Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2: Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Jetty, and he.
Speaker 3: Armstrong and Getty Strong Happy Thanksgiving. It's the Armstrong and
Speaker 3: Getty replay. I hope you eat as much as you can.
Speaker 3: I hope you're in pain by the end of the day.
Speaker 3: I know I will be.
Speaker 4: Now Here are some delicious Armstrong and Geddy leftovers.
Speaker 3: Get filled up with more of Armstrong and Getty with
Speaker 3: our podcast Armstrong and Getdy on demand. Your loved one
Speaker 3: or maybe yourself wants.
Speaker 4: An Armstrong and Getty hoodie, T shirt, hat or more.
Speaker 4: They're at Armstrongygeddy dot com.
Speaker 3: A bout a bike. I'm gonna become bike riding guy,
Speaker 3: the one of those guys where is the really skin
Speaker 3: tight clothes walks around the Starbucks. I'm not, actually, but
Speaker 3: I pictured you more shirtless over Tenned Methy. Probably stolen
Speaker 3: bike down right. You're going like Tour de Front riding
Speaker 3: a kid's bike. I'm somewhere in between. I'm gonna be
Speaker 3: in probably jeens, tennis shoes and a T shirt. But
Speaker 3: I am on a real bike, not a child's bike
Speaker 3: I took out of someone's backyard, the suburban gentleman, look
Speaker 3: exactly why not.
Speaker 4: We were talking yesterday about an absolutely blockbuster report in
Speaker 4: the Hill about how vast majorities of college kids don't
Speaker 4: believe the garbage they've been indoctrinated in, but they're afraid
Speaker 4: to say it.
Speaker 3: That is one of the more important things for people
Speaker 3: to know that I can remember. I mean, this is
Speaker 3: important information. Yeah, and we hammered this pretty good yesterday.
Speaker 3: But seventy eight percent of students told us a self
Speaker 3: censor on their belief sound surrounding gender identity, seventy two
Speaker 3: percent on politics in general, sixty eight percent on family values.
Speaker 3: They value what are traditionally known as family values, but
Speaker 3: they dare not speak it on college campus.
Speaker 4: And more than eighty percent so they'd submitted classwork that
Speaker 4: represented their views in order to align with professors. You
Speaker 4: give them a chance and they will tell you what
Speaker 4: they really think. And we are on the cusp. I
Speaker 4: think of a huge move toward the youngsters of recognizing
Speaker 4: what's being done at colleges. It's not education at all,
Speaker 4: it's indoctrination. But those poll numbers were stunning and.
Speaker 3: Encouraging.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 3: The important thing to me, though, is just realizing that
Speaker 3: as human nature, that we're all so susceptible. I don't
Speaker 3: know about all, but so many people are susceptible to this. Yeah,
Speaker 3: of keeping your mouth shut if you think most people
Speaker 3: don't agree with you. I keep my mouth shut in
Speaker 3: most social situations about political stuff. But right, yeah, well,
Speaker 3: and the whole concept of a preference, just which I
Speaker 3: find so interesting that you because everybody around you is silent,
Speaker 3: you think, oh, I'm probably one of the only people
Speaker 3: who believes this. Right, they agree with the powerful people
Speaker 3: who are telling us all what we ought to believe.
Speaker 3: But no, you're all sitting there thinking the same thing. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And I don't know how many times, probably everybody's had
Speaker 3: this situation where that is going on, and somebody says,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm a gun owner, and I'm me too,
Speaker 3: me too, and that's oh, geez, okay, so we're not
Speaker 3: all well and that's whatever the topic is. And that's
Speaker 3: the crazy thing, you know, to if you find yourself
Speaker 3: in college and thinking, you know, this this stuff about
Speaker 3: you know, the gender beenning madness. A man can just
Speaker 3: become a woman, And that's really a woman and all
Speaker 3: the other stuff they teach these poor kids, all the
Speaker 3: critical theory stuff. If you have the courage to stand
Speaker 3: up and be that rebel and think, you know what,
Speaker 3: ten percent of us are together, I'm going to stand
Speaker 3: up and say so, then all of a sudden, eighty
Speaker 3: five percent of the classes on your side. You are
Speaker 3: a But you know you're not nearly as alone as
Speaker 3: you think. Yeah, you can't blame people though, I mean, oh,
Speaker 3: it's not blame them at all. First of all, everything
Speaker 3: that's been presented to all of us led us to
Speaker 3: believe that this is what most people on college campus
Speaker 3: has thought was this stuff.
Speaker 4: Well that's part of the insidious plot. That's what propaganda is.
Speaker 3: Sure, and telling everybody, including the teachers who are going
Speaker 3: to grade you, that they're wrong, completely wrong, is not
Speaker 3: always your best move, right. Oh yeah, Well that's why
Speaker 3: eighty percent of the kids submitted work that they didn't believe,
Speaker 3: because they had to get some to get their grades
Speaker 3: and move on in life. Nearly four out of five.
Speaker 3: I don't believe this, but I'm gonna pretend I do
Speaker 3: to get along. That's amazing. Yeah, yeah, but that's you know,
Speaker 3: that's indoctrination, especially of youth, is all about fighting unfairly
Speaker 3: and bullying and convincing kids that everybody believes it, and
Speaker 3: anybody who dissentses ab person. So yeah, I don't blame
Speaker 3: the kids at all. No, I want to fight against
Speaker 3: the evildoers or bullying them anyway. Morgad News and if
Speaker 3: San Francisco's doing it, it's gonna spread. San Francisco has
Speaker 3: embraced a new tool to clear homeless camps. I've noticed
Speaker 3: city officials pointing to cleaner streets is evidence that more
Speaker 3: active approach is working. I feel like my reporters say
Speaker 3: it's cruel and nasty. I feel like my reporting, with
Speaker 3: my own circumstances was leading the way long before the
Speaker 3: Wall Street Journal or others picked up on this. On
Speaker 3: the East coast, San Francisco's a complete if you haven't
Speaker 3: been in a long time, it's a completely different looking
Speaker 3: city than it was a year ago. It's amazing.
Speaker 4: Indeed, between July of last year and July of this year,
Speaker 4: the city arrested or cited more than one thousand and
Speaker 4: eighty people on illegal lodging charges. That's over ten times
Speaker 4: the number of arrests during the same period a year
Speaker 4: earlier under the progressive former administration. Last time I was
Speaker 4: in downtown San Francisco, I a homeless person one and
Speaker 4: that person was being talked to by somebody from the
Speaker 4: city about how you got to get out of here.
Speaker 4: So the residents and business owners complaining about safety as
Speaker 4: encampments grew have finally been heard.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: Of course, the activists say, you're merely shifting the homeless
Speaker 4: population around the city and putting homeless people a greater risk.
Speaker 3: Shut up.
Speaker 4: Most of them need to shdrug addicts. Yeah, yeah, shut up.
Speaker 4: So San Francisco is doing a good job. It is possible,
Speaker 4: even under some of the bizarre court rulings recently. And
Speaker 4: also and this is out of San Francisco as well.
Speaker 4: Once seen as a model of progressive drug policy, San
Speaker 4: Francisco stands now as a morbid example of how harm
Speaker 4: reduction has gone astray. This is one of the shibboleths,
Speaker 4: one of the gods of the left is that you've
Speaker 4: got to help junkies do drugs safely and comfortably. Look,
Speaker 4: I get the clean needles thing, I get the impulse there.
Speaker 3: What's the theory on that, though, how's that supposed to
Speaker 3: end that people will on their own decide, you know what,
Speaker 3: I don't want to live in my own filth on
Speaker 3: the street at some point, yes, okay, yes, exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 4: In fact, this gal, who's the executive director of the
Speaker 4: National Harm Reduction Coalition, called the shift in San Francisco
Speaker 4: away from the harm reduction quote moronic and antithetical to
Speaker 4: what we know works. But the problem in San Francisco
Speaker 4: and other progressive cities is that harm reduction has become
Speaker 4: completely divorced from recovery. What began as a campaign to
Speaker 4: keep people alive long enough to recover from addiction has
Speaker 4: devolved into a philosophy that no longer considers recovery as
Speaker 4: necessary or even desirable. The question of whether or not
Speaker 4: harm reduction is successful comes down to whether it's treated
Speaker 4: as a gateway to recovery or as an alternative to it.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 4: It has become an alternative to getting off of drugs.
Speaker 3: What percentage? So I'm I'm not a big financed by
Speaker 3: you the taxpayer. I'm not big on the UH on
Speaker 3: rehabs and that sort of stuff, because they are incredibly
Speaker 3: unsuccessful and nobody pays any attention to that. But of
Speaker 3: people that I mean, not just for regular people, of
Speaker 3: people that are so far down the whole drug road
Speaker 3: that you're sleeping on the street next to another drug addict.
Speaker 3: How many of those people ever clean up? I wonder
Speaker 3: half of one percent. I'll bet it's I'll bet it's very,
Speaker 3: very low.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm guessing you know, a pretty good chunk of
Speaker 4: them continue using into their forties fifties, and then they
Speaker 4: succumb to you know, the sort of thing middle aged
Speaker 4: addicts do. As you know, a coroner once said in
Speaker 4: response to the question who's your most common customer? Uh,
Speaker 4: they said male fifties alcoholic, and I'm sure drug addict. Now,
Speaker 4: because that was, gosh, fifteen years ago, I think they
Speaker 4: would probably say, yeah, middle aged drug addict or a
Speaker 4: young drug addict.
Speaker 3: Anyway, more good news, though. Don't want to get focused
Speaker 3: on the bad news. Want to get focused on the
Speaker 3: fact that.
Speaker 4: A lot of the insane policies of the left are
Speaker 4: being abandoned, even in places like San Francisco. Different topic,
Speaker 4: but kind of the same area. Boston Children's Hospital, the
Speaker 4: Harvard Medical Research and Training hospital that specializes in children's care,
Speaker 4: had previously insisted that they do not perform genital surgeries
Speaker 4: as part of gender affirming care on patients under the
Speaker 4: age of eighteen, but a journal of Clinical Medicine Studies
Speaker 4: published a couple of years ago that was improved. Blah
Speaker 4: blah blah describes chess surgeries for those who are fifteen
Speaker 4: as well as genital surgeries for those over seventeen. And
Speaker 4: the Trump administration has subpoenaed all sorts of information from them.
Speaker 4: And because of that, at least partly, and this is
Speaker 4: from the New York Times reload plays, there is hospitals
Speaker 4: are limiting gender treatment for transminers. Both of those phrases
Speaker 4: ought to be in quotes because they're made up.
Speaker 3: Even in blue states.
Speaker 4: Three prominent medical centers in California recently announced they would
Speaker 4: stop the treatments, citing pressure from the Trump administration and
Speaker 4: from sanity.
Speaker 3: So that's good. There's a lot of real madness being
Speaker 3: rolled back. Good progress domestically. Love it. Let's not focus
Speaker 3: on the grim stuff.
Speaker 1: The Armstrong and Getty Show, Yeah, your show, podcasts and
Speaker 1: our hot links Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, The Armstrong
Speaker 1: and Getty Show.
Speaker 4: So my Sweetheart, Judy and I spent eight days in
Speaker 4: London and had an absolutely wonderful time. I loved England
Speaker 4: as I suspected I would. It's a very interesting place.
Speaker 4: I've become a fan of day drinking, and not in
Speaker 4: that like vacation drinking all day long way, but in
Speaker 4: the like you have a pint at lunch at a
Speaker 4: pub and then you go do what you're going to do.
Speaker 4: You're not quote unquote drinking. You just have a beer
Speaker 4: because it's nice and it makes you feel slightly more cheerful.
Speaker 3: Why did we eat? How did we develop our attitude
Speaker 3: we have in the United States over the years, because
Speaker 3: I remember when I was in Italy thinking the same thing.
Speaker 3: Everybody would come in the restaurants, like people who are
Speaker 3: working their jobs. They'd have a glass of wine, eat
Speaker 3: their food and then go back to work. And that
Speaker 3: is seen in the United States. It's just insane, just
Speaker 3: absolutely crazy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the Europeans have what I would call a very
Speaker 4: European look or view of drinking that I found refreshed.
Speaker 4: Speaking of pubs. So we rented a flat in Mayfair
Speaker 4: if you know where that is, doesn't matter. New Bond Street,
Speaker 4: lots of like crazy high end shopping, mostly populated by
Speaker 4: Kuwaiti oil money. Oh wow, by the bye, guys walking
Speaker 4: up the street with four chicks and the beekeeper out
Speaker 4: really going into perfume stores and spending just one godly
Speaker 4: amounts of oil money a lot real.
Speaker 3: That's not an exaggeration. You saw a guy walking up
Speaker 3: the street with four women in the beekeeper out in
Speaker 3: eight days many times? Yes, wow, I mean one to
Speaker 3: six women in the beekeeper wow. Yeah. Anyway, they are
Speaker 3: basically sex slaves or cleaning your house slaves or whatever,
Speaker 3: and everybody just tolerates that with no rights.
Speaker 4: That's correct, yes, And Brits are not super duper happy
Speaker 4: about the completely wildly unfettered immigration from Muslim lands over
Speaker 4: the last twenty years.
Speaker 3: More on that another time.
Speaker 4: But anyway, but out our windows onto the street, there
Speaker 4: was a little like I just had half a block
Speaker 4: long street and there was a pub on each side
Speaker 4: of it. At the other end it was one hundred
Speaker 4: yards from us maybe as we looked out the window,
Speaker 4: and it was so cool every day and more and
Speaker 4: more as the week went on. At four thirty or so,
Speaker 4: certainly by five o'clock there would be so many people
Speaker 4: standing in and outside the pub having a pint with
Speaker 4: their coworkers and friends and a laugh and a conversation
Speaker 4: before they went home for the day.
Speaker 3: Sounds like a recipe for sexual harassment. Oh my god.
Speaker 3: And it wasn't. They were drinking.
Speaker 4: No, they were talking with people because they worked with people,
Speaker 4: and they met their buddies, and they talked about the
Speaker 4: football match, which is soccer, and it just it was
Speaker 4: so nice.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Anyway, yeah, and I thought, wow, I could get used
Speaker 3: to this in a hurry. Although the pub thing, we
Speaker 3: went to this one historic pub. We met our next
Speaker 3: door neighbors from home. Weirdly enough, they were over there
Speaker 3: at the same time, decided to get together. We go
Speaker 3: to this pub, hundreds of years old, pub, drenched in history, legendary,
Speaker 3: the Prince something or lord what's its there, I don't
Speaker 3: even remember the name, but it was very atmospheric. But anyway,
Speaker 3: so we're sitting there having dinner and or we're having
Speaker 3: you know, a couple of pines, and we decide it's
Speaker 3: time to eat, and we order like four small plates
Speaker 3: off the menu, and the waitress come back and says,
Speaker 3: I'm so sorry, we're actually out of the calamari and
Speaker 3: the pucker fish or whatever the hell it was, and
Speaker 3: also the beef Wellington, and we're like, oh okay, it's
Speaker 3: like six o'clock at night, all right, all right, all right,
Speaker 3: we'll order those other things. Then she comes back in
Speaker 3: like two of those three are out. So should she
Speaker 3: ever get around to admitting we're not actually a restaurant.
Speaker 3: We don't have any food at all. We just have
Speaker 3: a menu. We just hope we're working out the wind.
Speaker 3: Most people start drinking, they forget if they're hungry. So
Speaker 3: at one point I said, it would save time if
Speaker 3: you just told me what you do have, but we
Speaker 3: end up with this mess of food. Did you say
Speaker 3: that I shouldn't have? But I didn't know. And finally
Speaker 3: so at the end of the evening and it was lovely,
Speaker 3: she comes and says, can you tell me what you
Speaker 3: actually ordered?
Speaker 1: And got?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: Boys? And I'm like, wait a minute, that's your job.
Speaker 3: We're some pot No, no, no, you tell us. And
Speaker 3: it was just part of it is Tipping is not
Speaker 3: really a thing there. Now they've got a service charge
Speaker 3: that's like five, six, maybe ten percent, but you feel
Speaker 3: it because they're not earning it. They're like, look, I'm
Speaker 3: getting my six percent. Oh okay, No, matter what gotcha?
Speaker 3: So if you have to like order twenty four foods
Speaker 3: before I bring you three, just because we're playing this
Speaker 3: little game of we might have it, we might not,
Speaker 3: why don't you order find out so you know it's
Speaker 3: it's pluses and minuses, because the whole tipping thing is
Speaker 3: it's stressful, especially if you don't know the local customs.
Speaker 3: But yeah, Michael, how was the food over there? Overall?
Speaker 3: In England? Uh?
Speaker 4: Overall kind of good, not great, But once you realize
Speaker 4: how to order and what to order, it's it's better.
Speaker 4: But yeah, the Brits are not famous for food for
Speaker 4: for good reason. If you say, hey, what's a great
Speaker 4: meal around here, people will send you to an Italian
Speaker 4: restaurant or an Indian restaurant for a good reason. But
Speaker 4: the other thing about workers that I found interesting. We
Speaker 4: had a tour guide at the British Museum who was
Speaker 4: just terrific. He was a professor of history.
Speaker 3: And he said, yeah, that exhibit is shut down because
Speaker 3: there's just no employees. There's no one to work. I said, what,
Speaker 3: that's odd? He said, oh, yeah, since COVID, everybody stays home,
Speaker 3: they live with their parents. They're collecting government checks, you
Speaker 3: can't get people to work.
Speaker 4: Wow, And I thought that was so interesting and exactly
Speaker 4: what you hear from so many employers in the States.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we had that conversation with my family in the
Speaker 3: Midwest of the United States. I don't go to other
Speaker 3: countries and give them my money. I stay in the
Speaker 3: United States and for you. But we had the same
Speaker 3: conversation on how number of restaurants, including the one we
Speaker 3: were at, was really they they weren't seating all the seats,
Speaker 3: not because they were crowded, but because they didn't have
Speaker 3: enough help. How is that still a thing? Yeah, I know,
Speaker 3: it's amazing and universally universal apparently.
Speaker 2: Armstrong and show.
Speaker 3: The president decides to do something with an executive order
Speaker 3: or whatever often that they promised on the campaign trail,
Speaker 3: their voters get all excited, Yay, they did it day
Speaker 3: one like they promised, And then then I get an
Speaker 3: alert on my phone. Some judge somewhere I've never heard
Speaker 3: of it said no, you can't do that. And then
Speaker 3: it stops, and everybody's like groans, like, oh, they can
Speaker 3: do that, and it keeps happening over and over again,
Speaker 3: and do we want that system to continue that way?
Speaker 3: Or not as part of what the Supreme Court was
Speaker 3: arguing about yesterday. And as one of the justices said,
Speaker 3: there are six hundred some federal judges and while I
Speaker 3: do not question their motives, sometimes they are wrong. So
Speaker 3: do we want them to be able to hold up
Speaker 3: the whole country?
Speaker 4: Let us discuss the very interesting and multifaceted oral arguments
Speaker 4: yesterday before the Supreme Court with Tim Sandefer, vice president
Speaker 4: for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, among other auspicious titles,
Speaker 4: author of eight books, include most recently Freedom's Fories, How
Speaker 4: Isabel Patterson, Rosewilder and ein Rand Found Liberty and Age
Speaker 4: of Darkness.
Speaker 3: I've recommended it many times. It's terrific. Tim. How are you, sir?
Speaker 2: Just great?
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 3: Guys published poet, got to throw that in there. True, Yes,
Speaker 3: a polymath as they say.
Speaker 4: Anyway, Tim, So, ostensibly everyone's talking about that we're going
Speaker 4: to discuss birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 4: and that did come up. But would you agree that
Speaker 4: the more significant discussion was about nationwide injunctions by individual
Speaker 4: federal judges?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 5: That was the focus of the argument, and it was
Speaker 5: a very interesting argument, but I don't think that it's
Speaker 5: a hard question. I think the answer is obviously nationwide
Speaker 5: injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the ordinary way of doing
Speaker 5: business in the courts, and people who complain about them
Speaker 5: either don't understand the system or are trying to get
Speaker 5: away with something illegal.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I don't always like that it happened, but I
Speaker 3: can't see what the alternative would be. Somebody pointed out,
Speaker 3: so you're gonna let I guess it was you that
Speaker 3: pointed it out yesterday in Twitter. The idea that so
Speaker 3: every time a president does something, it's got to work
Speaker 3: its way all the way through the courts up to
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court, and then a decision by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: Before the Supreme Court might say sometimes nine nothing, you
Speaker 3: can't do that.
Speaker 5: Oh and during that whole period of time, the government
Speaker 5: is still doing the illegal thing.
Speaker 3: Right right?
Speaker 4: Wow, So clearly it's two to one for a judicial
Speaker 4: takeover of the government. But I will stand up for liberty. Uh,
Speaker 4: Is there no middle ground? Has got to be three
Speaker 4: judge panel and not a single Yahoo in a rural Tennessee.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think I think having a single unit ya
Speaker 5: who in rural Tennessee is perfectly fine, because that's what
Speaker 5: the appellate process is. Sort of, that's why you appeal cases.
Speaker 5: And by the way, that's why you should avoid appointing
Speaker 5: yahoos to the federal bench. Might mention that too. The argument,
Speaker 5: the argument against nation right injunctions always seems to boil
Speaker 5: down to, well, this is a democracy in the major
Speaker 5: I already should always get what it wants. And the
Speaker 5: answer to that is no. What happened to all of
Speaker 5: my friends who used to say, this is a republic,
Speaker 5: not a democracy. The whole point of our system is
Speaker 5: that the majority has to act lawfully, and if it
Speaker 5: acts unlawfully, I can go in front of a judge
Speaker 5: and get that give an order from that judge prohibiting
Speaker 5: the government from violating my rights. And the idea that
Speaker 5: we should do this piece meal, that only a judge
Speaker 5: down here, that his order only applies there. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 5: government can do illegal things to everybody else in the
Speaker 5: country until the case reaches the US Supreme Court makes
Speaker 5: no sense at all.
Speaker 3: The underlying theme here being, folks, that what we really
Speaker 3: need to fear is the power of the government in
Speaker 3: this country. That's kind of the idea of forming it.
Speaker 4: So there's no question that these nationwide injunctions were relatively
Speaker 4: or practically completely unknown for one hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 4: Then there are a handful of them, and the number
Speaker 4: of them is now skyrots every day.
Speaker 3: It seems like on my phone, I see a judge
Speaker 3: jumped in somewhere.
Speaker 5: Actually, right, I actually don't think that that's true. I
Speaker 5: think that what happened was we just started calling them
Speaker 5: by a different name. You know, there were an injunction
Speaker 5: injunctions against unconstitutional government actions since before there was a constitution.
Speaker 5: One of the points that was brought up during the
Speaker 5: arguments was that British judges used to do this before
Speaker 5: the American Revolution, and that was considered perfectly legitimate. It's
Speaker 5: just that nowadays we call the nation right injunctions, or
Speaker 5: we have some judges who write sloppily and don't explain
Speaker 5: what they're actually saying or something. And okay, that's a problem,
Speaker 5: I suppose. But the idea that you should limit the
Speaker 5: injunction power of federal courts is what that is is
Speaker 5: that's open door to the majority violating individual rights on
Speaker 5: a scale that I mean, they already do it, but
Speaker 5: you can imagine what it would be if we took
Speaker 5: away one of the most important protections for individual rights
Speaker 5: in this country, which is getting an injunction from our
Speaker 5: federal court to protect their freedom. And that's insane.
Speaker 3: So I didn't want to get to this part too
Speaker 3: fast because you're a lawyer, and this part can't be
Speaker 3: fixed with the law. It seems to me that we've
Speaker 3: got a cultural problem in that presidents are way more
Speaker 3: likely than they used to be to want to challenge
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court, either to like legitimately they don't think
Speaker 3: the law is correct, or they don't care if they're wrong.
Speaker 3: They just want to get the political credit for trying.
Speaker 3: And perhaps I don't know this, but it seems like
Speaker 3: a likely response. The six hundred some federal judges out there.
Speaker 3: There's a lot more of them who are willing to
Speaker 3: let their politics get ahead of their judge reasoning and
Speaker 3: jump in and stop somebody they hate.
Speaker 5: Yes, you're absolutely right about that, and especially the thing
Speaker 5: about the President and Congress being willing to do things
Speaker 5: that they know are unconstitutional because they know that the
Speaker 5: judges are going to strike it down and they can
Speaker 5: blame the judges and say, oh, those evil activist judges,
Speaker 5: or they can get away with their unconstitutional things. So
Speaker 5: it's win when if you want to do something unconstitutional.
Speaker 5: And honestly, every president's done this to some degree. Obviously
Speaker 5: Franklin Roosevelt did this a lot. But the one that
Speaker 5: I always six in my memory is George W. Bush
Speaker 5: when he signed the McCain fine Gold campaign finance law
Speaker 5: and said when he signed it that he thought it
Speaker 5: was unconstitutional but that he would leave it to the
Speaker 5: courts to deal with. Well, I'm sorry, but if you're
Speaker 5: the president, you take an oath to support and defend
Speaker 5: the constitution of the United States. And if you ignore
Speaker 5: that oath and sign something that you know is unconstitutional
Speaker 5: just because you think the courts will clean up your
Speaker 5: mess for you, I think that's disgraceful.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, a lot of the pieces I've read that have
Speaker 3: been following the growth of this use that as kind
Speaker 3: of like the patient zero, because he said it out loud,
Speaker 3: and then other presidents thought, hey, I can do that,
Speaker 3: I just won't say it out loud, and Obama did it,
Speaker 3: and Biden did it, and Trump did it in whichever order,
Speaker 3: and then Trump again and and it So how do
Speaker 3: we fix this.
Speaker 5: Well, there's a long answer and the short answer. The
Speaker 5: short answer is elect good presidents. The long answer is
Speaker 5: that we have to restore respect for the Constitution in
Speaker 5: this country. I think it's the long term damage that's
Speaker 5: been done to Americans understanding and appreciation of the Constitution
Speaker 5: is horrifying. We have prominent law professors. There was a
Speaker 5: law professor at at Georgetown Law School a few years
Speaker 5: ago published an article in the Washington Post saying the
Speaker 5: Constitution is obsolete. I don't respect it at all. Well,
Speaker 5: you're a teacher of constitutional law for crying out loud.
Speaker 5: And if we don't respect the Constitution, we don't love it.
Speaker 5: It cannot protect us. The Constitution is just a promise,
Speaker 5: and if we don't honor that promise, then it's not
Speaker 5: worth the paper it's written on.
Speaker 4: We should have written law specifically putting him in jail.
Speaker 4: In my opinion, Tim Sandefer is online from the Goldwater Institute.
Speaker 4: A little constitutional humor for exactly design.
Speaker 3: For punish one man.
Speaker 4: That's a good idea, so you know, blah blah blah,
Speaker 4: disclaimer about it's difficult to read the tea leaves of
Speaker 4: the oral arguments, blah, blah blah. Did it strike you
Speaker 4: that the justices, the sane ones that we like, we're
Speaker 4: leaning in any particular direction as to the nationwide injunctions judges, etc.
Speaker 3: That we've been discussing.
Speaker 5: Some of the judges have made clear for a long
Speaker 5: time that they're against these what they call nationwide injunctions.
Speaker 5: Justice Thomas in particular. Some of the others are a
Speaker 5: little harder to read. Justice Barrett for example, and Justice Roberts,
Speaker 5: who have become really the swing judges on this issue.
Speaker 2: I thought the.
Speaker 5: Most interesting judge if you want to if anybody wants
Speaker 5: to go and listen to the argument online, I thought
Speaker 5: Justice Jackson was the one who is the most interesting.
Speaker 5: She clearly understands how this area of the law works,
Speaker 5: and she rightly says there's no there there that nationwide
Speaker 5: injunctions are perfectly legitimate. They always have been and there's
Speaker 5: no problem. So she'd be the one that I find
Speaker 5: most interesting. But how to predict I think you're going
Speaker 5: to get. I think Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett are
Speaker 5: going to side with the liberals and say we don't
Speaker 5: have a problem per se with nationwide injunctions. But maybe
Speaker 5: some of them aren't very good, but as a as
Speaker 5: a blanket matter, they're okay. And then they're going to
Speaker 5: want to hear the underlying case about birthright citizenship, which
Speaker 5: obviously is a huge deal.
Speaker 2: To me.
Speaker 4: Is it even worth getting into what happened on that
Speaker 4: topic yesterday or do you.
Speaker 5: Think it's Well, they really just talked about whether or
Speaker 5: not they have a legitimate case in the first place,
Speaker 5: and they haven't really briefed it or argued it yet.
Speaker 5: But that's important because in order to get an injunction,
Speaker 5: you kind of have to first show that you have
Speaker 5: even an arguable point to make, and that was what
Speaker 5: they were arguing about. And I will say, I know
Speaker 5: this is talk radio, and we're all supposed to think
Speaker 5: that we clearly have the right answer and everything. I
Speaker 5: think the birthright citizenship question is a very hard question.
Speaker 5: I don't think it's an easy question on either side.
Speaker 3: Let's talk about that when we come back from the
Speaker 3: break hear. I want to hear the arguments on both
Speaker 3: sides of that. That's interesting And clearly you've probably seen
Speaker 3: the breakdown on who speaks the most words the chicks
Speaker 3: talk too much? Is that given?
Speaker 5: Well, Jessin sodomoy are does love cutting off lawyers and
Speaker 5: not letting them answer her question?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the chicks talk too much. I think that's been nice.
Speaker 3: And the new gal talks more than anybody. That shouldn't
Speaker 3: happen in any organization.
Speaker 6: Jack Armstrong and Joe The Armstrong and Getty Show. Jack
Speaker 6: Armstrong and Joe Getty The Armstrong and Getty Shows.
Speaker 4: Discussing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday with
Speaker 4: Tim Sanderfur, vice president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute.
Speaker 4: It was advertised as a birthright citizenship hearing it or discussion.
Speaker 4: It really was much more a discussion of individual federal
Speaker 4: judges and nationwide injunctions and that sort of thing. But
Speaker 4: to the question of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tim, you said
Speaker 4: before the break that it's not an easy call. I'm
Speaker 4: glad to hear you agree. I've thought the same thing.
Speaker 4: What should we know about the fourteenth Amendment even come
Speaker 4: to a semi intelligent opinion on this?
Speaker 5: Well, the first sentence of the fourteenth Amendment says, all
Speaker 5: persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject
Speaker 5: to the jurisdiction thereof, are US citizens. And all of
Speaker 5: this case. All of these arguments turn on that phrase
Speaker 5: subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that phrase mean.
Speaker 5: It's really tough because the word jurisdiction is one of
Speaker 5: those words that can mean all sorts of different things.
Speaker 5: It basically means power, but there's all sorts of different
Speaker 5: kinds of power, and so that's what the argument turns on.
Speaker 5: Some people think that it means you have to follow
Speaker 5: the law. If you're born here and you have to
Speaker 5: follow the law, then you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
Speaker 5: and then that means you're a citizen. But that doesn't
Speaker 5: really make a lot of sense because even foreign tourists
Speaker 5: who come here for a vacation have to follow the law.
Speaker 5: I mean, they have to stop at the red lights
Speaker 5: and they can't steal things, So that can't be what
Speaker 5: that means, right. Instead, the other side argues, jurisdiction thereof
Speaker 5: means some kind of loyalty or allegiance, that there's citizenship
Speaker 5: jurisdiction as opposed to follow the law jurisdiction, and that difference.
Speaker 5: You can see that difference for example, in this if
Speaker 5: you're a foreign spy, now you sneak into the country
Speaker 5: and you spy for some foreign country and you get
Speaker 5: it arrested, you can be prosecuted for espionage, but you
Speaker 5: cannot be prosecuted for treason. Why because you're not a
Speaker 5: US citizen and you don't owe loyalty to the US,
Speaker 5: so you cannot commit treason against the US. And so
Speaker 5: there's two different kinds of jurisdiction, is the argument. And
Speaker 5: so those who are against birthright citizenships say, subject to
Speaker 5: the jurisdiction thereof means that your parents owed loyalty to
Speaker 5: the United States as opposed to some foreign country, and
Speaker 5: that would mean that illegal aliens, if they have a
Speaker 5: child here, that child is not a citizen in the
Speaker 5: United States. Now, that's also there's a problem with that.
Speaker 5: There's a couple problems that. One of the problems with
Speaker 5: that argument is that nobody has ever said that that's
Speaker 5: what it means. In the one hundred and fifty years
Speaker 5: since this has been in the Constitution, everybody has active
Speaker 5: like if you're born here, you're a citizen all of
Speaker 5: that time. And so suddenly discovering that we're at it
Speaker 5: turns out that we've been misreading the Constitution for one
Speaker 5: hundred and fifty years would be a huge, enormously radical
Speaker 5: transformation and how our system works. That would cause tremendous
Speaker 5: disruption nationwide, and that would be a real problem. But
Speaker 5: all of this, the real problem here in answering this
Speaker 5: question is that when the Amendment was adopted, there were
Speaker 5: no such things as illegal aliens because there were no
Speaker 5: laws against immigration. And that means if you're an originalist
Speaker 5: and you think the competition should be understood the way
Speaker 5: it was originally intended, the framers didn't ever think about
Speaker 5: this because it wasn't against the law back then. So
Speaker 5: we don't know what they would have thought about this
Speaker 5: question right.
Speaker 4: Right Well, at the point that this enormously radical, disruptive
Speaker 4: president is overturned, that's when you tag me and Tim
Speaker 4: and I come in and explain to the good folks
Speaker 4: that look, the nature of global transportation, the movement of
Speaker 4: people or peoples from one place to another has changed
Speaker 4: so vastly.
Speaker 3: God, Joe's a living constitution guy. You can hear it coming.
Speaker 4: Out of what No, don't you dare know that the
Speaker 4: very nature of cummings and goings from countries has been
Speaker 4: so radically transformed. A Chinese national with not the slightest
Speaker 4: notion of making life in the United States. Can can
Speaker 4: depart China, arrive here, give birth, go back to China,
Speaker 4: all in the span of seventy two hours. I'm inducing
Speaker 4: labor in this case, or getting very lucky, and that
Speaker 4: child had citizenship. That's an eventuality unimaginable back in the day.
Speaker 3: Is the kids?
Speaker 5: I think so? And that's sort of true. But on
Speaker 5: the other hand, the Chinese question came up back then
Speaker 5: because there were so many Chinese in California in the
Speaker 5: eighteen sixties. And Senator's rast, well, isn't this going to
Speaker 5: make the children of the Chinese immigrants who back then
Speaker 5: did not intend to scy in the United States. They
Speaker 5: intended to go back to China. The senator's rest, does
Speaker 5: this make their kids us? Senator US citizens? And the
Speaker 5: Senator from California said yes, and then he was immediately
Speaker 5: thrown out of office. So what does that mean?
Speaker 4: Nobody knows what that means a single case from eighteen
Speaker 4: ninety eight, or is there more precedent?
Speaker 5: Really there really isn't. There's really just a handful of
Speaker 5: presidents and no Supreme Court case has ever said that
Speaker 5: birthright citizenship is the is in the Constitution. There have
Speaker 5: been some that have kind of mentioned it or kind
Speaker 5: of assumed it, but none has said so outright.
Speaker 3: I am surprised. The polling shows that only about a
Speaker 3: third of Americans want to do away with the way
Speaker 3: we do it now. I'm surprised by that. I do
Speaker 3: want to get to this. This is a journalistic question,
Speaker 3: but I think it has an effect on people's respect
Speaker 3: for the law. It has come up recently. It has
Speaker 3: become a pattern that anytime the media mentions a judge,
Speaker 3: they mentioned what president appointed them. Do you think that's
Speaker 3: a good idea or not? They didn't just barely got
Speaker 3: a minute.
Speaker 5: I think it's fine. I think people should know where
Speaker 5: these For instance, I think it would help a lot
Speaker 5: of judges. You know, a lot of Republican appointed judges
Speaker 5: have been ruling against the Trump administration, and I think
Speaker 5: it would be helpful for people to know that these
Speaker 5: questions are not things where it's all partisan. The law
Speaker 5: is not just partisan politics. It's something much more profound
Speaker 5: and much more important.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I agree, but it implies that judge I
Speaker 3: don't know.
Speaker 2: True.
Speaker 3: I used to think I didn't used to think about
Speaker 3: it ever. If a judge ruled. I just thought, well,
Speaker 3: that's interesting. Now it's all who appointed him. Oh, of
Speaker 3: course he said.
Speaker 5: That that is true. That is a risk. But I
Speaker 5: think we should air on the side of informing people
Speaker 5: as opposed to keeping people in the dark.
Speaker 3: So that's that's true.
Speaker 4: Tim Stander for the Goldwater Institute on the line, Tim,
Speaker 4: final question, I've called for a monarchy.
Speaker 3: You in favor of it? Yes or no?
Speaker 5: No, I'm against him monarchy. I'm for the constitution.
Speaker 3: Joe. One more question. As a published poet, I was
Speaker 3: thinking about this yesterday he won the Nobel Prize. Bob
Speaker 3: Dylan good poet or not lousy poet?
Speaker 5: Now read Robert Hayden or Richard Wilbur instead.
Speaker 3: How about Ringo Star Octopus's Garden, Tam. It's always great
Speaker 3: and enlightening. Thanks Millian for the time. Let's talk again soon.
Speaker 2: Thanks guys.
Speaker 3: All right, I was actually thinking about this listening to
Speaker 3: Dylan lyrics. Why do they stick in everybody's head so much?
Speaker 3: Why do people keep going back to them? If it's
Speaker 3: just gobbledegook, like a lot of real poets claim, it
Speaker 3: can't be. It wouldn't lodge, it wouldn't it wouldn't make
Speaker 3: the market made, would it all right?
Speaker 4: He was famously moody about his career and his music
Speaker 4: in his Life's Philosophy. I think some of his stuff
Speaker 4: is absolutely brilliant, and I think some of it's gobbledegook humhm.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe more on that another day, or maybe not.
Speaker 3: We got plenty of stuff to tell you. I hope
Speaker 3: you can stick around if you missus. Sigmund I thought
Speaker 3: that tim thing was really really good and you want
Speaker 3: to listen to it again and get the podcast Armstrong
Speaker 3: and Getty on demand. Armstrong, arms Strong and Geeddy on demand.
Speaker 3: We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and
Speaker 3: tedious and depressing. It makes you angry. You don't want
Speaker 3: to live your life like that. Hey, I'm Jack Armstrong,
Speaker 3: He's Joe Getty. We're Armstrong in Getty. We try to
Speaker 3: bring you the truth and help you figure out this
Speaker 3: crazy modern world. About something about a comedic tone. We
Speaker 3: have a one ore. Yes, listen to Armstrong. You get
Speaker 3: it on demand on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast