1 00:00:00,760 --> 00:00:01,080 Speaker 1: To night. 2 00:00:01,120 --> 00:00:03,320 Speaker 2: Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of 3 00:00:03,360 --> 00:00:04,560 Speaker 2: talk show host Michael Brown. 4 00:00:04,640 --> 00:00:07,080 Speaker 1: Brownie, no Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job 5 00:00:07,240 --> 00:00:09,360 Speaker 1: the Weekend with Michael Brown. 6 00:00:09,680 --> 00:00:12,399 Speaker 2: Broadcasting Life in Denver, Colorado. You've tuned into the Weekend 7 00:00:12,440 --> 00:00:13,960 Speaker 2: with Michael Brown. Glad to have you joining in the 8 00:00:13,960 --> 00:00:17,520 Speaker 2: program today. One of our basic rules of engagement is this, 9 00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:18,960 Speaker 2: if you want to send me a message, you want 10 00:00:19,000 --> 00:00:21,360 Speaker 2: to tell me something, ask me anything. Of course, you 11 00:00:21,360 --> 00:00:23,360 Speaker 2: can always email me, but the easiest way to do it, 12 00:00:23,360 --> 00:00:24,960 Speaker 2: because you can do it well, you can do email 13 00:00:25,040 --> 00:00:27,760 Speaker 2: twenty four to seven to two is on the text line. 14 00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:30,160 Speaker 2: The text line number is three three one zero three. 15 00:00:30,240 --> 00:00:32,840 Speaker 2: So in your message app whatever you use, the number 16 00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:35,080 Speaker 2: is three three one zero three. Key word is Mike 17 00:00:35,200 --> 00:00:37,240 Speaker 2: or Michael, and you can tell me anything or ask 18 00:00:37,320 --> 00:00:39,960 Speaker 2: me anything, and then do me a favor and follow 19 00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:42,360 Speaker 2: me on social media because we tend to have fun 20 00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:46,240 Speaker 2: on social media, and whether it's ex Facebook, Instagram, they're 21 00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:50,160 Speaker 2: all at Michael D. Brown, at michaeld Brown. So I'm 22 00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:52,800 Speaker 2: gonna swerve into something else. We'll talk about poverty in 23 00:00:52,800 --> 00:00:57,280 Speaker 2: a minute and the whole poverty industrial complex, but instead 24 00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:00,880 Speaker 2: let's talk about the filibuster arguments for an ita'st the filibuster. 25 00:01:01,960 --> 00:01:03,960 Speaker 2: So what are we actually talking about here? Because I 26 00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:08,479 Speaker 2: really want you to understand that when you hear, as 27 00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:10,240 Speaker 2: somebody O text line said, we might as well just 28 00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:12,039 Speaker 2: do it now, get rid of it, because that's what 29 00:01:12,080 --> 00:01:13,520 Speaker 2: the Democrats are going to do if they get back 30 00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:16,800 Speaker 2: in power. And I agree with that, except that I 31 00:01:16,840 --> 00:01:19,800 Speaker 2: think that the Democrats are hoping that we do it 32 00:01:20,240 --> 00:01:23,360 Speaker 2: Republicans in the Senate, so that they don't get the 33 00:01:23,400 --> 00:01:27,120 Speaker 2: blowback and we get the blowback for it. And I 34 00:01:27,160 --> 00:01:29,800 Speaker 2: think that truly there are people on both sides of 35 00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:32,200 Speaker 2: the aisle that really do want to get rid of it, 36 00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:35,400 Speaker 2: and there are some that honestly have legitimate reasons why 37 00:01:35,440 --> 00:01:37,200 Speaker 2: they want to keep it. So I want to walk 38 00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:40,160 Speaker 2: through the arguments for and against. But first, what are 39 00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:44,720 Speaker 2: we talking about? What are we really talking about? As 40 00:01:44,760 --> 00:01:49,440 Speaker 2: I said in that last segment, the filibuster is not 41 00:01:49,600 --> 00:01:54,400 Speaker 2: in the Constitution. It's the Senate rule. It's Rule twenty two, 42 00:01:55,200 --> 00:01:59,280 Speaker 2: and it evolved accidentally from a procedural cleanup that happened 43 00:01:59,320 --> 00:02:02,560 Speaker 2: back in the eighteen hundreds. The founders didn't come up 44 00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:07,080 Speaker 2: with this rule the Senate actually accidentally stumbled onto it. 45 00:02:08,400 --> 00:02:12,639 Speaker 2: And that's important because defenders who will tell you that 46 00:02:12,800 --> 00:02:17,919 Speaker 2: this is how the Founders wanted the Senate to argue 47 00:02:18,080 --> 00:02:24,160 Speaker 2: are arguing based on mythology, not actual history. So the 48 00:02:24,240 --> 00:02:29,880 Speaker 2: current form requires sixty votes for what's called cloture. Cloture 49 00:02:29,919 --> 00:02:33,160 Speaker 2: is just a fancy name to stop debate, and it 50 00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:37,400 Speaker 2: applies to almost all legislation. And as I said, the 51 00:02:37,800 --> 00:02:41,520 Speaker 2: nuclear option a simple majority vote to change the rule, 52 00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:45,880 Speaker 2: which could be fifty US senators plus the Vice president, 53 00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:48,240 Speaker 2: so you get to fifty one, or it could be 54 00:02:48,280 --> 00:02:51,240 Speaker 2: fifty one US senators. You don't need the vice president. 55 00:02:52,440 --> 00:02:55,560 Speaker 2: As I said, that's been used twice. Harry Reid started it. 56 00:02:56,280 --> 00:02:59,080 Speaker 2: He kind of got rid of part of the filibuster 57 00:02:59,639 --> 00:03:05,679 Speaker 2: into twenty thirteen for nominations from the president for executive 58 00:03:05,720 --> 00:03:10,400 Speaker 2: branch appointees and judicial nominees below the level of the 59 00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:14,720 Speaker 2: Supreme Court, and then Mitch McConnell did the same thing 60 00:03:14,800 --> 00:03:19,560 Speaker 2: in twenty seventeen for Supreme Court nominees. So the legislative 61 00:03:19,560 --> 00:03:26,560 Speaker 2: philibuster is the last standing version of the original practice. 62 00:03:27,120 --> 00:03:30,919 Speaker 2: So what's the case for keeping it. I would think 63 00:03:31,200 --> 00:03:34,160 Speaker 2: there are probably four or five reasons to keep it. 64 00:03:35,760 --> 00:03:37,960 Speaker 2: One argument that I would make for keeping it is 65 00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:43,200 Speaker 2: the cooling off argument. The Senate was designed specifically to 66 00:03:43,240 --> 00:03:49,240 Speaker 2: slow things down. Thomas Jefferson's famous cooling saucer for the 67 00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:54,040 Speaker 2: hot tea of the House quote is what I'm talking about. Yeah, 68 00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:59,440 Speaker 2: Jefferson described the Senate as the cooling saucer saucer for 69 00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:05,280 Speaker 2: the House, which was the hot tea. The filibuster operationalizes 70 00:04:05,400 --> 00:04:11,680 Speaker 2: that design philosophy. Legislation that can't attract sixty votes probably 71 00:04:11,720 --> 00:04:16,480 Speaker 2: doesn't have durable nationwide consensus behind it, and durable national 72 00:04:16,520 --> 00:04:21,120 Speaker 2: consensus is what makes majority policy stick. Well, think about 73 00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:25,680 Speaker 2: that in terms of the Save Act, because if if 74 00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:28,880 Speaker 2: the idea is you can attract sixty votes that you 75 00:04:28,960 --> 00:04:32,560 Speaker 2: probably don't have a national consensus. Just the opposite is 76 00:04:32,640 --> 00:04:37,120 Speaker 2: happening here. We have a virtual, not an actual, but 77 00:04:37,200 --> 00:04:41,280 Speaker 2: a virtual consensus on the Save Act. When eighty ninety 78 00:04:41,320 --> 00:04:44,159 Speaker 2: percent of Americans say they are for that, that might 79 00:04:44,200 --> 00:04:46,360 Speaker 2: as well be one hundred percent. Because we can barely 80 00:04:46,400 --> 00:04:49,520 Speaker 2: agree on whether the sky is blue or not. We 81 00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:51,960 Speaker 2: can barely agree whether today ins and wy or not. 82 00:04:52,320 --> 00:04:56,279 Speaker 2: And here's something we almost all agree upon. So that 83 00:04:56,600 --> 00:05:02,159 Speaker 2: argument about the cooling saucer argument really apply here. That's 84 00:05:02,160 --> 00:05:04,320 Speaker 2: the first argument I would make for it. The second 85 00:05:04,400 --> 00:05:07,320 Speaker 2: argument it is, we really do want to protect minorities, 86 00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:12,520 Speaker 2: and sometimes that does matter. The Senate already over represents 87 00:05:12,560 --> 00:05:16,839 Speaker 2: small states, but that's by design. The filibuster just acts 88 00:05:16,839 --> 00:05:22,080 Speaker 2: as an additional check that forces majority coalitions to at 89 00:05:22,160 --> 00:05:26,400 Speaker 2: least negotiate with the minority. Without it, a party winning 90 00:05:26,480 --> 00:05:29,960 Speaker 2: fifty one Senate seats, which could represent states with a 91 00:05:30,040 --> 00:05:35,400 Speaker 2: minority of the national population could ram through transformational legislation. 92 00:05:36,400 --> 00:05:39,080 Speaker 2: I think that's highly unlikely, but still I would say 93 00:05:39,120 --> 00:05:42,719 Speaker 2: that might be an argument for it. The third argument 94 00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:46,880 Speaker 2: what I would make would be the pendulum. Every argument 95 00:05:46,880 --> 00:05:50,440 Speaker 2: that Democrats make for eliminating the filibuster when they had 96 00:05:50,480 --> 00:05:55,440 Speaker 2: the majority is an argument the republics Republicans can use 97 00:05:55,520 --> 00:05:59,080 Speaker 2: right now. But you know what else is true. Vice 98 00:05:59,200 --> 00:06:04,440 Speaker 2: versa is true too. Both parties have flip flopped on this, 99 00:06:04,600 --> 00:06:09,599 Speaker 2: with breath taking shamelessness. It all depends on who's in power. 100 00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:15,320 Speaker 2: Senators who passionately defended the filibuster in two thousand and 101 00:06:15,360 --> 00:06:22,120 Speaker 2: five passionately attacked the filipbuster in twenty twenty one. The 102 00:06:22,200 --> 00:06:26,479 Speaker 2: institutional argument is you will not always be in the majority. 103 00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:29,720 Speaker 2: And the rules you break on the way up are 104 00:06:29,760 --> 00:06:31,919 Speaker 2: the rules that wish that are the rules that you 105 00:06:31,960 --> 00:06:35,600 Speaker 2: wish you had on the way down, So that pendulum 106 00:06:35,680 --> 00:06:38,120 Speaker 2: back and forth is real. I'm not sure that's really 107 00:06:38,200 --> 00:06:40,760 Speaker 2: a good argument for keeping it, but just nonetheless one 108 00:06:40,760 --> 00:06:42,720 Speaker 2: that I think people would make him if if they 109 00:06:42,720 --> 00:06:46,080 Speaker 2: were rationally debating this. I think there's a fourth maybe 110 00:06:46,080 --> 00:06:47,840 Speaker 2: a fourth and a fifth one, but the fourth one 111 00:06:47,880 --> 00:06:52,800 Speaker 2: for sure. Think about the Affordable Care Act Obamacare. It 112 00:06:52,960 --> 00:06:57,680 Speaker 2: passed without one single Republican vote through what's called budget reconciliation. 113 00:06:58,400 --> 00:07:04,240 Speaker 2: That's a workaround the result years of legal and political warfare, 114 00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:11,960 Speaker 2: repeal attempts, persistent instability. Now, contrast Obamacare with Social Security 115 00:07:12,000 --> 00:07:17,200 Speaker 2: or say Medicare. Those both passed with bipartisan support and 116 00:07:17,280 --> 00:07:22,880 Speaker 2: became functionally untouchable. So the sixty vote threshold forces the 117 00:07:23,000 --> 00:07:27,560 Speaker 2: kind of coalition building that produces policy that, whether you 118 00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:31,520 Speaker 2: like it or not, is durable because it passed with 119 00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:36,120 Speaker 2: a consensus. Not again, not a pure true consensus, but 120 00:07:36,280 --> 00:07:39,400 Speaker 2: I'm using a word very loosely, but a consensus where 121 00:07:39,440 --> 00:07:42,720 Speaker 2: you had more than just a simple majority. So it 122 00:07:42,800 --> 00:07:50,120 Speaker 2: forces compromise and durability. I think that's my excuse me. Well, 123 00:07:50,160 --> 00:07:53,880 Speaker 2: I'm not a believer in bipartisanship. I think that by 124 00:07:53,960 --> 00:07:57,240 Speaker 2: partisanship is way overrated. I think that you ought to 125 00:07:57,240 --> 00:08:01,440 Speaker 2: go stand on your principles and never given on your principles. 126 00:08:01,640 --> 00:08:04,760 Speaker 2: But that doesn't mean you can't compromise on tactics or 127 00:08:04,840 --> 00:08:09,800 Speaker 2: pieces of legislation if it doesn't, you know, violate your principles. 128 00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:16,040 Speaker 2: So if there is an ability for compromise, then I'm 129 00:08:16,040 --> 00:08:20,560 Speaker 2: all for them doing that, which would lead to I 130 00:08:20,560 --> 00:08:22,480 Speaker 2: think maybe a fifth argument I would make for it, 131 00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:27,720 Speaker 2: and that would be this without the filibuster, every time 132 00:08:27,720 --> 00:08:31,280 Speaker 2: there's a change in the Senate majority might produce massive, 133 00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:36,319 Speaker 2: destabilizing reversal of previous policy, say, for example, a tax 134 00:08:36,360 --> 00:08:40,240 Speaker 2: code written every four years, or environmental regulations flip flop 135 00:08:40,679 --> 00:08:46,040 Speaker 2: healthcare markets, and constant uncertainty for a business, for investors, 136 00:08:46,240 --> 00:08:48,360 Speaker 2: for just plaino citizens like you and me trying to 137 00:08:48,360 --> 00:08:53,080 Speaker 2: plan our lives. That instability has real costs. I'm not 138 00:08:53,120 --> 00:08:55,400 Speaker 2: really sure about that one, but I think that might 139 00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:57,960 Speaker 2: be an argument they would make now the case for 140 00:08:58,000 --> 00:09:08,880 Speaker 2: eliminating it. We'll do that next. Welcome back to the 141 00:09:08,920 --> 00:09:10,640 Speaker 2: Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. 142 00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:14,480 Speaker 2: Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast. It's really easy 143 00:09:14,480 --> 00:09:16,840 Speaker 2: to do on your podcast app. Whatever one you use 144 00:09:16,840 --> 00:09:20,040 Speaker 2: doesn't make any difference to me. Search for the situation 145 00:09:20,160 --> 00:09:23,240 Speaker 2: with Michael Brown, the Situation with Michael Brown. Once you 146 00:09:23,280 --> 00:09:26,240 Speaker 2: find that, hit that subscribe button, leave a five star review, 147 00:09:26,679 --> 00:09:29,280 Speaker 2: and then that'll do two things for you and two 148 00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:34,760 Speaker 2: things from me that that'll download to your podcast all 149 00:09:34,800 --> 00:09:39,280 Speaker 2: five days of the weekday program plus this weekend program. 150 00:09:39,559 --> 00:09:41,680 Speaker 2: So you get all six shows that I do every week. 151 00:09:42,240 --> 00:09:45,400 Speaker 2: Won't that be great? Yeah? Go do it. We talk 152 00:09:45,440 --> 00:09:48,880 Speaker 2: about the Philip You're talking about the filibuster because somebody 153 00:09:48,880 --> 00:09:51,319 Speaker 2: had mentioned on the text line about why don't we 154 00:09:51,320 --> 00:09:52,679 Speaker 2: you just get rid of because the Democrats are going 155 00:09:52,720 --> 00:09:55,000 Speaker 2: to do it? And I thought that was a pretty 156 00:09:55,040 --> 00:09:58,920 Speaker 2: insightful text. So I just gave you the reasons why 157 00:09:58,960 --> 00:10:04,360 Speaker 2: we ought to keep. But here's the case for getting 158 00:10:04,440 --> 00:10:08,400 Speaker 2: rid of it, which is actually pretty strong. It's one, 159 00:10:08,440 --> 00:10:10,439 Speaker 2: it's not in the content, it's not in the constitution. 160 00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:13,360 Speaker 2: But it's more than just the fact that it's not 161 00:10:13,440 --> 00:10:17,360 Speaker 2: in the constitution. If you think about how the Constitution 162 00:10:17,520 --> 00:10:23,280 Speaker 2: is structured, there is already a super majority requirement, because 163 00:10:23,320 --> 00:10:26,559 Speaker 2: the Founders knew how to require supermajorities when they won 164 00:10:26,640 --> 00:10:31,160 Speaker 2: of them. Treaty ratifications require two thirds of the Senate, 165 00:10:32,440 --> 00:10:36,640 Speaker 2: a constitutional amendment requires two thirds of both houses plus 166 00:10:37,200 --> 00:10:42,760 Speaker 2: three fourths of the states. An impeachment conviction requires two thirds. 167 00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:49,559 Speaker 2: Overriding a presidential veto requires two thirds. So the Founders 168 00:10:49,720 --> 00:10:56,400 Speaker 2: deliberately did not impose a super majority requirement for ordinary legislation. 169 00:10:57,960 --> 00:11:02,760 Speaker 2: So the filibuster effectively ends the Constitution without the amendment process. 170 00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:07,199 Speaker 2: It requires a supermajority, where the Founder said, we think 171 00:11:07,240 --> 00:11:13,520 Speaker 2: there should be a supermajority for treaties, constitutional amendments, impeachment convictions, 172 00:11:13,800 --> 00:11:19,920 Speaker 2: overriding of presidential veto. Okay, they didn't include legislation, So 173 00:11:20,000 --> 00:11:23,400 Speaker 2: the Founders themselves didn't think for legislation you needed the filibuster. 174 00:11:23,840 --> 00:11:29,600 Speaker 2: I think that is the strongest argument for getting rid 175 00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:33,880 Speaker 2: of it. Put that in your pipe and smoke. Confront 176 00:11:33,920 --> 00:11:37,240 Speaker 2: your usndraw about that one. But you want to give 177 00:11:37,240 --> 00:11:43,559 Speaker 2: you a stronger argument. It has a racist legacy, and 178 00:11:43,600 --> 00:11:47,600 Speaker 2: that's not incidental. I think this is probably the most 179 00:11:47,720 --> 00:11:54,839 Speaker 2: historically uncomfortable argument for maintaining the filibuster. The philibuster's most 180 00:11:55,040 --> 00:11:59,080 Speaker 2: prominent use for most of the twentieth century was for 181 00:11:59,120 --> 00:12:04,800 Speaker 2: what to block civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Acts 182 00:12:04,840 --> 00:12:08,800 Speaker 2: of nineteen sixty four faced a sixty day filibuster. And 183 00:12:08,840 --> 00:12:12,000 Speaker 2: by the way, let's remember who filibusters the Civil Rights 184 00:12:12,040 --> 00:12:15,959 Speaker 2: Act of nineteen sixty four. Say it with me, the Democrats. 185 00:12:17,120 --> 00:12:19,320 Speaker 2: The filibuster didn't just happen to be used for a 186 00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:24,400 Speaker 2: racist purpose. It was perfected as a tool for a 187 00:12:24,480 --> 00:12:28,600 Speaker 2: racist purpose. Now you can argue that the tool has evolved, 188 00:12:29,520 --> 00:12:31,760 Speaker 2: but the history of its origin and the history of 189 00:12:31,800 --> 00:12:39,040 Speaker 2: its most significant use is still legitimate history. Still want 190 00:12:39,040 --> 00:12:43,000 Speaker 2: to keep the filibuster. You already have a super majority 191 00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:49,840 Speaker 2: requirement for the most important things treaties, constitutional amendments, impeachment convictions, 192 00:12:50,120 --> 00:12:54,719 Speaker 2: overwriting vetos. So you already have a super majority requirement 193 00:12:54,960 --> 00:12:59,080 Speaker 2: for those important things that founders didn't write into the Constitution. 194 00:12:59,480 --> 00:13:02,880 Speaker 2: That the Sinate itself needed sixty votes for just ordinary legislation. 195 00:13:05,000 --> 00:13:09,000 Speaker 2: And when was it used most significantly in our lifetimes 196 00:13:10,200 --> 00:13:16,320 Speaker 2: to block civil rights legislation by the Democrats? I get 197 00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:19,040 Speaker 2: in right there, But I got a couple of other reasons. 198 00:13:20,200 --> 00:13:24,160 Speaker 2: This whole idea about protecting the minority is actually a 199 00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:28,479 Speaker 2: very selective argument, because the filibuster doesn't protect all minorities. 200 00:13:29,120 --> 00:13:34,760 Speaker 2: It specifically protects the political minority in the Senate. And 201 00:13:34,840 --> 00:13:38,240 Speaker 2: because of how the Senate seats are distributed, that political 202 00:13:38,280 --> 00:13:43,680 Speaker 2: minority often represents a geographic minority the population that may 203 00:13:43,760 --> 00:13:50,520 Speaker 2: itself be a demographic majority. Think small states or least 204 00:13:50,720 --> 00:13:54,680 Speaker 2: I don't mean geographically small. The small states in terms 205 00:13:54,760 --> 00:14:01,760 Speaker 2: of population, they still get two senators. But those states 206 00:14:01,800 --> 00:14:08,840 Speaker 2: with the least population, think Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oh, they 207 00:14:08,920 --> 00:14:12,840 Speaker 2: have Republican senators. Yeah, because they tend to be more 208 00:14:12,840 --> 00:14:20,240 Speaker 2: conservative states. So when you think about protecting the political 209 00:14:20,280 --> 00:14:22,720 Speaker 2: minority in the Senate, and because of how the Senate 210 00:14:22,720 --> 00:14:27,720 Speaker 2: seats are distributed, that political minority really represents a geographic 211 00:14:27,800 --> 00:14:33,120 Speaker 2: minority the population, but itself is a demo majority. So 212 00:14:33,160 --> 00:14:36,640 Speaker 2: this whole idea about minority protection can actually mean protection 213 00:14:36,800 --> 00:14:41,440 Speaker 2: of a majority coalition that lost an election. So I 214 00:14:41,520 --> 00:14:45,680 Speaker 2: just don't know that the minority protection argument is that valid. 215 00:14:46,640 --> 00:14:50,160 Speaker 2: At best, it's a very selective argument. I don't think 216 00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:54,920 Speaker 2: it's a broad argument. The fourth reason I'd get rid 217 00:14:54,960 --> 00:14:59,640 Speaker 2: of the filibuster, it's already been gutted. Let's just finish 218 00:14:59,720 --> 00:15:04,640 Speaker 2: the job up. The twenty thirteen and the twenty seventeen 219 00:15:04,920 --> 00:15:09,840 Speaker 2: nuclear options destroyed the filibuster for judicial nominees. Now, if 220 00:15:09,880 --> 00:15:13,640 Speaker 2: the principle is that the filibuster is a sacred institutional 221 00:15:13,720 --> 00:15:19,480 Speaker 2: norm protecting minority rights, well that norm is dead, keeping 222 00:15:19,520 --> 00:15:24,880 Speaker 2: in only for legislation. Yet you abandon it for lifetime 223 00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:31,600 Speaker 2: federal judges. That's an intellectually incoherent and an intellectually dishonest 224 00:15:31,640 --> 00:15:37,440 Speaker 2: position to take. Are you with me? Yet, just get 225 00:15:37,520 --> 00:15:41,000 Speaker 2: rid of it? Get rid of it? I think there's 226 00:15:41,040 --> 00:15:46,440 Speaker 2: another one. I think there's a couple more. The obstruction 227 00:15:47,880 --> 00:15:53,960 Speaker 2: caused by the filibuster itself has become total and its routine, 228 00:15:54,560 --> 00:15:57,720 Speaker 2: and it keeps things from happening. So if it was 229 00:15:57,760 --> 00:16:01,760 Speaker 2: originally a rare tool, it was supposed to be used 230 00:16:01,760 --> 00:16:06,080 Speaker 2: for matters of very deep principle. I just like using 231 00:16:06,080 --> 00:16:07,800 Speaker 2: the word deep principle. And when I think about the 232 00:16:07,880 --> 00:16:13,280 Speaker 2: US Senate, they have no deep principles. Senators actually had 233 00:16:13,280 --> 00:16:15,360 Speaker 2: at one time to hold the floor. They had to 234 00:16:15,400 --> 00:16:18,840 Speaker 2: stand there and talk. In the nineteen and I think 235 00:16:18,840 --> 00:16:21,040 Speaker 2: it was actually in nineteen seventy. I was gonna say 236 00:16:21,040 --> 00:16:23,440 Speaker 2: the nineteen seventies, but it may have been actually nineteen 237 00:16:23,560 --> 00:16:28,680 Speaker 2: seventy the Senate adopted a two track system that allowed 238 00:16:28,800 --> 00:16:32,000 Speaker 2: other business to continue during filibusters. What did that mean? 239 00:16:32,320 --> 00:16:36,120 Speaker 2: That minuce that a senator no longer had to sacrifice 240 00:16:36,200 --> 00:16:40,160 Speaker 2: anything to obstruct a piece of legislation. So the result, 241 00:16:40,680 --> 00:16:45,240 Speaker 2: the use of the filibuster just exploded. In the nineteen sixties, 242 00:16:45,240 --> 00:16:50,000 Speaker 2: there were about eight cloture motions ending debate motions per Congress. 243 00:16:50,560 --> 00:16:54,160 Speaker 2: By twenty ten, more than one hundred. It's no longer 244 00:16:54,280 --> 00:16:57,440 Speaker 2: a check, it's a veto, and it's one that you 245 00:16:57,440 --> 00:17:01,360 Speaker 2: don't have to put any effort into. So the obstruction 246 00:17:02,680 --> 00:17:06,840 Speaker 2: that the filibuster has become is total, its routine, and 247 00:17:06,920 --> 00:17:10,679 Speaker 2: it doesn't require the senators to actually do anything. Just 248 00:17:10,800 --> 00:17:14,520 Speaker 2: tell the clerk I'm filibustering, and then go back to 249 00:17:14,520 --> 00:17:17,680 Speaker 2: your office and have a you know, have a scotch, 250 00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:20,760 Speaker 2: have a little bourbon and coke or something, have a 251 00:17:20,800 --> 00:17:25,080 Speaker 2: little sip, a little tequila. Yeah, they don't work hard 252 00:17:25,160 --> 00:17:28,560 Speaker 2: enough now, they barely work at all. Get rid of it. 253 00:17:28,960 --> 00:17:33,000 Speaker 2: And six, at some level, if a majority of elected 254 00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:36,359 Speaker 2: senators representing a majority coalition the voters want to pass 255 00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:40,600 Speaker 2: a law. Blocking that through procedural rules, I would say, 256 00:17:40,720 --> 00:17:44,840 Speaker 2: is kind of anti democratic, right the bottom line, I 257 00:17:44,880 --> 00:17:50,919 Speaker 2: think the bottom line is let the majority rule. Just 258 00:17:51,000 --> 00:17:54,080 Speaker 2: let the majority rule be done with it. Yeah, I'll 259 00:17:54,080 --> 00:18:03,080 Speaker 2: be right back to night. Michael Brown joins me here, 260 00:18:03,160 --> 00:18:05,480 Speaker 2: the former FEMA director of talk show host Michael Brown. 261 00:18:05,560 --> 00:18:07,960 Speaker 1: Brownie, no, Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job 262 00:18:08,119 --> 00:18:09,879 Speaker 1: the Weekend with Michael Brown. 263 00:18:10,560 --> 00:18:12,359 Speaker 2: Welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to 264 00:18:12,400 --> 00:18:15,080 Speaker 2: have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in. If 265 00:18:15,119 --> 00:18:17,960 Speaker 2: you like what we do during the weekend, I might 266 00:18:18,080 --> 00:18:20,240 Speaker 2: humbly suggest that you might want to listen to us 267 00:18:20,359 --> 00:18:22,680 Speaker 2: during the week and that's really easy to do on 268 00:18:22,720 --> 00:18:27,080 Speaker 2: your podcast app, the podcast app on the free iHeart app, 269 00:18:27,640 --> 00:18:29,760 Speaker 2: or if you haven't listened online, you can do it anyway. 270 00:18:30,520 --> 00:18:34,800 Speaker 2: Search for this station, Kowa KOA. It's at eight fifty 271 00:18:34,840 --> 00:18:38,600 Speaker 2: am ninety four one FM in Denver. Hit that as 272 00:18:38,640 --> 00:18:42,280 Speaker 2: a preset or bookmark that, and then you can listen 273 00:18:42,320 --> 00:18:45,920 Speaker 2: to us live nine to noon Mountain Time, which you'll 274 00:18:45,960 --> 00:18:48,080 Speaker 2: hear what we do during the weekday, which is a 275 00:18:48,080 --> 00:18:50,040 Speaker 2: lot similar to what we do on the weekend. You 276 00:18:50,119 --> 00:18:53,040 Speaker 2: might like streaming that might enjoy it, so listen to 277 00:18:53,119 --> 00:18:56,360 Speaker 2: us live during the weekday nine to noon Mountain time 278 00:18:56,720 --> 00:19:01,000 Speaker 2: KOA eight fifty am ninety four one FM. A couple 279 00:19:01,040 --> 00:19:06,000 Speaker 2: of bizarre stories over the since yesterday. Jasmine the Crockett, 280 00:19:07,080 --> 00:19:11,920 Speaker 2: the black congresswoman from Texas that ran against Taller Rico 281 00:19:12,080 --> 00:19:15,440 Speaker 2: trying to unseat John Cornyn. She's been really kind of 282 00:19:15,520 --> 00:19:17,560 Speaker 2: quiet for the last ten days or so since she 283 00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:22,040 Speaker 2: lost that primary election to James tall Rico. But that 284 00:19:22,200 --> 00:19:28,119 Speaker 2: all ended last night. One of her bodyguards was killed 285 00:19:28,160 --> 00:19:34,960 Speaker 2: in a shootout with SWAT offers from the Dallas Police Department. Now, 286 00:19:35,000 --> 00:19:36,879 Speaker 2: the part of the story that shouldn't come as a 287 00:19:36,920 --> 00:19:42,040 Speaker 2: surprise to anyone is that her bodyguard was apparently an 288 00:19:42,080 --> 00:19:50,240 Speaker 2: habitual criminal. Wow. Colin rugg Over on X started out 289 00:19:50,240 --> 00:19:53,080 Speaker 2: with this nude Jasmine Crockett security guard has been killed 290 00:19:53,119 --> 00:19:56,639 Speaker 2: after a standoff with Dallas Police SWAT officers. According to 291 00:19:56,720 --> 00:20:02,000 Speaker 2: CBS News, Mike Keane and his name is in quotation 292 00:20:02,200 --> 00:20:05,920 Speaker 2: Marks was recently seen at a campaign event with Crockett. 293 00:20:06,880 --> 00:20:11,199 Speaker 2: Here's the full text. According to police, King was wanted 294 00:20:11,240 --> 00:20:14,400 Speaker 2: for impersonating. Now remember this as a member of Congress. 295 00:20:16,200 --> 00:20:21,399 Speaker 2: This is why I have such oh despicability in my 296 00:20:21,520 --> 00:20:26,679 Speaker 2: heart for these people. She's a member of Congress, and 297 00:20:26,760 --> 00:20:30,240 Speaker 2: according to the cops, Mike King, or whatever his name 298 00:20:30,280 --> 00:20:34,879 Speaker 2: really is, was wanted for impersonating a law enforcement officer. 299 00:20:35,440 --> 00:20:40,040 Speaker 2: He reportedly fled into a hospital parking garage and barricaded 300 00:20:40,119 --> 00:20:43,760 Speaker 2: himself inside a vehicle. King was then forced out of 301 00:20:43,760 --> 00:20:46,560 Speaker 2: the car with tear gas. He pulled his gun on 302 00:20:46,600 --> 00:20:50,840 Speaker 2: the cops. CBS reported that multiple law enforcement sources tell 303 00:20:50,920 --> 00:20:54,760 Speaker 2: CBS News Texas that the man known publicly as Mike 304 00:20:54,880 --> 00:20:58,760 Speaker 2: King had been using aliases while running a business that 305 00:20:58,840 --> 00:21:04,280 Speaker 2: placed officers in duty jobs now. King reportedly drove a 306 00:21:04,680 --> 00:21:11,080 Speaker 2: replica undercover police vehicle and used stolen license plates from 307 00:21:11,240 --> 00:21:13,840 Speaker 2: cars at a military recruiting office. 308 00:21:14,000 --> 00:21:17,880 Speaker 1: These images of Mike King standing close to Congresswoman Jasmine 309 00:21:17,880 --> 00:21:20,840 Speaker 1: Crockett shows how trusted he was as part of her 310 00:21:20,840 --> 00:21:24,000 Speaker 1: security detail while she's been in office and while on 311 00:21:24,040 --> 00:21:27,080 Speaker 1: the campaign trail during her recent run for a US 312 00:21:27,200 --> 00:21:31,280 Speaker 1: Senate seat. Multiple law enforcement sources say King was the 313 00:21:31,320 --> 00:21:34,320 Speaker 1: man shot and killed after a standoff with Dallas Police 314 00:21:34,320 --> 00:21:37,359 Speaker 1: SWAT officers on Wednesday night. Po lease say he was 315 00:21:37,440 --> 00:21:41,120 Speaker 1: chased into a hospital parking garage, where he barricaded himself 316 00:21:41,119 --> 00:21:44,560 Speaker 1: inside a vehicle before he was forced out by teargas 317 00:21:44,600 --> 00:21:46,200 Speaker 1: and pulled a gun on officers. 318 00:21:46,760 --> 00:21:50,119 Speaker 2: Wow, here's a member of Congress. I guess who just 319 00:21:50,160 --> 00:21:54,240 Speaker 2: simply can't stay away from the gangster life. So rip 320 00:21:54,359 --> 00:21:57,560 Speaker 2: to mister King or whatever his name really was. Now, 321 00:21:57,600 --> 00:22:01,959 Speaker 2: in another story which should which really should come as 322 00:22:01,960 --> 00:22:06,480 Speaker 2: a surprise to literally nobody, the Ninth Circuit Court of 323 00:22:06,480 --> 00:22:10,600 Speaker 2: Appeals issued a decision yesterday which will be laughed out 324 00:22:10,640 --> 00:22:14,399 Speaker 2: of the law by the Supreme Court. Now, this case 325 00:22:14,600 --> 00:22:20,360 Speaker 2: involves a women's spa run by a Korean Christian family 326 00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:24,840 Speaker 2: which has been literally invaded by lunatic men pretending to 327 00:22:24,840 --> 00:22:28,680 Speaker 2: be women. They've been demanding to be allowed to parade 328 00:22:28,760 --> 00:22:32,440 Speaker 2: their nude bodies and all the infrastructure which goes with 329 00:22:32,480 --> 00:22:38,800 Speaker 2: that in the facility's single locker room. I remember, this 330 00:22:38,880 --> 00:22:44,320 Speaker 2: is a female only facility. Now, unfortunately, this facility is 331 00:22:44,359 --> 00:22:48,920 Speaker 2: also in the insane state of Washington. No, not DC, 332 00:22:49,160 --> 00:22:54,520 Speaker 2: the state. You need to understand that Washington recently enacted 333 00:22:54,560 --> 00:22:59,960 Speaker 2: a law which forces facilities run by Christians to allow 334 00:23:00,000 --> 00:23:03,120 Speaker 2: all all these lunatics to parade their junk in front 335 00:23:03,160 --> 00:23:06,000 Speaker 2: of thirteen year old girls, which happens to be the 336 00:23:06,040 --> 00:23:11,520 Speaker 2: minimum age for membership in this particular SPA. Now, predictably, 337 00:23:12,080 --> 00:23:15,040 Speaker 2: the Biden Obama judge majority of the Ninth Circuit ruled 338 00:23:15,080 --> 00:23:18,320 Speaker 2: for the lunatics, who apparently are in desperate need of 339 00:23:18,400 --> 00:23:21,320 Speaker 2: some sort of psychiatric care, not to mention prison time, 340 00:23:22,040 --> 00:23:25,159 Speaker 2: because that's what Biden Obama judges apparently do all the time. 341 00:23:25,520 --> 00:23:29,440 Speaker 2: Their goal is to destroy our society from within, after all, 342 00:23:29,680 --> 00:23:33,080 Speaker 2: not to actually read and interpret the Constitution. Now, the 343 00:23:33,119 --> 00:23:37,640 Speaker 2: insane decision led one of the non Marxist judges, one 344 00:23:37,640 --> 00:23:40,560 Speaker 2: of the same judges on the Ninth Circuit, a Trump 345 00:23:40,600 --> 00:23:45,320 Speaker 2: appointee by the name of Lawrence Vandyck, to issue a 346 00:23:45,440 --> 00:23:51,040 Speaker 2: rousing descent whose first sentence reads now before I even 347 00:23:51,080 --> 00:23:54,560 Speaker 2: read the first sentence, In order to comply with the 348 00:23:54,600 --> 00:24:00,320 Speaker 2: Federal Communications Commissions rules, I cannot read. Think about it this, 349 00:24:01,240 --> 00:24:06,760 Speaker 2: I cannot read a dissenting opinion from the Ninth Circuit 350 00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:13,920 Speaker 2: Court of Appeals because of FCC regulations. However, I can 351 00:24:14,160 --> 00:24:21,040 Speaker 2: use the anatomically correct term for a man's junk, which 352 00:24:21,119 --> 00:24:25,520 Speaker 2: is a penis. But you know, there's a nickname for 353 00:24:25,920 --> 00:24:33,159 Speaker 2: a man's penis, and it rhymes with the name Rick Okay, 354 00:24:33,359 --> 00:24:36,640 Speaker 2: So every time I say the word penis, I want 355 00:24:36,680 --> 00:24:41,960 Speaker 2: you to think about Rick, except Rick's name or Richard 356 00:24:42,359 --> 00:24:45,359 Speaker 2: the you know, the shortened name for Richard. Got it? 357 00:24:46,119 --> 00:24:52,119 Speaker 2: Because I want you to hear this dissenting opinion. But 358 00:24:52,240 --> 00:24:58,120 Speaker 2: every time you hear the word penis, substitute Rick with 359 00:24:58,160 --> 00:25:04,160 Speaker 2: a d. Got it? Here is Here is the dramatic 360 00:25:04,200 --> 00:25:08,560 Speaker 2: reading of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dissenting opinion 361 00:25:08,640 --> 00:25:13,760 Speaker 2: in a case called Olympus Spa versus Armstrong. Judge Van 362 00:25:13,880 --> 00:25:18,680 Speaker 2: Dijk wrote the lead descent, which begins this way. This 363 00:25:18,720 --> 00:25:24,080 Speaker 2: is a case about big swinging penises. The Christian owners 364 00:25:24,119 --> 00:25:28,840 Speaker 2: of Olympus Spa, a traditional Korean women only nude spa, 365 00:25:29,600 --> 00:25:34,119 Speaker 2: understandably don't want them in their spa. Their female employees 366 00:25:34,160 --> 00:25:36,760 Speaker 2: and female clients don't want them in their spaw either, 367 00:25:37,520 --> 00:25:41,240 Speaker 2: But Washington State insists on them, and now so does 368 00:25:41,240 --> 00:25:45,680 Speaker 2: the Ninth Circuit. You may think that swinging penises should 369 00:25:45,720 --> 00:25:48,920 Speaker 2: not appear in a judicial opinion. Well you're not wrong. 370 00:25:49,760 --> 00:25:52,520 Speaker 2: But as much as you might understandably be shocked and 371 00:25:52,600 --> 00:25:56,560 Speaker 2: displeased to merely encounter that phrase in this opinion, I 372 00:25:56,600 --> 00:25:59,400 Speaker 2: hope we all can agree that it is far more 373 00:25:59,520 --> 00:26:03,680 Speaker 2: jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus SPA, 374 00:26:04,320 --> 00:26:08,440 Speaker 2: some as young as thirteen, to be visually assaulted by 375 00:26:08,480 --> 00:26:12,640 Speaker 2: the real thing. Sometimes it feels like the supposed adults 376 00:26:12,640 --> 00:26:17,320 Speaker 2: in the room have collectively lost their minds. Woke regulators 377 00:26:17,359 --> 00:26:23,680 Speaker 2: can stein social experiments impose on real women and young girls. Now, 378 00:26:23,800 --> 00:26:30,280 Speaker 2: as you can probably imagine, this line infuriated Judge van 379 00:26:30,359 --> 00:26:35,520 Speaker 2: Dyke's colleagues. Judge McCown issued a statement that was joined 380 00:26:35,520 --> 00:26:39,439 Speaker 2: by twenty eight members of her court. The Ninth Circuit 381 00:26:39,480 --> 00:26:44,919 Speaker 2: has fifty one total active in senior status judges, So 382 00:26:45,040 --> 00:26:48,560 Speaker 2: this is a statement issued by the senior Circuit judge, 383 00:26:49,080 --> 00:26:55,080 Speaker 2: Judge McCown, joined by Judge Madeira, the chief Judge, and 384 00:26:55,160 --> 00:26:57,120 Speaker 2: then whole list of others, but I won't name all 385 00:26:57,160 --> 00:27:04,120 Speaker 2: of them. The American legal system has long been regarded 386 00:27:04,160 --> 00:27:07,560 Speaker 2: as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and 387 00:27:07,720 --> 00:27:11,520 Speaker 2: civil manner, or, as Justice of Conor put it to quote, 388 00:27:11,520 --> 00:27:15,439 Speaker 2: disagree without being disagreeable. It is not a place for 389 00:27:15,680 --> 00:27:19,520 Speaker 2: vulgar barroom talk, nor is it a place to suggest 390 00:27:19,600 --> 00:27:23,440 Speaker 2: that fellow judges have quote collectively lost their minds. Close 391 00:27:23,560 --> 00:27:27,400 Speaker 2: quote or that they are quote woke judges complicit close 392 00:27:27,520 --> 00:27:32,400 Speaker 2: quote in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans. That language 393 00:27:32,480 --> 00:27:36,040 Speaker 2: makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines 394 00:27:36,080 --> 00:27:39,520 Speaker 2: public trust in the courts. The lead descents use of 395 00:27:39,560 --> 00:27:43,440 Speaker 2: such coarse language and invective may make for a publicity 396 00:27:43,480 --> 00:27:46,280 Speaker 2: or entertainment value, but it has no place in a 397 00:27:46,359 --> 00:27:51,159 Speaker 2: judicial opinion. The lead descent ignores ordinary principles of dignanty 398 00:27:51,200 --> 00:27:55,200 Speaker 2: and civility and demeans this court. Neither the parties nor 399 00:27:55,200 --> 00:27:58,639 Speaker 2: the panel descent found it necessary to invoke such crude 400 00:27:58,800 --> 00:28:05,639 Speaker 2: and vitriotic claiming, which decorum and collegiality demand more so. 401 00:28:05,840 --> 00:28:10,399 Speaker 2: Judge Owens and Judge Forrest, another Trump appointee, issued a 402 00:28:10,480 --> 00:28:16,399 Speaker 2: one sentence statement regarding the dissenting opinion of Judge Vandyke. 403 00:28:16,720 --> 00:28:22,040 Speaker 2: Quote we are better than this. Well Judge Vandyke's response. 404 00:28:22,640 --> 00:28:28,040 Speaker 2: Excuse me. Judge Vandyke's response to the chief Judge's statement. 405 00:28:29,200 --> 00:28:39,480 Speaker 2: That's next. Welcome back to the weekend with Michael Brown. 406 00:28:40,040 --> 00:28:42,040 Speaker 2: We're talking about this case out of Washington State with 407 00:28:42,120 --> 00:28:48,480 Speaker 2: a Ninth Circuit basically, in a majority opinion allowed men 408 00:28:49,760 --> 00:28:53,920 Speaker 2: with their big swinging penises. According to the descent into 409 00:28:53,960 --> 00:29:01,120 Speaker 2: a Korean Christian women's only spall when he used the 410 00:29:01,160 --> 00:29:04,440 Speaker 2: phrase big swinging penises. But that's not the word he used. 411 00:29:05,640 --> 00:29:09,200 Speaker 2: The chief judge of the Ninth Circuit and some forty 412 00:29:09,240 --> 00:29:13,040 Speaker 2: others there are fifty plus on the circuit all came 413 00:29:13,080 --> 00:29:19,080 Speaker 2: out offended by what he said, and he responded, hew, 414 00:29:19,080 --> 00:29:22,480 Speaker 2: he wrote this Finally, I'll respond briefly to my colleagues's 415 00:29:22,480 --> 00:29:26,320 Speaker 2: discomfort with how I written this dissent. My distressed colleagues 416 00:29:26,320 --> 00:29:30,080 Speaker 2: appear to have the fastidious sensibilities of a Victorian nun 417 00:29:30,280 --> 00:29:32,520 Speaker 2: when it comes to mere unpleasant words, in my opinion, 418 00:29:32,920 --> 00:29:36,840 Speaker 2: yet exhibit the scruples of our dearly departed colleague, Judge 419 00:29:36,880 --> 00:29:41,240 Speaker 2: Reinhardt when it comes to the government trampling on religious 420 00:29:41,320 --> 00:29:45,920 Speaker 2: liberties and exposing women and girls to male genitalia. That 421 00:29:46,000 --> 00:29:50,960 Speaker 2: kind of selective outrage speaks for itself. He writes. The 422 00:29:51,000 --> 00:29:54,920 Speaker 2: public deserves a court that is actually trustworthy. We should 423 00:29:54,920 --> 00:29:58,960 Speaker 2: be earning that trust, not demanding it like petty tyrants. Yes, 424 00:29:59,080 --> 00:30:02,560 Speaker 2: the introduction to the this descent intentionally uses in the 425 00:30:02,640 --> 00:30:06,040 Speaker 2: course language, but that is quite literally. What this case 426 00:30:06,120 --> 00:30:11,400 Speaker 2: is about. Male genitalia is precisely and only what the spall, 427 00:30:11,480 --> 00:30:16,040 Speaker 2: for religious reasons, objects to admitting into its female only space. 428 00:30:16,840 --> 00:30:18,960 Speaker 2: The fact that so many on our court want to 429 00:30:18,960 --> 00:30:22,480 Speaker 2: pretend that this case is about anything other than swinging 430 00:30:22,560 --> 00:30:27,360 Speaker 2: penises is the very reason the shocking language is necessary. 431 00:30:27,960 --> 00:30:32,320 Speaker 2: The panel majority uses slick legal arguments and deflection to 432 00:30:32,440 --> 00:30:37,120 Speaker 2: studiously avoid eye contact with the actual and horrific consequences 433 00:30:37,280 --> 00:30:41,400 Speaker 2: of its erroneous opinion. The quote ordinary Americans affected by 434 00:30:41,400 --> 00:30:46,000 Speaker 2: the majority's opinion don't have that luxury squirm as we might. 435 00:30:46,560 --> 00:30:49,120 Speaker 2: I think it's only fair for our court to have 436 00:30:49,200 --> 00:30:53,840 Speaker 2: a small taste of its own medicine, he writes. Sometimes 437 00:30:54,160 --> 00:30:58,640 Speaker 2: dignified in civil words are employed to mask a legal abomination, 438 00:30:59,240 --> 00:31:02,280 Speaker 2: or to put it in vernacular, perhaps more palatable to 439 00:31:02,400 --> 00:31:07,920 Speaker 2: my colleague's victorian sensibilities. Quote in law, what please so 440 00:31:08,080 --> 00:31:11,800 Speaker 2: tainted and corrupt, But being seasoned with a gracious voice 441 00:31:12,200 --> 00:31:16,240 Speaker 2: obscures the show of evil, he says. Sometimes the course 442 00:31:16,280 --> 00:31:20,880 Speaker 2: and ugly words bear the truth. I coarsely but respectfully 443 00:31:20,920 --> 00:31:25,120 Speaker 2: dissent from our Court's willingness to leave this travesty in place. 444 00:31:26,280 --> 00:31:28,400 Speaker 2: Now I've read that some people think that Judge Van 445 00:31:28,480 --> 00:31:32,680 Speaker 2: Dyke is auditioning for the Supreme Court. I had never 446 00:31:32,720 --> 00:31:35,640 Speaker 2: heard that before, and before this opinion, I could have 447 00:31:35,680 --> 00:31:39,600 Speaker 2: told you that he probably is not. But after this opinion, 448 00:31:40,760 --> 00:31:44,400 Speaker 2: maybe we should have some doubt because I think he 449 00:31:44,680 --> 00:31:48,200 Speaker 2: wh I don't think reading the opinion, he truly believes 450 00:31:48,200 --> 00:31:52,400 Speaker 2: what he is writing and what he has done. He 451 00:31:52,480 --> 00:31:57,720 Speaker 2: has used his pen, his word processor, and his words 452 00:31:58,080 --> 00:32:03,400 Speaker 2: to advance his basic understanding of the law. Now, Judge 453 00:32:03,480 --> 00:32:07,360 Speaker 2: Hung also issued a dissent, which was also joined by 454 00:32:07,480 --> 00:32:12,320 Speaker 2: Judges Nelson, Bumpstay, and Vandyck. I'm sorry, Judge Bmoomta, by 455 00:32:12,360 --> 00:32:14,400 Speaker 2: the way, I should disclose Judge Mummatae as a friend 456 00:32:14,400 --> 00:32:17,600 Speaker 2: of mine. Let us be clear about what the law 457 00:32:17,640 --> 00:32:22,040 Speaker 2: in Washington requires. Under its law, the state can disregard 458 00:32:22,080 --> 00:32:25,720 Speaker 2: a small business owner's Christian's belief and force her family 459 00:32:25,800 --> 00:32:29,000 Speaker 2: run Korean spa to allow a nude man who claims 460 00:32:29,000 --> 00:32:32,560 Speaker 2: to be a woman into an intimate space reserved for 461 00:32:32,640 --> 00:32:37,160 Speaker 2: its female patrons. Yet under that same law, private clubs 462 00:32:37,200 --> 00:32:41,640 Speaker 2: embracing secular values can refuse entry to that same man. 463 00:32:42,680 --> 00:32:45,600 Speaker 2: Schools and cemeteries can refuse service to that man too, 464 00:32:45,640 --> 00:32:50,040 Speaker 2: so long as they are run by institutions deemed sectarian. Thus, 465 00:32:50,080 --> 00:32:53,640 Speaker 2: while the law purports to protect any Washington resident from 466 00:32:53,720 --> 00:32:58,360 Speaker 2: so called gender identity discrimination. The state's prohibition exempts some 467 00:32:58,680 --> 00:33:03,160 Speaker 2: secular organization and certain religious ones. It just does not 468 00:33:03,320 --> 00:33:07,800 Speaker 2: exempt the small business in its exercise of its religious beliefs. 469 00:33:07,840 --> 00:33:12,480 Speaker 2: Here they right, how is this at all a neutral 470 00:33:12,600 --> 00:33:17,480 Speaker 2: law of general applicability? The panel's conclusion to the contrary, 471 00:33:17,920 --> 00:33:21,160 Speaker 2: am you not in immunizing the law from any serious 472 00:33:21,160 --> 00:33:27,480 Speaker 2: First Amendment scrutiny should have been vacated. We descent, this 473 00:33:27,560 --> 00:33:31,920 Speaker 2: case will be swinging to a Supreme Court CERP petition 474 00:33:32,040 --> 00:33:35,680 Speaker 2: near you soon. I don't know about y'all, but I 475 00:33:35,760 --> 00:33:38,320 Speaker 2: just can't wait to see what Justice Thomas has to 476 00:33:38,360 --> 00:33:44,520 Speaker 2: say about this case. It will simply be an amazing response. 477 00:33:45,360 --> 00:33:49,080 Speaker 2: But have you thought about I mean, when I be curious, 478 00:33:49,880 --> 00:33:54,720 Speaker 2: are offended by the judges descent? I wasn't. Now I'm 479 00:33:54,720 --> 00:33:57,600 Speaker 2: not a judge, but if I were the other judges, 480 00:33:57,880 --> 00:34:02,800 Speaker 2: I would be offended not by the words that by 481 00:34:02,840 --> 00:34:09,120 Speaker 2: how so plainly and clearly he points out their hypocrisy, 482 00:34:09,239 --> 00:34:14,560 Speaker 2: how clearly and plainly by using big swinging penises in 483 00:34:14,680 --> 00:34:21,080 Speaker 2: his opinion points out how absurd they are being. This 484 00:34:21,160 --> 00:34:23,640 Speaker 2: kind of gets back to the point I made at 485 00:34:23,640 --> 00:34:27,640 Speaker 2: the very beginning of this program the absurdity of something 486 00:34:27,719 --> 00:34:31,400 Speaker 2: that has the approval of ninety percent of Americans or 487 00:34:31,440 --> 00:34:33,399 Speaker 2: eighty percent, whatever number you want to use. I don't 488 00:34:33,440 --> 00:34:36,359 Speaker 2: care to save act just you know, if you want 489 00:34:36,360 --> 00:34:39,120 Speaker 2: to go vote, show that you're proved that you're a 490 00:34:39,200 --> 00:34:42,680 Speaker 2: US citizen to vote in the US election. I've got 491 00:34:42,680 --> 00:34:44,759 Speaker 2: to use my ID for all sorts of things, to 492 00:34:44,800 --> 00:34:48,760 Speaker 2: board a plane, to you know, sometimes to buy liquor 493 00:34:48,760 --> 00:34:52,319 Speaker 2: in a liquor store, to fill out a job application, 494 00:34:52,400 --> 00:34:55,880 Speaker 2: whatever it might be. I'm it's just basic common sense. 495 00:34:58,080 --> 00:35:03,160 Speaker 2: Why is it not common sense that if a Christian 496 00:35:03,280 --> 00:35:10,280 Speaker 2: run Korean family spall that caters solely to women, where's 497 00:35:10,280 --> 00:35:13,760 Speaker 2: the common sense that says they can refuse to admit 498 00:35:13,920 --> 00:35:18,960 Speaker 2: someone who has a big swinging penis This seems common 499 00:35:19,000 --> 00:35:23,680 Speaker 2: sense to me? Who we're losing, that we're losing all 500 00:35:23,880 --> 00:35:27,880 Speaker 2: sense of rationality. And here's a judge, you know, for 501 00:35:27,960 --> 00:35:30,600 Speaker 2: all the insanity that we can talk about what judges 502 00:35:30,640 --> 00:35:34,240 Speaker 2: are doing to the country right now, here's a singular 503 00:35:34,320 --> 00:35:36,840 Speaker 2: judge and a few of US colleagues that joined in 504 00:35:36,840 --> 00:35:43,280 Speaker 2: the descent calling out in yes, crass language, but crass 505 00:35:43,360 --> 00:35:47,160 Speaker 2: language that forces the majority to realize this is what 506 00:35:47,200 --> 00:35:50,160 Speaker 2: you're doing. You can hide behind all your fancy legal 507 00:35:50,239 --> 00:35:55,279 Speaker 2: mumbo jumbo, but here's the practicality of your decision. And 508 00:35:55,360 --> 00:35:58,920 Speaker 2: I think it's wrong, and it violates their religious liberties, 509 00:35:59,160 --> 00:36:02,080 Speaker 2: it violates their First Amendments, all on behalf of what 510 00:36:02,680 --> 00:36:07,640 Speaker 2: a tiny minority out here. That we allow discrimination against 511 00:36:07,640 --> 00:36:13,479 Speaker 2: that tiny minority in places that are not religious. I say, 512 00:36:13,520 --> 00:36:18,399 Speaker 2: too shade to the judge, absolute Toochhae, and we need 513 00:36:18,440 --> 00:36:22,120 Speaker 2: more judges like that. I quite frankly don't want to 514 00:36:22,120 --> 00:36:24,960 Speaker 2: see him on the Supreme Court. You know why because 515 00:36:25,000 --> 00:36:27,080 Speaker 2: in the Ninth Circuit, one of the most liberal circuits 516 00:36:27,120 --> 00:36:31,080 Speaker 2: in the entire country. That's where we need him. So 517 00:36:31,120 --> 00:36:33,160 Speaker 2: I hope he stays there. I hope Trump doesn't read 518 00:36:33,200 --> 00:36:34,799 Speaker 2: this opinion and go, oh, I want that guy on 519 00:36:34,840 --> 00:36:37,680 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. No, I want more like him on 520 00:36:37,719 --> 00:36:44,400 Speaker 2: the Ninth Circuit. Just calling it out for what it is. Finally, 521 00:36:44,480 --> 00:36:48,120 Speaker 2: some common sense hang tight. So weekend with Michael Brown 522 00:36:48,440 --> 00:36:50,560 Speaker 2: text line of course is open. I'll be right back