state, the court to now, that has forced on to ignore the ruling.
Great, you're a court.
Why and how do you think you can enforce your rulings?
That's Keith Olberman.
He's a joke, but that is something that is being said in left-wing intelligentsia circles.
I think that's only going to intensify.
Kelly, we're out of time.
Firstliberty.org, thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you, Charlie.
Pay very close attention, everybody.
Charlie Kirk here.
We're now facing severe food shortages, high inflation, and outrageous fuel prices.
Some people are saying there's a looming recession and possibly things could get even worse.
Are you prepared?
Do you have enough emergency food stored up for months and months?
If not, go to preparewithkirk.com.
You'll save $150 on a three-month emergency food kit from MyPatriot supply.
Be sure to get at least one kit for each person in your family.
Your three-month emergency food kit gives you a wide variety of delicious meals every day, breakfast, lunch, dinner, drinks, and snacks for three full months per person.
If the worst happens and you don't have this emergency food kit, you'll regret it.
So go to preparewithkirk.com right now to save $150 per three-month food kit.
Act quickly because these kits are selling like hot cakes.
Your order ships fast and arrives discreetly in unmarked boxes.
You get free shipping as well.
So go to preparewithkirk.com.
That's preparewithkirk.com.
You're nine meals away from anarchy.
Prepare yourself at preparewithkirk.com.
Massive victory on the U.S. Supreme Court today.
Clarence Thomas writes: as the opinion of the court, in sum, the courts of appeals second step is inconsistent with Heller's, there was a Heller decision previously about 10 years ago, historical approach and its rejection of means and scrutiny.
We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows.
When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.
The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it's consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulations.
Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's unqualified command.
The Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights.
Take, for instance, freedom of speech in the First Amendment.
This is an extraordinary paragraph that we have been waiting for for quite some time.
That the U.S. Supreme Court is saying that the Second Amendment must be treated with the same respect and protection as the First Amendment.
That they believe that they are both moral, natural, God-granted rights.
Not just the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly or the freedom of privacy in the Fourth Amendment, but also the Second Amendment, your freedom to protect yourself.
Now, Governor Hochl from New York goes and says gun culture has overtaken the U.S. Supreme Court.
And she makes a very silly argument saying that, well, back when the Constitution was written, they only had muskets.
We should go back to muskets.
And you should ask her, well, does the First Amendment not apply to Twitter?
Does the First Amendment not apply to the Internet?
Does it only apply to writing on pieces of paper?
Does the Fourth Amendment not apply to government surveillance using technology of your home?
Do the rights of the Constitution remain even though technology advances?
Well, the Constitution was not written for the times.
It was written to stand the test of time.
You see, the Constitution understood the natural law, as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, the laws of nature and nature's God.
If you study the Declaration of Independence, it is very easy to all of a sudden see all the complaints they put in the Declaration against the king, they go about solving 11 years later in the Constitution.
Power is too concentrated, so then they have separation of powers.
We don't have consent, so then they get consent to the governed.
There's no judiciary that can keep you in check, King George.
They create the independent judiciary.
That not one man should be able to have so much power.
They put checks and balances.
And so at every corner you see, the complaint of the Declaration against King George is solved by the Constitution.
One of the most powerful phrases in all of the Federalist papers written by John J., Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison is in Federalist 51.
And in Federalist 51, it argues the structure of the Constitution matters more than anything else.
But also in the Federalist Papers, in Federalist 51, it says, quote, if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this.
You must first enable the government to control the governed and next oblige it to control itself.
Put differently, if all men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls would be necessary.
They were making an observation on human nature.
They realized that human beings were likely to consolidate power for themselves, act corruptly in a government apparatus, lie, cheat, and steal.
These are things that we know in the natural law, otherwise known as original sin, that we derive from the teachings of the Bible.
The founding fathers were steeped in this teaching.
John Adams himself, a graduate of Harvard University, spoke fluent Hebrew.
The founding fathers put Leviticus on the liberty bell.
They were immersed in biblical wisdom, which allowed them to create the structure that then has these different pieces and these parts.
Kathy Hochl, the governor of New York, she doesn't believe in that.
She believes now that we have airplanes and Twitter and vaccines, your rights go away.
We don't believe that as conservatives or constitutionalists.
We believe the individual is sovereign in 1791 and the individual is sovereign in 2022.
Regardless of the times you live in, you are still a human being.
And that really goes to the question that should be asked of Kathy Hochl.
What is a human being?
Now, if she is consistent, she'll say a human being is a collection of cells that develop through millions of years of evolution, accidentally being able to break through consciousness, and we are nothing more than able to feel pleasure and pain, and anything else is an aberration of chemical compounds jolting through your brain.
If you believe that is what a human being is, then you could reasonably come to the conclusion that the sovereignty is not within the individual.
But instead, if you believe that human beings were designed and that there is a symmetry, a harmony to nature around you, and that human beings are here for a purpose.
And if you venture even far enough to say, regardless of your own religious views, mine are well known, we talk about it, but whatever religious view you have, that there is a soul or there is a spiritual dimension to existence, then all of a sudden you treat human beings a lot differently.
They're not an accident of millions of years of unfolding evolution, but instead they were designed for a purpose as the beings that can speak, that can express.
And the Constitution is the only document ever, and there's been a couple that have paralleled it, but it was definitely the first, and it's the longest lasting that recognizes what a human being is.
Not a comedy of errors or an accidental roll of the dice.
Here's Kathy Hochl making a fool of herself continuously, play cut 91.
And I'm sorry this dark day has come.
They were supposed to go back to what was in place since 1788 when the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified.
And I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices that the only weapons at the time were muskets.
I'm prepared to go back to muskets.
I don't think they envision the high-capacity assault weapon magazines intended for battlefields as being covered with this, but I guess we're just going to have to disagree.
Well, she doesn't know anything.
She's a fool.
And the more she talks, the deeper she dives into a hole of her own making and her own creation.
George Mason, who wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, said very clearly: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to be able to have a citizenry armed, if necessary, to be able to fight back against, God forbid, a tyrannical and usurptatious government.
Well, I'm sure all of Kathy Hochl's bodyguards will switch to muskets sometime soon.
And Kathy Hochl should understand freedom of speech does not apply to the internet.
McConnell Credits Conservative Judges00:09:30
She should tell the people of New York that you are not allowed to speak with any form of technology.
You're only allowed to write letters.
And in fact, you do not have freedom of movement anymore.
You must use horse and buggy carriages.
And Kathy Hochl should get rid of all the electronic voting machines because even though voting might be a right, you're not allowed to use anything with electricity because the founding fathers never would have envisioned using voting machines.
This is a view that is widespread amongst politicians on the American left.
And it was dominant for quite some time.
10 years makes a big difference when we take something seriously.
Now, you might feel like you're losing your country.
I certainly do.
But in 10 years, we've made some incredible victories and some meaningful accomplishments.
I want you to listen to the wonderful, the wise, the courageous Justice Antonin Scalia lament about where we were 10 years ago.
The court looked like it was lost.
We looked like a runaway country.
Yes, we were less in debt.
Yes, inflation was far less than it was now, but the courts looked like a permanently damaged enterprise.
Play cut 90.
We've sort of gone off the rails that nowadays, especially with regard to the Constitution, the accepted view and the view stated by my court repeatedly is that the words don't necessarily mean what they were understood to mean at the time, but can be given new meaning.
It's up to the court to say what they mean today.
They mean today what they ought to mean today, and it's up to the court to decide that.
That's new.
But, you know, it all comes under the title, the living constitution.
The living constitution.
We'll get to that phrase.
But again and again.
I hate it.
You make that clear.
He was alone.
It was him and Clarence Thomas holding down the Fort Worth Alito, and they were outnumbered by the living Constitution crowd.
And Scalia had charm, and he had charisma and whimsy.
And there's other speeches we could pull from him where he says, I'm pessimistic.
10 years later, we have a 6-3 majority.
Well, Roberts is whatever.
A 5-3-1 majority.
Thomas Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
How did this happen?
What happened because a billionaire businessman went down a golden escalator and made a series of promises and had the courage to actually fulfill them, changing the court for a generation and preventing Hillary Rodham Clinton and her cartel of criminals from getting back into the White House.
If Hillary wins the White House, Roe would be made permanent law.
You don't know what's going to happen there.
The Second Amendment deal would be upheld.
And guess what?
And I will compliment Mitch McConnell.
Yes, the day after I go after Mitch McConnell pretty hard, is that one of the great contributions Mitch McConnell has given to our republic, and there's not many, but that's worthy of recognition, is when Mitch McConnell refused to put Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court after Scalia passed.
McConnell deserves credit for that.
He got so much hate and backlash.
And trust me, I don't make a habit out of thanking McConnell.
But I'm honest.
And you should be honest too.
How did we get here after 10 years?
10 years from Scalia lamenting and railing about how we've gone off the rails.
And I don't know if we're ever going to get this back.
10 years later, a court that is the best that's been in, I think, modern American history, if not ever.
Someone can show me a better court, but certainly not since FDR has there been a court that has loved the Constitution as much as this court and is actually doing something about it.
We'll see what they do with Roe.
It looks good, but we'll see.
How did this happen?
Mitch McConnell deserves credit for not putting that serpent Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court and holding the line.
And Donald Trump deserves credit.
Play cut 85, Trump's promise of picking good Supreme Court justices.
He made the promise and he fulfilled the promise.
Every single one of the Supreme Court victories that you're about to enjoy is thanks to a billionaire businessman, never who ran for office before, coming down a golden escalator and appointing three Supreme Court justices.
You do not have to like him.
You do not have to like his tone.
But America is a freer country from a judicial perspective because of a man who ran for office and did what he said he was going to do.
Play cut 85.
The Supreme Court, it's what it's all about.
Our country is so, so, just so imperative that we have the right justices.
We need a Supreme Court that, in my opinion, is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments, but the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege.
I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint, and I've named 20 of them, they will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted.
Cut 86, President Trump says he thinks justices should not rule based on what they hear, but instead based on the Constitution.
He's making a textualist argument here.
Play cut 86.
I don't think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear.
It's all about the Constitution of, and so important, the Constitution the way it was meant to be.
And those are the people that I will appoint.
And that is who he appointed.
I know a lot of people in 2016 that didn't like a thing about Donald Trump.
But when he put his list out, these are the justices.
I know a lot of evangelicals.
I know a lot of suburban voters.
They said, all right, I'll vote for you for the justices.
The justices I can understand.
Because if Hillary Clinton would have won that race, if Hillary Clinton would have become president of the United States, you would have had three more Katanji Brown Jacksons.
You would not have Amy Coney, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
You would have right now, just so you understand the significance of Donald Trump's election, the incredible, just historical implications, you would have Kagan, Sodomayor, Breyer, Roberts, whatever, three Katangi Brown Jackson types, Clarence Thomas, and Alito.
It would effectively be a 7-2 court.
One election.
One election, one term, one president, three justices.
The fruit that comes out of that, potentially Roe versus Wade being repealed, amazing religious liberty cases, as we just went through in Maine, Second Amendment being upheld and bad laws being struck down via judicial review.
It's a transformational difference.
It's not a little difference.
It's not on the margins.
It's a 180.
It's either you're going north or you're going south.
Speaking of going north, one of my favorite clips ever from Justice Thomas, play cut 92.
You can be in the middle of a hurricane, or you can be on a calm day.
North is still north.
You could be in a thunderstorm.
North is still north.
People can yell at you.
North is still north.
It doesn't change fundamental things.
And in this business, right is still right, even if you stand by yourself.
It's so amazing what he's saying there.
I want you to understand the beauty and the importance of what he's saying.
He's talking about objective truth.
A man is a man, a woman is a woman, regardless of how many people protesting outside your home.
Life begins at conception.
North is north.
Right is right.
Wrong is wrong.
He's making an argument there for objective truth, the amazing Clarence Thomas.
And happy birthday to Clarence Thomas, by the way.
So how did we get here after 10 years?
We took it seriously, we as conservatives.
And Mitch McConnell, despite all the nonsense that he's done in recent months, which is plenty, he deserves credit for not allowing Merrick Garland to get on the U.S. Supreme Court and then Donald Trump winning the election and putting three incredible Supreme Court justices in.
One decade later, Scalia is no longer lamenting.
He's smiling from heaven and chuckling and saying, for all you libs that hated me, who's laughing now?
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts is always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.