All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show
48:57
Ep. 176 - “ǝpɐM ˙ʌ ǝoɹ” ?

Michael is hungover from yesterday. (Leftist tears are a diuretic.) We’ll analyze the probability of restoring constitutional governance and who Trump should nominate. In other news, racist Democrats’ racism finally starts to bite them. Finally, the Mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
My head is throbbing.
I haven't felt this dehydrated since my bachelor party because it turns out that salty, delicious leftist tears are a diuretic, and I believe I overdid it a little bit yesterday.
The left is very, very angry.
They're tweeting all sorts of profanity at me, at other conservatives, Trump voters.
They're hysterical.
They're even more profane than usual because the new, slightly more originalist Supreme Court majority could deal a blow to the fake constitutional right to abortion.
Well, to them I say, sticks and stones may break my bones, but we're going to overturn Roe v.
Wade.
We will analyze the probability of restoring constitutional governance.
In other news, racist Democrats' racism finally starts to bite them back.
And then I call out Matt Walsh's globalism.
Finally the mailbag.
I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
I... I can't do it anymore with the Globes.
I'm sick of the Globes.
I can't.
No more globes.
Matt Walsh is responsible for this.
This is Matt Walsh's fault.
Look, I'm not opposed to stupid schtick on my show.
I actually love it.
It makes up about three quarters of my show.
But I'm sick of the Globes.
I am not a globalist, okay?
Globalism is a false song and we're rid of it now because of this administration and President Trump.
If you haven't seen the Matt Walsh show who's responsible for the...
Just play the clip.
And for good reason, because a globe, when you add a globe into the situation, it immediately makes everything classier and more professional and more intelligent.
So even though I don't have a real studio or a real set, I do have the globe.
And the point that I made was, well, yeah, the other guys at The Daily Wire, they've got a studio, they've got a set.
They don't have a globe, though, do they?
So who really has the most professional show at The Daily Wire?
That was my argument anyway.
But after the show, a lot of people informed me that actually Klavan does have a globe on his set.
I never noticed it before, but I went back and I watched.
And yeah, there is kind of off in the corner.
It's not displayed prominently like my globe, but he does have a globe.
So this is what I'm going to do.
I didn't want to have to do this, but...
I'm going to add a second globe.
And so now I have the most globes, both in terms of globe quantity and also total globage volume.
And if it's really necessary for me to pull out the big guns, and I'm kind of hesitant here, because I don't mean to show off, but if I really need to, I also have this.
And I could do the entire show with this globe as well.
And what would look more professional or more intelligent than that?
But I won't.
I won't yet.
Unless it's really necessary.
So, look, like usual, I'm watching the Matt Walsh show, and I found this argument sort of convincing, because I'll tune into the Matt Walsh show.
Whenever I can't just talk to Paul Bois, I will tune into his doppelganger, Matt Walsh, and I will hear exactly the same voice and the same, you know, points of view, but with more globes.
So, So I thought this was kind of compelling.
I mean, I've been into a lot of sort of pretentious homes and offices, and they do.
They have night globes and everything.
But then there was something about the globes that I didn't want to be outdone.
You know, I added the globes to my set.
There was something I didn't like about them.
I realized what it was.
Do you know what this looks like?
Yeah.
Yeah, it looks like a soccer ball.
That's what it looks like.
And it reminded me that basically on this globe, every single place on here except for right there, every place on that globe likes soccer.
Except for that nice little spot right there.
You know that hope of...
That beacon of freedom and hope for the entire world that protects everybody from chaos and death.
That one right there doesn't like soccer.
So I'm done with the Globes.
The false song of globalism is over.
Matt Walsh can keep his Globes.
I'm done.
We've got a lot to talk about today.
We've got so much to talk about.
This replacement for Justice Kennedy.
We've got the New York Times attacking the New York Times, which is a beautiful thing.
A lot to celebrate.
Why the Democrats are finally reaping the rewards of the awful racism that they've sown for a long time.
All of this is coming to a head in this Supreme Court fight.
We're going to see who should be on...
Who should be on the list?
Who shouldn't be?
Who should get the nomination?
Who shouldn't?
A lot of people up for it right now.
Mike Lee, the great Senator Mike Lee, is up for it.
Some conservatives are applauding that.
I'm a little, I don't know if we should appoint a senator.
We will discuss all of that.
Before we do that, we've got to make a little money, honey.
You think these globes are free?
Our production budget is now completely blown out because of this stupid Matt Walsh gag.
So...
So we've got to thank Ring.
Ring is a...
Talk about safety.
Talk about the 21st century, you know.
Ring is the video doorbell company.
You've seen them.
All of your cool friends probably have it.
It's that video doorbell.
You go, you click on it, and it opens up a communication line between the owner of the house and you.
So if you're on either you're in the house, you're at work, you're on a beach in Boca, I don't know where you are, and you can see the people who are outside, you can talk to them.
All that video is uploaded to the cloud.
So if some kind of bad guy wants to come up and either break into your house or steal your packages from, you know, whatever online shopping you've been doing, you can see them.
Even if they steal your ring video doorbell, it's all right.
It's already in the cloud.
You can share it with friends.
It's what the neighborhood watch used to be.
Now that is totally passe and out of favor.
This is the new way to keep you and your home safe.
So I'll set this up, because they send me clips sometimes of Ring in action.
A crazy-looking guy walks up to a home.
The first thing you hear is him kicking in the door, but then Ring kicks in.
Hello?
Hey!
Are you okay?
Leave my house or I'm calling the police.
Okay, what you need to do...
Hey, leave my house.
Stop now or I'm calling the police.
Why would you tell me that?
Because you're trying to push my door in.
Leave now.
Girl, I'm about to smash what's in there.
I'm calling the police.
Okay.
I am the police.
Someone tells me that guy's not the police.
That guy had about 30% of his teeth.
I think the police have a higher tooth retention average.
So, anyway, it's really good.
I mean, I'm joking about it.
It really is indispensable technology.
I love mine.
Seriously, all of my friends who bought houses use this technology.
It's so good, and it's so inexpensive.
When you think Neighborhood Watch used to take up so much time, it wasn't that effective, you know, time is money, this is really, really inexpensive.
Thieves just can't hide with Ring.
Stop crime before it happens and help make your neighborhood safer with Ring.
Right now, you can save up to $150.
On a Ring security kit at ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. That is a huge discount on extremely reasonably priced technology to begin with.
Go to ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. $150 off when you go to ring.com slash Knowles.
I really, really like mine, and I just feel safer with it, and you should too.
It's a wonderful piece of technology.
Okay.
Let's get to it.
Before we get to the court and the real decisions here over who's going to replace Justice Kennedy, I've got to mention this.
I had to double down on my hangover because now New York Times editors are admitting that their paper is just pure garbage.
So Jill Abramson, former editor of the New York Times, she tweets out, she says, When it should have covered her campaign.
Missing her rise is akin to not seeing Trump's win coming in 2016.
Which, by the way, is obviously a dig at the New York Times because the New York Times didn't see Trump's win coming.
They didn't think it was even possible that Trump would win in 2016.
They're lashing out at this.
And it confirms something that we've been talking about for a long time.
Jill Abramson is no conservative Republican.
Far from it.
But she's noticing the extreme drop in quality at the New York Times.
I think I said this yesterday.
The New York Times right now and Occupy Democrats Facebook page are basically of the same quality.
I don't know the difference when it pops up in my news feed, a New York Times headline or some radical left meme.
I don't know which...
The New York Times now is funding this cartoon series of fat cartoons of Donald Trump looks like Ren and Stimpy making out with Vladimir Putin in really graphic visuals.
In many ways, the Occupy Democrats Facebook page has better taste and more class than the New York Times does these days.
It isn't just conservatives pointing this out, and this isn't just the normal tug and pull of left and right.
The left is finally recognizing that They themselves have hollowed out their institutions.
So what the left does is it comes into institutions and it destroys them.
We're seeing it at my dear old alma mater.
Yale is like the prime example at the universities.
The left goes into universities, destroys them.
It did this to all of the mainstream media outlets.
And even the New York Times is recognizing that that happened to itself.
It is a shadow of what it once was.
It doesn't serve its function in politics and society that it used to.
But don't take my word for it.
Take Jill Abramson's word for it.
So now, this will play in a little later with this court fight.
Let's get to the court.
The left is so angsty right now.
They're so upset about Kennedy.
Who is going to replace Kennedy?
Before we get into that, I do have to point out a little conspiracy theory of mine.
It was one of the best memes that was going on around Twitter yesterday.
So Mitch McConnell is key here, right?
Mitch McConnell is the key.
A couple nights ago, a group of protesters came up to Mitch McConnell and his wife, another administration official, and they started heckling him and yelling.
And Mitch McConnell's wife told them, stop messing with my husband.
Here's the clip.
Why are you separating families?
Why don't you leave my husband alone?
I'm not trying to disrespect you.
Why is he separating families?
He is not.
I'm not trying to disrespect you.
He has to separate his family.
So the next day, after a bunch of lefty protesters harass Mitch McConnell and his wife, the swing vote on the Supreme Court retires and Trump is going to appoint an originalist.
That cocaine Mitch, baby.
That you don't mess with cocaine Mitch.
That's where he got, you know, Don Blankenship was that guy.
He was running sort of against Mitch McConnell.
He was running this campaign against Senate leadership and against Mitch.
He called him cocaine Mitch.
And then when that guy lost, Mitch put a picture of himself as Pablo Escobar.
He said, thanks for playing.
This guy, man, don't mess with Mitch McConnell.
You know, I love this video of him.
Kind of just sitting there and then he just slowly looks up and smiles.
Just that little McConnell smile.
And that's called a McConnelling now.
This is the sort of stuff.
Don't mess with it.
I don't know if he like made a deal with the devil for his powers or something.
But man, that guy seems to just control the universe with his finger.
So Democrats are threatening all sorts of stuff now.
They're saying, we're going to, you know, you and this and you, because you remember, Mitch McConnell is the reason that we got Neil Gorsuch.
Mitch McConnell is the reason that Merrick Garland, Barack Obama's nominee to the court, didn't make it onto the Supreme Court.
He said, nope, we're not going to sit him.
And so the Democrats are saying, we're going to do that to you, and now you're going to see this and do it now, but you know what you can do, Democrats?
Nothing.
You're totally, totally screwed.
Ha ha!
They have nothing at their disposal right now to stop this nomination.
I'm only rubbing their face in it because they have nobody to blame but themselves.
This was caused by Democrats in 2013 when Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option.
So the nuclear option was saying, you no longer need more than a simple majority to confirm judicial nominees.
And Mitch McConnell warned about this.
He actually, there he is, Cocaine Mitch, warned.
He said, you are going to regret this.
Here's Mitch McConnell.
Once again, Senate Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate, break the rules of the Senate, in order to change the rules of the Senate.
And over what?
Over what?
Over a court that doesn't even have enough work to do?
The majority leader promised, he promised, over and over again, that he wouldn't break the rules of the Senate in order to change them.
If you want to play games, set yet another precedent that you'll no doubt come to regret.
Say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.
He's sitting there like Tony Soprano or something, you know, like, I think you're going to regret this.
If it was me, I wouldn't do it.
I wouldn't do it, Harry.
And so what they did, Harry Reid pushes the nuclear option, and that made it such that you only need a simple majority to get through judicial nominees, except for the Supreme Court.
This didn't include the Supreme Court.
But of course, at this point, after he's gone to the nuclear option, it's now up to Merrick Garland.
And Harry Reid no longer has control of the Senate.
What is Mitch McConnell going to do?
Mitch McConnell, now the leader of the Senate, he totally railroads Merrick Garland.
He says, we're not going to do it.
It's an election year.
And you can't make us do it.
So now we've got this, you know, we still have the majority in the Senate.
And I got to tell you something.
They're saying it's going to be really hard to get Trump's nominee through because Susan Collins and other left-wing Republicans are going to stop it.
You know, liberal Republicans squishes.
They don't want an originalist judge.
I don't know about that.
There are a lot of Democrats...
Who are in states with a lot of Trump voters, and Trump is very popular right now, and his policies are very, very popular right now.
I'm not so sure that they'll be able to railroad him on a party line vote.
What about Joe Manchin?
Joe Manchin in West Virginia.
Is he really reliable to not support Trump's nominee?
Joe Manchin needs those Trump voters.
Claire McCaskill.
In Missouri, John Tester, Montana, they're in a really tough spot.
So it's true, we've had a deal with Susan Collins and our squishes, but what about their guys?
I don't know.
Trump is very popular right now.
By the way, we're talking about almost record levels of popularity.
There's a new study out from Harvard Caps and Harris.
Trump's approval rating is at 47%.
This is up two points from last month.
So think about what's been happening in the last month.
In the last month, the mainstream media shows pictures of babies crying.
They're totally made-up pictures, by the way.
But, you know, babies being ripped from their mother...
Utter fiction.
And they put it on the cover of the Time magazine with Photoshop.
And, you know, it's so awful.
Isn't that terrible?
And what happens to Trump's popularity?
It ticks up two points.
And, by the way, it's not like it went up with the Republicans a lot and down a little bit with the Democrats.
It went up six points among Republican voters.
It went up three points among Democrat voters.
And it went up ten points among Hispanics.
So...
You would think this is the moment.
Yeah, we're going to demagogue.
Democrats are going to make this all about race and blah, blah, blah.
It's going to kill them with the Hispanic vote.
Uh-uh.
It went up 10 points.
So what are these guys going to do, these Senate Democrats?
Are they really going to say, no, no Trump.
We're going to obstruct the whole way.
Okay, good.
Enjoy your re-election campaigns, guys.
Good.
Keep that up.
That'll probably work.
This poll also showed 59% of Americans approve Donald Trump's handling of North Korea and 75% approve the Kim meeting.
Three quarters of Americans approve him meeting with Kim Jong-un.
So, okay guys, run against Trump.
Obstruct Donald Trump.
Be my guest.
See how that works out for you.
The left is furious about this position they're in.
Not just the retirement of Kennedy.
Not just that we're going to get another originalist on the court.
They're furious because they can't do anything about it.
Here's Chris Matthews.
Well, I don't think we're looking at the fresher history here of this 5-4 court.
Of course, as John mentioned, John Meacham just mentioned, they were the ones who threw the election, took it out of the hands of the Supreme Court down in Florida and gave it to George W. Bush.
And then, of course, they gave The gun people what they wanted in the Howard decision.
Then they gave the money people the decision they wanted in the United Citizens United.
Then, of course, just yesterday, they gave the anti-immigrant people what they...
This Supreme Court, this 5-4 Court, has been pro-Republican, pro-gun, pro-money.
And against immigration, anti-immigrant, if you will.
And I think the Democrats, as I said a few moments ago, have to fight this tooth and nail.
They have to use every process opportunity.
They have to stop this until next year when we have a new Senate.
We don't know whether next year's Senate will be Republican or Democratic-dominated.
But to give this to the Republicans when they control the Senate, basically 51 or 50 to 49, really, with John McCain perhaps not voting again, To give them this last chance to pack the court 5-4 again hard conservative, I again, I say this,
the base will attack the leadership for this if they allow it to happen, and they should, because this is time for vengeance for what happened two years ago, and if they don't wreak the vengeance now, with four and a half weeks, four and a half months to go before the election, they will not look very strong to their base, and I think they'll be under attack.
Vengeance.
That is the left-wing agenda right now.
Because listen to how he talks.
First of all, it's very hard because he just kind of mumbles and makes up, the immigrant people and the money people and the blah, blah, blah.
No, this court has ruled in favor of the Constitution.
Usually.
It's ruled in favor of the Constitution.
It's ruled in favor of the gun advocates.
Right, because the Constitution is a gun advocate.
The Constitution protects your individual right to keep and bear arms.
It's ruled in favor of being able to donate money to political candidates.
Right, because the First Amendment allows you to donate money to political candidates because you have free political speech.
Yeah, of course.
Duh.
Duh.
But look, as I said yesterday, they're kind of coming clean here, right?
They're saying, yeah, we oppose the Constitution.
We oppose.
He says that the court is anti-immigrant.
It's not anti-immigrant.
It's pro-Constitution.
The Constitution allows the legislature to legislate and the executive to execute those laws.
But they're being honest.
They're saying we're anti-Constitution.
You're right.
The left base is anti-Constitution, anti-American.
And he says the base is going to be really angry if the Democrats don't try to shut this down.
Yeah, they will.
But you know who's really unpopular in America right now?
The Democrat base!
The left, that far left base, which is holding the Democrat Party hostage, is very unpopular.
So good.
Do it.
Put them on display.
Put them all over TV. That's great.
Can't wait to see you in November.
That's a great idea.
Other Democrats are pretty upset about this, too.
U.S. Rep.
Brendan Boyle said, quote, The GOP theft of a Supreme Court seat by blocking Merrick Garland is possibly the single most consequential political act of this decade.
It is the most consequential political act, by the way.
It's not a theft, of course.
We'll get to that in a second.
But Mitch McConnell was asked about this.
He said, you know, in your career, Mitch McConnell's been in government since, I think, 1628.
In your career, what's the most important thing you've ever done?
He said, Holding up the nomination of Merrick Garland is the most consequential act of my career.
And that's absolutely true.
Because we've got to give this guy credit for it.
He made it such that the conservative base was ready and raring to go to elect President Trump.
Maybe some people were skeptical of him.
He didn't have much of a political record.
But they went because it so, so mattered.
Plus, it gave us this court, which has given us wonderful pro-Constitution, pro-American decisions.
Decisions on free speech, religious liberty, on life.
I mean, really, really good stuff poised to be another one.
You know, if the conservatives who didn't want to vote for Trump had gotten their way, we'd have two justices right now.
We'd have a 6-3 left wing majority on the court.
What would happen to your gun rights?
Well, we know Hillary Clinton told us they'd go away.
What would happen to your First Amendment rights?
Hillary Clinton told us they'd go away.
The left, I mean, and by the way, the left isn't even hiding this anymore.
Op-ed after op-ed, politician after politician saying we need to censor speech.
This is a great win.
And we got to thank Mitch for that.
But to call it theft, they're saying he stole it.
It was unfair.
He stole it.
It's theft.
I wonder where Mitch McConnell got that idea from.
I threatened you.
I told you I would play this clip.
Take it away, Joe Biden.
It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not And not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
Oh, that's awkward, isn't it?
The once and future candidate.
He's going to run again, by the way.
Joe Biden, he just, someone asked me, he said, are you going to run for president in 2020?
And he said, I really don't want to.
I really don't want to.
I've seen how terrible it is.
You don't want to.
You've been running for president since the 80s.
Of course you are.
Are you kidding me?
That's the job you've held in your life, is trying to be president.
Oh, I don't want to.
That's what disingenuous politicians who have run for office, who have already run for president multiple times, they say, I don't want to.
Of course you want to.
You've just said you want to.
You've wanted to do for 30 years.
But it's a little awkward because that guy is the one who created the premise for Mitch McConnell to hold up that nomination.
Now look, obviously this is just politics.
If you have the ability to stop that nomination, if you have the political capital to do it and get your guy in, you're going to do that.
That's just politics.
Now the left is trying to use this.
They're trying to flip it right and say, oh well we've got an election coming up.
It's a midterm election.
It's not a presidential election, but whatever.
So, you know, Ezra Klein is saying it's hypocritical for Republicans to want this nomination to go through before the election.
Cory Booker is saying the same thing.
He's saying, come on, you've got to do it.
Okay, that's a stretch.
That is a real stretch, fellas.
I'm sorry.
You know, the only way that this works, that the Joe Biden speech or Mitch McConnell, the way that they're able to hold up these nominations is if they have the political capital to do it.
If there's a Senate majority and they can stretch that political capital long enough to get through the election, then they're going to do it.
Democrats don't have that right now.
They don't have the majority in the House.
They don't have the majority in the Senate.
They're not very popular.
The president is very popular.
It's not a presidential election.
It's a midterm election.
Sorry, you lose.
Too bad.
The other aspect here, by the way, when you hear people preening about this, because I've noticed sometimes the rank and file on the left are doing this too.
I think they're genuinely outraged because they're ignorant.
So they say, McConnell did this and we should do it.
So, I basically favor David Mayhew, the political scientist David Mayhew.
I side with him here.
This guy, one of the major accomplishments of his career that he demonstrated is something very simple but very profound, which is that members of Congress are motivated basically solely by re-election.
Every single decision that a member of Congress makes...
Is made with regard to how it affects his chances at re-election.
That, you know, basically, with a few exceptions, I'm actually friends with some people who have served in Congress, and there are exceptions that prove the rule.
But the rule, broadly, is that the people who go there are sociopaths.
They're just sociopaths, egotists, trying to make sure that they stay in power.
James Madison wrote about this in Federalist 51 very clearly.
He said, ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Meaning, we're going to put all of the crazy sociopaths who want to take over the country, we're going to put them in a room and have them fight each other, and therefore their ambition is going to counter one another.
That's what you see here.
But it is a total farce.
I mean, it is naked politics, and that's fine.
They can preen all they want.
That's kind of the purpose of the Senate and the Congress, as the Federalist lays out.
But For people who are like regular people in the world, you shouldn't fall for that.
You shouldn't take that seriously.
It's naked politics.
And the Democrats don't have it right now.
They can't do it.
I suppose Joe Biden wanted them to hold it up in 92.
Maybe they could have had the political capital done.
They don't have it now.
And we did have it in the 2016 election.
And thank goodness we did, because it preserved American liberty.
And it just knocked away a lot of nonsense that will give us the opportunity, possibly...
To maintain liberty in America, at least for a little while.
So the question on everybody's mind, it's the title today, the title today is just, I took Roe v.
Wade and I flipped it upside down, I overturned it, is, are we going to overturn Roe v.
Wade?
The famous decision, decades old now, early 1970s, the decades old decision that pretended that there's some constitutional right to abortion, which obviously there is not.
There, you know, I sometimes reference, I got to meet Scalia twice, and he answered, like, every legal question I've ever had, so I've referenced this a lot.
But, you know, if you want a law allowing abortion, that's fine.
I mean, it's wrong and evil and immoral, and you'll probably burn in hell, but I suppose as a matter of Republican politics, it's fine.
But you have to go and convince your fellow citizens, your neighbors, to agree with you, and then you can pass a law, and then you can have abortion.
What's really wrong to do, the really legally wrong thing to do, is to pretend that it's in the Constitution somewhere.
Look in the Constitution and show me the right to abortion.
Look in the Constitution and show me the redefinition of marriage to include, but only include, same-sex unions in addition to traditional unions, to same-sex monogamous unions of two people.
Find me that in the Constitution, but not polygamous unions, because that's not in there.
Because they're just reading things, they're inventing it in the Constitution.
There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.
Roe v.
Wade is one of the worst decisions, if not the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court.
And the question is, now that we have the squish, Kennedy gone, who's sort of conservative a lot of the time, but crucially, sometimes he's pretty, he sides with the left.
Will we be able to overturn Roe v.
Wade?
If there's an abortion case that comes up to the court, will we be able to overturn it?
The question is Roberts.
Roberts clearly has an institutional view of the court.
He's worried about the institution of the Supreme Court.
If the people get too angry, they could just do away with it someday.
So he sided with the liberals on Obamacare, for instance, when it was obviously unconstitutional.
Would he do that on Roe v.
Wade?
I don't know.
I mean, he's a conservative, but He does have that institutional view, and a wrong view of the institutional view could lead him down the path of not wanting to overturn it.
There is the question of story decisis, the legal idea that precedent matters, that if something was decided a long time ago or has been reaffirmed, that you have to give that some credit, even if perhaps it's on shaky legal grounds.
Are we going to overturn...
I guess the question on story decisis, we asked this to Scalia too, is...
How do you judge that?
You know, I mean, Justice Thomas, Clarence Thomas, doesn't seem to care very much about story decisis in a way that Scalia did.
And, you know, without story decisis, you just have chaos.
You know, very important rulings could just be totally upended left and right.
So you do have to have some view of the tradition of legal precedent.
But we asked him, we said, what about Roe v.
Wade?
And he said, you know, some decisions are so egregious That they have to be overturned, even if that upset story decisis.
And some come to mind, you know, the Dred Scott decision saying that black people can never be citizens in the United States.
You know, I actually sort of defend that decision because it, not for the effect of it, but what it did was it showed the American law to be as it was.
It showed the absurdity of the question of racial basis for slavery.
And so it spurred a revision of that.
But, you know, obviously on its face, just awful consequences from that decision.
How about Plessy v.
Ferguson?
That maintained separate but equal.
But, of course, those separate things were not equal.
Some cases are so egregious that you have to flip them.
And more than any, you could point to Roe v.
Wade, which has resulted in the deaths of millions and millions of babies.
And we kill a million babies a year because of Roe v.
Wade.
Now, if Roe v.
Wade were overturned, that doesn't mean that abortion is illegal.
It means that states would decide.
It means that, you know, in New York and California, if you want to keep killing your babies, you pass a law.
It doesn't say that there's a constitutional protection against abortion, but it just says there's no constitutional right to abortion.
Now, another consideration is Susan Collins.
Is she going to make us just get another Kennedy, basically?
Another squishy, non-originalist justice?
Maybe, but as I said earlier, I'm not certain of that.
I am certain of this.
Whoever is nominated by Donald Trump for the Supreme Court needs to go into those hearings and, when asked about Roe v.
Wade, which he will be countless times, say, Roe v.
Wade has defined the law of the land.
It is the law of the land.
Roe v.
Wade is settled.
And that's all he should say about it.
Because that's all true.
It is settled.
It was settled 40 years ago.
It is true that it's defined the law of the land.
All true.
Until we overturn it.
And then it won't be settled.
Well, it'll be unsettled.
And then we'll have a new settlement.
Then we'll have a new law of the land.
But that's all that that person should say.
Obviously, we don't want someone to get borked because they're pro-lifers or they went to Catholic Mass one time, so they're clearly too pro-life or they've read the Constitution, right?
Go in there, you say, Roe v.
Wade is the settled law of the land.
And you get a little smirk in there.
What was that smirk?
Excuse me, Judge Pryor, what was that smirk?
Oh, nothing.
What smirk?
What do you think about Roe v.
Wade?
Oh, Roe v.
Wade is the settled law of the land.
I saw that again.
No, you didn't see anything.
That's what we need to do.
So the question is, before we get to the mailbag now, who should we get?
There are good judges on the short list.
I'm not going to pretend that I know everything about all these judges at all.
But I will talk about the ones who are getting a lot of discussion in the mainstream media.
Mike Lee, terrific senator, very conservative, one of the best members of the U.S. Senate, a terrific politician in America.
I don't know that he should go to the Supreme Court.
I don't know that he should.
I don't know that in this particularly polarized time, while conservatives are struggling to explain to Democrats and to explain to the left broadly that the Supreme Court is supposed to be nonpartisan, that we favor originalists and textualists because they respect the letter of the law of the Constitution, regardless of our political preferences, that we're not nominating conservatives or Republicans, we're nominating originalists.
And here is an example of a difference.
A conservative justice would say that abortion is illegal because we want to protect life.
An originalist justice would say there's no protection, there's no right to an abortion.
Doesn't mean that abortion is necessarily illegal then, does it?
There are laws against murder.
You need a law against abortion.
That would be a difference between that kind of jurisprudence.
As we're trying to convince them of this difference, as we're trying to maintain the integrity of the court, I don't know that it looks good to appoint a senator, a conservative Republican senator.
Nothing against Mike Lee.
Mike Lee would be terrific on the court.
But we haven't had a senator serve on the Supreme Court since 1971, since Hugo Black.
And that was the last year that we had a senator on the court.
And Hugo Black was terrible.
I mean, he was a member of the Klan, Democrat, which is, that's, I'm repeating myself, a new dealer, He voted for some of the worst decisions.
Wickard v.
Filburn, totally expanded federal power.
As a senator, he vehemently opposed anti-lynching legislation.
You know, just absolutely terrible.
So I guess Mike Lee could be our version of that.
He's like the good version of a senator on the court.
But I just don't, in this very partisan ideological moment, I don't know that we can do it.
Obviously, Howard Taft.
William Howard Taft was both president and chief justice of the court.
He was president first until 1913, and then he was chief justice for the 1920s, basically.
So, I don't know.
I'm a little dubious on putting a senator on the court.
The leading contender right now is William Pryor from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Listen, Republican presidents have gotten burned before by judicial nominees.
We need someone who is...
Who we know about, who we know a lot about, and we can sort of rely on.
Pryor is that sort of rock-ribbed originalist, I think, from everything I know about him.
I also like that he's Catholic.
And it's not just my own Catholic bias coming out here.
Catholics make great justices.
Scalia, Alito, Thomas, converted to Catholicism, reverted to Catholicism.
Gorsuch is a cradle Catholic.
I think now he goes to a Protestant church.
An Episcopal church, twice the liturgy, half the guilt, but still has that kind of Catholic upbringing.
There are other Catholics too.
The reason that Catholics are good on the court is because it's a real institution that looks at tradition and parses logic very, very tightly.
And Catholics are known for this.
Catholics have been doing this for 2,000 years.
Thomas Aquinas is a good example here.
longstanding institutions, seriousness, you know, bringing ancient understandings of logic through into the modern world.
So they're very good at this.
And so I do favor Catholics in that way.
Plus Catholics like to wear weird long robes and stuff and go into kind of old buildings.
So they're good at that.
Another one who's being talked about is Amul Thapar.
He is a little younger than Pryor.
Pryor is 56.
Thapar is under 50.
And he's on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
He's really tight with Mitch McConnell, who I've been extolling the virtues of the last couple of days.
We know a little less about him.
So I don't know.
He could be terrific.
He could be great.
He's not a Catholic, but I won't hold it against him.
I won't totally hold it against him.
Mike Lee's not a Catholic either.
I won't hold it against him.
But I don't know.
We know a little less about him, so I'm a little worried because we've been burned before.
We'll just have to see what happens, but it would be terrific.
The Democrats really shot down Pryor last time because they said he was too rock-ribbed a constitutionalist.
Would be really nice to drink up those tears if we got him this time, wouldn't it?
I'd have to get like two ice packs next time.
Before we get to the mailbag, I know we're running out of time a little bit here.
As we're talking about demographics, got to talk about that Democrat tribalism biting them.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has campaigned on the slogan, basically, women like me aren't supposed to run for office.
She was, you know, the socialist who won in Queens.
And what was she talking about?
A left winger?
I don't think she was talking about that.
I think she's talking about her race and her gender and her demographics.
You know, sort of physical demographics.
She's 28 years old.
She's Hispanic.
And apparently this endows you with superpowers now if you're a Democrat.
You know, just your sort of ethnicity, your race, your gender.
We saw this with Sotomayor, speaking of the court.
When Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by Obama, she said, you know, you need a wise Latina woman on the court.
As though, you know, that, you know, Antonin Scalia says you need someone who understands the Constitution, and Sotomayor says you need a wise Latina woman.
Yeah, okay.
But what's great about this, we're seeing this in a lot of races around the country, not just in Queens, at the Catskills, this guy Antonio Delgado.
Who's this Harvard and Oxford grad.
He's a black candidate.
He beat out six white Democrat candidates recently.
Maryland Democrats nominated Ben Jealous for governor.
151 women so far in this cycle have won House Democrat primaries.
That's twice as many as at this point in 2016.
What that's showing us is that they're really digging into this racial and gender intersectionality.
Now look, some of these people are good candidates.
The Harvard-Oxford guy is obviously credentialed and qualified.
But it does seem that there's a real uptick in those considerations.
And it shows the end of...
I think in some ways the end of the Democrat Party because they're saying we're going to privilege race and gender.
You know, people who aren't white men, we're going to privilege that over other, you know, other characteristics such as ideology.
You know, it doesn't seem like that race in the Caskills doesn't look like ideology played much of a role in it.
You know, they're really digging into not the thought process, but just the looks, the looks of things.
We're in a time that is past logic.
We talked about after World War I, this breakdown of logic and sense and art, and now we're in this just like grunting tribalism, and the Democrats are digging in more than anybody.
It looks like it's going to bite them, though, because that's not a serious and logical way to make decisions.
You want to pick a candidate not because of the color of their skin, but because of the content of their character, And their logic and their platform on what they're going to run on.
So we'll see.
I can't imagine it's going to help them.
We've got to get to the mailbag.
Before I get to that, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube in the last minutes here.
Go over to dailywire.com.
$10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
You get me.
You get the Andrew Klavan Show.
You get the Ben Shapiro Show.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
By the way, we've got a great Daily Wire backstage coming up.
That is going to be on July 2nd, I think.
Are we doing that on the 2nd?
Yes.
Yes, July 2nd, 7 p.m.
Eastern Time.
We've got the guest, Jordan B. Peterson there.
So, if you're a subscriber, you get to go and you get to ask questions, and we can do that, but again, none of it matters.
Look, you're going to get a hangover, so make sure you drink a lot of water over the next couple weeks, but you need this vessel.
Otherwise, you're going to drown.
Go get the Leftist Tears Tumblr at dailywire.com.
We'll be right back with the mailbag.
We've got about six minutes here at the end, so I'm going to try to get a lot of mailbag First question, from Paul.
Why does the Catholic Church insist that only men can be priests?
It's because the thuribles are very heavy.
They're very heavy.
It's hard to pick them up, the smells and the bells.
You need a lot of muscles for that to work.
There are some other reasons, too.
But this question actually does come up a lot.
Why can't women be priests?
I think you're looking at it backwards.
First of all, priestesses have been common to a lot of religions in antiquity and in the modern era, before, during, and after the incarnation.
It's not like this was unheard of.
Only we blessed moderns realize that women can do things.
That isn't what happened.
But Judaism rejected that, and it seems that Christ, in establishing the Church, did not want women to be priests either.
How do we know that?
Well, if he did, the Virgin Mary would have been an ideal candidate to be a priest, right?
At the Blessed Sacrament, at the Eucharist, she could have quite literally said, this is my body, this is my blood, right?
It comes from her.
Christ comes from her, from her womb.
But women and men have different roles in the church.
It doesn't mean that women are lesser.
You'll remember, who were the first people to spread the gospel of the resurrection?
It was women.
Women realized that Christ was resurrected.
But are they given a teaching function in the church?
No.
We know that from St.
Paul's epistles, from 1 Corinthians, from 1 Timothy.
They have different functions.
We have nuns, we have priests.
And women teach in Catholic schools.
It's not like they can't teach ever, but in the church there is a different role to them.
Of the apostles, the apostles are men.
There are plenty of female disciples of Jesus who are very close to him.
And the closest to Jesus is his mother, obviously a woman, who When Judas betrayed Christ and in Acts the apostles elected a new apostle, which is where we get apostolic succession from, it was men.
And I think there's a reason for that.
If you ask the question, well, why can't women?
I think you're looking at it from different ways.
When you're a priest, you're serving...
The church, and you're serving the bridegroom of the church, Christ, it is a service.
It's something you do.
It's not about the personal will and showing off and having a flashy title or something.
It's about service.
And so if you're saying, well, I want that glory, you're doing it wrong.
In the 1970s, the Church of England started to ordain women priests.
It was the beginning of the end of the Church of England.
I don't know if anybody goes there anymore.
It's like a husk of a husk now, you know.
And there was a big split.
There was a lot of Anglo-Catholicism that came out of that.
The reason that women aren't priests in the church is that women aren't priests in the church.
And if someone is really enraged by this, it probably says more about you than about the church.
And maybe you'll have to think where that rage comes from.
From Alicia.
Hi, Mikey.
Hey, Alicia.
I have enjoyed your comments on the Catholic Church and practices.
On a spectrum of 1 to 10, 1 being guitar group modern and 10 being Gregorian chant, what type of church do you prefer?
Alicia.
From Brandon, Michael, you're nearing your prophesied 200th episode.
What steps have you taken to avoid your homeless, dumpster-living calamity?
You're married now.
Where will that poor woman live?
You have to think about these things.
It has been weighing on me.
I love reading the Odyssey and the Iliad.
Sometimes the fates really can conspire against you.
The more you try to change your fate, the more you lead yourself into it.
I'm working on it.
It is true.
That 200th episode where I'm bearded and living in a dumpster, it is coming up.
I'm sleeping with one eye open at night.
I'm doing my best.
If you have any thoughts, please tweet them at me.
I've had to avoid that terrible, terrible fate.
We've got a few more minutes from Corey.
Dear sweet little old Michael, you said yesterday that the philosophical premise of owning your own body leads to modernism.
Well, I said that is part and parcel of modernism.
That's actually...
The philosophical premises of modernism are what leads you to think ridiculous things like you have your own body.
I'll continue with the question.
Even with libertarians.
How does this lead libertarians to asking for consent to change a diaper?
Who owns your body if not yourself?
God?
Which one?
There are several different interpretations of God at the Daily Wire.
Can I just pick my favorite?
It seems like a lottery ticket that is usually picked out for you by your parents, your cellmate, or your favorite conservative commentator.
Cough, clave, and cough.
Real nice, buddy.
These are genuine questions, no sarcasm.
Corey, first question, who owns your body if not you?
God?
Yes, God.
You didn't make your body.
You're not responsible for creating your body.
You do not belong to yourself.
It is just a total fiction and a fantasy to believe that you belong to yourself.
You have a will, but your will has a telos.
It has a purpose.
There's a purpose for your life, and you don't just get to make it out of nothing and pick it out of thin air.
You can, but your life won't turn out very well.
You do not own yourself.
This is why suicide is a sin.
Because you don't own yourself.
You didn't create yourself.
You have no legitimate right to say, I own myself and I can do with myself as I please, including disregarding the moral order.
As for which God to choose from, how do you choose which God?
Very carefully.
Very carefully.
That's how you choose which God.
You say that there are many interpretations of versions of God at the Daily Wire.
I don't think that's true.
I suppose Ben would disagree with Drew and I over the nature of the Incarnation and the Resurrection.
Sure, the second person of the Trinity, maybe the third person too.
But if we were to describe God the Father, I don't know that we would describe him terribly differently, would we?
The first person of the Blessed Trinity.
I don't know.
If we were to describe the moral order that comes out of God, I don't know that we would describe it terribly differently, would we?
A lot of people who want to justify atheism, they say, oh, there are so many different versions of God.
How can we know?
They're all people have different ideas.
Not really.
Not really.
I mean, there are certainly heresies that people spout, but if you look at sort of the myths, the ancient myths, and sort of the ancient conversations that are happening between pagans and between people who believe in God, I'm not so sure that there are different gods that come out.
Even in the polytheistic pagan religions, I'm not sure that an image of God isn't at least...
Lightly manifested that you can sort of see through the fog.
I don't really believe that.
It's why moral systems around the world are so similar.
You know, I've never heard really a good argument for atheism.
I've never heard a serious person give a serious argument for atheism because they don't really exist.
So you might say, well, that's not clear.
I want an answer.
I want it to be so clear and obvious which religion I should believe in and which God I should worship.
All shallows are clear.
Can you do, I don't know, multivariable calculus?
Are you really good at that?
Or stochastic analysis or some sort of difficult higher-end math?
Are you perfect at that?
No, probably not.
You probably don't know very much about that beyond algebra, if you're like the average American.
So...
If you don't know about that, why on earth would you think that you can grasp the nature of God just because?
There's a great story about St.
Augustine was trying to explain the Trinity.
This is a legend that comes from St.
Augustine, although who knows, maybe it happened.
He was really racking his brain, and he was walking along the beach, and he saw a little kid pouring water with a seashell into a hole.
And he said to the kid, what are you doing?
And he said, oh, I'm going to pour the whole ocean into this hole.
He said, that's great.
You can't fit the whole ocean into that hole.
And then the kid turns to him and he says, that's right.
And you can't fit the mystery of the Trinity into that finite head of yours.
And then all of a sudden, you know, the child is transfigured and disappears.
I think it's a good, you know, it's a legend about St.
Augustine, but it's a good story.
You can't fit all of that into your head.
But just because you have finite intelligence, just because you can't understand something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
You know...
Most of the things in the world none of us can't understand.
We have such a finite intelligence.
Do we have time for one more?
We gotta go.
We gotta go.
Okay, sorry folks.
We had some really good questions to talk about.
I will see you next week.
We had some really good guests coming up.
I don't want to spoil it right yet, but we've got a lot to talk about today.
We've got a lot to talk about next week with them.
In the meantime, I hope that you guys can cure all of your Leftist Tears hangovers.
Make sure you get the Tumblr.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
I'll see you Monday.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Semia Villareal.
Executive producer, Jeremy Bory.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Jim Nickel.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection