1
00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:04,520
Speaker 1: I am well on record saying that Justice Katanji Brown

2
00:00:04,640 --> 00:00:07,600
Speaker 1: Jackson is not good at her job. Now you can argue, Tony,

3
00:00:07,680 --> 00:00:09,520
Speaker 1: she knows more about the law than you, And I'll

4
00:00:09,520 --> 00:00:12,440
Speaker 1: say to you, Yeah, somebody who's seen more than three

5
00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:14,560
Speaker 1: episodes of the People's Court might know more about the

6
00:00:14,640 --> 00:00:18,479
Speaker 1: law than I do. However, when you see somebody rely

7
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:22,000
Speaker 1: on the crutch of I'm just trying to understand what

8
00:00:22,079 --> 00:00:24,919
Speaker 1: I don't understand. Here's what I don't understand, as she

9
00:00:24,960 --> 00:00:28,160
Speaker 1: says constantly in her cases, when you see someone who

10
00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:33,640
Speaker 1: has been repeatedly, in my words, reprimanded by other justices

11
00:00:34,159 --> 00:00:38,400
Speaker 1: for her decisions. When you see even progressive justices, if

12
00:00:38,400 --> 00:00:40,440
Speaker 1: you want to call them that, in Alida Kagan and

13
00:00:40,440 --> 00:00:43,199
Speaker 1: Sonya Soto Mayor saying you don't quite understand what this

14
00:00:43,280 --> 00:00:46,000
Speaker 1: case was about. I am left at only one place,

15
00:00:46,040 --> 00:00:50,640
Speaker 1: and in this latest case regarded conversion therapy, I think

16
00:00:50,680 --> 00:00:53,760
Speaker 1: she's engaging in a level of contradiction of her own

17
00:00:53,800 --> 00:00:57,840
Speaker 1: positions and opinions. Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, good to

18
00:00:57,960 --> 00:01:01,720
Speaker 1: be with you. William Jake joins me right now, Cornell Law,

19
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:05,080
Speaker 1: professor of the mind behind Legal insurrection dot Com. Now Sir,

20
00:01:05,160 --> 00:01:08,800
Speaker 1: I don't ask you for any opinion giving on Katanji

21
00:01:08,800 --> 00:01:10,800
Speaker 1: Brown Jackson. That's for me to do. You can if

22
00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:13,679
Speaker 1: you want. I am not putting you on the spot there,

23
00:01:14,040 --> 00:01:17,800
Speaker 1: but rather I will discuss how she comes to decisions,

24
00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:21,679
Speaker 1: and we start with this latest. The latest is this

25
00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:28,039
Speaker 1: Colorado conversion ban right that you cannot discuss with somebody

26
00:01:28,280 --> 00:01:31,120
Speaker 1: the idea of conversion therapy. Whether I agree with it

27
00:01:31,200 --> 00:01:35,040
Speaker 1: or disagree with the concept of conversion therapy is inconsequential.

28
00:01:35,080 --> 00:01:37,600
Speaker 1: What it comes down to, as I understand, it is

29
00:01:37,640 --> 00:01:40,360
Speaker 1: the idea that somehow Colorado want to say to a

30
00:01:40,480 --> 00:01:44,200
Speaker 1: therapist you're not allowed to discuss with a patient. The

31
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:47,160
Speaker 1: possibility that if you're a man who thinks they're a woman,

32
00:01:47,280 --> 00:01:49,360
Speaker 1: you can't say that. You can't say, well, you're not

33
00:01:49,440 --> 00:01:52,160
Speaker 1: actually a woman. It was trying to dictate what it

34
00:01:52,280 --> 00:01:55,240
Speaker 1: is the actual therapist could say. This was an eight

35
00:01:55,280 --> 00:01:58,880
Speaker 1: to one decision saying that the Colorado law was simply

36
00:01:58,920 --> 00:02:02,320
Speaker 1: not able to stand on constitutional Walk us through this

37
00:02:02,440 --> 00:02:03,800
Speaker 1: case and your takes on it.

38
00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:07,880
Speaker 2: Okay, this is a case in which Colorado passed the

39
00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:13,120
Speaker 2: law banning broadly speaking, conversion therapy. The only part of

40
00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:17,960
Speaker 2: that that's before the court is whether that conversion therapy

41
00:02:18,040 --> 00:02:21,680
Speaker 2: can be banned if it's merely words, if it's merely talking.

42
00:02:22,200 --> 00:02:25,280
Speaker 2: Their court made very clear if it were something else,

43
00:02:25,600 --> 00:02:30,720
Speaker 2: they could ban, you know, abducting somebody for conversion therapy

44
00:02:30,800 --> 00:02:35,440
Speaker 2: or giving them medication or giving them physical things. But

45
00:02:35,480 --> 00:02:39,200
Speaker 2: that's not what it's at stake here. This literally prohibited

46
00:02:39,320 --> 00:02:45,560
Speaker 2: a therapist from doing anything other than affirming this new

47
00:02:45,880 --> 00:02:51,440
Speaker 2: transgender identity, could not talk about it in any way contrary.

48
00:02:51,680 --> 00:02:55,720
Speaker 2: So it was a viewpoint discrimination. You could talk to

49
00:02:56,160 --> 00:03:02,200
Speaker 2: your transgender you're confused client, but you can't say this,

50
00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:05,400
Speaker 2: and that's the problem, and that this you can't say

51
00:03:05,520 --> 00:03:08,839
Speaker 2: is maybe you're not really a woman, or maybe you're

52
00:03:08,840 --> 00:03:12,800
Speaker 2: not really a man. Man. Let's talk about it. You know,

53
00:03:12,880 --> 00:03:16,320
Speaker 2: how did you get to that conclusion. It's that talk,

54
00:03:16,639 --> 00:03:21,160
Speaker 2: that viewpoint was barred by this statue, and that's what

55
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:25,760
Speaker 2: came before the court. No other conversion therapy issues were

56
00:03:25,800 --> 00:03:26,600
Speaker 2: before the court.

57
00:03:27,480 --> 00:03:31,360
Speaker 1: So this was really, if I'm the layman outside of

58
00:03:31,360 --> 00:03:34,720
Speaker 1: looking in discussing this, this becomes the first Amendment conversation

59
00:03:35,200 --> 00:03:39,320
Speaker 1: where the state is saying to a therapist, oh, sure,

60
00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:41,920
Speaker 1: you might be licensed and credentialed and all the things

61
00:03:41,920 --> 00:03:45,120
Speaker 1: that we usually taut and glorify and exalt, but in

62
00:03:45,160 --> 00:03:48,720
Speaker 1: this case, we don't want you saying this thing because

63
00:03:48,760 --> 00:03:53,360
Speaker 1: it goes against our political point of view. That's where

64
00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:55,440
Speaker 1: that's where we're at. That's right.

65
00:03:55,840 --> 00:03:59,920
Speaker 2: They did not prohibit talking about the subject, but they

66
00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:03,760
Speaker 2: prohibited having a particular viewpoint on the subject. And that

67
00:04:03,920 --> 00:04:05,520
Speaker 2: was the whole point of the court that this was

68
00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:12,120
Speaker 2: pure close to pure viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.

69
00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:15,640
Speaker 2: And it's very significant here before we get to Katanji

70
00:04:16,440 --> 00:04:20,200
Speaker 2: Brown Jackson. This was an eight to one decision, Okay,

71
00:04:21,279 --> 00:04:25,440
Speaker 2: Kagan and so to Mayor went with the majority, and

72
00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:29,880
Speaker 2: Kagan wrote a concurring opinion in which she agreed with

73
00:04:29,960 --> 00:04:33,520
Speaker 2: the majority that this was pure viewpoint discrimination. And she

74
00:04:33,640 --> 00:04:36,159
Speaker 2: tried to make the distinction, which the court also did,

75
00:04:36,520 --> 00:04:39,719
Speaker 2: is that if it were something other than just talking

76
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:43,400
Speaker 2: and expressing a viewpoint, she might come out differently. So

77
00:04:43,560 --> 00:04:47,960
Speaker 2: if it involved physical conduct as part of conversion therapy,

78
00:04:48,200 --> 00:04:52,640
Speaker 2: she might agree view it differently. So you know, when

79
00:04:53,160 --> 00:04:58,520
Speaker 2: even Kagan and so To Mayor refused to go along

80
00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:02,680
Speaker 2: with Katanji Brown jacks that she is way out on

81
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:06,320
Speaker 2: the limb there, and this is we're seeing in multiple cases,

82
00:05:06,360 --> 00:05:09,600
Speaker 2: not in all cases. I'd say in most cases they

83
00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:13,239
Speaker 2: probably vote the same way. But there have been several

84
00:05:13,360 --> 00:05:19,560
Speaker 2: cases where Katanji Brown Jackson is just way out on

85
00:05:19,600 --> 00:05:25,160
Speaker 2: a limb and actually very derisive of her colleagues. She

86
00:05:25,279 --> 00:05:28,760
Speaker 2: called the majority in her descent. In this case, she

87
00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:33,599
Speaker 2: called the majority decision unprincipled. She's very vicious in the

88
00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:36,640
Speaker 2: way she attacks her colleagues on the court, which is

89
00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:39,599
Speaker 2: not the way it normally goes. Normally there's a sense

90
00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:44,159
Speaker 2: of collegiality, but she goes right after them, and we've

91
00:05:44,200 --> 00:05:48,320
Speaker 2: seen that time and again in very demeaning terms, calling

92
00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:53,240
Speaker 2: the majority unprincipled and essentially saying, because you don't agree

93
00:05:53,240 --> 00:06:00,800
Speaker 2: with my viewpoint on conversion or on gender identity, principled.

94
00:06:00,880 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 2: And it's really terrible what she's doing. She's I saw

95
00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:07,159
Speaker 2: somebody refer to it on Twitter, so it's not my

96
00:06:07,279 --> 00:06:10,839
Speaker 2: original idea, but basically what she's done is she has

97
00:06:10,920 --> 00:06:15,120
Speaker 2: turned her dissenting opinions into the equivalent of blog posts

98
00:06:15,640 --> 00:06:21,040
Speaker 2: that it's you know, opinionated h and attacking people. And

99
00:06:21,440 --> 00:06:23,880
Speaker 2: you would expect a lot of what she says to

100
00:06:23,960 --> 00:06:30,479
Speaker 2: appear on TikTok or x or you know, Instagram. It's

101
00:06:30,560 --> 00:06:32,840
Speaker 2: really it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing.

102
00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:35,160
Speaker 1: If I was going to say it another way, If

103
00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:36,560
Speaker 1: I was going to say another way, this is the

104
00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:39,200
Speaker 1: kind of thing you expect a couple of suburban housewives

105
00:06:39,279 --> 00:06:41,680
Speaker 1: drinking white wine out of a box to be moaning

106
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:44,480
Speaker 1: and convetching about. Talking to William Jacobson and Cornell law

107
00:06:44,480 --> 00:06:47,840
Speaker 1: professor the mind behind legal insurrection dot com digg in

108
00:06:48,000 --> 00:06:49,960
Speaker 1: just a little bit on there, because because you brought

109
00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:51,640
Speaker 1: it up, and I do want to follow that train

110
00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:58,240
Speaker 1: of thought. Her descents, Justice Brown Jackson's descents seem personal.

111
00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:02,320
Speaker 1: They do seem a lot of ways petty. As someone

112
00:07:03,040 --> 00:07:08,240
Speaker 1: noted that in this dissent, not only you talk about vindictive.

113
00:07:08,560 --> 00:07:12,760
Speaker 1: She kind of argues that Kagan and Soda mayor have

114
00:07:12,920 --> 00:07:17,440
Speaker 1: been duped into thinking that the First Amendment says what

115
00:07:17,520 --> 00:07:22,400
Speaker 1: it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Is

116
00:07:22,440 --> 00:07:27,520
Speaker 1: there a take on how the court usually views those

117
00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:31,280
Speaker 1: who engage the personal as opposed to you talk about collegiality.

118
00:07:31,440 --> 00:07:32,640
Speaker 1: I'll call it the professional.

119
00:07:34,720 --> 00:07:37,800
Speaker 2: Yeah. I don't know what the Justice's individual views are,

120
00:07:38,200 --> 00:07:44,160
Speaker 2: but certainly the sort of attacks on colleagues that brown

121
00:07:44,280 --> 00:07:51,520
Speaker 2: Jackson has engaged in repeatedly, including in this decision, is unusual. Certainly,

122
00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:55,200
Speaker 2: there are times when little barbs are thrown at the

123
00:07:55,240 --> 00:07:58,720
Speaker 2: other side, but she calls them names. Okay, this is

124
00:07:58,800 --> 00:08:01,520
Speaker 2: really bad stuff. And I think she's calling them names

125
00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:05,840
Speaker 2: out of frustration. When you cannot even get Kagan and

126
00:08:05,880 --> 00:08:09,280
Speaker 2: so do Mayor to agree with you, there's a frustration

127
00:08:09,840 --> 00:08:13,600
Speaker 2: and she comes across as being extremely frustrated and lashing

128
00:08:13,720 --> 00:08:18,080
Speaker 2: out because she can't convince the other justices to go

129
00:08:18,160 --> 00:08:21,040
Speaker 2: along with her. And in this case, she couldn't convince

130
00:08:21,120 --> 00:08:24,080
Speaker 2: any of the other eight justices, even the two liberal

131
00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:28,040
Speaker 2: justices to go along with her. And her descents have

132
00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:33,240
Speaker 2: an heir to them of lashing out of anger, of vindictiveness,

133
00:08:33,640 --> 00:08:37,480
Speaker 2: of demeaning her colleagues. And I don't really know what's

134
00:08:37,520 --> 00:08:41,600
Speaker 2: going on there. I can't judge the interpersonal relationships, but

135
00:08:41,640 --> 00:08:45,840
Speaker 2: I do think it's fair to say that brown Jackson's

136
00:08:45,880 --> 00:08:47,959
Speaker 2: descents have gone off the rails.

137
00:08:48,520 --> 00:08:51,960
Speaker 1: And it should be clear that Kagan responded to the descent,

138
00:08:52,679 --> 00:08:55,280
Speaker 1: and the response is basically the same one we saw

139
00:08:55,280 --> 00:08:57,959
Speaker 1: from Amy Cony Barrett a few months back that we

140
00:08:58,040 --> 00:08:59,959
Speaker 1: discussed I can't remember the ks right now. We discussed

141
00:09:00,640 --> 00:09:04,200
Speaker 1: where Justice Kagan, who is one of the more interesting

142
00:09:04,240 --> 00:09:06,680
Speaker 1: members of the court because she usually does side with

143
00:09:06,720 --> 00:09:09,960
Speaker 1: the left, but sometimes she can surprise. Her argument is,

144
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:13,480
Speaker 1: Justice brown Jackson, you might not understand what this case

145
00:09:13,559 --> 00:09:14,360
Speaker 1: is actually about.

146
00:09:15,600 --> 00:09:17,960
Speaker 2: This is what's remarkable. And I remember talking to you.

147
00:09:18,000 --> 00:09:20,520
Speaker 2: I think it was a Soda Mayor concurring opinion.

148
00:09:20,679 --> 00:09:22,160
Speaker 1: Yes, in another case.

149
00:09:22,200 --> 00:09:24,160
Speaker 2: I don't even remember what the case was, but she

150
00:09:24,280 --> 00:09:28,920
Speaker 2: basically said, hey, Brown Jackson, you don't even understand what

151
00:09:28,960 --> 00:09:31,440
Speaker 2: this case is about. And that's what we're seeing here

152
00:09:31,720 --> 00:09:33,960
Speaker 2: the justices, the aid of them and not just the

153
00:09:33,960 --> 00:09:38,439
Speaker 2: so called conservative justices. In many ways, the conservative justices

154
00:09:38,480 --> 00:09:42,680
Speaker 2: tend to ignore Brown Jackson. They tend to not treat

155
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:45,800
Speaker 2: her as being serious, at least in their opinions. They

156
00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:48,880
Speaker 2: don't give her the time of day to respond. But

157
00:09:48,960 --> 00:09:52,760
Speaker 2: it's interesting that Soda Mayor and now Kagan do feel

158
00:09:52,800 --> 00:09:56,720
Speaker 2: the need because I think she's embarrassing their liberal wing

159
00:09:56,840 --> 00:09:59,200
Speaker 2: of the Court.

160
00:10:00,040 --> 00:10:03,160
Speaker 1: I wonder if embarrassment is the right word. I wonder

161
00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:07,640
Speaker 1: if indeed they feel that Talking to William Jacobson, Cornell

162
00:10:07,720 --> 00:10:11,880
Speaker 1: law professor, the mind behind legal insurrection dot com. You know,

163
00:10:11,920 --> 00:10:15,760
Speaker 1: when we talk about Ketanji Brown Jackson in this case,

164
00:10:16,080 --> 00:10:18,280
Speaker 1: this is the same woman who told us she can't

165
00:10:18,280 --> 00:10:21,559
Speaker 1: define what a woman is because she's not a biologist,

166
00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:23,200
Speaker 1: and I'm not quite sure how she can be a

167
00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:27,040
Speaker 1: part of these cases. But here she is arguing that

168
00:10:27,080 --> 00:10:30,080
Speaker 1: the state has every right to limit what you say

169
00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:34,520
Speaker 1: in providing treatment in these situations. But I believe it

170
00:10:34,600 --> 00:10:37,000
Speaker 1: was a different case where she said the state should

171
00:10:37,000 --> 00:10:40,720
Speaker 1: have no right to stop at all these kinds of

172
00:10:40,760 --> 00:10:43,839
Speaker 1: things from happening if a child wants to go down

173
00:10:44,120 --> 00:10:47,640
Speaker 1: this road. So in her own decisions, she seems to

174
00:10:47,679 --> 00:10:51,720
Speaker 1: be in this level of contradiction with herself. But when

175
00:10:51,760 --> 00:10:53,240
Speaker 1: we take a look at this case, in this eight

176
00:10:53,280 --> 00:10:59,360
Speaker 1: one decision, in this case where the opinion written by

177
00:10:59,400 --> 00:11:01,720
Speaker 1: a Neil Gore such is very clear this is a

178
00:11:01,800 --> 00:11:06,400
Speaker 1: free speech conversation. What does this say to you about

179
00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:09,280
Speaker 1: other cases that may be coming before the court or

180
00:11:09,320 --> 00:11:11,880
Speaker 1: for the First Amendment protections in general.

181
00:11:12,840 --> 00:11:17,760
Speaker 2: Well, when brown Jackson approaches it, she seems to find

182
00:11:17,760 --> 00:11:21,120
Speaker 2: the political result that she wants, and that's why it

183
00:11:21,160 --> 00:11:25,760
Speaker 2: seems to be inconsistent. It's not inconsistent to the extent

184
00:11:25,800 --> 00:11:29,440
Speaker 2: that she determines the political results she wants wants and

185
00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:32,120
Speaker 2: then finds a way to get there, and that creates

186
00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:36,319
Speaker 2: the inconsistency. And here, I think that's more clear than anywhere.

187
00:11:36,679 --> 00:11:39,800
Speaker 2: You're right. In other cases she may want to scale

188
00:11:39,840 --> 00:11:42,200
Speaker 2: back the police power of the state, but in this one,

189
00:11:42,400 --> 00:11:47,080
Speaker 2: very close to the start of her dissent, she talks

190
00:11:47,120 --> 00:11:52,080
Speaker 2: about how this medical care, this licensed medical care, somebody

191
00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:54,640
Speaker 2: who has a license from the state is subject to

192
00:11:54,679 --> 00:11:58,319
Speaker 2: the police power of the state. And again, if this

193
00:11:58,400 --> 00:12:03,440
Speaker 2: were involved physical sort of conversion therapy, if this involved

194
00:12:03,880 --> 00:12:08,840
Speaker 2: medication or something like that, I think the entirety of

195
00:12:08,880 --> 00:12:11,200
Speaker 2: the court probably would have upheld the statue. But that's

196
00:12:11,240 --> 00:12:15,800
Speaker 2: not what the statue does. The statue says, you cannot

197
00:12:15,800 --> 00:12:21,959
Speaker 2: hold a particular viewpoint in your conversations with your therapy patient.

198
00:12:22,440 --> 00:12:26,560
Speaker 2: You cannot express a particular viewpoint. And that's the problem here.

199
00:12:26,840 --> 00:12:31,400
Speaker 2: This was meant not to cure physical abuses or medical abuses.

200
00:12:31,679 --> 00:12:36,920
Speaker 2: It was meant to regulate viewpoints. You can talk about

201
00:12:36,960 --> 00:12:40,160
Speaker 2: it with them, but you can't hold a certain viewpoint.

202
00:12:40,320 --> 00:12:42,600
Speaker 2: And I think that that is really the problem here,

203
00:12:42,800 --> 00:12:47,720
Speaker 2: and she fails to grasp that. She completely misses that point.

204
00:12:47,960 --> 00:12:50,640
Speaker 1: In her dissent, which I think leads people down the

205
00:12:50,720 --> 00:12:53,200
Speaker 1: road of whether or not this is purposeful? What is

206
00:12:53,240 --> 00:12:56,600
Speaker 1: it that we have done here? And I, you know,

207
00:12:56,679 --> 00:12:59,080
Speaker 1: I'm one of the believers, and maybe because I'm the

208
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:03,200
Speaker 1: only believer, you know, sometimes you know the old line

209
00:13:03,320 --> 00:13:07,480
Speaker 1: from you know, some murder kind of movie, the calls

210
00:13:07,480 --> 00:13:10,520
Speaker 1: coming from inside the house. I think the justices would

211
00:13:10,520 --> 00:13:14,080
Speaker 1: be very happy to see Congress move on some level

212
00:13:14,200 --> 00:13:17,080
Speaker 1: of impeachment and removal of Katanji Brown Jackson.

213
00:13:17,320 --> 00:13:22,440
Speaker 2: You can tell me no, I'll it's never going to happen, Okay.

214
00:13:22,679 --> 00:13:27,040
Speaker 2: You know, like to harken back to Donald Trump's line

215
00:13:27,040 --> 00:13:29,559
Speaker 2: that he could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth

216
00:13:29,600 --> 00:13:33,640
Speaker 2: Avenue and his supporters would still be behind him. She

217
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:40,000
Speaker 2: could write the most disgusting, ridiculous, embarrassing dissents the rest

218
00:13:40,040 --> 00:13:42,480
Speaker 2: of her life, and she may have to, and there

219
00:13:42,600 --> 00:13:46,040
Speaker 2: is no way Democrats are going to ever allow her

220
00:13:46,080 --> 00:13:46,800
Speaker 2: to be removed.

221
00:13:47,880 --> 00:13:51,600
Speaker 1: William Jacobson, Cornell Law professor, Legal insurrection dot Com. I

222
00:13:51,640 --> 00:13:53,920
Speaker 1: appreciate you being with us. More to get to this

223
00:13:54,040 --> 00:13:55,040
Speaker 1: is Tony Kats Today