Speaker 1: We first met Tim sander for years ago. He was
Speaker 1: a caller. He would call into the show when we
Speaker 1: were really wrong about something and straighten us out. He
Speaker 1: was Tim the Lawyer and a gentle He had a
Speaker 1: gentle touch, and we liked him. We started having him
Speaker 1: as a guest and uh, Tim sanderfer is his real name,
Speaker 1: not just Tim the Lawyer, And he's become a friend
Speaker 1: of the show, and uh he writes books and he's
Speaker 1: in George Will called him a national treasure. Well then
Speaker 1: he met a gal, sweet gal along the way, and
Speaker 1: uh married Christina the Lawyer and Christina sanderfor we also
Speaker 1: have on the show regular regularly, and we're about to.
Speaker 1: But before we get her on, I saw she retweeted
Speaker 1: this yesterday about boycotting the Olympics in China, and she
Speaker 1: agreed that the Olympics should not be a platform for
Speaker 1: an authoritarian regime to showcase itself while persuading the rest
Speaker 1: of the world to ignore genocide. I think we were
Speaker 1: talking earlier about the first of all, the popularity of
Speaker 1: China and the United States has just gone off a cliff.
Speaker 1: The number of people that have a positive view of
Speaker 1: China's now um it's doubled the number of people in
Speaker 1: the Unite State who think China is our number one enemy.
Speaker 1: All of this has happening just a short amount of time,
Speaker 1: and we were talking about how various businesses and parts
Speaker 1: of society you're going to have to disentangle from China.
Speaker 1: I think Hollywood's gonna have to, the NBA is going
Speaker 1: to have to all but Apple has to at some point. Oh,
Speaker 1: dozens and dozens and dozens of major international brands and
Speaker 1: American brands in particular, are going to have to go
Speaker 1: through enormously challenging roads to decouple from China. And before
Speaker 1: we get to next year's Olympics in China, I think
Speaker 1: it will become very clear to everyone the idea of
Speaker 1: having Olympics in a country where they have millions of
Speaker 1: slaves is insane. Well, let's let's welcome Christina Sander for
Speaker 1: end of the conversation. Christina is the executive vice president
Speaker 1: for the Gold Auterer Institute. She develops policies litigates cases
Speaker 1: advancing health care freedom, free enterprise, private property rights, free speech,
Speaker 1: taxpayer rights, and more. Christina, how are you. I am
Speaker 1: doing great. Thanks so much for having me. It's been
Speaker 1: a while. Yeah, it's been thank you, it's been too long.
Speaker 1: Jack actually just stole my thunder. I was going to
Speaker 1: point out if China were merely engaged in genocide, they'd
Speaker 1: be a better country than they are, because they're simultaneously
Speaker 1: engaged in genocide and slave driving on a scale that
Speaker 1: you know, it's seventeenth century America could hardly dream of.
Speaker 1: You know, it is unconscionable. I know we have a
Speaker 1: lot to talk about in a short amount of time,
Speaker 1: but I'll tell you I think it's unconscionable for Americans,
Speaker 1: for the United States as a country to to participate
Speaker 1: in this, to act like everything is fine, to show
Speaker 1: up and smile and play sports amongst people who are,
Speaker 1: as you say, literally enslaving their people. Um. And it
Speaker 1: really provides some perspective. You know, it's amazing how focused
Speaker 1: people are today in the United States on the things
Speaker 1: that we don't have here and that you know, we
Speaker 1: don't have equality among the sexes and the races. And
Speaker 1: I am all I always believe that we should always
Speaker 1: strive to do better to extend the American dream to everyone.
Speaker 1: But while we are saying those things here, people are
Speaker 1: literally slaves in their own homes. Women, I mean to
Speaker 1: be a woman in China, to be a little girl
Speaker 1: born in China. You may not even you may not
Speaker 1: even see adulthood. Uh. It's it's just incredible. And Americans
Speaker 1: need to wake up and understand that. Yeah. We we
Speaker 1: talked regularly about how it's weird looking back that they
Speaker 1: had the Olympics in Berlin with Hitler there in the
Speaker 1: stands of nineteen six. But this would be like having
Speaker 1: the Olympics in nineteen forty three in in in Berlin.
Speaker 1: When't we ever, when the world knows what's going on,
Speaker 1: it would be crazy. I I completely agree, could not
Speaker 1: agree more. But you know they don't call me when
Speaker 1: they make these decisions. No, no, nor us. So Christina,
Speaker 1: we know that you and our friends at Pacific Legal
Speaker 1: Foundation are involved in quite an important case in front
Speaker 1: of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week. What
Speaker 1: does she tell us about it? Yeah? You know, your
Speaker 1: your legislators out in California are screwing things up again. Um.
Speaker 1: They passed a law that went into effect effect last
Speaker 1: year that says that all publicly traded companies that are
Speaker 1: either incorporated or even just headquartered in the state of
Speaker 1: California have to have a minimum number of women on
Speaker 1: their boards. And so the number starts at one, and
Speaker 1: it goes up based on on the size of the board.
Speaker 1: And if you don't comply, your company is going to
Speaker 1: be subject to all of these fines. And you also
Speaker 1: end up on a government list so that everybody you
Speaker 1: know can chaptise you and talk about how terrible and
Speaker 1: sex is to your company is and and really, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, I mean, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a gender quota, and it forces the people who
Speaker 1: vote for board members, so corporate shareholders, to discriminate under law,
Speaker 1: it forces them to take a candidate sex into account
Speaker 1: every single time they vote for a board number. And
Speaker 1: so you know, our our friends at PLF and and
Speaker 1: UH at the gold Water Institute here, we we've gotten involved.
Speaker 1: Um we sued the state where we're file a brief
Speaker 1: in the case. But because this violates the Equal Protection
Speaker 1: ca it is literally forced discrimination. The Constitution says that
Speaker 1: you can't force people to make decisions on the basis
Speaker 1: of sex, and so it's illegal. But I actually think
Speaker 1: it's just incredibly patronizing to women and incredibly immoral for
Speaker 1: all of these men. I mean sorry to say, but
Speaker 1: a male dominated California legislature to tell me where my
Speaker 1: places and how many people that that look or seem
Speaker 1: like me ought to be on corporate boards? Who's throwing
Speaker 1: money behind both sides of this argument? You know, well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's always it's always a little bit hard
Speaker 1: to follow the money trail. But I think this is
Speaker 1: really part of um, just this general sort of growing
Speaker 1: you know, left leaning concern about that we need to
Speaker 1: we need to socially engineer exactly you know, how many women,
Speaker 1: how many people of a certain race that we have
Speaker 1: in every single circumstance, and you know, and on boards
Speaker 1: and incompany ease. And it's part of this just general
Speaker 1: strive to be to be woke into you know, uh
Speaker 1: and so um, so you know, it's it's um, it's
Speaker 1: definitely um. It's definitely something that the left has been
Speaker 1: focusing on. And I think that California is only I mean,
Speaker 1: California is the first date to do this, but they're
Speaker 1: not going to be the last. Right, you know, sometimes
Speaker 1: I'm afraid we're a little too hip for the room
Speaker 1: in terms of being lovers of liberty, especially these people
Speaker 1: come out of public schools and and taking the mainstream media.
Speaker 1: Can you help somebody who's thinking, well, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: more women's on women's listen to me like I'm an
Speaker 1: old blues singer, More women on boards of directors, some
Speaker 1: women's um, more women is great. I mean, I'm pro woman.
Speaker 1: I have a couple of daughters. This seems like a
Speaker 1: good policy. Well what's the what's the liberty loving argument
Speaker 1: forgetting the government the hell out of these decisions? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And you know, as a woman, I will say, and
Speaker 1: as a woman who has chosen to, you know, to
Speaker 1: be an executive leadership in an organization, it does make
Speaker 1: me happy to see that, you know, women are making
Speaker 1: tremendous gains in business leadership. There are more women now
Speaker 1: that own their own businesses or that are sitting on
Speaker 1: boards um and and better CEOs than ever before. I
Speaker 1: think it's wonderful. I think it provides a great role
Speaker 1: model for young women that you know, the American dream
Speaker 1: is available to them and they can be anything. The
Speaker 1: problem is that these laws are not based in reality.
Speaker 1: The study after study has shown that it is almost never,
Speaker 1: it is very rare that it is a case of
Speaker 1: genuine discrimination um that you know, a woman may not
Speaker 1: be on a board, or that women may be quote
Speaker 1: unquote underrepresented on a board. The truth is that women
Speaker 1: tend to prefer flexibility. UM. Women are increasingly choosing to
Speaker 1: work in you know, the gig economy, so to to
Speaker 1: drive for uber or lift or to sell things on Etsy. Um.
Speaker 1: Women tend to prefer flexibility so that they can, you know,
Speaker 1: either take care of their families, um, or just have
Speaker 1: different hours. Men tend to prefer your typical nine to
Speaker 1: five and and they look at higher pay and women
Speaker 1: look at benefits. And that is just a on average.
Speaker 1: That's certainly not every woman. It's certainly not me, but
Speaker 1: it's women. It's mostly women's choices that are putting them
Speaker 1: in the situation set there. And and that's not who
Speaker 1: is government to say that that's good or bad? And frankly,
Speaker 1: the degree of hubris is breathtaking to me that government
Speaker 1: is to look at a board and say, okay, there
Speaker 1: should be one woman on this board. I mean, really,
Speaker 1: what is the right number of women? How many women
Speaker 1: should can board? How can government know that? Why just one?
Speaker 1: Why don't why not don't we say at least you know, um,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, when we set
Speaker 1: these gender quotas that ignore women's preferences, we're also treating
Speaker 1: women as victims, and we are sending to me a
Speaker 1: very terrible message, a message of despair to young women.
Speaker 1: We're telling them that you know, you cannot, without government's help,
Speaker 1: make it to be a CEO or make it on
Speaker 1: a board and women, as you know, so that companies
Speaker 1: can check these boxes and avoid these Finns, they're just
Speaker 1: going to be appointed as tokens for the sake of compliance,
Speaker 1: and that actually reinforces stereo of course, so that the
Speaker 1: first board meeting you'd have, you'd have the women in
Speaker 1: there that are either subtly or or or overtly treated
Speaker 1: as the only reason you're here is they had to
Speaker 1: put you here by law absolutely, and that may or
Speaker 1: may not be, you know, the reality, but that's how
Speaker 1: it's going to come off and get his studies have
Speaker 1: shown this that that women who are hired under a
Speaker 1: quota system as opposed to merit, regardless of whether they
Speaker 1: actually do deserve to be, they're they're branded with a
Speaker 1: stigma of incompetence UM, and it makes it difficult for
Speaker 1: them to be treated seriously. And that's my biography title,
Speaker 1: by the way, branded with the stigma of incompetence. You know,
Speaker 1: it's surprisingly fun rate Christina Sander Firs, Executive vice President
Speaker 1: the Goldwater Institute. You know, Christina, those are some absolutely
Speaker 1: great arguments on the merits. I a little uncomfortable even
Speaker 1: arguing it on the Merits. And let me let me
Speaker 1: illustrate it for people. Long ago. Jack and I came
Speaker 1: up with this policy about the show because we have
Speaker 1: a kind of our inner circle and the people who
Speaker 1: help on the show. And and once or twice certain
Speaker 1: rogue members of the team way back in the day,
Speaker 1: like we would have a question about all right, and
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna pick up something ridiculous because this is
Speaker 1: not the point, but should we talk about politics two
Speaker 1: segments in a row? And that person took it upon
Speaker 1: themselves to go to various management personages and say, hey,
Speaker 1: A and G are wondering should they do to politics
Speaker 1: segments in a row? And then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: you have the heavy belligerent hand of management that you
Speaker 1: have permitted into the conversation. And I think that the
Speaker 1: gut level understanding people ought to have is for the
Speaker 1: love of James Madison, do not invite the government into
Speaker 1: a room. It should not be because they will never leave.
Speaker 1: Their hand is heavy and cruel and stupid, and generally
Speaker 1: they'll end up taxing you somehow. Absolutely right. Well, look
Speaker 1: this March is women's history month, right, so let's let's
Speaker 1: look at her story. I'm sorry or her story. You're
Speaker 1: not going to say history on this enough hate speech, Christina,
Speaker 1: I'm tgger that is true, you know. I I tend
Speaker 1: to I tend to do that, although it's not it's
Speaker 1: not the women that I'm triggering. Typically it is because
Speaker 1: I'm a libertarian, so I'm triggering the lefties. But so
Speaker 1: let's try it again. March is women's hearty month, is
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it. It is women's month. Right,
Speaker 1: But but seriously, though, what your your point is well taken,
Speaker 1: because you know, in the not too distant path, gender
Speaker 1: discrimination was actually legally institutionalized in a different way in
Speaker 1: our country. Every single state had laws on the books
Speaker 1: that would, you know, ban women from working in certain
Speaker 1: professions things like teachers, lawyers, bartenders. They would band married
Speaker 1: women for working or even owning property because they said,
Speaker 1: once you're married, your job is to take care of
Speaker 1: your husband and raise your kids. Um laws that impose
Speaker 1: maximum hours on how much women can work because women
Speaker 1: are fragile, and you know, they're not able to work
Speaker 1: as long as men. And literally in the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: as late as the nineteen sixties, over half of the
Speaker 1: states still excluded women from by law from doing some
Speaker 1: kind of work. And in early feminists fought back against
Speaker 1: this and they said, exactly what you said, that you
Speaker 1: know this, these laws are supposedly well intentioned, that government's
Speaker 1: going to protect women. And they said, no, this is
Speaker 1: treating women as weak and incapable of making their own decisions,
Speaker 1: and it's telling us that we can't shape our own destinies.
Speaker 1: And women fought and fought and fought for true equality
Speaker 1: under the law, and now you know, we basically have that.
Speaker 1: And now we're turning back and we've got, you know,
Speaker 1: predominantly folks on the left that are are going back
Speaker 1: and inviting government back into our lives to tell us
Speaker 1: where we ought to be and what we ought to do. Interesting, yep, well,
Speaker 1: said Christine to Sander for executive vice president with the
Speaker 1: Goldwater Institute. Fighting for your freedom all the time, Christine,
Speaker 1: it's been too long. It won't be so long the
Speaker 1: next time. It's great to talk to you. Hey, so good.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Looking forward to talking to you guys again.
Speaker 1: All right, thanks. I like the herk Stree behind some
Speaker 1: of these stories. Oh my god, you need to stop.
Speaker 1: All right, you're gonna make me vomit. Nobody wants me
Speaker 1: to vomit. Set up some sort of family family Kay
Speaker 1: style chain vomitosis. Nobody wants that. Herks three arm and