1
00:00:05,200 --> 00:00:10,360
Speaker 1: Live from vall Hartbiner and the Crossroads of America.

2
00:00:10,560 --> 00:00:12,000
Speaker 2: It's Tony Katz today.

3
00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:17,200
Speaker 1: The birthright citizenship case is on Tony Katz.

4
00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:20,200
Speaker 2: Tony Katz today, guys, good to be here, Good to

5
00:00:20,280 --> 00:00:21,159
Speaker 2: be with you.

6
00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:25,439
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court hearing the case which in my view,

7
00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:29,240
Speaker 1: in many many people's views, it centers around the fourteenth

8
00:00:29,280 --> 00:00:33,159
Speaker 1: Amendment to the Constitution, and the fourteenth Amendment reads in

9
00:00:33,200 --> 00:00:37,199
Speaker 1: section one, all persons born are naturalized in the United States,

10
00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:40,839
Speaker 1: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

11
00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:44,479
Speaker 1: United States and of the state wherein they reside. The

12
00:00:44,560 --> 00:00:48,640
Speaker 1: issue here is how could somebody who is here illegally

13
00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:51,239
Speaker 1: be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

14
00:00:52,040 --> 00:00:54,680
Speaker 2: They are not citizens of the United States.

15
00:00:54,960 --> 00:00:58,720
Speaker 1: There is no possibility that they could be subject to

16
00:00:58,760 --> 00:01:02,440
Speaker 1: the jurisdiction thereof. And this for me has constantly been

17
00:01:03,520 --> 00:01:06,960
Speaker 1: the conversation piece when we talk about people.

18
00:01:06,720 --> 00:01:09,039
Speaker 2: Being born here immediately being citizens.

19
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:11,199
Speaker 1: And you've heard the expression of the term many many

20
00:01:11,200 --> 00:01:14,080
Speaker 1: times anchor babies. Well, we have our baby in the

21
00:01:14,160 --> 00:01:16,399
Speaker 1: United States, and therefore we get to stay, we get

22
00:01:16,440 --> 00:01:18,479
Speaker 1: to stay, We get to stay American citizens and kids

23
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:19,240
Speaker 1: American citizens.

24
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:21,360
Speaker 2: La la la la la now give us things.

25
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:24,639
Speaker 1: You know, it was Milton Friedman, the economist, who argued

26
00:01:24,640 --> 00:01:27,680
Speaker 1: that if we didn't give out any benefits whatsoever, then

27
00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:30,319
Speaker 1: it wouldn't matter who came into the country. Now, he

28
00:01:30,480 --> 00:01:32,520
Speaker 1: was not correct on that, because you could still have

29
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:35,440
Speaker 1: plenty of people who are dangerous, violent people who would

30
00:01:35,480 --> 00:01:37,560
Speaker 1: be a problem for the country. But his argument was

31
00:01:37,560 --> 00:01:41,240
Speaker 1: predicated on an economic discussion piece, which is, if you

32
00:01:41,240 --> 00:01:44,319
Speaker 1: weren't giving out any services whatsoever, you weren't paying anything

33
00:01:44,360 --> 00:01:47,240
Speaker 1: to people for being in the country illegally, what would

34
00:01:47,280 --> 00:01:50,360
Speaker 1: actually be the issue economically right?

35
00:01:50,440 --> 00:01:51,680
Speaker 2: That was the argument.

36
00:01:51,680 --> 00:01:54,400
Speaker 1: One of the few places where I believe Milton Freeman

37
00:01:54,480 --> 00:01:56,880
Speaker 1: got it wrong because it wasn't enough of a large

38
00:01:56,920 --> 00:02:01,520
Speaker 1: scale conversation. But this is now the argument in front

39
00:02:01,680 --> 00:02:08,560
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court. This birthright citizenship case is there

40
00:02:08,880 --> 00:02:16,839
Speaker 1: and President Trump, as you know, all sorts of invested

41
00:02:17,440 --> 00:02:22,240
Speaker 1: in this case, wanting to under wanting to get this done.

42
00:02:22,240 --> 00:02:25,440
Speaker 1: He had put out the executive order and this case

43
00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:30,520
Speaker 1: is Trump versus Barbara, which is the challenge to this

44
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:31,560
Speaker 1: executive order.

45
00:02:31,760 --> 00:02:32,959
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty.

46
00:02:32,639 --> 00:02:35,400
Speaker 1: Five, one of the first things he signed to end

47
00:02:35,720 --> 00:02:40,280
Speaker 1: birthright citizenship. That's what this case is. So it starts

48
00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:46,240
Speaker 1: with a solicitor general. It starts with Judge Sower, not

49
00:02:46,360 --> 00:02:51,320
Speaker 1: Judge sorry, the Solicitor General sour making his case.

50
00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:54,919
Speaker 3: As to anybody else.

51
00:02:55,560 --> 00:02:58,320
Speaker 4: And in eighteen eighty four, this Court recognize that subject

52
00:02:58,320 --> 00:03:04,000
Speaker 4: of the jurisdiction means direct and immediate allegiance. The clause

53
00:03:04,040 --> 00:03:06,800
Speaker 4: thus does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary

54
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:11,359
Speaker 4: visa holders are illegal aliens. Unlike the newly freed slaves,

55
00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:15,079
Speaker 4: those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.

56
00:03:15,960 --> 00:03:19,320
Speaker 4: For aliens, lawful domicile is the status that creates the

57
00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:23,320
Speaker 4: requisite allegiance, and the text of the clause presupposes domicile

58
00:03:24,320 --> 00:03:28,000
Speaker 4: for decades following the clauses, adoption commentators recognize that the

59
00:03:28,040 --> 00:03:32,800
Speaker 4: children of temporary visitors are not citizens and illegal aliens

60
00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:35,440
Speaker 4: lack the legal capacity to establish domicile.

61
00:03:35,520 --> 00:03:35,760
Speaker 5: Here.

62
00:03:38,440 --> 00:03:42,560
Speaker 4: Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority

63
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:46,560
Speaker 4: of modern nations. It demeans the priceless and profound gift

64
00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:50,800
Speaker 4: of American citizenship. It operates as a powerful poll factor

65
00:03:50,840 --> 00:03:54,960
Speaker 4: for illegal immigration, and rewards illegal aliens who not only

66
00:03:55,000 --> 00:03:57,520
Speaker 4: violate the immigration laws but also jump in front of

67
00:03:57,520 --> 00:04:01,680
Speaker 4: those who follow the rules has spawned a sprawling industry

68
00:04:01,680 --> 00:04:05,320
Speaker 4: of birth tourism, as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially

69
00:04:05,400 --> 00:04:08,120
Speaker 4: hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United

70
00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:11,600
Speaker 4: States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American

71
00:04:11,640 --> 00:04:13,720
Speaker 4: citizens abroad with no meaningful.

72
00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:16,039
Speaker 3: Ties to the United States. HI, welcome the courts.

73
00:04:16,120 --> 00:04:22,480
Speaker 6: Questions, General Sauer, before we get into the broader national issues,

74
00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:28,000
Speaker 6: would you start with dred Scott. Dred Scott was a

75
00:04:28,520 --> 00:04:30,440
Speaker 6: case of about state citizenship.

76
00:04:30,920 --> 00:04:34,440
Speaker 1: Now, before we go any further, it must be understood

77
00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:40,520
Speaker 1: that until the death of Justice Antonin Scaliam, Clarence Thomas,

78
00:04:40,560 --> 00:04:43,839
Speaker 1: who you're hearing from right there, didn't ask questions. He

79
00:04:44,040 --> 00:04:48,919
Speaker 1: was famous for not asking questions. A brilliant jurist. The

80
00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:52,080
Speaker 1: biggots who don't like him are and d biggots, starting

81
00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:55,880
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden, going back to his confirmation hearing, going

82
00:04:55,920 --> 00:04:59,200
Speaker 1: back to Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearing when he referred to

83
00:04:59,240 --> 00:05:03,160
Speaker 1: it as a high tech and he was right. He

84
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:06,040
Speaker 1: never asked questions, and his theory was, I'd heard this

85
00:05:06,520 --> 00:05:08,680
Speaker 1: a couple of times. Anthony Sclee is going to ask

86
00:05:08,680 --> 00:05:10,800
Speaker 1: all the right questions. What do I need to bother

87
00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:15,400
Speaker 1: for It's only a recent thing, since the death of

88
00:05:15,400 --> 00:05:19,160
Speaker 1: Scalia that he has started interjecting. He doesn't always so

89
00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:22,640
Speaker 1: the fact that he starts that he's on it, that

90
00:05:22,680 --> 00:05:26,400
Speaker 1: he's got like, okay, let's go with this. That's that's

91
00:05:26,440 --> 00:05:29,679
Speaker 1: a big deal. And starting with dred Scott, a decision

92
00:05:29,720 --> 00:05:36,160
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court got very very very wrong dred

93
00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:40,360
Speaker 1: Scott case, trying to basically sue for his own freedom.

94
00:05:41,320 --> 00:05:45,640
Speaker 1: He starts there and says, okay, let's ask this question.

95
00:05:46,120 --> 00:05:53,280
Speaker 6: The diversity case. And of course we know what Chief

96
00:05:53,480 --> 00:05:59,359
Speaker 6: Justice Tawny did with that. How does the citizenship clause

97
00:05:59,560 --> 00:06:06,120
Speaker 6: respond on specifically to dread Scott and answers are changes

98
00:06:06,480 --> 00:06:12,400
Speaker 6: or corrects it's answer as to citizenship. The other point

99
00:06:12,720 --> 00:06:18,640
Speaker 6: is the citizenship clause refers not just to national citizenship

100
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:24,360
Speaker 6: but also to state citizenship. Are we to have two

101
00:06:24,400 --> 00:06:29,320
Speaker 6: different definitions for those? It's one word citizens of the

102
00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:35,520
Speaker 6: United States and citizens of the state wherein they reside?

103
00:06:36,240 --> 00:06:39,400
Speaker 6: So as you begin, I'd like you to go back

104
00:06:39,440 --> 00:06:42,360
Speaker 6: at the beginning and be more specific about the answer.

105
00:06:42,880 --> 00:06:47,719
Speaker 6: And I want you to explain whether or not those

106
00:06:47,760 --> 00:06:53,200
Speaker 6: two definitions are the same or related and what state

107
00:06:53,320 --> 00:06:54,760
Speaker 6: citizenship is based on.

108
00:06:55,920 --> 00:06:56,960
Speaker 3: Thank you, Justice Thomas.

109
00:06:57,240 --> 00:07:01,479
Speaker 4: I'll maybe start by addressing dread Scott, as you alluded

110
00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:04,560
Speaker 4: to the fact tread Scott, you know, impose one of

111
00:07:04,600 --> 00:07:07,240
Speaker 4: the worst injustices in the history of this Court, and

112
00:07:07,320 --> 00:07:09,360
Speaker 4: it led to the outbreak of the Civil War. It's

113
00:07:09,440 --> 00:07:11,440
Speaker 4: very clear in this Court, in all of its early

114
00:07:11,480 --> 00:07:15,040
Speaker 4: cases interpreting the forty Amendments said the one pervading purpose,

115
00:07:15,120 --> 00:07:18,600
Speaker 4: the main object of the citizenship clause is to overrule

116
00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:20,160
Speaker 4: dred Scott.

117
00:07:19,760 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 3: And establish the citizenship of the freed slaves.

118
00:07:21,720 --> 00:07:23,800
Speaker 4: And if you look at the debates in the Congressional

119
00:07:23,840 --> 00:07:27,600
Speaker 4: record and discussion surrounding the adoption of the citizenship clause,

120
00:07:27,640 --> 00:07:30,880
Speaker 4: what you see is a very clear understanding that the

121
00:07:30,920 --> 00:07:35,400
Speaker 4: newly freed slaves and their children have a relationship of domicile.

122
00:07:35,520 --> 00:07:38,280
Speaker 3: They do not have a relationship to any foreign power.

123
00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:40,240
Speaker 4: For example, there's a comment where he says, look, people

124
00:07:40,280 --> 00:07:42,640
Speaker 4: have been here for five generations and clearly have no

125
00:07:42,720 --> 00:07:46,720
Speaker 4: relationships to any foreign African potentate. You know, have a

126
00:07:46,760 --> 00:07:49,240
Speaker 4: relationship of allegiance to the United States, and that reinforces

127
00:07:49,280 --> 00:07:51,920
Speaker 4: our point that allegiance is what the word jurisdiction means

128
00:07:51,920 --> 00:07:56,160
Speaker 4: it doesn't mean regulatory jurisdiction or you know, or sort

129
00:07:56,200 --> 00:07:58,200
Speaker 4: of being merely stubbed to the laws.

130
00:07:58,200 --> 00:08:00,840
Speaker 3: They're talking and they're thinking about it in those debates

131
00:08:00,840 --> 00:08:01,640
Speaker 3: about allegiance.

132
00:08:01,880 --> 00:08:03,600
Speaker 4: Now as to your second question, if you look at

133
00:08:03,600 --> 00:08:06,680
Speaker 4: the text of the clause, we believe there it says,

134
00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:08,920
Speaker 4: you know, born in the United born or naturalized in

135
00:08:08,920 --> 00:08:11,920
Speaker 4: the United States, and sued the jurisdiction thereof are citizens

136
00:08:11,960 --> 00:08:13,840
Speaker 4: of the United States and the states of.

137
00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:14,760
Speaker 3: Which they reside.

138
00:08:14,880 --> 00:08:18,720
Speaker 4: So there's a constitutional guarantee that applies to both federal

139
00:08:18,840 --> 00:08:22,000
Speaker 4: or national and state citizenship. And the key point we

140
00:08:22,080 --> 00:08:24,080
Speaker 4: make there is that that word reside, if you look

141
00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:27,760
Speaker 4: at for example, Section fourteen seventy three of Justice Stories Commentaries,

142
00:08:28,000 --> 00:08:29,240
Speaker 4: was understood.

143
00:08:28,760 --> 00:08:29,720
Speaker 3: To mean domicile.

144
00:08:30,320 --> 00:08:33,920
Speaker 4: So when they say subject to the jurisdiction, and then

145
00:08:33,960 --> 00:08:35,280
Speaker 4: they go on to say you're a citizen of the

146
00:08:35,360 --> 00:08:37,520
Speaker 4: United States and the state in which they reside, the

147
00:08:37,640 --> 00:08:41,000
Speaker 4: very text of the clause itself presupposes that the citizen

148
00:08:41,160 --> 00:08:42,559
Speaker 4: is domicile in the United.

149
00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:44,320
Speaker 3: States, if they're president of the state at all they

150
00:08:44,360 --> 00:08:46,760
Speaker 3: reside there. Reside means domicile.

151
00:08:46,240 --> 00:08:49,119
Speaker 4: In the Constitution, and we think that strongly supports our interpretation.

152
00:08:49,160 --> 00:08:53,040
Speaker 4: It's textual evidence of our domicile based theory of jurisdiction.

153
00:08:53,640 --> 00:08:54,320
Speaker 2: Two things.

154
00:08:54,559 --> 00:08:59,840
Speaker 1: First, you have any idea how much guys like John Sower,

155
00:09:00,240 --> 00:09:02,160
Speaker 1: the Solicitor General of the United States, which means he's

156
00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:05,080
Speaker 1: argues the case for the nation, for the administration, if

157
00:09:05,080 --> 00:09:06,880
Speaker 1: you will, in front of the Supreme Court. That's what

158
00:09:06,920 --> 00:09:09,680
Speaker 1: solicitor generals do in States. They have people who are

159
00:09:09,720 --> 00:09:15,000
Speaker 1: arguing in front of the Supreme Court. He has studied,

160
00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:17,920
Speaker 1: he has a team, and they have game played every

161
00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:19,920
Speaker 1: question they think that court might ask.

162
00:09:21,080 --> 00:09:23,320
Speaker 2: What does this justice usually think? What does that justice

163
00:09:23,360 --> 00:09:23,840
Speaker 2: usually think?

164
00:09:23,960 --> 00:09:26,560
Speaker 1: Think of it as like game film for an NFL

165
00:09:26,640 --> 00:09:30,720
Speaker 1: game or basketball game. They have game played all of it.

166
00:09:30,800 --> 00:09:35,360
Speaker 1: They know what's coming. And what John Sower just said

167
00:09:36,400 --> 00:09:40,040
Speaker 1: is that and I think he's setting up what will

168
00:09:40,040 --> 00:09:46,800
Speaker 1: be the totality of the administration's arguments, that we are

169
00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:50,240
Speaker 1: having a contextual conversation that the Constitution says what it

170
00:09:50,320 --> 00:09:55,520
Speaker 1: says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. It says domicile.

171
00:09:55,920 --> 00:10:00,000
Speaker 1: It says to be subject to the jurisdiction. How can

172
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:02,520
Speaker 1: can you possibly be subject to the jurisdiction if you

173
00:10:02,600 --> 00:10:07,000
Speaker 1: do not reside domicile within the jurisdiction. It's already there.

174
00:10:07,800 --> 00:10:11,680
Speaker 1: This is the argument being made now. It's going to

175
00:10:11,679 --> 00:10:15,560
Speaker 1: be very interesting to hear what the progressive justices do.

176
00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:19,440
Speaker 1: It will certainly be interesting to hear how Kavanaugh or

177
00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:23,560
Speaker 1: Gorstch or Amy Cony Barrett asked the questions here, because

178
00:10:23,840 --> 00:10:26,000
Speaker 1: part of their job is to try and trip up

179
00:10:26,440 --> 00:10:32,920
Speaker 1: with the legal machinations with prior decisions from the court

180
00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:38,120
Speaker 1: as well. But for Kagan and Sotomayora, the leftists, certainly

181
00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:41,040
Speaker 1: there's going to be an argument for how dare you

182
00:10:41,120 --> 00:10:43,840
Speaker 1: treat people this way? Right, they lean left, and one

183
00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:47,200
Speaker 1: could assume this for Katanji Brown Jackson, it's just going

184
00:10:47,280 --> 00:10:48,199
Speaker 1: to be a freak show.

185
00:10:48,520 --> 00:10:49,680
Speaker 2: And we're going to get into that.

186
00:10:50,160 --> 00:10:53,560
Speaker 1: My interview with William Jacobson of Legal insurrection dot com

187
00:10:53,960 --> 00:10:58,400
Speaker 1: over this conversion case conversion law conversion therapy case out

188
00:10:58,400 --> 00:11:01,319
Speaker 1: of Colorado, an eight one decision and by the court

189
00:11:01,320 --> 00:11:04,480
Speaker 1: where Katanji Brown Jackson is the lone descent and she's

190
00:11:04,520 --> 00:11:07,960
Speaker 1: attacking the leftist judges, and Elena Kagan is in her

191
00:11:08,000 --> 00:11:11,679
Speaker 1: response saying, yet you don't quite understand this case about

192
00:11:11,679 --> 00:11:13,840
Speaker 1: whether or not a therapist is allowed to say to

193
00:11:13,920 --> 00:11:16,760
Speaker 1: a patient, hey, you're not really a man. Let's talk

194
00:11:16,800 --> 00:11:20,559
Speaker 1: about this. Katanji Brown Jackson thinks you shouldn't be allowed

195
00:11:20,559 --> 00:11:23,920
Speaker 1: to say that as a therapist. Incredible stuff. But you

196
00:11:24,120 --> 00:11:27,760
Speaker 1: just heard sour response. Let's see what Justine Thomas does

197
00:11:27,760 --> 00:11:28,360
Speaker 1: in response.

198
00:11:29,400 --> 00:11:33,000
Speaker 2: Well, starting with that theory, he moves right on on of.

199
00:11:32,920 --> 00:11:35,439
Speaker 7: Weight on subject to the jurisdiction thereof goes right to

200
00:11:35,480 --> 00:11:38,320
Speaker 7: chieve justice. Roberts you give to support that strike me

201
00:11:38,400 --> 00:11:43,640
Speaker 7: as very quirky. You know, children of an ambassador's, children

202
00:11:43,679 --> 00:11:48,200
Speaker 7: of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and

203
00:11:48,240 --> 00:11:53,240
Speaker 7: then you expand it to the whole class of illegal

204
00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:56,680
Speaker 7: aliens are here in the country. I'm not quite sure

205
00:11:56,760 --> 00:11:59,840
Speaker 7: how you can get to that big group from such tiny,

206
00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:02,280
Speaker 7: sort of idiosyncratic examples.

207
00:12:02,440 --> 00:12:05,280
Speaker 4: There are those sort of narrow exceptions for ambassador foreign

208
00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:07,960
Speaker 4: public ships. Tribal Indians is enormous one that they were

209
00:12:08,080 --> 00:12:09,760
Speaker 4: very focused on in the debates as well.

210
00:12:09,880 --> 00:12:11,599
Speaker 3: But what I do is I invite the court to

211
00:12:11,640 --> 00:12:12,080
Speaker 3: look at.

212
00:12:11,960 --> 00:12:14,800
Speaker 4: The intervening step, which is the enactment of the Civil

213
00:12:14,880 --> 00:12:17,440
Speaker 4: Rights Act of eighteen sixty six. And there they didn't

214
00:12:17,440 --> 00:12:20,160
Speaker 4: say subject to the jurisdiction thereof there it says not

215
00:12:20,400 --> 00:12:22,040
Speaker 4: subject to any foreign power.

216
00:12:22,160 --> 00:12:22,959
Speaker 3: Now, if you go back to.

217
00:12:22,920 --> 00:12:26,280
Speaker 4: Blackstone in Calvin's case, they say it does not matter

218
00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:28,319
Speaker 4: if you were subject to any foreign power.

219
00:12:28,360 --> 00:12:29,160
Speaker 3: If you were born in the.

220
00:12:29,120 --> 00:12:32,760
Speaker 4: King's domains, you have this indefeasible duty of allegiance to

221
00:12:32,800 --> 00:12:35,839
Speaker 4: the king at any time. So there's a clear repudiation

222
00:12:36,320 --> 00:12:38,000
Speaker 4: in the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act is

223
00:12:38,040 --> 00:12:40,679
Speaker 4: this breakwater, which makes it very very clear that they

224
00:12:40,720 --> 00:12:41,439
Speaker 4: are not thinking.

225
00:12:41,280 --> 00:12:43,720
Speaker 3: About allegiance in the terms of like the British common law.

226
00:12:43,840 --> 00:12:48,000
Speaker 4: They've adopted the Republican conception of allegiance, so it's from

227
00:12:48,120 --> 00:12:50,280
Speaker 4: not subject to any foreign power, and then the debates

228
00:12:50,320 --> 00:12:52,400
Speaker 4: just a couple months later make it very clear that

229
00:12:52,440 --> 00:12:55,600
Speaker 4: they're recodifying the same conception. They were dissatisfied with the

230
00:12:55,600 --> 00:12:58,520
Speaker 4: potential ambiguity in the phrase indians not tax and they

231
00:12:58,559 --> 00:13:01,080
Speaker 4: adopted subject the jurisdiction they're up. And one of the

232
00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:04,440
Speaker 4: strongest statements of this is Senator Trumbull statements that quoted

233
00:13:04,440 --> 00:13:06,120
Speaker 4: at the beginning, where he says he's asked, what does

234
00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:08,080
Speaker 4: that mean some of the jurisdiction they're asking. He says,

235
00:13:08,280 --> 00:13:11,400
Speaker 4: it means not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is

236
00:13:11,400 --> 00:13:13,440
Speaker 4: what it means. And this court picked up on that

237
00:13:13,480 --> 00:13:16,160
Speaker 4: and hell against Wilkins when it says he uses, you know,

238
00:13:16,400 --> 00:13:20,439
Speaker 4: completely subt it to the political jurisdiction, not merry regulatory jurisdiction.

239
00:13:22,559 --> 00:13:28,400
Speaker 8: What do you do with Wang kim ARC's quote of

240
00:13:28,520 --> 00:13:34,400
Speaker 8: Daniel Webster, who said, independently of a residence with intention

241
00:13:34,600 --> 00:13:41,160
Speaker 8: to continue such residents, independently of any domaciliation, independently of

242
00:13:41,240 --> 00:13:44,280
Speaker 8: the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing

243
00:13:44,400 --> 00:13:48,600
Speaker 8: any former allegiance. It is well known that by the

244
00:13:48,600 --> 00:13:52,200
Speaker 8: public law, a non citizen, while he is here in

245
00:13:52,240 --> 00:13:57,680
Speaker 8: the United States, owes obedience to this country's laws. Now,

246
00:13:57,880 --> 00:14:03,880
Speaker 8: the examples that Wang are him used as exceptions are

247
00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:09,440
Speaker 8: situations in which there was not temporary allegiance to the

248
00:14:09,559 --> 00:14:14,239
Speaker 8: United States. The children of foreign diplomats whose only allegiance

249
00:14:14,480 --> 00:14:19,960
Speaker 8: was to their foreign to their foreign country, and or

250
00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:26,560
Speaker 8: occupied territory residents, including those citizens in Maine who had

251
00:14:26,560 --> 00:14:30,120
Speaker 8: been occupied by the British forces, the US had no

252
00:14:30,240 --> 00:14:33,400
Speaker 8: control over them. And the whole theory of the Indian

253
00:14:33,480 --> 00:14:39,720
Speaker 8: tribes was similar. The Indian tribes were analogized to foreign diplomats.

254
00:14:40,000 --> 00:14:41,080
Speaker 2: So what do we do with that?

255
00:14:41,960 --> 00:14:42,760
Speaker 3: I'd say two things.

256
00:14:42,800 --> 00:14:44,800
Speaker 4: Verst as the Indian tribes, we think that's a case

257
00:14:44,840 --> 00:14:47,840
Speaker 4: that strongly supports us. Because, of course, by eighteen sixty

258
00:14:47,880 --> 00:14:50,800
Speaker 4: six and eighteen sixty eight, there were strong understanding that

259
00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:52,960
Speaker 4: the Indian tribes were subject to the United States as

260
00:14:52,960 --> 00:14:54,440
Speaker 4: regulatory jurisdic.

261
00:14:53,960 --> 00:14:58,600
Speaker 8: But not the same way that temporary foreigners were, meaning

262
00:14:58,920 --> 00:15:02,640
Speaker 8: there was a real debate going on whether the US

263
00:15:02,680 --> 00:15:06,360
Speaker 8: actually had jurisdiction over the Indian tribes. That's why our

264
00:15:06,480 --> 00:15:12,080
Speaker 8: case is for the longest time until that was finally settled,

265
00:15:12,120 --> 00:15:16,960
Speaker 8: said absence some act of Congress, there is our laws

266
00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:21,680
Speaker 8: don't apply US laws don't apply to Indians on Indian lands.

267
00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:22,000
Speaker 3: Correct.

268
00:15:23,600 --> 00:15:25,560
Speaker 4: I believe you look at the Rogers decision for example,

269
00:15:25,560 --> 00:15:26,480
Speaker 4: that we sign our brief.

270
00:15:26,520 --> 00:15:29,320
Speaker 3: We're it's where they say that they are subject.

271
00:15:28,960 --> 00:15:31,160
Speaker 8: To that later I'm talking at the time.

272
00:15:31,880 --> 00:15:33,840
Speaker 3: Yes, at the time. So we asked the eighteen so.

273
00:15:33,880 --> 00:15:36,560
Speaker 8: What do you do During the debates of the eighteen

274
00:15:36,680 --> 00:15:40,080
Speaker 8: sixty six Civil Rights Act and of the fourteenth Amendment,

275
00:15:40,760 --> 00:15:44,240
Speaker 8: with the entire discussion of the people who opposed the amendment,

276
00:15:44,560 --> 00:15:47,240
Speaker 8: who kept saying we can't pass it because we're making

277
00:15:47,320 --> 00:15:51,880
Speaker 8: citizens of gypsies will have no allegiance to anybody, and

278
00:15:51,920 --> 00:15:54,920
Speaker 8: we're not we're going to make citizens of Chinese people

279
00:15:55,400 --> 00:15:57,680
Speaker 8: who can't be citizens because we're not going to permit

280
00:15:57,720 --> 00:16:00,000
Speaker 8: them to be citizens. What do we do with those

281
00:16:00,160 --> 00:16:04,960
Speaker 8: debates and the fact that the proponents of both acts

282
00:16:05,000 --> 00:16:10,040
Speaker 8: said everyone who's born in the US will be citizens.

283
00:16:11,320 --> 00:16:14,360
Speaker 4: First, as that particular change page twenty eight ninety the

284
00:16:14,400 --> 00:16:17,280
Speaker 4: Congressional Record from eighteen sixty six, Senator Cowan gives this

285
00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:20,160
Speaker 4: irulently racist statement where he says that, and what does

286
00:16:20,160 --> 00:16:21,600
Speaker 4: he say right at the beginning of that that sort

287
00:16:21,600 --> 00:16:23,840
Speaker 4: of offensive speech, He says, he says, we can't have

288
00:16:24,080 --> 00:16:26,520
Speaker 4: children of gypsies, children of Chinese immigrants, we can't have

289
00:16:26,560 --> 00:16:29,440
Speaker 4: them become citizens. And he says, quote, have they any

290
00:16:29,480 --> 00:16:32,080
Speaker 4: more rights than a sojourner in the United States. So

291
00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:35,160
Speaker 4: he's trying to persuade the Republicans to his view by

292
00:16:35,280 --> 00:16:39,400
Speaker 4: appealing to a common understanding that sojourners do not have

293
00:16:39,480 --> 00:16:42,640
Speaker 4: children who become citizens. Says pop powerful evidence there that

294
00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:47,000
Speaker 4: everybody understood this to you know, not sweep in the

295
00:16:47,040 --> 00:16:50,560
Speaker 4: temporary sojourner. And that's why you see for forty fifty years.

296
00:16:50,560 --> 00:16:53,120
Speaker 4: You see every commentator who addresses the specific question of

297
00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:56,239
Speaker 4: temporary presence saying it's not covered by the clause.

298
00:16:56,000 --> 00:16:56,800
Speaker 3: Including for death.

299
00:16:57,080 --> 00:17:01,720
Speaker 1: Now, if this is going to be the progressive push that, well,

300
00:17:01,760 --> 00:17:06,000
Speaker 1: we've got these moments of when this came into effect

301
00:17:06,080 --> 00:17:08,680
Speaker 1: of how would we have handled how those things still

302
00:17:08,720 --> 00:17:13,199
Speaker 1: not apply. It's an argument and you can see that

303
00:17:13,359 --> 00:17:17,840
Speaker 1: the argument will come back to throughout history we have

304
00:17:17,960 --> 00:17:23,000
Speaker 1: said this thing, that domiciled matters, that citizenship matters, that

305
00:17:23,119 --> 00:17:26,000
Speaker 1: provability matters, and this is going to be the crux

306
00:17:26,119 --> 00:17:29,879
Speaker 1: of the case. And yes, President Trump is in attendance.

307
00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:33,360
Speaker 1: He's there at the Supreme Court watching this go down

308
00:17:33,640 --> 00:17:36,280
Speaker 1: because he signed the executive order back in January twenty

309
00:17:36,280 --> 00:17:38,160
Speaker 1: twenty five that leads us to this place.

310
00:17:38,880 --> 00:17:41,000
Speaker 2: I'm Tony Katz. This is Tony Katz today.

311
00:17:41,320 --> 00:17:44,719
Speaker 1: So Indiana moves first when it comes to commercial driver's

312
00:17:44,800 --> 00:17:48,960
Speaker 1: licenses for legal aliens. Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, Good

313
00:17:48,960 --> 00:17:51,199
Speaker 1: to be with you. This is my state and the

314
00:17:51,320 --> 00:17:53,200
Speaker 1: law is now in effect as of today.

315
00:17:54,240 --> 00:17:54,880
Speaker 2: About it.

316
00:17:54,960 --> 00:17:57,840
Speaker 1: You cannot give an illegal alien a commercial driver's license.

317
00:17:57,840 --> 00:17:58,600
Speaker 2: I know what you're saying.

318
00:17:59,400 --> 00:18:01,720
Speaker 1: You mean you could before There is a lot to

319
00:18:01,760 --> 00:18:04,480
Speaker 1: dig into there about what is happening all across the country,

320
00:18:05,119 --> 00:18:08,040
Speaker 1: how many illegal aliens are getting commercial driver's license, what

321
00:18:08,040 --> 00:18:12,399
Speaker 1: were the penalties for these trucking schools or departments and

322
00:18:12,440 --> 00:18:14,440
Speaker 1: motor vehicle Here in Indiana, it's a Bureau of Motor

323
00:18:14,480 --> 00:18:18,280
Speaker 1: Vehicles issuing these kinds of things. Todd Raketa is the

324
00:18:18,320 --> 00:18:21,840
Speaker 1: Attorney General of Indiana. I had him on my Morning

325
00:18:21,880 --> 00:18:23,520
Speaker 1: show and he explained the legislation.

326
00:18:24,000 --> 00:18:24,800
Speaker 2: It's pretty simple.

327
00:18:24,880 --> 00:18:26,800
Speaker 9: Look, you remember back at the stay of the Union

328
00:18:26,800 --> 00:18:32,720
Speaker 9: when President Trump said, hey, illegal alien truck drivers should

329
00:18:32,760 --> 00:18:35,879
Speaker 9: have their licenses revoked. Well, Indiana's the first STID in

330
00:18:35,920 --> 00:18:37,040
Speaker 9: the Union to do that.

331
00:18:37,720 --> 00:18:39,000
Speaker 2: Well you did it with good reason.

332
00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:41,520
Speaker 9: First of all, in the town next to me is

333
00:18:41,520 --> 00:18:44,000
Speaker 9: a fellow named Terry who literally got run over by

334
00:18:44,040 --> 00:18:45,320
Speaker 9: an illegal alien truck driver.

335
00:18:46,040 --> 00:18:49,080
Speaker 2: So there's an immediate.

336
00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:57,320
Speaker 9: Revocation of the CDL and then prospectively, so going forward,

337
00:18:58,000 --> 00:19:00,320
Speaker 9: the BMV is to work with ICE to make that

338
00:19:00,359 --> 00:19:06,480
Speaker 9: list stays clean. Two, there's a stronger English proficiency requirement,

339
00:19:07,320 --> 00:19:11,720
Speaker 9: you know, for safety reasons in the CDLs. And three

340
00:19:11,760 --> 00:19:17,120
Speaker 9: there's accountability from truck driving, for truck driving schools and

341
00:19:17,200 --> 00:19:20,879
Speaker 9: for employers. For example, employers could be fined, you know,

342
00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:22,520
Speaker 9: and truck driving schools can be fined up.

343
00:19:22,480 --> 00:19:25,200
Speaker 2: To fifty thousand dollars if they knowingly employ.

344
00:19:25,960 --> 00:19:30,800
Speaker 9: An illegal alien that has a CDL.

345
00:19:31,080 --> 00:19:32,840
Speaker 1: How are they getting the CDL to begin with? How

346
00:19:32,840 --> 00:19:34,639
Speaker 1: are they getting the driver's license to begin with? And

347
00:19:34,760 --> 00:19:36,639
Speaker 1: finds it not enough, who goes to jail.

348
00:19:37,119 --> 00:19:39,080
Speaker 2: I'm gonna keep following up on this, not only in

349
00:19:39,080 --> 00:19:40,919
Speaker 2: my state, but what's going to happen across the country.

350
00:19:41,160 --> 00:19:44,119
Speaker 2: This is Tony Kats today.

351
00:19:45,440 --> 00:19:49,680
Speaker 1: I am well on record saying that Justice Katanji Brown

352
00:19:49,800 --> 00:19:51,240
Speaker 1: Jackson is not good at her job.

353
00:19:51,320 --> 00:19:53,680
Speaker 2: Now you can argue, Tony, she knows more about.

354
00:19:53,520 --> 00:19:56,159
Speaker 1: The law than you, And I'll say to you, Yeah,

355
00:19:56,200 --> 00:19:58,560
Speaker 1: somebody who's seen more than three episodes of the People's

356
00:19:58,600 --> 00:20:01,960
Speaker 1: Court might know more about the law than I do. However,

357
00:20:02,040 --> 00:20:05,600
Speaker 1: when you see somebody rely on the crutch of I'm

358
00:20:05,680 --> 00:20:08,240
Speaker 1: just trying to understand what I don't understand.

359
00:20:08,400 --> 00:20:10,280
Speaker 2: Here's what I don't understand.

360
00:20:09,800 --> 00:20:12,720
Speaker 1: As she says constantly in her cases, when you see

361
00:20:12,760 --> 00:20:17,600
Speaker 1: someone who has been repeatedly, in my words, reprimanded by

362
00:20:17,760 --> 00:20:22,760
Speaker 1: other justices for her decisions. When you see even progressive

363
00:20:22,960 --> 00:20:25,119
Speaker 1: justices if you want to call them that. In Alida

364
00:20:25,160 --> 00:20:28,240
Speaker 1: Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor saying you don't quite understand what

365
00:20:28,280 --> 00:20:31,119
Speaker 1: this case was about. I am left at only one place,

366
00:20:31,200 --> 00:20:35,800
Speaker 1: and in this latest case regarded conversion therapy, I think

367
00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:38,920
Speaker 1: she's engaging in a level of contradiction of her own

368
00:20:38,960 --> 00:20:43,000
Speaker 1: positions and opinions. Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, good to

369
00:20:43,119 --> 00:20:46,680
Speaker 1: be with you. William Jacobson joins me right now, Cornell

370
00:20:46,720 --> 00:20:49,680
Speaker 1: Law professor in the mind behind legal insurrection dot com.

371
00:20:49,800 --> 00:20:51,120
Speaker 2: Now, sir, I don't ask.

372
00:20:50,920 --> 00:20:54,960
Speaker 1: You for any opinion giving on Katanji Brown Jackson's that's

373
00:20:54,960 --> 00:20:55,439
Speaker 1: for me to do.

374
00:20:55,520 --> 00:20:56,280
Speaker 2: You can if you want.

375
00:20:56,320 --> 00:20:59,320
Speaker 1: I am not putting you on the spot there, but

376
00:20:59,480 --> 00:21:02,960
Speaker 1: rather I I will discuss how she comes to decisions,

377
00:21:03,359 --> 00:21:06,879
Speaker 1: and we start with this latest The latest is this

378
00:21:07,040 --> 00:21:13,199
Speaker 1: Colorado conversion ban right that you cannot discuss with somebody

379
00:21:13,440 --> 00:21:16,240
Speaker 1: the idea of conversion therapy. Whether I agree with it

380
00:21:16,359 --> 00:21:20,160
Speaker 1: or disagree with the concept of conversion therapy is inconsequential.

381
00:21:20,200 --> 00:21:22,760
Speaker 1: What it comes down to, as I understand it, is

382
00:21:22,800 --> 00:21:26,199
Speaker 1: the idea that somehow Colorado want to say to a therapist,

383
00:21:26,520 --> 00:21:30,160
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to discuss with a patient, the possibility

384
00:21:30,200 --> 00:21:32,280
Speaker 1: that if you're a man who thinks they're a woman,

385
00:21:32,440 --> 00:21:33,280
Speaker 1: you can't say that.

386
00:21:33,359 --> 00:21:35,359
Speaker 2: You can't say, well, you're not actually a woman.

387
00:21:35,520 --> 00:21:38,560
Speaker 1: It was trying to dictate what it is the actual

388
00:21:38,640 --> 00:21:41,359
Speaker 1: therapist could say. This was an eight to one decision

389
00:21:41,680 --> 00:21:44,639
Speaker 1: saying that the Colorado law was simply not able to

390
00:21:44,640 --> 00:21:45,960
Speaker 1: stand unconstitutional.

391
00:21:46,520 --> 00:21:48,959
Speaker 2: Walk us through this case and your takes on it.

392
00:21:50,359 --> 00:21:54,120
Speaker 5: This is a case in which Colorado passed along banning

393
00:21:54,440 --> 00:21:58,880
Speaker 5: broadly speaking, conversion therapy. The only part of that that's

394
00:21:58,960 --> 00:22:03,480
Speaker 5: before the court is whether that conversion therapy can be

395
00:22:03,560 --> 00:22:07,520
Speaker 5: banned if it's merely words, if it's merely talking. Their

396
00:22:07,920 --> 00:22:10,920
Speaker 5: court being very clear, if it were something else, they

397
00:22:11,000 --> 00:22:16,080
Speaker 5: could ban, you know, abducting somebody for conversion therapy, or

398
00:22:16,119 --> 00:22:20,840
Speaker 5: giving them medication or giving them physical things. But that's

399
00:22:20,880 --> 00:22:24,560
Speaker 5: not what it's at stake here. This literally prohibited a

400
00:22:24,760 --> 00:22:32,720
Speaker 5: therapist from doing anything other than affirming this new transgender identity.

401
00:22:33,359 --> 00:22:36,919
Speaker 5: Could not talk about it in any way contrary. So

402
00:22:37,359 --> 00:22:41,480
Speaker 5: it was a viewpoint discrimination. You could talk to your

403
00:22:41,600 --> 00:22:48,120
Speaker 5: transgender your confused client, but you can't say this, and

404
00:22:48,160 --> 00:22:50,760
Speaker 5: that's the problem, and that this you can't say is

405
00:22:51,440 --> 00:22:54,080
Speaker 5: maybe you're not really a woman, or maybe you're not

406
00:22:54,320 --> 00:22:57,960
Speaker 5: really a man. Man, let's talk about it. You know,

407
00:22:58,000 --> 00:23:01,960
Speaker 5: how did you get to that conclusion that talk, that

408
00:23:02,200 --> 00:23:06,600
Speaker 5: viewpoint was barred by this statue, And that's what came

409
00:23:06,640 --> 00:23:11,280
Speaker 5: before the court. No other conversion therapy issues were before

410
00:23:11,320 --> 00:23:11,720
Speaker 5: the court.

411
00:23:12,640 --> 00:23:16,480
Speaker 1: So this was really, if I'm the layman outside of

412
00:23:16,480 --> 00:23:19,880
Speaker 1: looking in discussing this, this becomes the First Amendment conversation

413
00:23:20,359 --> 00:23:24,440
Speaker 1: where the state is saying to a therapist, oh, sure

414
00:23:24,560 --> 00:23:27,040
Speaker 1: you might be licensed and credentialed and all the things

415
00:23:27,080 --> 00:23:30,280
Speaker 1: that we usually taut and glorify and exalts, but in

416
00:23:30,320 --> 00:23:33,879
Speaker 1: this case, we don't want you saying this thing because

417
00:23:33,880 --> 00:23:36,919
Speaker 1: it goes against our political point of view.

418
00:23:37,440 --> 00:23:39,280
Speaker 2: That's where that's where we're at.

419
00:23:40,119 --> 00:23:44,560
Speaker 5: That's right. They did not prohibit talking about the subject,

420
00:23:44,800 --> 00:23:48,400
Speaker 5: but they prohibited having a particular viewpoint on the subject.

421
00:23:48,640 --> 00:23:50,280
Speaker 5: And that was the whole point of the court that

422
00:23:50,359 --> 00:23:56,520
Speaker 5: this was pure, close to pure viewpoint discrimination, which violates

423
00:23:56,560 --> 00:23:59,359
Speaker 5: the First Amendment. And it's very significant here before we

424
00:23:59,440 --> 00:24:03,879
Speaker 5: get to Katanji Brown Jackson. This was an eight to

425
00:24:03,920 --> 00:24:09,560
Speaker 5: one decision, Okay, Kagan and so to Mayor went with

426
00:24:09,600 --> 00:24:13,520
Speaker 5: the majority, and Kagan wrote a concurring opinion in which

427
00:24:13,840 --> 00:24:18,040
Speaker 5: she agreed with the majority that this was pure viewpoint discrimination,

428
00:24:18,440 --> 00:24:20,680
Speaker 5: and she tried to make the distinction, which the court

429
00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:23,960
Speaker 5: also did, is that if it were something other than

430
00:24:24,160 --> 00:24:28,240
Speaker 5: just talking and expressing a viewpoint, she might come out differently.

431
00:24:28,480 --> 00:24:33,080
Speaker 5: So if it involved physical conduct as part of conversion therapy,

432
00:24:33,320 --> 00:24:37,760
Speaker 5: she might agree view it differently. So you know when

433
00:24:38,320 --> 00:24:43,679
Speaker 5: even Kagan and so to mayor refused to go along

434
00:24:43,760 --> 00:24:47,800
Speaker 5: with Katanji Brown Jackson, that she is way out on

435
00:24:47,840 --> 00:24:51,479
Speaker 5: the limb there. And this is we're seeing in multiple cases.

436
00:24:51,520 --> 00:24:54,719
Speaker 5: Not in all cases. I'd say in most cases they

437
00:24:54,880 --> 00:24:58,400
Speaker 5: probably vote the same way, but there have been several

438
00:24:58,480 --> 00:25:04,679
Speaker 5: cases where Katanji Brown Jackson is just way out on

439
00:25:04,720 --> 00:25:10,199
Speaker 5: a limb and actually very derisive of her colleagues. She

440
00:25:10,440 --> 00:25:13,879
Speaker 5: called the majority in her descent in this case, she

441
00:25:14,040 --> 00:25:18,720
Speaker 5: called the majority decision unprincipled. She's very vicious in the

442
00:25:18,760 --> 00:25:21,800
Speaker 5: way she attacks her colleagues on the court, which is

443
00:25:21,840 --> 00:25:24,720
Speaker 5: not the way it normally goes. Normally there's a sense

444
00:25:24,760 --> 00:25:29,320
Speaker 5: of collegiality, but she goes right after them, and we've

445
00:25:29,320 --> 00:25:33,480
Speaker 5: seen that time and again in very demeaning terms, calling

446
00:25:33,520 --> 00:25:38,359
Speaker 5: the majority unprincipled, and essentially saying, because you don't agree

447
00:25:38,400 --> 00:25:45,959
Speaker 5: with my viewpoint on conversion or on gender identity, your unprincipled.

448
00:25:46,040 --> 00:25:49,000
Speaker 5: And it's really terrible what she's doing. She's I saw

449
00:25:49,040 --> 00:25:53,160
Speaker 5: somebody refer to it on Twitter, so it's my original idea.

450
00:25:53,359 --> 00:25:56,880
Speaker 5: But basically, what she's done is she has turned her

451
00:25:56,960 --> 00:26:01,479
Speaker 5: dissenting opinions into the equivalent of bog post that it's

452
00:26:01,520 --> 00:26:07,360
Speaker 5: you know, opinionated and attacking people. And you would expect

453
00:26:07,480 --> 00:26:10,679
Speaker 5: a lot of what she says to appear on TikTok

454
00:26:11,160 --> 00:26:17,119
Speaker 5: or x or you know, Instagram. It's really it's embarrassing.

455
00:26:17,200 --> 00:26:19,400
Speaker 10: It's embarrassing if I was going to say it another way,

456
00:26:20,200 --> 00:26:21,439
Speaker 10: if I was going to say it another way, this

457
00:26:21,560 --> 00:26:23,280
Speaker 10: is the kind of thing you expect a couple of

458
00:26:23,320 --> 00:26:26,240
Speaker 10: suburban housewives drinking white wine out of a box to

459
00:26:26,320 --> 00:26:28,240
Speaker 10: be moaning and convetching about talking to.

460
00:26:28,200 --> 00:26:31,200
Speaker 1: William Jacobson and Cornell law professor, the mind behind Legal

461
00:26:31,240 --> 00:26:34,280
Speaker 1: insurrection dot com. Digging just a little bit on there

462
00:26:34,280 --> 00:26:35,880
Speaker 1: because because you brought it up, and I do want

463
00:26:35,920 --> 00:26:40,880
Speaker 1: to follow that train of thought. Her descents, Justice Brown

464
00:26:40,960 --> 00:26:46,119
Speaker 1: Jackson's descents seem personal. They do seem a lot of

465
00:26:46,119 --> 00:26:50,920
Speaker 1: ways petty. As someone noted that in this descent, not

466
00:26:51,000 --> 00:26:54,160
Speaker 1: only is is it you talk about vindictive, she kind

467
00:26:54,160 --> 00:26:58,880
Speaker 1: of argues that Kagan and Soda Mayor have been duped

468
00:26:59,800 --> 00:27:02,760
Speaker 1: in to thinking that the First Amendment says what it

469
00:27:02,800 --> 00:27:07,800
Speaker 1: says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Is there

470
00:27:07,840 --> 00:27:13,200
Speaker 1: a take on how the court usually views those who

471
00:27:13,240 --> 00:27:16,440
Speaker 1: engage the personal as opposed to you talk about collegiality,

472
00:27:16,600 --> 00:27:17,800
Speaker 1: I'll call it the professional.

473
00:27:19,880 --> 00:27:23,000
Speaker 5: Yeah. I don't know what the justice's individual views are,

474
00:27:23,359 --> 00:27:29,320
Speaker 5: but certainly the sort of attacks on colleagues that Brown

475
00:27:29,400 --> 00:27:35,280
Speaker 5: Jackson has engaged in repeatedly, including in this decision, is unusual.

476
00:27:36,200 --> 00:27:40,240
Speaker 5: Certainly there are times when little barbs are thrown at

477
00:27:40,240 --> 00:27:43,680
Speaker 5: the other side, but she calls them names. Okay, this

478
00:27:43,760 --> 00:27:46,359
Speaker 5: is really bad stuff. And I think she's calling them

479
00:27:46,440 --> 00:27:50,640
Speaker 5: names out of frustration. When you cannot even get Kagan

480
00:27:50,840 --> 00:27:54,399
Speaker 5: and Soda Mayor to agree with you, there's a frustration,

481
00:27:55,000 --> 00:27:58,760
Speaker 5: and she comes across as being extremely frustrated and lashing

482
00:27:58,880 --> 00:28:03,240
Speaker 5: out because she can't convince the other justices to go

483
00:28:03,280 --> 00:28:06,200
Speaker 5: along with her, and in this case, she couldn't convince

484
00:28:06,240 --> 00:28:09,240
Speaker 5: any of the other eight justices, even the two liberal

485
00:28:09,440 --> 00:28:13,159
Speaker 5: justices to go along with her and her descents have

486
00:28:13,280 --> 00:28:18,400
Speaker 5: an heir to them of lashing out of anger, of vindictiveness,

487
00:28:18,800 --> 00:28:22,600
Speaker 5: of demeaning her colleagues. And I don't really know what's

488
00:28:22,640 --> 00:28:26,719
Speaker 5: going on there. I can't judge the interpersonal relationships, but

489
00:28:26,800 --> 00:28:31,000
Speaker 5: I do think it's fair to say that Brown Jackson's

490
00:28:31,040 --> 00:28:33,080
Speaker 5: descents have gone off the rails.

491
00:28:33,680 --> 00:28:36,720
Speaker 1: And it should be clear that Kagan responded to the

492
00:28:36,760 --> 00:28:40,200
Speaker 1: descent and the response is basically the same one we

493
00:28:40,200 --> 00:28:42,960
Speaker 1: saw from Amy Cony Barrett a few months back that

494
00:28:43,040 --> 00:28:44,720
Speaker 1: we discussed. I can't remember the case right now, we

495
00:28:44,760 --> 00:28:48,600
Speaker 1: discussed it where Justice Kagan, who is one of the

496
00:28:48,600 --> 00:28:51,400
Speaker 1: more interesting members of the court because she usually does

497
00:28:51,440 --> 00:28:54,360
Speaker 1: side with the left, but sometimes she can surprise. Her

498
00:28:54,480 --> 00:28:58,000
Speaker 1: argument is a Justice brown Jackson, you might not understand

499
00:28:58,040 --> 00:28:59,520
Speaker 1: what this case is actually about.

500
00:29:00,720 --> 00:29:03,080
Speaker 5: This is what's remarkable. And I remember talking to you.

501
00:29:03,120 --> 00:29:06,080
Speaker 5: I think it was a soda my yor concurring opinion. Yes,

502
00:29:06,560 --> 00:29:08,880
Speaker 5: in another case. I don't even remember what the case was,

503
00:29:09,040 --> 00:29:13,320
Speaker 5: but she basically said, hey, Brown Jackson, you don't even

504
00:29:13,400 --> 00:29:16,000
Speaker 5: understand what this case is about. And that's what we're

505
00:29:16,000 --> 00:29:18,800
Speaker 5: seeing here the justices, the aid of them, and not

506
00:29:18,840 --> 00:29:22,320
Speaker 5: just the so called conservative justices. In many ways, the

507
00:29:22,360 --> 00:29:27,320
Speaker 5: conservative justices tend to ignore Brown Jackson. They tend to

508
00:29:27,360 --> 00:29:30,640
Speaker 5: not treat her as being serious, at least in their opinions.

509
00:29:30,800 --> 00:29:33,480
Speaker 5: They don't give her the time of day to respond.

510
00:29:33,960 --> 00:29:37,360
Speaker 5: But it's interesting that Soda Mayor and now Kagan do

511
00:29:37,600 --> 00:29:41,600
Speaker 5: feel the need because I think she's embarrassing their liberal

512
00:29:41,640 --> 00:29:44,400
Speaker 5: wing of the court.

513
00:29:43,720 --> 00:29:48,320
Speaker 2: I wonder if embarrassment is the right word. I wonder

514
00:29:48,360 --> 00:29:50,520
Speaker 2: if indeed they feel that.

515
00:29:50,680 --> 00:29:54,160
Speaker 1: Talking to William Jacobs and Cornell Law professor, the mind

516
00:29:54,160 --> 00:29:57,400
Speaker 1: behind the Legal insurrection dot com, you know when we

517
00:29:57,440 --> 00:30:01,720
Speaker 1: talk about Tanji brownjack in this case, this is the

518
00:30:01,800 --> 00:30:04,800
Speaker 1: same woman who told us she can't define what a

519
00:30:04,840 --> 00:30:07,080
Speaker 1: woman is because she's not a biologist. And I'm not

520
00:30:07,160 --> 00:30:09,280
Speaker 1: quite sure how she can be a part of these cases.

521
00:30:09,640 --> 00:30:13,400
Speaker 1: But here she is arguing that the state has every

522
00:30:13,480 --> 00:30:17,840
Speaker 1: right to limit what you say in providing treatment in

523
00:30:17,880 --> 00:30:20,680
Speaker 1: these situations. But I believe it was a different case

524
00:30:20,840 --> 00:30:23,120
Speaker 1: where she said the state should have no right to

525
00:30:23,320 --> 00:30:27,160
Speaker 1: stop at all these kinds of things from happening if

526
00:30:27,160 --> 00:30:29,880
Speaker 1: a child wants to go down this road.

527
00:30:30,280 --> 00:30:31,480
Speaker 3: So in her own.

528
00:30:31,320 --> 00:30:34,800
Speaker 1: Decisions, she seems to be in this level of contradiction

529
00:30:35,520 --> 00:30:38,000
Speaker 1: with herself. But when we take a look at this case,

530
00:30:38,000 --> 00:30:40,640
Speaker 1: in this eight one decision, in this case where the

531
00:30:42,920 --> 00:30:46,440
Speaker 1: opinion written by a Neil Gorsich is very clear, this

532
00:30:46,520 --> 00:30:50,479
Speaker 1: is a free speech conversation. What does this say to

533
00:30:50,560 --> 00:30:53,719
Speaker 1: you about other cases that may be coming before the

534
00:30:53,720 --> 00:30:57,040
Speaker 1: court or for the First Amendment protections in general.

535
00:30:58,000 --> 00:31:02,880
Speaker 5: Well, when Brown Jackson approaches it, she seems to find

536
00:31:02,920 --> 00:31:06,240
Speaker 5: the political result that she wants, and that's why it

537
00:31:06,320 --> 00:31:10,880
Speaker 5: seems to be inconsistent. It's not inconsistent to the extent

538
00:31:10,960 --> 00:31:14,600
Speaker 5: that she determines the political results she wants wants and

539
00:31:14,600 --> 00:31:17,280
Speaker 5: then finds a way to get there, and that creates

540
00:31:17,280 --> 00:31:21,480
Speaker 5: the inconsistency. And here, I think that's more clear than anywhere.

541
00:31:21,840 --> 00:31:24,920
Speaker 5: You're right. In other cases she may want to scale

542
00:31:24,960 --> 00:31:27,240
Speaker 5: back the police power of the state, but in this one,

543
00:31:27,560 --> 00:31:32,240
Speaker 5: very close to the start of her dissent, she talks

544
00:31:32,240 --> 00:31:37,240
Speaker 5: about how this medical care, this licensed medical care, somebody

545
00:31:37,280 --> 00:31:39,800
Speaker 5: who has a license from the state is subject to

546
00:31:39,840 --> 00:31:43,440
Speaker 5: the police power of the state. And again, if this

547
00:31:43,520 --> 00:31:48,600
Speaker 5: were involved physical sort of conversion therapy, if this involved

548
00:31:49,040 --> 00:31:54,000
Speaker 5: medication or something like that, I think the entirety of

549
00:31:54,040 --> 00:31:56,360
Speaker 5: the court probably would have upheld the statue. But that's

550
00:31:56,400 --> 00:32:00,920
Speaker 5: not what the statute does. The statue says, you cannot

551
00:32:00,960 --> 00:32:07,120
Speaker 5: hold a particular viewpoint in your conversations with your therapy patient.

552
00:32:07,560 --> 00:32:11,720
Speaker 5: You cannot express a particular viewpoint. And that's the problem here.

553
00:32:11,960 --> 00:32:16,560
Speaker 5: This was meant not to cure physical abuses or medical abuses.

554
00:32:16,840 --> 00:32:22,120
Speaker 5: It was meant to regulate viewpoints. You can talk about

555
00:32:22,120 --> 00:32:25,320
Speaker 5: it with them, but you can't hold a certain viewpoint.

556
00:32:25,440 --> 00:32:27,920
Speaker 5: And I think that that is really the problem here.

557
00:32:27,960 --> 00:32:32,200
Speaker 5: And she fails to grasp that. She completely misses that

558
00:32:32,400 --> 00:32:34,680
Speaker 5: point in her dissent, which.

559
00:32:34,520 --> 00:32:36,520
Speaker 1: I think leads people down the road of whether or

560
00:32:36,560 --> 00:32:37,680
Speaker 1: not this is purposeful?

561
00:32:37,960 --> 00:32:40,440
Speaker 2: What is it that we have done here?

562
00:32:40,480 --> 00:32:43,440
Speaker 1: And I, you know, I'm one of the believers, and

563
00:32:43,480 --> 00:32:46,080
Speaker 1: maybe because I'm the only believer, you know, sometimes you

564
00:32:46,120 --> 00:32:51,240
Speaker 1: know the old line from you know, some murder kind

565
00:32:51,280 --> 00:32:54,479
Speaker 1: of movie, the calls coming from inside the house. I

566
00:32:54,520 --> 00:32:57,640
Speaker 1: think the justices would be very happy to see Congress

567
00:32:57,680 --> 00:33:01,360
Speaker 1: move on some level of impeachment and removal of Katanji

568
00:33:01,400 --> 00:33:02,200
Speaker 1: Brown Jackson.

569
00:33:02,480 --> 00:33:05,440
Speaker 2: You can tell me no, I'll never allow it.

570
00:33:05,440 --> 00:33:08,560
Speaker 5: It's never going to happen. Okay. You know, like to

571
00:33:09,080 --> 00:33:13,440
Speaker 5: hearken back to Donald Trump's line that he could shoot

572
00:33:13,480 --> 00:33:15,960
Speaker 5: somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his supporters

573
00:33:16,040 --> 00:33:21,920
Speaker 5: would still be behind him. She could write the most disgusting, ridiculous,

574
00:33:23,080 --> 00:33:26,200
Speaker 5: embarrassing dissents the rest of her life, and she may

575
00:33:26,240 --> 00:33:30,160
Speaker 5: have to, and there is no way Democrats are going

576
00:33:30,200 --> 00:33:31,960
Speaker 5: to ever allow her to be removed.

577
00:33:33,000 --> 00:33:36,600
Speaker 1: William Jacobs and Cornell Law professor Legal insurrection dot Com.

578
00:33:36,680 --> 00:33:38,680
Speaker 1: I appreciate you being with us. More to get to

579
00:33:38,960 --> 00:33:41,680
Speaker 1: this is Tony kats today. Wonder what it is that

580
00:33:41,760 --> 00:33:44,680
Speaker 1: President Trump is going to speak about in his address

581
00:33:44,960 --> 00:33:49,959
Speaker 1: to the nation at nine pm Eastern Time, Tony Katz

582
00:33:50,040 --> 00:33:53,560
Speaker 1: Tony Katz today, is he going to declare that this

583
00:33:53,680 --> 00:33:57,760
Speaker 1: war is over, We've won it. We're coming home. Somebody

584
00:33:57,880 --> 00:34:00,000
Speaker 1: put a cake in the oven. We're going to celebrate.

585
00:34:00,440 --> 00:34:04,400
Speaker 2: I don't know. We have more work to do.

586
00:34:05,560 --> 00:34:08,880
Speaker 1: We are going to open up the Strait of Hormuz

587
00:34:09,040 --> 00:34:12,799
Speaker 1: completely and in Toto, and once that is done, then

588
00:34:12,840 --> 00:34:17,680
Speaker 1: we're coming home. Finally, we have some European nations getting

589
00:34:17,680 --> 00:34:20,120
Speaker 1: their heads out of their butts and they're going to

590
00:34:20,160 --> 00:34:20,680
Speaker 1: be a part of this.

591
00:34:22,040 --> 00:34:22,680
Speaker 2: I don't know.

592
00:34:23,719 --> 00:34:25,960
Speaker 1: We're not going to leave until we kill every last

593
00:34:26,000 --> 00:34:27,080
Speaker 1: member of the IRGC.

594
00:34:28,800 --> 00:34:32,600
Speaker 2: I don't know, no one does. What is he going

595
00:34:32,680 --> 00:34:33,160
Speaker 2: to say?

596
00:34:33,480 --> 00:34:37,600
Speaker 1: A lot of people are hoping that he goes with

597
00:34:37,680 --> 00:34:42,000
Speaker 1: this war is over, We're coming home. He can argue,

598
00:34:42,360 --> 00:34:44,440
Speaker 1: as we said many times, the first rule of trump

599
00:34:44,480 --> 00:34:46,239
Speaker 1: Ism is Trump wins, and the second rule of trump

600
00:34:46,360 --> 00:34:48,239
Speaker 1: Ism is that a deal can always be made as

601
00:34:48,280 --> 00:34:50,279
Speaker 1: long as it adheres to the first rule of trump Ism.

602
00:34:50,520 --> 00:34:54,120
Speaker 1: And with that in mind, he can declare anything anytime,

603
00:34:54,280 --> 00:34:58,720
Speaker 1: no question. He can say we won done finish complete,

604
00:34:59,320 --> 00:35:03,680
Speaker 1: bafly gone. He could say that we've degraded their capacity.

605
00:35:03,719 --> 00:35:06,000
Speaker 1: It would take them another fifteen to twenty years to

606
00:35:06,000 --> 00:35:09,040
Speaker 1: get a nuclear weapon. This regime is better than the

607
00:35:09,080 --> 00:35:12,640
Speaker 1: other regime because we took out two regimes already and

608
00:35:12,680 --> 00:35:15,040
Speaker 1: they've been far more amenable. But you still can't trust

609
00:35:15,040 --> 00:35:17,160
Speaker 1: these people because they're all just radicals.

610
00:35:17,400 --> 00:35:22,560
Speaker 2: He said those words from the Oval yesterday, so I have.

611
00:35:22,520 --> 00:35:25,520
Speaker 1: No idea what he's going to say today, because to me,

612
00:35:25,640 --> 00:35:27,640
Speaker 1: he is making the case for how you have to

613
00:35:27,680 --> 00:35:30,520
Speaker 1: eradicate the IRGC, and I don't know how to do

614
00:35:30,560 --> 00:35:32,960
Speaker 1: that from the air, and I'm not one hundred cent

615
00:35:33,000 --> 00:35:36,760
Speaker 1: sure where all the stomach is for ground troops. Although

616
00:35:36,840 --> 00:35:38,600
Speaker 1: we still haven't defined what that is. And we still

617
00:35:38,640 --> 00:35:40,640
Speaker 1: haven't seen them yet. We might not.

618
00:35:41,160 --> 00:35:42,879
Speaker 2: Just the threat of them might very well be enough.

619
00:35:44,000 --> 00:35:46,600
Speaker 1: We will watch to see whether the Europeans actually move

620
00:35:46,719 --> 00:35:50,480
Speaker 1: to open up the Strait. We see the UAE saying

621
00:35:50,520 --> 00:35:52,239
Speaker 1: they want to help open up the Straight and they

622
00:35:52,239 --> 00:35:55,239
Speaker 1: will be combatants. We'll see what the President says and

623
00:35:55,280 --> 00:35:57,960
Speaker 1: we will discuss it tomorrow. Everyone, I'm Tony Katz.

624
00:35:58,280 --> 00:35:58,640
Speaker 2: Take care

625
00:36:06,760 --> 00:36:07,480
Speaker 5: In a