All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
34:18
Justice Breyer Retiring - January 26th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
I let it skid it, simple man.
That means only one thing, and that's all things.
Bill O'Reilly at billo'reilly.com.
He joins us.
Sir, how are you?
I'm limbering up for the big blizzard.
So I got my shovel, my salt.
I'm not going down this path.
I went down this path last year, and you tried to convince this audience that you'd shovel your own snow, and I think you'd shoveling Adam Schiff instead, because I don't believe it for a minute.
I know you're a doubter, but I got to get the terra dog out.
Well, we got an opening with the U.S. Supreme Court.
You know, one thing I've always noticed, Mr. O'Reilly, is that when Republicans make Supreme Court justice appointments, they often get disappointed.
It happens more often than not, it seems.
And it's frustrating.
Democrats never get it wrong.
They always get the liberal, radical, you know, judicial activists that they seek.
Interesting point.
I think that in Washington, D.C., where all these people live, the Supreme Court justices, there is a tremendous social pressure not to be doctrinaire conservative if you want to come out of the house and go to any parties and go to get invited to the swell events.
So a guy like Clarence Thomas doesn't care about that, and he stays pretty much in the conservative zone.
But the others will kind of, you know, like John Roberts, the Chief Justice, he kind of sway over.
He can be persuaded.
But the liberal judges never can be persuaded, it seems.
And they are zealots.
I think in general, though, the progressive crew is more fanatical than the conservative crew.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's what I see.
See, I think you got three solid, what we call originalists on the court.
In other words, that they believe in separation of powers, co-equal branches of government.
They don't believe in legislating from the bench.
And that would be Thomas, you're right.
I think Sam Alito's in that group.
I think Gorsuch is in that group.
Then you've got Roberts, who seems to be playing.
I think Roberts wants to have his court viewed through the prism of history, and he's very conscious of this at all times, in the rulings that he is making.
But as evidenced by all the reports that said that he was going to overturn Obamacare and at the last minute changed his mind because he thought it would be seen, it would seem, as though the court were being political.
Kavanaugh, I think the jury's still out.
I think Kavanaugh is probably a middle justice.
But, you know, then Republicans appoint people like Souter, you know, who's a hardcore leftist.
They make a lot of mistakes.
Sodomayor is the hardest of the hardcore.
Big time.
And, you know, it's interesting to analyze the basic look that progressive judges bring to the Constitution.
So these liberal judges, they actually believe that the founding fathers did not want American citizens to be armed.
They believe that because of the word militia.
Now, as you know, I'm a historian, a simple man historian, but I'm a historian.
And every single debate, every single letter, every indication of the founding fathers says one thing.
They, the founding fathers, did not trust the federal government.
And they thought there might be a coup d'état on the part of the military.
But anyway, if you talk to Sotomayor or Breyer or any of these people, they would say, no, no, no.
The founders didn't want individuals to be armed and be able to defend themselves.
They wanted the area, the town, to be able to do it.
And you look at them and you go, back that up for me, will you?
And they can't.
I have a document signed by Thomas Jefferson, and Annie's one of the few people in the world who's actually seen my collection.
Yeah, by the way, I have seen his collection.
Now, I've got to tell everybody, to get to see the collection, you've got to go through the doors as thick as you've ever seen.
You've got to put it on a Second Amendment.
By the way, have you ever fired a firearm in your life?
I bet you haven't.
I can shoot pretty well, I really think.
Let's go shooting one day.
Yep.
But the document that I have, signed by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, clearly says that the federal government is going to appoint four brigadier generals to police the Western frontier, but no more than four because of the fear of a coup d'etat.
And so my point is this.
Progressive judges, not only on the Supreme Court, but on every court, whether it's federal, state, or local, believe what they want to believe.
They don't study the Constitution.
They can't back up most of their rulings.
And that's the fact.
Well, we've had instances where liberal justices have literally cited foreign law and foreign constitutions to justify their decisions.
You can't even make that up.
And I've always argued that I believe that what Democrats and the left in this country can never get done at the ballot box because it wouldn't sell with the American people and what they could never get done legislatively because they'd never get it passed.
They hope that they can get it through judicial activism.
In other words, and then judicial activism would literally usurp the power of the legislative branch and even the executive branch, and they would be dictating law, which totally abandons the whole principle of co-equal branches of government.
Let me move on and get your take overall.
You know, where do you see the Biden administration now?
Because last week was a disaster.
This week isn't much better.
And I think when the liberal media has now turned on Joe Biden, that's two years of sycophantic coverage, and they are now recognizing this is an unmitigated disaster.
Not all of them.
Most of them.
The Washington Post is still trying to convince its readership that this is a brilliant man in the Oval Office.
If you read Jennifer Rubin's column, it's unbelievable.
She basically says this week to Joe Biden, it's perhaps the best president for one year that we've had.
And if you want to really her and Rachel Maddow are the only two people in America that say it, but probably don't believe it.
The Washington Post, they haven't turned on Biden yet.
But if you want to really be amused, Google O'Reilly Jennifer Rubin and watch how I disassembled her on the factor.
It is worth your time.
Anyway, you disassembled her?
It sounds like you dismembered her.
I mean, you make it sound like a murdering, you know, verbal murdering coup.
Never, never.
I did it in a very methodical fashion.
So where is the Biden administration?
It's nowhere because they're paralyzed with fear about Putin.
So now an interesting story, I'm leading with this on the No Spin News tonight on billoreilly.com and the first TV.
There is a split among conservatives about whether the United States should assert itself in defense of Ukraine.
It's not the Ukraine, by the way.
It's just Ukraine.
By the way, I don't see that split.
I don't know any conservatives.
Well, I'm running soundbites tonight.
Okay, I'll watch.
But for example, is there any conservative that you know that wants military action?
Because I don't know any of that.
No, no, no.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, Lindsey Graham.
No way.
Oh, yeah.
I'm not saying military action.
He wants to sanction Putin now.
No, I would be.
Listen, when you have a, I don't mean to interrupt, but when you have a sovereign country and then you have a superpower with all the nuclear weapons that Russia has threatening to take over that country, I do believe that the world needs to stand up for the sovereignty of individual countries.
That's your side, right?
And the way I would do it is I would out-produce Vladimir Putin on the energy front because that's half their economy.
Joe's never going to do that.
Okay.
But let's just get back to the split.
So Rand Paul, he doesn't want to have any bad relations.
And many people, some on the Fox News channel, have gone on and say, why are we giving Russia a hard time here?
We don't have any interest in Ukraine.
Which I'm going, are you kidding me?
If Putin invades Ukraine and Biden does nothing, which is impossible, you have to do something.
But if he did nothing, that would make Afghanistan look like a huge victory.
But he's not going to do anything substantial.
No, no, no, no.
You were wrong, I think, with all due respect.
It's your show.
He's going to cut off dollar flow to Putin.
And Putin's going to suffer if you followed the Russian stock market.
He doesn't need our dollars, Bill.
What he needs is.
Oh, yes, he does.
No, no, no.
Joe Biden, when you look at the numbers of the amount of oil we're importing now from Russia, the leverage lies with Putin.
Now with Nord Stream 2, now with Nord Stream 2 being approved in that waiver, you're talking about billions of dollars a day of energy flowing into Western Europe from Vladimir Putin.
Joe Biden single-handedly has made Russia and Putin rich again.
Listen, the American policy since Trump took office has been favorable to Putin.
All right.
But Putin needs commerce.
And the Russian economy, because it's an oligarchy that doesn't filter down to the folks, the folks remain poor.
They're not affluent.
The Russian stock market is tottering.
He goes in, it's going to crash.
The ruble, that's their currency, is tottering.
I know about this stuff.
And if Putin goes in, that's the end of Putin.
So he's going to be able to.
I do not agree with that, not even close to agree with that.
I think the only weakness and vulnerability that we could exploit, because we're not going to war with Putin.
No, no, we would go to 50%.
It was embarrassing.
We will go to economic war with Putin.
Okay.
And so will Europe, except for Germany.
Okay, well, Germany won't.
And I wonder how many European countries will join us.
I'm not so sure even our allies will.
All right, quick break.
More with Bill O'Reilly on the other side.
800-941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
Greg Jarrett coming up.
We'll get his take on the Supreme Court opening.
And your calls, 800-941-Sean, as we continue.
More with Bill O'Reilly, allthingsO'Reilly at BillO'reilly.com.
Let me add this point.
Half of Putin's economy is based on energy.
Yeah, but if you can't get the energy flow through the Nordstrom pipeline, okay.
And whoa, whoa, who's going to stop that, Bill?
NATO.
Bull B.S.
Adam Schiff.
I'm telling you that the power of the United States and Great Britain will be brought to bear here if the NATO alliance fractures, which is what Putin wants, by the way.
That's what he's aiming for.
I'll tell you why they can't do it, Bill, but they can't do it because they're too reliant on energy from Russia.
They don't have that option.
There is going to be, if he goes in, unintended consequences on both sides.
But the Ukrainians are going to fight.
So he's going to have another Afghanistan on his hands because remember, this is the anniversary today of Jimmy Carter pulling out of the Moscow Olympics because the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Today is the anniversary.
It's the same thing.
Ukrainians are going to fight.
So Putin's going to have all that bloodbath.
He's going to have economic sanctions on him.
Whether they work or not, we'll see.
Okay, Bill, here's the problem if they fight.
I'll give you the numbers.
Ukraine has 250,000 troops.
Russia has a million.
The Russians have 13,000 tanks.
Ukraine has 2,400.
Canada learned from Afghanistan.
Okay, understood.
Now we'll give them Stinger missiles like Afghanistan and anti-tank missiles because Russia has 13,000 tanks, 4,000 aircraft, 600 ships, and 6,400 nukes.
I don't see it the way you do.
And I'll tell you why.
Energy is the lifeblood right now of the world's economy.
And too many of our allies and too many countries in Europe need Putin's energy in large part because Joe stopped producing it here.
Look, that is a factor.
But you strangle Putin with the U.S. dollar, and dollars can't come out or go into Russia.
You crash their economy, energy or not.
And there are a lot of people in Russia who will suffer because of Putin's actions.
Don't dispute that part, but I will tell you, he could walk into Ukraine just like they did with Crimea, and there's not a damn thing the world's really going to do effectively against Putin.
That's my prediction.
I don't think Putin's going to do it, by the way.
I'm one of the few that don't.
No, there's a chance he might not.
There's a chance this is a much bigger.
He may be playing chess, and the chess says he gets concessions all over the place.
He'll declare victory next week and say, okay, they're going to pull back this or whatever it may be.
No, I actually prefer disagreeing with you.
It's more fun.
Yeah, but you may be right on this.
It's just that I know if Putin invades Ukraine, that's the end of Putin.
He will go down.
It won't be right away, but that signal.
Okay, give me a timeframe and I'll take that bet.
Okay, once he goes in, we'll see.
All right, you got a deal.
All right, Mr. O'Reilly, all things O'Reilly, billo'reilly.com.
Thank you, sir.
Always love having you.
It's fun.
Thanks, Sean.
Bye.
When we come back, Greg Jarrett will be with us.
We'll talk about the opening on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Breyer's out, and Joe Biden gets his first Supreme Court pick.
When news breaks, you get the inside story that no one else has.
And the behind-the-scenes chatter that the mainstream media doesn't even know about.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
All right, 25 now to the top of the hour.
If you're just joining us, Justice Stephen Breyer to retire from the Supreme Court, paving the way for a Biden appointment.
Usually something like this would happen when the term of the court, usually in June or July, usually June, comes to an end.
That's when retirements are usually announced.
It's causing many to speculate that Democrats are anticipating a strong possibility of losing control of the U.S. Senate in the midterm elections.
But then we have the question of, okay, well, who will replace Stephen Breyer?
The left does not get Supreme Court justice picks wrong.
Republicans do.
David Souter is a case in point.
I would argue that John Roberts is nowhere near as conservative as I thought he would be.
Unfortunately, I think he lets politics factor into some of his decisions, which is a little disappointing.
I think the most conservative justices, obviously Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Neil Gorsuch is a reliable conservative.
Amy Coney Barrett, it's just going to be a matter of time.
Too early to tell.
Same with Justice Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh scares me a little bit at this point, but I'll judge as time goes on.
Anyway, if you remember back in September of 2020, remember what the left was saying about the appointment of Supreme Court justices, because I doubt Republicans will play this same game.
We must also commit to using every procedural tool available to us to ensure that we buy ourselves the time necessary.
But once we win the majority, God willing, everything is on the table.
If, in fact, they are successful in placing a justice on the court, I think that what Democrats have to do, assuming that Biden is president and there is a Senate majority for the Democrats, we need to think about court reform.
And at a minimum, as part of that reform package, I think additional justices need to be placed on the Supreme Court.
Biden was asked last night repeatedly, if he wins the election, would he favor adding more justices in the Supreme Court?
He would not answer that question.
Where do you stand on that?
This is long overdue court reform as far as I'm concerned.
And of course, we know the whole power crab scheme of packing the court, which we know Joe Biden wants to do, like he wants to eliminate the filibuster, like he'd love D.C. statehood, because that would be probably a Democratic majority in perpetuity.
Anyway, Greg Jarrett is with us, best-selling author, Fox News legal analyst, hosting of his own podcast, The Brief, Sir.
How are you?
I'm well.
You know, if Breyer was going to retire, it had to be now, Sean.
I mean, at the end of this term, which ends in June or early July.
Because as you point out, Sean, Breyer knows that there's a very good chance in the midterm elections in November, Democrats will lose control of the Senate, which, of course, confirms Supreme Court justices.
Currently at Thai, the Vice President Kamala Harris casts the deciding vote.
So if Breyer waited until next year or thereafter, he would certainly run the risk that it would be harder for President Biden to get a nominee on the court who is the kind of liberal justice that Breyer would surely like to see as his replacement.
And, you know, remember, Biden has repeatedly promised on the campaign trail he would nominate to the high court an African-American female.
I don't think there's any way he can break that promise without causing enormous political fallout.
So, you know, there are several people who are surely at the very top of the list, Katanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C., Leandra Krueger, who is on the California Supreme Court.
They're both fairly young.
They have impeccable academic credentials.
They have served as judges.
And so, you know, I think those are the top two on the list.
Do you see, I don't see the Democrats ever make a mistake.
They never pick a David Souter.
They never, like, to be very honest, the Federalist, which is often recommended to Republican presidents, I think have gotten it far too wrong, far too often, and have over-promised in terms of the judicial philosophy that is presented to the country of what we can expect from a justice, and then they end up disappointing.
Have you noticed that pattern?
Yeah, I mean, I think the only person who was disappointing for the Democrats was Byron White, who was appointed by President Kennedy.
He thought to be a liberal, ended up not being so much.
But you're right.
Most of them, and it's not just David Souter, but John Paul Stevens, even going all the way back to Earl Warren, Republicans made a miscalculation.
So you're right.
They tend to do that.
Democrats don't.
Pretty disappointing.
Do you see any obstacles that will prevent this vacancy from being filled by Joe Biden?
No, I don't.
If you appoint or nominate Katanji Jackson or Leandra Krueger, I don't think there's any way that they would fail confirmation.
Jackson, in particular, has already been vetted for the current seat that she has on the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Before that, she was a federal district judge for eight years, Harvard-educated, college and law school.
She clerked for Breyer.
So frankly, I sort of put her at the top of the list.
Leander Kruger sits on the California Supreme Court for the last six years, Harvard undergrad, Yale Law School.
She clerked for John Paul Stevens.
So both have academic credentials that are truly outstanding.
And it would be very hard for Republicans to oppose it.
Republicans have to be very careful in an election year to oppose somebody like Jackson or Kruger.
I mean, Democrats would love to make this an election year issue.
They would probably love to tarnish Republican senators as racist or sexist for opposing either Jackson or Kruger or whoever the nominee is.
So, you know, they've got to be careful.
And frankly, if I were to be advising a Republican senator, I would say, look, this is not going to change the composition of the court.
You have long embraced the notion that qualified people should serve.
So don't oppose these qualified people.
There are a number of Supreme Court decisions that we would expect come the end of the term in early summer.
One dealing with Roe v.
Wade and abortion, which some observers think could be overturned.
Now, that would not make abortion illegal in any way, shape, manner, or form, but it would be sent back to the states.
That's right.
I always thought Roe, in terms of the law, was bad law.
The other instance, the other controversial issue would be affirmative action for admissions to schools like Harvard and others.
They've taken up that case.
Do you think these cases, if they came down in ways that the Democrats, liberals don't like, would motivate their base for the 2022 midterms?
Well, I think it will.
The abortion, the Dobbs case, the abortion case in particular, it'll be very interesting to see what the Supreme Court does.
They can either entirely reverse Roe versus Wade or simply draw yet another distinction and allow states to continue to whittle away at Roe versus Wade.
By the way, I agree with you entirely that Roe was not based on sound law.
You know, they sort of invented this right to privacy that doesn't exist in the Constitution for abortion, which was the biggest stretch I think I've ever seen.
So we'll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court does.
I kind of think they're going to draw a fine distinction, but not fully overturn Roe versus Wade.
But if they're ever going to do it, the Dobbs case is ripe for that.
All right.
Great acknowledge, as always.
Greg Jarrett, thanks so much for being with us.
We'll have more on Hannity tonight, the very latest on where this is likely headed and what it means and why they did it now.
Don is in Iowa.
Don, you're on the Sean Hannity Show.
Glad you called.
Hi, Sean.
Thank you for taking my call.
What's going on?
Thank you for calling.
Driving across New Mexico in my 18-wheeler, by the way.
Nice and icy out here.
I'm just called concerning Justice Breyer.
I know there's a lot of debate as to whether he's being forced out, but I think it's probably just his time.
But I also believe that no matter that they're going to try and push the most left-wing coup they can through.
I mean, they're going to try and push the courts even further left.
It's not going to shift the balance of power in the court because Breyer is a reliable liberal jurist, and no matter how hardcore left they go, it's basically just replacing one liberal vote for another.
And I don't see a lot that Republicans are going to be able to do to stop it.
I think Democrats probably twisted Breyer's arm saying, hey, the earlier you get out, the easier this will be for us.
If it was at the end of the term, now we're coming up on an election, and who knows what possible delays could exist that you might not even anticipate.
And I think the Democrats want that time to ensure that they get this nominee in.
No, you're exactly right.
I think that they probably said, look, you're going to retire anyway.
Let's do it now so we can get somebody in your seat because come November, we may not have the Senate to be able to push a confirmation through.
So, no, you're absolutely right.
I think that's definitely what they're looking at.
So, not a surprise.
Don, appreciate it, my friend.
All my best to all our friends in Iowa.
Back to our busy phones.
Tyler is in the great state of Ohio, the Buckeye State.
What's going on, Tyler?
How are you, sir?
Hey, Sean, how are you doing, buddy?
I'm good, man.
Glad to call.
Thank you.
You were mentioning about the 25th Amendment and Joe Biden's cognitive ability.
And I was thinking if we can, the Republican Party can pull a big win in the upcoming fall elections for the Congress, for the Senate, if we can get a majority in the House and the Senate.
I think what we'll end up doing is I think, you know, we'll obviously nominate our own speaker, of course.
And then I think what they'll do is they'll put a board of physicians, they'll set up a board of physicians, and they'll give Biden an ultimatum.
They'll say, you either resign or you go before a board of physicians for cognitive ability, and then they'll vote the 25th Amendment.
I'm not so sure they will do that.
I mean, you know, pick your poison.
I don't know who's worse philosophically, Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.
I think they're equally bad and equally incompetent.
But we're getting to a point where, to me, it's very dangerous, not just for the country, but for the world.
You know, I go back to this RNC ad, and this is just, you know, a typical press conference from Joe Biden, which are rare to begin with.
But listen.
The political coverage.
Look some of the political players and some of the.
Let me ask a rhetorical question.
No, anyway.
I mean, it's pretty bad.
It seems to be getting worse.
There may come a point where, look, if he's having, if my observations are correct, and did you see the segment I did with Geraldo and Bongino last night where I showed Biden over the years?
No, I had gotten off about 5 o'clock or said.
It is such a stark difference of Biden back then, even Biden in 2016, and Biden today.
I don't know what the hell's going on, but it doesn't look good.
I think even if the scenario does play out and we gain the majorities and we can nominate our own Speaker of the House, let's say that does play out.
I mean, that gives us the ability to hold a confirmation hearing on any vice president that Kamala wants to nominate.
Therefore, we've got at least somebody moderate in the White House to kind of oversee what's going on.
That's my thought on it.
Listen, I don't think he's making, I don't think he's making the calls now.
I think he's that checked out.
And when I ask people, do you think that he's calling the shots in the White House?
Most people don't think he is.
But anyway, we'll see over time.
It's not something I like to really say or talk about.
I mean, for a while, it was funny, and then I realized this is way too serious, and it has such deep ramifications around the globe.
And for our own fellow countrymen to have a president that checked out.
I mean, this is a guy that didn't know what Let's Go Brandon meant.
How are you that out of touch?
You know, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal and endowed by the thing.
Oh, you know the thing.
And that's nothing.
It's crazy.
And then the flashes of anger we see.
Thanks for the call.
800-941 Sean is a number.
You want to be a part of the program?
We're going to talk about crime all around the country, skyrocketing records everywhere, why it's happening, how to stop it.
Quick break right back.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection