All Episodes
Previous Next
June 21, 2022 - Lionel Nation
14:36
Why SCOTUS Is Not What You Think or Even Imagine
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man Safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man Underground Safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin.
Dirty Man Safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your dirty man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
Whenever there's talk about the Supreme Court, everybody always confuses it, apparently, with legislation.
They think that when the Supreme Court fails to act on something, or say something about something, or address something, that somehow that's the same as passing judgment on this subject matter, as opposed to merely saying this is beyond a particular...
Does that make any sense?
Well, if it doesn't, don't worry, I'll explain it.
But first, this incredibly important moment from our sponsor.
All right, my friends, now check this out.
Studies show our appearance directly affects our mental health.
It's true, and it's obvious.
Many anti-aging supplements found on store shelves try to capitalize on that, but most of them fall short.
This is because they fail at targeting the root of the problem.
The newest trend in anti-aging supplements is collagen.
Research shows a good collagen supplement can help make hair stronger and the skin more youthful while supporting healthy joints, bone, and gut health.
But don't run to the store and buy the first collagen supplement you see.
Grab Ageless Multi-Collagen.
which can only be purchased online.
Ageless multi-collagen ingredients are held to the highest quality standards in the collagen industry.
It's some of the purest quality collagen you can get.
Now I've unlocked a deal for my audience and that's you to get up to 51% off your own order by going to healthwithlionel.com healthwithlionel.com or simply just click the link below.
Okay, let's get back to business.
The Supreme Court deals with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court doesn't deal with legislation.
What does that mean?
It means simply this.
If you think for one minute, and this is important, but if you think for one minute that there is some kind of, oh, I don't know what the word is, if there's some kind of magic that I guess is a part of the Supreme Court.
You're out of your mind.
What do I mean by that?
Well, let me tell you.
The Supreme Court is going to be dealing with abortion.
And the Supreme Court is not going to be talking about whether abortion makes sense, whether abortion is good, whether it makes sense, whether it's a great idea, whether it's fair, whether it's good, whether it's warranted, whether a life is human, whether it's a duck.
It's not dealing with that.
What it's dealing with is something a little bit different.
What it's dealing with is there's something in the Constitution itself that prohibits abortion, that warrants abortion, that provides a right to an abortion.
It doesn't deal with whether abortion is a good idea.
In the case of Roe v.
Wade.
It is the worst piece of juridical mishmash in the history of humankind.
This is a fact.
I'm not just saying this.
I'm not just exaggerating.
It is the worst.
The absolute worst.
Now, what's important to note is that people believe that a woman has a right, and technically they are right, Because of this crazy thing called the right to privacy.
You've heard this before.
It came about in 1965 out of a case Griswold v.
Connecticut, which dealt with the issue of adults, even married couples, not being able to possess or purchase or use contraception.
It was a law that wasn't even enforced.
I think somebody was charged and fined $100, but they took it all the way to the top.
William O. Douglas came up with this moment of legal, juridical nonsense where he said, you know, there are some rights that emanate from the penumbra of the rights.
They're not really specified, but we can interpret them because Even though they're not there, we can kind of see them.
The power, the glow emanate from these.
It's nonsense.
Complete and utter nonsense.
But it became privacy.
And people said, well, that makes sense.
Wait a minute.
What does that mean?
Well, it means that...
No, no, no.
Where did you get privacy from?
Well, it's a...
I don't think adults should have...
No, no.
I'm not talking about adults.
No, that makes...
Yes, you're right about that.
I understand that.
But where did you get this from?
You just made this up.
There's a First Amendment right.
There's a Second Amendment, if you will, right, to bear arms under Heller.
There's a Third Amendment right against having soldiers courted against your will.
Fourth Amendment right against unwarranted, unreasonable searches and seizures.
But where is this privacy?
Well, it was presumed.
It was interpreted.
What?
And this is when they were off and running.
Now, I've said this before and I'm going to say it again.
I happen to be 100% pro-choice.
Meaning, I don't think a woman should go to prison for having an abortion.
Call me wacky, okay?
But that doesn't mean that I believe there's a constitutional right to it.
By contrast, I'm against the death penalty adamantly.
But I don't believe there's anything in the Constitution that prohibits it, even though I think it's unfairly applied, it's incorrectly applied, and that society would be a lot better off without it.
But there is nothing against it in the Constitution.
And that doesn't mean that you don't go to legislation.
You don't go to a legislature.
You don't go to them.
You don't go to them to find out what can be done about this.
That's the issue.
Just because the Constitution, just because there's no federal right, doesn't mean the state of New York or Georgia or New Hampshire can say, we want abortion here.
Now, if you can ask the question, well, what about other laws?
Do you want to have racial school segregation in one state versus another?
Do you think that's fair?
Well, no, not necessarily, not really.
Well, do you think that makes sense?
No, I don't think that makes sense.
Well, what are we talking about then?
Well, we're talking about something here.
In those particular cases, there was a law, if you will, a constitutional provision, equal protection, that applied to them.
But a right to an abortion, a woman's right to terminate It doesn't exist.
If you could show equal protection, due process, something.
What they did was, and this is the part that is the most ridiculous.
This is Ro now.
The government cannot deprive you of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Meaning, it can deprive you of that.
There's no problem with it depriving you of it, so long as the deprivation aspect is according to due process protections.
We can kill you.
We can throw you in prison for the rest of your life, and we can take your stuff, so long as there is a hearing, notice, the opportunity to be heard, the opportunity for you to say something.
Other than that, we'll kill you.
We'll throw you away in the Hooskow forever and we'll take your stuff.
There is a due process guarantee.
A protection.
It is procedural.
Due process is procedure that is due.
What Roe came up with is this notion of substantive due process, which is oxymoronic.
This is what Dred Scott was about.
It's crazy.
But today, because people like the result, because they think it's fair, and confuse constitutional interpretation with constitutional rights, I should say constitutional interpretation with legislation, they get confused.
Look, I think there are some things That we can just provide for.
There is nothing unconstitutional.
Nothing about allowing people to marry an infant.
What?
There's nothing unconstitutional.
If you want to do that, go ahead.
Go to your legislature.
Try that one out.
And the way we're going, it won't be that odd.
The Constitution merely would ask the question, is there something that prohibits this?
Is there something that prohibits a government from being able to extend marriage?
No.
Normally it's in the inverse.
Is there something that would allow a state to prohibit?
Yes.
That might be more in keeping with this.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee against doing crazy things.
It merely provides the following.
Here are the provisions.
This is what it stands for.
And we, as justices, determine, like an umpire does, balls and strikes, is what you are promoting, is that which you are suggesting, is that against a constitutional right?
Is there something wrong with it?
Most often, it's not the case.
Most often, they say, no, there's nothing wrong really with that.
You'd be surprised.
Can the government, could the government decide against certain sex acts?
Yes!
Is there anything unconstitutional about that?
No!
But how you apply it's a different story.
You see, that's the equal protection part.
Remember the anti-miscegenation laws?
Miscegenation laws.
Blacks and whites can't marry and intermix and all of that stuff.
However, Asians and whites can, and that's okay.
So there's an equal protection problem.
But the idea of a government being able to say cousins can't marry, people can't marry, same-sex can't marry, there's nothing against that.
Absolutely not.
In the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't prevent that.
So what do you do?
This is my opinion, by the way.
Of course, the Constitution may be different, but the interpretation of it may not be correct.
But my point is, if there is something that you think should be the case, go to the legislature.
That overrides everything.
To an extent.
Legislature can't decide now that...
Segregation in school is okay, but if you think that capital punishment is bad in your state, go to your legislature and ban it.
If you think abortion should be guaranteed in your state, go ahead.
So it's not what people think.
There's nothing that's guaranteed, necessarily.
Stated differently, there's nothing...
That can be provided for depending upon what you call it.
Does that make any sense?
Good.
▲
Export Selection