1 00:00:05,200 --> 00:00:10,800 Speaker 1: Live from the Heartland and the Crossroads of America. It's 2 00:00:10,840 --> 00:00:15,280 Speaker 1: Tony Katz today. Is the right cut imminence? 3 00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:21,720 Speaker 2: Well, the latest report from the BLS says maybe Tony Katz, 4 00:00:22,239 --> 00:00:25,000 Speaker 2: Tony kats today, good to be with you. Consumer Price 5 00:00:25,040 --> 00:00:28,600 Speaker 2: Index seasonally adjusted point two percent for the month, two 6 00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:32,120 Speaker 2: point seven percent on a twelve month basis, which was 7 00:00:33,120 --> 00:00:38,800 Speaker 2: less than expected, meaning inflation might very well be under control. 8 00:00:39,560 --> 00:00:44,000 Speaker 2: And that also means that you could see a right. 9 00:00:44,240 --> 00:00:49,280 Speaker 3: Cut, a tamer inflation report despite President Trump's tariffs. 10 00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:51,120 Speaker 1: This is better than expected. 11 00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:53,040 Speaker 3: Month over month, as you mentioned, at point two percent 12 00:00:53,440 --> 00:00:56,840 Speaker 3: on an annual basis, up two point seven percent in July. 13 00:00:56,960 --> 00:00:59,640 Speaker 3: That's also what we saw on an annual basis for 14 00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:02,320 Speaker 3: the month of June. When you look at the key 15 00:01:02,360 --> 00:01:06,040 Speaker 3: categories that we always look at, energy, food, and shelter. 16 00:01:06,720 --> 00:01:10,840 Speaker 3: Energy fell by one point one percent. That was largely 17 00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:13,440 Speaker 3: driven because of gas prices falling in the month of 18 00:01:13,520 --> 00:01:16,639 Speaker 3: July by two point two percent. Look at that food, 19 00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:19,280 Speaker 3: I mean, this is where people spend their money, right 20 00:01:19,600 --> 00:01:24,160 Speaker 3: food every single day, Food flat zero percent and actually 21 00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:28,240 Speaker 3: down at the grocery store by point one percent. And 22 00:01:28,280 --> 00:01:31,959 Speaker 3: then shelter we always usually see an increase because that 23 00:01:32,040 --> 00:01:34,040 Speaker 3: is what people are paying on rent and we know 24 00:01:34,120 --> 00:01:36,880 Speaker 3: that rents are rising. That is usually the biggest share 25 00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:40,680 Speaker 3: of this report. But when we look at core inflation, 26 00:01:40,880 --> 00:01:43,039 Speaker 3: this is where we're starting to see some of those 27 00:01:43,080 --> 00:01:47,480 Speaker 3: price increases. Core inflation actually came in hotter than expected, 28 00:01:47,600 --> 00:01:51,600 Speaker 3: so month over month up point three percent and on 29 00:01:51,640 --> 00:01:54,920 Speaker 3: an annual basis up three point one percent. That's actually 30 00:01:54,920 --> 00:01:57,960 Speaker 3: the highest reading we've seen since February. And this is 31 00:01:58,000 --> 00:02:01,880 Speaker 3: important because it strips out that volatility of the energy 32 00:02:02,000 --> 00:02:03,000 Speaker 3: of the food prices. 33 00:02:03,000 --> 00:02:05,800 Speaker 2: So I happened to like that number as well. But 34 00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:09,200 Speaker 2: no matter how you slice it, this says that inflation 35 00:02:09,360 --> 00:02:12,160 Speaker 2: is in a far better place than we thought. This 36 00:02:12,560 --> 00:02:16,600 Speaker 2: is the indicator that it's time for a cut. We 37 00:02:16,720 --> 00:02:19,160 Speaker 2: can handle it. That's how it's going to be taken. 38 00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:19,480 Speaker 1: Now. 39 00:02:19,520 --> 00:02:21,280 Speaker 2: What's interesting is that this comes from the Bureau of 40 00:02:21,360 --> 00:02:24,880 Speaker 2: Labor Statistics, the place where Trump just fired the head 41 00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:28,680 Speaker 2: of that. And we should note that regular guest on 42 00:02:28,760 --> 00:02:34,440 Speaker 2: this show, Heritage economist EJ. Antony, has now been nominated 43 00:02:34,480 --> 00:02:37,920 Speaker 2: by President Trump to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 44 00:02:38,440 --> 00:02:43,200 Speaker 2: Thrilled for him, I sent him our well wishes yesterday 45 00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:44,200 Speaker 2: when I got the news. 46 00:02:45,160 --> 00:02:46,520 Speaker 1: He was with us on Friday. 47 00:02:46,840 --> 00:02:48,840 Speaker 2: He was there with us on Friday talking about the 48 00:02:48,880 --> 00:02:51,600 Speaker 2: FED and the money being spent on foreign governments and 49 00:02:51,639 --> 00:02:54,720 Speaker 2: how insane it is. And then Monday he's getting announced 50 00:02:54,720 --> 00:02:57,280 Speaker 2: to lead BLS. Look what this show does for people. 51 00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:00,000 Speaker 2: Congratulations EJ thrilled for you. 52 00:03:00,120 --> 00:03:02,400 Speaker 1: Keep it here. This is Tony Katz today. 53 00:03:02,480 --> 00:03:05,440 Speaker 2: You've heard me bring up Obergafeld before, and now there's 54 00:03:05,480 --> 00:03:09,240 Speaker 2: this whole conversation about a case that might overturn it. 55 00:03:09,280 --> 00:03:12,399 Speaker 2: And I've been very clear that I favor the overturning 56 00:03:12,520 --> 00:03:13,360 Speaker 2: of Obergafel. 57 00:03:13,960 --> 00:03:16,520 Speaker 1: And what's going to happen is that's. 58 00:03:16,280 --> 00:03:18,519 Speaker 2: Going to lead to people who think they understand my 59 00:03:18,600 --> 00:03:22,480 Speaker 2: position to scream that I'm anti gay. That's all so 60 00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:27,320 Speaker 2: incredibly boring. Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, good to be 61 00:03:27,440 --> 00:03:30,600 Speaker 2: with you. Find everything at tonykats dot com. Obergafell the 62 00:03:30,600 --> 00:03:34,320 Speaker 2: Obergafel decision, going back to twenty fifteen, is the decision 63 00:03:34,639 --> 00:03:39,080 Speaker 2: that quote unquote legalize same sex marriage. My issue is 64 00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:42,120 Speaker 2: not with two people living their lives together. My issue 65 00:03:42,160 --> 00:03:44,600 Speaker 2: is that it seems like the Supreme Court created a 66 00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:45,720 Speaker 2: rite out of hold cloth. 67 00:03:46,800 --> 00:03:49,040 Speaker 1: There's no law there's nothing on the books. 68 00:03:49,080 --> 00:03:53,400 Speaker 2: They just simply decided that this exists, and that's not 69 00:03:53,440 --> 00:03:57,600 Speaker 2: what the Supreme Court should be doing. Zack Smith joins 70 00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:00,560 Speaker 2: me right now, Senior Legal Fellow and manager Supreme Court 71 00:04:00,640 --> 00:04:05,080 Speaker 2: Appellent Advocacy Program at the Edwin mess Center for Legal 72 00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:07,840 Speaker 2: and Judicial Studies. A short way of saying it is 73 00:04:08,040 --> 00:04:11,960 Speaker 2: Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Heritage dot org. 74 00:04:12,000 --> 00:04:15,560 Speaker 2: And Zach, I want to get into this Obergerfeldt decision conversation. 75 00:04:15,680 --> 00:04:18,280 Speaker 2: I want to dig deep. But there's been so much 76 00:04:18,320 --> 00:04:22,520 Speaker 2: going on about redistricting. How the Texas Democrats fled to Illinois, 77 00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:25,559 Speaker 2: because I guess that's where democrats flee. This is about 78 00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:29,560 Speaker 2: a mid decade redistricting, which is within the law. Nobody's 79 00:04:29,600 --> 00:04:33,159 Speaker 2: even questioning whether there's a violation of the law. Republicans 80 00:04:33,160 --> 00:04:35,520 Speaker 2: think maybe there's an opportunity to do this in other places. 81 00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:38,800 Speaker 2: But you're telling me that there's a case coming to 82 00:04:39,240 --> 00:04:42,720 Speaker 2: Scotis that might have an impact on all of this. 83 00:04:43,040 --> 00:04:43,800 Speaker 1: What's the story? 84 00:04:45,000 --> 00:04:46,920 Speaker 4: Yeah, that's exactly right. Well, thanks for having me on 85 00:04:46,960 --> 00:04:51,080 Speaker 4: this show today. The big case that may impact redistricting 86 00:04:51,080 --> 00:04:53,520 Speaker 4: at the Court is a case called Louisiana versus Calai. 87 00:04:53,680 --> 00:04:57,760 Speaker 4: This is a case out of Louisiana where essentially several 88 00:04:57,800 --> 00:05:03,200 Speaker 4: groups are challenging and is drawing of different majority minority 89 00:05:03,320 --> 00:05:07,480 Speaker 4: congressional districts. Now, the problem for many years that's existed 90 00:05:07,560 --> 00:05:10,320 Speaker 4: for many states is that Section two of the Voting 91 00:05:10,400 --> 00:05:14,240 Speaker 4: Rights Act purports to require states to take race into 92 00:05:14,279 --> 00:05:18,440 Speaker 4: account when drawing congressional districts. And yet the Fourteenth Amendment 93 00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:23,320 Speaker 4: to our Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause, explicitly prohibits space 94 00:05:23,360 --> 00:05:26,880 Speaker 4: from taking race into account when taking certain governmental actions. 95 00:05:26,880 --> 00:05:30,640 Speaker 4: And in fact, we heard the Supreme Court reaffirm that 96 00:05:30,720 --> 00:05:33,000 Speaker 4: principle just recently in the Harvard and U and C 97 00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:37,680 Speaker 4: decisions saying that universities colleges can't take race into account 98 00:05:37,680 --> 00:05:41,159 Speaker 4: and ad mission's decisions. And yet states are being told 99 00:05:41,320 --> 00:05:44,320 Speaker 4: they have to take race into account when dealing with 100 00:05:44,360 --> 00:05:47,800 Speaker 4: some of our most fundamental political rights, involving how we vote, 101 00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:50,440 Speaker 4: where we vote, who we can vote for. And so 102 00:05:50,839 --> 00:05:54,480 Speaker 4: what's interesting about this case in particular is that the 103 00:05:54,520 --> 00:05:57,880 Speaker 4: Court heard arguments in it last term, but they decided 104 00:05:57,880 --> 00:06:00,359 Speaker 4: to hold it over. And here are arguments that in 105 00:06:00,360 --> 00:06:03,520 Speaker 4: in this same case this upcoming term, which starts in 106 00:06:03,520 --> 00:06:04,240 Speaker 4: October so. 107 00:06:04,279 --> 00:06:06,599 Speaker 1: Wait, I'm going to stop it all past. I'm going 108 00:06:06,680 --> 00:06:07,719 Speaker 1: to stop you right there. 109 00:06:08,520 --> 00:06:11,680 Speaker 2: That's not something you hear of often hearing the argument 110 00:06:11,760 --> 00:06:15,240 Speaker 2: and then deciding, you know what, let's hold. How often 111 00:06:15,279 --> 00:06:17,960 Speaker 2: does that happen, and specifically to this case, why did 112 00:06:18,000 --> 00:06:18,520 Speaker 2: that happen? 113 00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:21,800 Speaker 4: Yeah, so that's what I was going to say. It 114 00:06:21,839 --> 00:06:25,760 Speaker 4: doesn't happen very often, and in the past, whenever it 115 00:06:25,839 --> 00:06:29,400 Speaker 4: has happened, that typically means that the Court is likely 116 00:06:29,760 --> 00:06:33,480 Speaker 4: looking to change the current legal landscape in this particular area. 117 00:06:34,279 --> 00:06:37,720 Speaker 2: So there, if they're if we're doing it in a 118 00:06:37,800 --> 00:06:41,039 Speaker 2: short sentence, an easy elevator pitch kind of way, What 119 00:06:41,240 --> 00:06:43,640 Speaker 2: is it that you feel the Supreme Court is looking 120 00:06:43,640 --> 00:06:44,880 Speaker 2: to do here on redistricting? 121 00:06:46,520 --> 00:06:49,559 Speaker 4: Well, I think there's a very real chance the Court 122 00:06:49,680 --> 00:06:54,559 Speaker 4: may reaffirm the idea that states cannot take race into 123 00:06:54,600 --> 00:06:59,520 Speaker 4: account withdrawing congressional districts, And from my perspective, that's a 124 00:06:59,560 --> 00:06:59,920 Speaker 4: good thing. 125 00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:03,440 Speaker 2: Talking to Zach Smith, a senior legal fellow at the 126 00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:08,440 Speaker 2: Heritage Foundation Heritage dot org, none of us are fools, right, 127 00:07:08,440 --> 00:07:12,280 Speaker 2: We're all adults here. The audience here is massive, and 128 00:07:12,320 --> 00:07:14,880 Speaker 2: it's white, and it's black, and it's Asian, Hispanic and 129 00:07:14,920 --> 00:07:18,520 Speaker 2: it's all sorts of things. And we understand that states 130 00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:22,120 Speaker 2: draw districts. They are they all gerrymander, They all do this, 131 00:07:22,480 --> 00:07:26,280 Speaker 2: and they draw districts to gain political advantage, and very 132 00:07:26,320 --> 00:07:30,440 Speaker 2: often that means they do draw districts based on these 133 00:07:30,560 --> 00:07:33,520 Speaker 2: racial lines. I guess the question is, if the Supreme 134 00:07:33,520 --> 00:07:37,840 Speaker 2: Court were to affirm that indeed, that is not allowed, 135 00:07:38,880 --> 00:07:41,200 Speaker 2: how does how does that now then go back to 136 00:07:41,240 --> 00:07:43,360 Speaker 2: the states where they draw them differently? 137 00:07:43,760 --> 00:07:46,800 Speaker 1: Like, how can you force them to do such a thing. 138 00:07:48,360 --> 00:07:51,800 Speaker 4: Well, the justification states have used whenever taking race in 139 00:07:51,840 --> 00:07:54,000 Speaker 4: accounts is they have been saying that Section two of 140 00:07:54,040 --> 00:07:57,240 Speaker 4: the voting or attack requires them to take race into 141 00:07:57,280 --> 00:08:00,760 Speaker 4: account and requires them, in certain instances to draw these 142 00:08:00,840 --> 00:08:04,000 Speaker 4: majority minority districts. And so I suspect if the Supreme 143 00:08:04,040 --> 00:08:07,880 Speaker 4: Court overturns that says no, you can't take race into account, 144 00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:10,000 Speaker 4: then what would happen is it would go back to 145 00:08:10,000 --> 00:08:12,720 Speaker 4: the state legislature and they would be forced to redraw 146 00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:16,400 Speaker 4: other congressional maps and any other legislative districts that may 147 00:08:16,480 --> 00:08:17,720 Speaker 4: be impacted as well. 148 00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:21,120 Speaker 2: But I guess that's the real question. What's going to 149 00:08:21,200 --> 00:08:23,160 Speaker 2: force them to do it? They could say what was 150 00:08:23,200 --> 00:08:26,960 Speaker 2: never racially drawn anyway, It's fine, can't they? 151 00:08:27,600 --> 00:08:29,960 Speaker 4: Well, the issue is, so I think we're probably about 152 00:08:29,960 --> 00:08:33,240 Speaker 4: two different things. Whenever we talk about jerrymandering, drawing the 153 00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:36,040 Speaker 4: congressional districts for political advantage, which is what we're hearing 154 00:08:36,080 --> 00:08:38,760 Speaker 4: so much about in Texas and in Illinois and these 155 00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:42,680 Speaker 4: other places right now, there's widespread agreement you can politically jerrymander, 156 00:08:43,040 --> 00:08:44,960 Speaker 4: and I think we've seen states do that, But you're 157 00:08:44,960 --> 00:08:47,319 Speaker 4: not supposed to be able to take race into account 158 00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:50,320 Speaker 4: when jerrymandering if you don't want to delete the voting 159 00:08:50,360 --> 00:08:56,160 Speaker 4: power of certain minority groups. And yet, what certain states 160 00:08:56,360 --> 00:08:58,760 Speaker 4: like Louisiana has been saying is that while we can't 161 00:08:59,000 --> 00:09:02,920 Speaker 4: jerrymander strong raise for politicial advantage, the voting right JECK 162 00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:07,720 Speaker 4: requires us to try to give certain ethnic or minority 163 00:09:07,720 --> 00:09:10,720 Speaker 4: groups more voting power than they might otherwise have. We 164 00:09:10,840 --> 00:09:13,839 Speaker 4: have to take race into account and draw a certain 165 00:09:14,000 --> 00:09:17,640 Speaker 4: majority minority congressional districts. And so I think at least 166 00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:21,760 Speaker 4: that explicit justification could no longer be relied on by 167 00:09:21,800 --> 00:09:22,599 Speaker 4: the states. 168 00:09:23,120 --> 00:09:23,680 Speaker 1: Aldom to you. 169 00:09:23,800 --> 00:09:26,600 Speaker 2: Zach Smith, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 170 00:09:26,720 --> 00:09:27,760 Speaker 2: Heritage dot Org. 171 00:09:28,280 --> 00:09:30,199 Speaker 1: Let's move it over to a Berga fell. 172 00:09:30,640 --> 00:09:34,920 Speaker 2: This case back to twenty fifteen, which asserted the right 173 00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:36,000 Speaker 2: to same sex marriage. 174 00:09:36,000 --> 00:09:38,760 Speaker 1: That I have made the argument since then, not certainly, 175 00:09:38,760 --> 00:09:39,280 Speaker 1: not every day. 176 00:09:39,280 --> 00:09:42,000 Speaker 2: Other subjects have come up that this was a Supreme 177 00:09:42,040 --> 00:09:45,439 Speaker 2: Court making a decision a law, if you will, out 178 00:09:45,480 --> 00:09:47,800 Speaker 2: of whole cloth, and this isn't what the Supreme Court 179 00:09:47,840 --> 00:09:49,360 Speaker 2: should be doing. If you want to argue this in 180 00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:51,959 Speaker 2: the States, I was winning at the time. In the States, 181 00:09:52,080 --> 00:09:54,520 Speaker 2: you can create, you can engage legislation via Congress. 182 00:09:54,920 --> 00:09:57,680 Speaker 1: But the Supreme Court was wrong in this decision. 183 00:09:57,720 --> 00:10:01,160 Speaker 2: The majority opinion being written by Anthony So Kennedy, talk 184 00:10:01,200 --> 00:10:03,160 Speaker 2: to me about what it is the Supreme Court is 185 00:10:03,240 --> 00:10:05,240 Speaker 2: going to hear and whether or not they're going. 186 00:10:05,160 --> 00:10:05,880 Speaker 1: To act upon it. 187 00:10:07,280 --> 00:10:10,200 Speaker 4: Well, the Supreme Court hasn't agreed to hear anything yet. 188 00:10:10,200 --> 00:10:12,559 Speaker 4: There is a cert petition or request in a court 189 00:10:12,679 --> 00:10:15,880 Speaker 4: asking them to hear a case involving Oberga fel and 190 00:10:15,920 --> 00:10:18,640 Speaker 4: a potentially challenge to it. You may remember there was 191 00:10:18,679 --> 00:10:22,120 Speaker 4: a county clerk in Kentucky named Kim Davis who refused 192 00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:25,360 Speaker 4: to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. As a result, 193 00:10:25,400 --> 00:10:29,679 Speaker 4: she moved from office, she was sued heavy monetary damages 194 00:10:30,080 --> 00:10:32,520 Speaker 4: were imposed against her, and so she has brought a 195 00:10:32,559 --> 00:10:36,720 Speaker 4: case to the Supreme Court, essentially arguing that she should 196 00:10:36,720 --> 00:10:40,640 Speaker 4: not be personally required to pay some of those damages. 197 00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:43,280 Speaker 4: And there are several issues she's asking the court to 198 00:10:43,320 --> 00:10:46,040 Speaker 4: take up, primarily related to whether or not she can 199 00:10:46,080 --> 00:10:50,360 Speaker 4: be helped personally liable in her situation, but as one 200 00:10:50,400 --> 00:10:53,440 Speaker 4: of the issues that she raises, she's asking the court 201 00:10:53,480 --> 00:10:58,360 Speaker 4: to also consider whether Oberger Felt was correctly decided. Now, again, 202 00:10:58,400 --> 00:11:01,680 Speaker 4: the Court has not agreed to any of these issues, 203 00:11:02,200 --> 00:11:04,680 Speaker 4: but just the filing of this a certain petition, just 204 00:11:04,679 --> 00:11:07,240 Speaker 4: the filing of this request of the court has certainly 205 00:11:07,240 --> 00:11:09,320 Speaker 4: garnered a lot of media attention. 206 00:11:10,040 --> 00:11:13,640 Speaker 1: To the actual decision of a Berga Fell itself. I 207 00:11:13,800 --> 00:11:15,760 Speaker 1: make the argument that this was. 208 00:11:15,720 --> 00:11:20,760 Speaker 2: A Supreme Court creating law, not engaging a decision based 209 00:11:20,840 --> 00:11:23,360 Speaker 2: on the law or an interpretation of the law, and 210 00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:25,439 Speaker 2: for that reason alone, it shall be overturned. 211 00:11:25,920 --> 00:11:28,280 Speaker 1: In your expert view, am I right or am I wrong? 212 00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:31,839 Speaker 4: Well, that's certainly the view that was shared by Justice 213 00:11:31,920 --> 00:11:34,520 Speaker 4: antonin scalias, certainly the view that was shared by Justice 214 00:11:34,520 --> 00:11:37,000 Speaker 4: Clarence Thomas. Certainly the view that was shared by Chief 215 00:11:37,120 --> 00:11:40,560 Speaker 4: Justice John Roberts and some of their separate opinions at 216 00:11:40,679 --> 00:11:43,079 Speaker 4: the time. You know, if you look at what many 217 00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:46,400 Speaker 4: commentators are saying right now, there's a question of whether 218 00:11:46,520 --> 00:11:49,120 Speaker 4: or not there are five votes on the court to 219 00:11:49,400 --> 00:11:52,800 Speaker 4: overturn Obergafell. You still have the Chief Justice on the court. 220 00:11:52,880 --> 00:11:54,960 Speaker 4: You still have Justice Clainience Thomas on the court. You 221 00:11:54,960 --> 00:11:58,280 Speaker 4: still have Justice Samuel Alito on the Court. But there's 222 00:11:58,320 --> 00:12:00,720 Speaker 4: a question of whether or not, you know, Justice course, 223 00:12:00,760 --> 00:12:03,600 Speaker 4: it's just Cavanaugh. Justice Barrett would want to take up 224 00:12:03,760 --> 00:12:08,160 Speaker 4: this issue in this particular case. Now, it only takes 225 00:12:08,240 --> 00:12:10,840 Speaker 4: four justices to agree to hear a case, but it 226 00:12:10,880 --> 00:12:14,439 Speaker 4: takes five justices to issue a binding ruling to overturn 227 00:12:14,960 --> 00:12:17,280 Speaker 4: prior President. So I think a lot of people are 228 00:12:17,360 --> 00:12:22,080 Speaker 4: watching this petition very closely. But certainly those arguments, said 229 00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:25,920 Speaker 4: Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, the Chief Justice, Justice Alito have 230 00:12:25,960 --> 00:12:28,520 Speaker 4: made me it past. You're right, all of those arguments 231 00:12:28,720 --> 00:12:30,559 Speaker 4: certainly still have a lot of force. 232 00:12:31,040 --> 00:12:31,960 Speaker 1: So the. 233 00:12:33,840 --> 00:12:36,680 Speaker 2: Argument is that I have as an argument that the 234 00:12:36,800 --> 00:12:42,480 Speaker 2: justice had, including the late Justice Scalia. Is it your 235 00:12:42,640 --> 00:12:46,000 Speaker 2: take that that argument is going to be part of 236 00:12:46,120 --> 00:12:48,400 Speaker 2: or could be part of this conversation here. 237 00:12:50,040 --> 00:12:52,679 Speaker 4: Well, certainly that is what Kim Davis is lawyers, as 238 00:12:52,679 --> 00:12:55,400 Speaker 4: she's represented by a group called Liberty Council. They're excellent 239 00:12:55,480 --> 00:12:58,200 Speaker 4: constitutional lawyers. They've had many wins at the Supreme Court. 240 00:12:58,280 --> 00:13:03,240 Speaker 4: They primarily deal in really just liberty litigation. They're certainly 241 00:13:03,320 --> 00:13:07,760 Speaker 4: reiterating those arguments that the right to same sex marriage 242 00:13:07,800 --> 00:13:11,319 Speaker 4: is unmoored from the text, history, or structure of the Constitution, 243 00:13:11,480 --> 00:13:15,360 Speaker 4: that essentially it is an invented right by the Supreme Court. 244 00:13:15,440 --> 00:13:18,000 Speaker 4: If you read their CIRT petition, they go into some 245 00:13:18,040 --> 00:13:22,040 Speaker 4: more detail in some of those arguments. So again, we'll 246 00:13:22,040 --> 00:13:24,200 Speaker 4: have to wait and see whether there are four justices 247 00:13:24,400 --> 00:13:26,360 Speaker 4: we want to take up in this case and want 248 00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:29,559 Speaker 4: to take up to that particular issue within this case 249 00:13:29,679 --> 00:13:30,200 Speaker 4: as well. 250 00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:33,479 Speaker 1: What issue would they have with taking up this issue. 251 00:13:34,880 --> 00:13:38,559 Speaker 4: Well, you know, we really don't know why the justices 252 00:13:39,080 --> 00:13:41,559 Speaker 4: decide to take up cases or don't decide to take 253 00:13:41,640 --> 00:13:45,200 Speaker 4: up cases. They usually don't issue opinions explaining why. Sometimes 254 00:13:45,320 --> 00:13:47,840 Speaker 4: if the justices declined to take up a case, if 255 00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:52,880 Speaker 4: they reject the case, individual justices sometimes right explaining why 256 00:13:52,920 --> 00:13:55,480 Speaker 4: they voted to take up the case or why they 257 00:13:55,520 --> 00:13:59,080 Speaker 4: wish would have heard a particular case, but they're not 258 00:13:59,120 --> 00:14:02,479 Speaker 4: required to do that, So if the Court ultimately rejects 259 00:14:02,520 --> 00:14:06,160 Speaker 4: this case, we won't know why they did that. More 260 00:14:06,240 --> 00:14:09,719 Speaker 4: likely than not. The other consideration that's worth taking into 261 00:14:09,800 --> 00:14:12,800 Speaker 4: account is something known as stay decisis. Now, that's a 262 00:14:12,880 --> 00:14:16,320 Speaker 4: technical Latin term. It basically just means that once the 263 00:14:16,360 --> 00:14:19,920 Speaker 4: Court has decided an issue, typically the court doesn't like 264 00:14:19,960 --> 00:14:22,720 Speaker 4: to go back and revisit that issue. And we saw 265 00:14:22,760 --> 00:14:25,720 Speaker 4: this in a couple of the Chief Justice's opinions in 266 00:14:25,800 --> 00:14:28,360 Speaker 4: recent years, where he has said, although if he was 267 00:14:28,400 --> 00:14:32,160 Speaker 4: asked to decide the issue differently in the first instance, 268 00:14:32,480 --> 00:14:35,160 Speaker 4: even though he might have decided the issue differently because 269 00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:39,200 Speaker 4: the Court has already decided the issue because of the 270 00:14:39,240 --> 00:14:43,240 Speaker 4: principles of stereodecisis that he would vote to reaffirm the 271 00:14:43,320 --> 00:14:46,880 Speaker 4: court's prior folding, even though he personally may not agree 272 00:14:46,920 --> 00:14:49,080 Speaker 4: with it. So that may be another dynamic that's that play. 273 00:14:49,520 --> 00:14:52,760 Speaker 4: But again we'll have to wait and see what happens. 274 00:14:53,040 --> 00:14:55,840 Speaker 2: But it's not unheard of for the Court to go 275 00:14:55,960 --> 00:14:59,920 Speaker 2: back and take a look at what it's done and say, 276 00:15:00,160 --> 00:15:03,240 Speaker 2: you know what, that doesn't work. Wouldn't that be the 277 00:15:03,400 --> 00:15:06,760 Speaker 2: argument regarding plus E versus Ferguson. Wouldn't that be the 278 00:15:06,840 --> 00:15:10,240 Speaker 2: argument regarding what we just saw with the Dobbs decision 279 00:15:10,400 --> 00:15:11,760 Speaker 2: that overturned Roe v. 280 00:15:11,840 --> 00:15:14,920 Speaker 1: Wade. I mean, to the extent of bad decisions. 281 00:15:14,920 --> 00:15:17,120 Speaker 2: We can look at dred Scott, but I don't know 282 00:15:17,160 --> 00:15:20,360 Speaker 2: exactly where the overturning would take place there in terms 283 00:15:20,400 --> 00:15:25,560 Speaker 2: of how many court decisions happened to eliminate that bad decision. 284 00:15:25,840 --> 00:15:27,800 Speaker 1: But the court's done it before. I only mentioned a 285 00:15:27,800 --> 00:15:28,320 Speaker 1: couple here. 286 00:15:29,720 --> 00:15:31,800 Speaker 4: Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, look, we did see 287 00:15:31,800 --> 00:15:34,600 Speaker 4: that most recently with Roe versus Wade and the Dobbs decisions. 288 00:15:34,600 --> 00:15:38,400 Speaker 4: Certainly the court can go back and overturned prior decisions. 289 00:15:38,400 --> 00:15:40,320 Speaker 4: In fact, several years ago, one of my colleagues and 290 00:15:40,360 --> 00:15:42,680 Speaker 4: I we wrote a paper called Scary Decisives one O 291 00:15:42,800 --> 00:15:46,920 Speaker 4: one outlined in some previous instances where the court has 292 00:15:47,000 --> 00:15:50,320 Speaker 4: overturned prior precedent, explaining some of the factors that the 293 00:15:50,360 --> 00:15:53,640 Speaker 4: court typically takes into account. You can find that on 294 00:15:54,080 --> 00:15:56,240 Speaker 4: my heritage or a page heritage dot org, or you 295 00:15:56,240 --> 00:15:59,120 Speaker 4: can go to my x speed at tz smith that's 296 00:15:59,160 --> 00:16:03,200 Speaker 4: at tz Smith to read more about Scary Decisives. How 297 00:16:03,240 --> 00:16:06,200 Speaker 4: that comes into play. But you're certainly right the Court 298 00:16:06,360 --> 00:16:11,440 Speaker 4: has and should overturn prior president when they're wrong. But 299 00:16:11,960 --> 00:16:15,000 Speaker 4: that will certainly will be a consideration of scary decisive 300 00:16:15,120 --> 00:16:19,240 Speaker 4: factors will be a consideration if the Court agrees to 301 00:16:19,320 --> 00:16:20,520 Speaker 4: take up this issue. 302 00:16:20,600 --> 00:16:23,080 Speaker 2: Before I let you go, Zack Smith, Senior legal fellow 303 00:16:23,200 --> 00:16:27,800 Speaker 2: at the Heritage Foundation Heritage dot org. As we're discussing Scotis, 304 00:16:27,920 --> 00:16:30,480 Speaker 2: I want to discuss Justice Katanji Brown Jackson. 305 00:16:31,480 --> 00:16:33,640 Speaker 1: I'm not asking you for a. 306 00:16:33,600 --> 00:16:39,400 Speaker 2: Conversation about anything regarding her personally, but certainly her actions 307 00:16:39,560 --> 00:16:43,680 Speaker 2: on the bench. This back and forth with Amy Cony Barrett. 308 00:16:44,240 --> 00:16:49,760 Speaker 2: Justice Barrett really a response from Sonya sotomayor her fellow 309 00:16:49,800 --> 00:16:52,880 Speaker 2: liberals saying I don't think you understood this case properly. 310 00:16:53,840 --> 00:16:58,000 Speaker 2: There is a conversation about how she not only is 311 00:16:58,160 --> 00:17:02,000 Speaker 2: ruling from the bench, how she is actually acting on 312 00:17:02,040 --> 00:17:07,080 Speaker 2: the bench with a series of questions and the utilization 313 00:17:07,160 --> 00:17:10,760 Speaker 2: of the phrase I'm having a hard time understanding. I'm 314 00:17:10,760 --> 00:17:14,080 Speaker 2: trying to understand what I don't understand. It happens a 315 00:17:14,119 --> 00:17:19,760 Speaker 2: tremendous amount. I understand where the political right is on this, 316 00:17:20,040 --> 00:17:24,840 Speaker 2: for sure. I understand where people hearing this might be like, Okay, 317 00:17:24,880 --> 00:17:29,040 Speaker 2: what's wrong with her? Is there anything being said from 318 00:17:29,080 --> 00:17:34,439 Speaker 2: the Court, former clerks, etc. Regarding Kaitanji Brown Jackson, Or 319 00:17:34,520 --> 00:17:40,439 Speaker 2: is the Court on this subject still being very very silent, Well, 320 00:17:40,440 --> 00:17:41,080 Speaker 2: the Court is. 321 00:17:41,040 --> 00:17:44,000 Speaker 4: Being silent outside of their writings. Now you reference kind 322 00:17:44,000 --> 00:17:46,160 Speaker 4: of a back and forth she got into with Justice 323 00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:49,320 Speaker 4: Amy Cony Barrett. I think that exchange in and of 324 00:17:49,359 --> 00:17:51,800 Speaker 4: itself is very talent. You know, we're used to kind 325 00:17:51,800 --> 00:17:54,679 Speaker 4: of the rough and tumble political world where shirt and 326 00:17:54,680 --> 00:17:58,239 Speaker 4: barbs are not uncommon. That doesn't happen very often at 327 00:17:58,280 --> 00:18:01,399 Speaker 4: the Supreme Court in their writings, particularly when one of 328 00:18:01,440 --> 00:18:06,159 Speaker 4: the justices very personally rebukes another justice. And what was 329 00:18:06,280 --> 00:18:09,879 Speaker 4: telling about that exchange. Not only was it Justice Amy 330 00:18:09,920 --> 00:18:13,600 Speaker 4: Cony Barrett who used that very strong by Supreme Court terms, 331 00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:17,640 Speaker 4: a very pointed language rebuking Justice Jackson, but you had 332 00:18:17,680 --> 00:18:20,199 Speaker 4: many of the other justices also signing on to an 333 00:18:20,240 --> 00:18:24,119 Speaker 4: agree with that very pointed, very personal rebuke by Justice 334 00:18:24,119 --> 00:18:27,000 Speaker 4: Barrett of Justice Jackson. And so I say that is 335 00:18:27,040 --> 00:18:29,920 Speaker 4: certainly a dynamic that's worth watching at the Court. There 336 00:18:29,920 --> 00:18:33,680 Speaker 4: may be some tension there among the justices. Justice Kankanji 337 00:18:33,760 --> 00:18:37,760 Speaker 4: Brown Jackson certainly talks more than any other justice at 338 00:18:37,880 --> 00:18:40,439 Speaker 4: oral argument. She's one of the most prolific speakers, one 339 00:18:40,480 --> 00:18:43,120 Speaker 4: of the most prolific questioners at oral argument. I think 340 00:18:43,119 --> 00:18:45,240 Speaker 4: a couple of times you see where either the Chief 341 00:18:45,400 --> 00:18:47,480 Speaker 4: Justice or as you mentioned, Justice on am Or may 342 00:18:47,560 --> 00:18:52,480 Speaker 4: have apparently gotten a little irritated with Justice Jackson for 343 00:18:52,600 --> 00:18:56,800 Speaker 4: some of her ongoing questioning and commentary. So I think 344 00:18:56,800 --> 00:19:00,200 Speaker 4: that's certainly a dynamic that is worth watching. And last 345 00:19:00,200 --> 00:19:03,480 Speaker 4: thing I'll say very quickly is that Justine Jackson's view 346 00:19:03,920 --> 00:19:06,720 Speaker 4: of her role as a Supreme Court justice, her role 347 00:19:06,920 --> 00:19:09,439 Speaker 4: a view of the role judges in our society, is 348 00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:12,960 Speaker 4: a very troubling view because apparently she thinks it is 349 00:19:13,080 --> 00:19:17,879 Speaker 4: her role to be a roving commission of dogurs, to 350 00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:22,159 Speaker 4: impose her own policy preferences whenever that might conflict with 351 00:19:22,200 --> 00:19:25,320 Speaker 4: the presidents or Congresses. And that is a very dangerous 352 00:19:25,440 --> 00:19:28,359 Speaker 4: view of how a Supreme Court justice, or a federal judge, 353 00:19:28,400 --> 00:19:32,080 Speaker 4: or any judge should discharge his or her dues. 354 00:19:32,840 --> 00:19:35,800 Speaker 2: Zach Smith, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation 355 00:19:35,960 --> 00:19:37,400 Speaker 2: Heritage dot org. 356 00:19:37,520 --> 00:19:39,399 Speaker 1: I appreciate you taking the time to be with us. 357 00:19:39,440 --> 00:19:41,200 Speaker 1: More coming up. I'm Tony Kuntz. 358 00:19:41,280 --> 00:19:44,640 Speaker 2: This is Tony Kuts Today. 359 00:19:45,520 --> 00:19:48,159 Speaker 5: Let's get right to what America is talking about. Donald 360 00:19:48,200 --> 00:19:51,399 Speaker 5: Trump makes himself that man, and the nation's capital is 361 00:19:51,440 --> 00:19:54,399 Speaker 5: Gotham City. The President of the United States has declared 362 00:19:54,520 --> 00:19:58,119 Speaker 5: himself crime fighter in Chief, and he's taken over Washington's 363 00:19:58,160 --> 00:20:00,920 Speaker 5: police force. It is a move that the DC mayor 364 00:20:01,000 --> 00:20:03,359 Speaker 5: is calling unsettling and unprecedented. 365 00:20:03,960 --> 00:20:07,800 Speaker 2: It doesn't matter what Muriel Bowser calls anything. How cool 366 00:20:07,920 --> 00:20:10,560 Speaker 2: is it that Abby Phillip of CNN is referring to 367 00:20:10,560 --> 00:20:11,720 Speaker 2: Donald Trump as Batman? 368 00:20:12,680 --> 00:20:15,800 Speaker 1: Because I've been told my entire life long, you. 369 00:20:16,080 --> 00:20:19,080 Speaker 2: Be you unless you can be Batman, in which case, 370 00:20:19,280 --> 00:20:23,439 Speaker 2: always be Batman. Tony Katz, Tony Katz Today, good to 371 00:20:23,520 --> 00:20:26,280 Speaker 2: be with you. Find everything at Tony katz dot com. 372 00:20:27,560 --> 00:20:31,960 Speaker 2: To understand CNN and the market that they're going for, 373 00:20:33,240 --> 00:20:37,280 Speaker 2: well I can't. I can't figure out what they're all about. 374 00:20:37,520 --> 00:20:42,080 Speaker 2: And considering that the only show that gets any viewership 375 00:20:42,160 --> 00:20:45,520 Speaker 2: is this one, which I should say, I don't even 376 00:20:45,520 --> 00:20:48,399 Speaker 2: know if it's viewership as much as I would say 377 00:20:48,640 --> 00:20:52,840 Speaker 2: as it gets replay because of Scott Jennings. Is this 378 00:20:52,960 --> 00:20:58,239 Speaker 2: Abby Phillip show where she has time and again and 379 00:20:58,320 --> 00:21:01,399 Speaker 2: again proved in herself. 380 00:21:02,040 --> 00:21:03,960 Speaker 1: To be someone who doesn't care about the show. 381 00:21:05,520 --> 00:21:09,399 Speaker 2: She has all the opportunity on CNN to have the 382 00:21:09,480 --> 00:21:13,639 Speaker 2: show that raises the debate, that engages properly, and maybe 383 00:21:13,760 --> 00:21:16,480 Speaker 2: we'd be interested in it because it gives multiple sides 384 00:21:16,480 --> 00:21:20,280 Speaker 2: and people engaged in thought. Nope, Abby Philip doesn't want that. 385 00:21:21,119 --> 00:21:25,199 Speaker 2: She doesn't want that. And here's the proof. This is 386 00:21:25,240 --> 00:21:31,159 Speaker 2: what took place on the show last night, where you 387 00:21:31,320 --> 00:21:39,520 Speaker 2: have Scott Jennings pushing back on this, this maddening proposition 388 00:21:39,960 --> 00:21:43,080 Speaker 2: that everything Trump has done to try and stop wars 389 00:21:43,119 --> 00:21:45,239 Speaker 2: and negotiating, was it a deal in the Congo and 390 00:21:45,240 --> 00:21:51,680 Speaker 2: the deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan. None of that matters. 391 00:21:51,760 --> 00:21:57,080 Speaker 2: Scott Jennings begins the conversation. Tara Settmeyer then goes in 392 00:21:57,160 --> 00:22:01,480 Speaker 2: for some kind of weirdo dunk pseudo intellectual play on 393 00:22:01,680 --> 00:22:02,760 Speaker 2: words sophistry. 394 00:22:03,000 --> 00:22:06,800 Speaker 6: Listen, the president has solved like seven conflicts this year. 395 00:22:07,000 --> 00:22:08,760 Speaker 6: I'm willing to give him some latitude to talk of 396 00:22:08,800 --> 00:22:11,280 Speaker 6: Vladimir Putin and break the deadlock and try to move 397 00:22:11,359 --> 00:22:13,840 Speaker 6: us toward a place where the killing comes to an end, 398 00:22:13,840 --> 00:22:15,520 Speaker 6: because I think that's what we should all be praying for. 399 00:22:15,840 --> 00:22:18,280 Speaker 1: He actually hasn't solved seven conflicts. There's been a lot 400 00:22:18,320 --> 00:22:20,760 Speaker 1: of talk about that, what reality do you live in? 401 00:22:21,040 --> 00:22:23,680 Speaker 6: He's literally gotten these guys in the White House where 402 00:22:23,680 --> 00:22:27,320 Speaker 6: there's signing documents and shaking hands, sign acknowledge the man 403 00:22:27,480 --> 00:22:28,840 Speaker 6: is solving India. 404 00:22:28,960 --> 00:22:30,520 Speaker 1: Question about whether that would be. 405 00:22:30,520 --> 00:22:35,040 Speaker 3: Actually he almost a weekly basnowledge. 406 00:22:34,040 --> 00:22:35,040 Speaker 1: Just acknowledge. 407 00:22:35,200 --> 00:22:37,800 Speaker 7: And I will often believe that Donald Trump, we on 408 00:22:37,840 --> 00:22:42,120 Speaker 7: this network, seems to have an affinity for La Live. 409 00:22:42,240 --> 00:22:44,320 Speaker 7: We're putent in a way. No, you're not going to 410 00:22:44,359 --> 00:22:45,800 Speaker 7: get away with Kongier. I know. 411 00:22:45,880 --> 00:22:48,840 Speaker 1: That's like the lying. You're not lying, you're lying. 412 00:22:48,880 --> 00:22:50,040 Speaker 7: Nobody's lying about anything. 413 00:22:53,280 --> 00:22:56,679 Speaker 2: Now to Scott Jennings credit, he doesn't even look at her. 414 00:22:56,720 --> 00:22:58,800 Speaker 2: He's looking right in the camera. He's talking to us. 415 00:23:00,080 --> 00:23:03,960 Speaker 2: This affinity for Trump thing is nonsense. I'm sorry, this 416 00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:07,280 Speaker 2: Trump affinity for Putin thing is nonsense. But let's go 417 00:23:07,400 --> 00:23:10,200 Speaker 2: back to the first part. There have been a number 418 00:23:10,200 --> 00:23:13,920 Speaker 2: of peace deals that have come through under Trump's watch 419 00:23:13,960 --> 00:23:15,800 Speaker 2: that didn't come through under Joe Biden's watch. 420 00:23:15,920 --> 00:23:17,600 Speaker 1: That much is true. 421 00:23:17,960 --> 00:23:21,159 Speaker 2: Does the deal guarantee that everything's gonna be perfect? Of 422 00:23:21,160 --> 00:23:24,639 Speaker 2: course not, And that would be the rational thing to 423 00:23:24,640 --> 00:23:27,080 Speaker 2: say yes, President Trump has gotten people to come to 424 00:23:27,119 --> 00:23:31,679 Speaker 2: the table. Now let's see the results there. My gosh, 425 00:23:31,720 --> 00:23:33,879 Speaker 2: I hope it works. But let's see if it was 426 00:23:33,920 --> 00:23:37,520 Speaker 2: all talk or not. Now you can argue that that's 427 00:23:37,560 --> 00:23:42,800 Speaker 2: a dig, but it's also more honest. But this idea 428 00:23:42,880 --> 00:23:46,359 Speaker 2: that somehow it hasn't happened and that all of a 429 00:23:46,400 --> 00:23:51,040 Speaker 2: sudden Trump has an affinity for Putin and Scott Jennings 430 00:23:51,119 --> 00:23:54,480 Speaker 2: is like, you're a liar, and she is just outraged 431 00:23:54,520 --> 00:23:55,679 Speaker 2: by being called a liar. 432 00:23:55,960 --> 00:23:58,880 Speaker 1: And here comes Abby Phillip, the host of the show. 433 00:23:59,600 --> 00:24:01,719 Speaker 2: Not to say, wait a second, you can't say that 434 00:24:01,760 --> 00:24:02,280 Speaker 2: about Trump. 435 00:24:02,320 --> 00:24:05,120 Speaker 1: Wait a second, he did bring about these deals. Now, 436 00:24:05,240 --> 00:24:05,840 Speaker 1: what's your. 437 00:24:05,720 --> 00:24:09,280 Speaker 2: Statement, like setting some clarity in a tone for the show, 438 00:24:10,359 --> 00:24:12,840 Speaker 2: She gets into a well, both of you are talking, 439 00:24:12,880 --> 00:24:16,920 Speaker 2: and I don't know what her point is, whether. 440 00:24:16,800 --> 00:24:19,520 Speaker 7: The conflins were actually solved by Donald Trump, and whether 441 00:24:19,560 --> 00:24:24,600 Speaker 7: it was pomping circumstance anyway, Donald Trump's. 442 00:24:25,240 --> 00:24:27,200 Speaker 1: Affinity for for Vladimir. 443 00:24:26,760 --> 00:24:29,520 Speaker 7: Putin versus the way he treats Zelenski, who's. 444 00:24:29,320 --> 00:24:36,240 Speaker 8: The one we're saying things that do not exist in reality, 445 00:24:36,320 --> 00:24:38,920 Speaker 8: that he just got NATO to do hundreds of million 446 00:24:38,920 --> 00:24:40,840 Speaker 8: of dollars a lethal weapons to Ukraine. 447 00:24:43,680 --> 00:24:45,520 Speaker 5: Donald Trump just let her finish so I can even 448 00:24:45,600 --> 00:24:47,120 Speaker 5: understand what point she's trying to make. 449 00:24:47,640 --> 00:24:51,040 Speaker 2: Everybody understands the point she's trying to make. Scott Jennings 450 00:24:51,119 --> 00:24:55,800 Speaker 2: is completely accurate. This idea of affinity for Putin is 451 00:24:55,840 --> 00:24:59,920 Speaker 2: a lie. It's the continued lie based on the Rush 452 00:25:00,080 --> 00:25:02,960 Speaker 2: Russia Russia lie that we all know is a lie. 453 00:25:03,240 --> 00:25:06,439 Speaker 2: And the Barack Obama White House and former FBI director 454 00:25:06,520 --> 00:25:09,639 Speaker 2: James Comby and former CIA director John Brennan and former 455 00:25:09,720 --> 00:25:12,879 Speaker 2: d n I James Clapper and Andrew McCabe who's employed 456 00:25:12,920 --> 00:25:16,720 Speaker 2: by CNN all participated in the lie and the cover 457 00:25:16,840 --> 00:25:19,679 Speaker 2: up of the Russia Russia, Russia story. And I'm glad 458 00:25:19,720 --> 00:25:23,560 Speaker 2: to see that Adam Schiff, the Now Center from California 459 00:25:23,600 --> 00:25:26,240 Speaker 2: is taking heat because that guy is a liar and 460 00:25:26,280 --> 00:25:30,639 Speaker 2: a fraud, A liar and a fraud. 461 00:25:31,240 --> 00:25:35,280 Speaker 1: My gosh, Abby, what are you doing? What did you 462 00:25:35,359 --> 00:25:36,480 Speaker 1: need to hear from her? 463 00:25:36,800 --> 00:25:39,680 Speaker 2: You just needed her to go out there and talk 464 00:25:39,720 --> 00:25:43,640 Speaker 2: about how Trump is just this terrible Putin lover. 465 00:25:46,480 --> 00:25:48,120 Speaker 1: Okay, so we. 466 00:25:48,040 --> 00:25:51,760 Speaker 7: All have seen how Donald Trump has been very has 467 00:25:51,800 --> 00:25:54,240 Speaker 7: an affinity for Vladimir Putin. We have seen the pattern 468 00:25:54,400 --> 00:25:57,560 Speaker 7: for years, and only recently because he hasn't been able 469 00:25:57,560 --> 00:26:00,000 Speaker 7: to solve the crisis in twenty four hours, because Putin's 470 00:26:00,160 --> 00:26:02,920 Speaker 7: playing him from day one. He's been a useful idiot 471 00:26:02,960 --> 00:26:06,360 Speaker 7: for Russia for years, and now because it's in ease, 472 00:26:06,440 --> 00:26:08,840 Speaker 7: they're trying to change the subject. 473 00:26:09,720 --> 00:26:12,959 Speaker 2: Scott Jennings is literally signing into the camera, looking up 474 00:26:12,960 --> 00:26:16,360 Speaker 2: in the sky as if asking the Lord for strength. 475 00:26:17,480 --> 00:26:20,680 Speaker 2: This useful idiot thing is something else and something special. 476 00:26:21,600 --> 00:26:24,160 Speaker 2: If you were to say to me that if Trump 477 00:26:24,200 --> 00:26:27,119 Speaker 2: really thought he could end things between Ukraine and Russia 478 00:26:27,119 --> 00:26:30,560 Speaker 2: in a day, well then he was sorely mistaken. That's 479 00:26:30,720 --> 00:26:34,879 Speaker 2: foolish if you think that he's being played by the Russians. 480 00:26:35,359 --> 00:26:37,400 Speaker 2: I don't think you understand Trump. For the people who 481 00:26:37,400 --> 00:26:41,160 Speaker 2: support Trump, they understand that he tries something and sometimes 482 00:26:41,160 --> 00:26:42,480 Speaker 2: it works and sometimes it doesn't. 483 00:26:42,560 --> 00:26:44,919 Speaker 1: When it doesn't, okay, now you suffer. 484 00:26:44,960 --> 00:26:47,960 Speaker 2: That's where the sanctions come in, hopefully putting pressure to 485 00:26:48,000 --> 00:26:49,800 Speaker 2: be able to get to the next part of our 486 00:26:49,840 --> 00:26:52,679 Speaker 2: next opportunity to get a deal. That's what we're seeing 487 00:26:52,720 --> 00:26:56,720 Speaker 2: with this meeting in Alaska between Trump and Putin. I 488 00:26:56,760 --> 00:26:58,239 Speaker 2: don't know if it's going to bring a deal or not. 489 00:26:58,720 --> 00:27:00,200 Speaker 2: I don't think Trump knows if it's going to bring 490 00:27:00,200 --> 00:27:03,480 Speaker 2: a deal or not. And I think that Major Mike Lyons, 491 00:27:03,600 --> 00:27:06,920 Speaker 2: retired United States Army military analyst, said it very well 492 00:27:06,920 --> 00:27:11,399 Speaker 2: in the show yesterday that the getting Putin off of 493 00:27:11,440 --> 00:27:15,080 Speaker 2: his place is very difficult because Putin believes he can 494 00:27:15,080 --> 00:27:15,680 Speaker 2: wait this out. 495 00:27:16,040 --> 00:27:19,600 Speaker 1: He believes he can wait out Ukraine and wait out NATO. 496 00:27:20,200 --> 00:27:24,400 Speaker 2: He'll get Land, He'll get it, He'll get the Dune Boss, 497 00:27:24,560 --> 00:27:29,600 Speaker 2: he will get it. Ukraine can't last for forever. But 498 00:27:29,680 --> 00:27:34,680 Speaker 2: the idea being played, what got played? What got played? 499 00:27:35,200 --> 00:27:38,560 Speaker 2: This is Scott Jennings point with facts, the sanctions that 500 00:27:38,600 --> 00:27:41,840 Speaker 2: are in place, the selling of hardware to Ukraine, what 501 00:27:41,960 --> 00:27:44,959 Speaker 2: got played. No part of that is true, but it 502 00:27:45,040 --> 00:27:47,480 Speaker 2: never stops the lapt from engaging a good narrative. And 503 00:27:47,480 --> 00:27:52,520 Speaker 2: that's what Tara set Meyer is doing. Enter Ben Ferguson, Okay, okay, 504 00:27:56,200 --> 00:27:58,320 Speaker 2: same standard. 505 00:27:59,160 --> 00:28:12,439 Speaker 9: Joey should not even glare. 506 00:28:13,600 --> 00:28:15,560 Speaker 2: Is this the kind of show you want to watch? 507 00:28:15,600 --> 00:28:17,480 Speaker 2: And I've already heard you say, Tony. I can't believe 508 00:28:17,480 --> 00:28:21,280 Speaker 2: you subjected to me already. This is about Abby, Philip. 509 00:28:22,400 --> 00:28:25,000 Speaker 2: Why do you want this show? Why do you want 510 00:28:25,040 --> 00:28:32,320 Speaker 2: this why would you ever want this when you could 511 00:28:32,400 --> 00:28:36,560 Speaker 2: have had better? I didn't say Tara set Meyer can't 512 00:28:36,600 --> 00:28:41,400 Speaker 2: engage in this in in a dislike of Trump and 513 00:28:41,520 --> 00:28:44,320 Speaker 2: uh and thought her own thoughts on on a Trump 514 00:28:44,360 --> 00:28:49,680 Speaker 2: rush a meeting but flat out lying, pushing talking points 515 00:28:49,720 --> 00:28:50,440 Speaker 2: not facts. 516 00:28:50,920 --> 00:28:54,280 Speaker 1: Why would you allow it? Now? As a host, sometimes 517 00:28:54,280 --> 00:28:54,920 Speaker 1: you miss things. 518 00:28:55,320 --> 00:28:58,400 Speaker 2: You are getting ready for what's next year, kind of 519 00:28:58,400 --> 00:29:01,480 Speaker 2: seeing how things flow and go, oh, you can miss things. 520 00:29:02,680 --> 00:29:05,960 Speaker 2: Sometimes you let people say something because you let them 521 00:29:05,960 --> 00:29:09,600 Speaker 2: complete the thought and let others judge what got said. 522 00:29:10,800 --> 00:29:15,440 Speaker 2: But when you know that it's nothing more than talking point, pablem, 523 00:29:15,760 --> 00:29:18,920 Speaker 2: why are you doing it? Why the crowd, the crosstalk, 524 00:29:18,960 --> 00:29:21,040 Speaker 2: Why the shouting over, Why the whole thing? 525 00:29:21,400 --> 00:29:22,560 Speaker 1: And it doesn't end. 526 00:29:23,040 --> 00:29:25,080 Speaker 5: Part of the point that she's making is that Trump 527 00:29:25,640 --> 00:29:27,480 Speaker 5: need first all, he needs to resolve this because he 528 00:29:27,560 --> 00:29:30,200 Speaker 5: said when he was running for president that he would 529 00:29:30,240 --> 00:29:32,720 Speaker 5: resolve it in twenty four hours. That clearly has not happened. 530 00:29:33,000 --> 00:29:36,560 Speaker 5: But he wants to be a peacemaker. He wants to 531 00:29:36,560 --> 00:29:38,120 Speaker 5: be a peace maker in the situation. He wants the 532 00:29:38,120 --> 00:29:40,440 Speaker 5: noble piece of prices, that whole thing. And this has 533 00:29:40,480 --> 00:29:44,920 Speaker 5: been elusive because largely because Vladimir Putin is not that 534 00:29:45,040 --> 00:29:48,160 Speaker 5: interested in the deal. He's not so, I mean, is 535 00:29:48,200 --> 00:29:52,160 Speaker 5: Trump going into this a little bit naive thinking that 536 00:29:52,240 --> 00:29:53,880 Speaker 5: Primina is actually ready to deal when. 537 00:29:54,400 --> 00:29:56,680 Speaker 1: Really wants now. 538 00:29:57,480 --> 00:30:01,400 Speaker 2: Abby Philip didn't calm everybody down and go into asking 539 00:30:01,400 --> 00:30:05,280 Speaker 2: a question. She stopped the guys on the political right 540 00:30:05,320 --> 00:30:09,960 Speaker 2: from talking and then rephrase Tara set Meyer's question to 541 00:30:10,160 --> 00:30:14,200 Speaker 2: ask it in a different way, as if somehow it 542 00:30:14,280 --> 00:30:15,800 Speaker 2: had validity to begin with. 543 00:30:17,080 --> 00:30:19,080 Speaker 1: As a host, you choose the show. 544 00:30:18,880 --> 00:30:24,040 Speaker 2: You want, and the actions over time set a story 545 00:30:24,600 --> 00:30:28,200 Speaker 2: about the kind of hosts that you are. Abby Philip 546 00:30:28,200 --> 00:30:31,800 Speaker 2: could have had any show she wanted. She could have 547 00:30:31,920 --> 00:30:37,560 Speaker 2: had the smarter, better show, and she blew it. 548 00:30:39,080 --> 00:30:42,760 Speaker 1: She blew it. She didn't have to, she did not 549 00:30:43,200 --> 00:30:46,840 Speaker 1: have to screw this up, but she did. I'm sorry. 550 00:30:46,840 --> 00:30:49,120 Speaker 2: I won't play anymore. I apologize for sharing that much. 551 00:30:49,160 --> 00:30:54,680 Speaker 2: It's completely unwatchable. From the actual lies told to the 552 00:30:56,240 --> 00:31:00,160 Speaker 2: really ugly I'm going to utilize fraudulent way. Subjects are 553 00:31:00,200 --> 00:31:04,400 Speaker 2: are brought up to the host taking one side and 554 00:31:04,480 --> 00:31:07,480 Speaker 2: one side only and preventing others from speaking. 555 00:31:08,440 --> 00:31:12,680 Speaker 1: My god, what could have been? What could have been? 556 00:31:14,480 --> 00:31:19,440 Speaker 2: This is CNN's decision, and it explains their ratings disaster. 557 00:31:20,240 --> 00:31:22,320 Speaker 1: Keep it here. I'm Tony Katz, and this is Tony 558 00:31:22,400 --> 00:31:23,000 Speaker 1: Katz today. 559 00:31:23,360 --> 00:31:26,800 Speaker 2: It is indeed very weird for me to be sharing 560 00:31:26,840 --> 00:31:30,440 Speaker 2: a story from John Oliver because John Oliver has been 561 00:31:30,440 --> 00:31:33,920 Speaker 2: wrong about so much. He's been interesting on a couple 562 00:31:33,920 --> 00:31:36,160 Speaker 2: of things, but he decided more politically he might not 563 00:31:36,280 --> 00:31:39,680 Speaker 2: be Philip Right, more political than rational. Instead of engaging 564 00:31:39,680 --> 00:31:42,400 Speaker 2: a story, he engaged in ideology. And that's never interesting. 565 00:31:42,440 --> 00:31:44,600 Speaker 2: Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, good to be with you. 566 00:31:45,040 --> 00:31:48,280 Speaker 2: But on his show, he brought up a story about 567 00:31:48,360 --> 00:31:50,960 Speaker 2: Chuck Schumer that I don't think anybody knows about. 568 00:31:51,040 --> 00:31:54,400 Speaker 1: I didn't know about. This is unbelievable. 569 00:31:55,040 --> 00:31:57,680 Speaker 10: There are a couple that throughout Schumer's career he has 570 00:31:57,720 --> 00:31:59,200 Speaker 10: talked about a lot. 571 00:32:00,120 --> 00:32:03,360 Speaker 11: Class couple in Massapequa, which is a suburb on Long Island, 572 00:32:03,400 --> 00:32:05,880 Speaker 11: Joe and Eileen Bailey. This middle class couple they brought 573 00:32:05,880 --> 00:32:09,720 Speaker 11: into Reagan Republicanism in nineteen eighty. Joe and Eileen are 574 00:32:09,840 --> 00:32:13,200 Speaker 11: worried about losing their jobs or their friends jobs. That 575 00:32:13,240 --> 00:32:16,080 Speaker 11: Baileys really don't believe in trickle down. They don't believe 576 00:32:16,080 --> 00:32:18,440 Speaker 11: in a whole lot of government spending, but they believe 577 00:32:18,480 --> 00:32:21,560 Speaker 11: in tax breaks for kids to go to college. He's 578 00:32:21,600 --> 00:32:24,520 Speaker 11: an insurance adjuster and lives in the New York subjebs 579 00:32:24,560 --> 00:32:26,960 Speaker 11: by New York Spandards. He makes fifty thousand year if 580 00:32:27,000 --> 00:32:28,840 Speaker 11: he lived in the middle of the country to make forty. 581 00:32:29,360 --> 00:32:31,680 Speaker 11: Wife works in a medical office. She makes about twenty. 582 00:32:31,720 --> 00:32:34,920 Speaker 11: She might make fifteen elsewhere. And you know, I have 583 00:32:35,040 --> 00:32:37,040 Speaker 11: guided my political life through the Baileys. 584 00:32:37,200 --> 00:32:40,400 Speaker 10: The Baileys have guided Chuck Schumer's political life, which is 585 00:32:40,400 --> 00:32:44,520 Speaker 10: a little way of given they don't exist, seriously, he 586 00:32:44,680 --> 00:32:47,600 Speaker 10: invented them. Schumer first introduced the world to the bailies 587 00:32:47,600 --> 00:32:50,520 Speaker 10: in this two thousand and seven books, Positively American Winning 588 00:32:50,560 --> 00:32:53,320 Speaker 10: Back the middle class majority, one family at a time. 589 00:32:53,400 --> 00:32:56,480 Speaker 10: In it, he mentions the bailies and astonishing two hundred 590 00:32:56,480 --> 00:32:59,880 Speaker 10: and sixty five times in two hundred and sixty four pages. 591 00:33:00,040 --> 00:33:07,880 Speaker 2: Y oh my, so this was the concept of like 592 00:33:08,000 --> 00:33:12,360 Speaker 2: rhetorical rhetorical flourish or or the idea of utilizing them 593 00:33:12,400 --> 00:33:16,400 Speaker 2: as an example or of a concept or an idea. 594 00:33:17,240 --> 00:33:18,920 Speaker 1: He invented the family. 595 00:33:19,600 --> 00:33:21,760 Speaker 2: By the way two hundred and sixty five times in 596 00:33:21,800 --> 00:33:25,240 Speaker 2: two hundred and sixty four pages. That's an amazing statistic. 597 00:33:26,400 --> 00:33:32,000 Speaker 2: Oh my goodness. Now you would argue that that's what 598 00:33:32,160 --> 00:33:35,560 Speaker 2: is that? Is that plagiarism? No, it's not plagiarism. Is 599 00:33:35,560 --> 00:33:39,400 Speaker 2: is it make believe? Yes, it's make believe. It's saying 600 00:33:39,640 --> 00:33:42,640 Speaker 2: I always have an answer for whatever it is the 601 00:33:42,640 --> 00:33:44,080 Speaker 2: political right throws at me. 602 00:33:45,200 --> 00:33:46,280 Speaker 1: In many ways. 603 00:33:46,440 --> 00:33:49,840 Speaker 2: You would see this in scripts and movie making, where 604 00:33:49,920 --> 00:33:52,680 Speaker 2: you could take three or four smaller characters, but you 605 00:33:52,720 --> 00:33:54,800 Speaker 2: can't introduce that many characters, so you put them all 606 00:33:54,800 --> 00:33:58,720 Speaker 2: into one character. There's nothing more than an amalgamation of others. 607 00:33:58,960 --> 00:34:00,840 Speaker 2: Isn't that what happened with brock Obama's book? 608 00:34:01,080 --> 00:34:03,240 Speaker 1: By the way, it wasn't that his book that he 609 00:34:03,320 --> 00:34:03,640 Speaker 1: did that. 610 00:34:04,280 --> 00:34:12,879 Speaker 2: This is incredible, absolutely incredible story that he made this, 611 00:34:13,160 --> 00:34:16,960 Speaker 2: He made this up? What else could you ever possibly 612 00:34:17,040 --> 00:34:20,600 Speaker 2: believe from Chuck Schumer? 613 00:34:21,520 --> 00:34:23,840 Speaker 10: But he'd have parently been talking about them for years 614 00:34:23,880 --> 00:34:27,040 Speaker 10: before the book was published. One of his former spokespeople said, 615 00:34:27,160 --> 00:34:30,360 Speaker 10: he's always asking what would the Baileies think, And to 616 00:34:30,400 --> 00:34:33,560 Speaker 10: be fair, Schumer acknowledges that some may find this a 617 00:34:33,640 --> 00:34:34,280 Speaker 10: little weird. 618 00:34:34,920 --> 00:34:37,160 Speaker 11: If you ask my staff, I've been talking about that 619 00:34:37,200 --> 00:34:39,279 Speaker 11: and talking to the Baileies for fifteen years. 620 00:34:39,320 --> 00:34:40,640 Speaker 1: I have conversations with them. 621 00:34:41,200 --> 00:34:44,719 Speaker 11: One of my staffers once said, I had imaginary friends 622 00:34:44,920 --> 00:34:49,280 Speaker 11: to the press got me in some trouble. But these 623 00:34:49,320 --> 00:34:51,680 Speaker 11: people are real and I respect them and I really 624 00:34:51,719 --> 00:34:53,160 Speaker 11: love them and I care about them. 625 00:34:53,600 --> 00:34:56,960 Speaker 1: Okay, sure, but they're literally not real. 626 00:34:57,120 --> 00:34:57,319 Speaker 7: Job. 627 00:34:58,680 --> 00:35:02,319 Speaker 1: That's incre That's incredible. 628 00:35:03,400 --> 00:35:08,880 Speaker 2: Now here's the question you're the Democratic Party is is 629 00:35:08,920 --> 00:35:13,040 Speaker 2: he still the Senate majority leader? Is he still the 630 00:35:13,080 --> 00:35:14,440 Speaker 2: Senate majority leader? 631 00:35:15,080 --> 00:35:19,680 Speaker 1: Yes? Or no? That's the question. 632 00:35:20,400 --> 00:35:25,840 Speaker 2: Because if I'm if I'm Alexandria Cassio Cortes, this is 633 00:35:25,920 --> 00:35:30,359 Speaker 2: Christmas Day, i am announcing I'm running for Senate immediately, 634 00:35:30,800 --> 00:35:33,560 Speaker 2: and I am I am winning. I am taking him down. 635 00:35:34,040 --> 00:35:38,760 Speaker 2: It's over. By the way, I give kudos in respect 636 00:35:38,800 --> 00:35:40,920 Speaker 2: where it's due, kudos to John Oliver. 637 00:35:41,239 --> 00:35:42,960 Speaker 1: This is where he's at his absolute best. 638 00:35:43,719 --> 00:35:45,839 Speaker 2: Are you telling me there's not a Republican who wasn't 639 00:35:45,840 --> 00:35:48,560 Speaker 2: able to do this opposition research to find out this 640 00:35:48,719 --> 00:35:55,520 Speaker 2: wasn't real? Not a single Republican did this. That is 641 00:35:55,560 --> 00:36:00,160 Speaker 2: the scandal. Time to fire some so called Republicans in 642 00:36:00,200 --> 00:36:02,319 Speaker 2: the oppo research game. Keep it here. 643 00:36:02,360 --> 00:36:04,160 Speaker 1: It's Tony Katz today,