Speaker 1: From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington
Speaker 1: Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Show Getty Armstrong and Jetty
Speaker 1: Show glut Man, it's one of the sins. You realize,
Speaker 1: it's sin, gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins. Right,
Speaker 1: it's not just a sin, not a heir. I wish
Speaker 1: you wouldn't do that. It's to death. So it's not
Speaker 1: only just bad for you, it's a sin. God does
Speaker 1: not like God. Glutten me was displeased with me? Yeah,
Speaker 1: me too. I'm speaking to myself. Let's let's just tone
Speaker 1: down the gluttony. I ate the last big plateful of
Speaker 1: mashed potatoes, gravy, turkey and stuffing last night, and let's
Speaker 1: just tone her down a little bit. Maybe something a
Speaker 1: little light tonight. Yeah, let's let's walk away from the
Speaker 1: Let's walk away from the table and not wabble away
Speaker 1: from the table for the first time in four days.
Speaker 1: How much apple Chris is enough? I'm asking myself, not you.
Speaker 1: Oh it's so good though, warmed up a little ice cream. Oh,
Speaker 1: there were references to how my gallbladder gave up on
Speaker 1: me last year, and I'm running out of organs. It
Speaker 1: quit and walked out the Great Resigning or whatever they
Speaker 1: call that. Uh. So, here's here's a young man who's
Speaker 1: slim and find a physical condition not to mention a
Speaker 1: sharp mind. And that's Tim Sandford, Tim the lawyer. Tim
Speaker 1: Sandford is the vice president for Litigation for the Goldwater Institute,
Speaker 1: author of many fine tomes, including some of my favorites,
Speaker 1: The Right to Earn a Living and the Permission Society.
Speaker 1: Uh and and also a brand new book, which we'll
Speaker 1: talk to him about in a couple of minutes. But Tim,
Speaker 1: how are you welcome? I don't know, man, I think
Speaker 1: I may have indulged in a little of that gluttony
Speaker 1: myself over Thanksgiving. Yes, I know you're not frightened by
Speaker 1: your maker, but it's not always the best health for
Speaker 1: all we went to. We we spent Thanksgiving in Hawaii.
Speaker 1: So I am I am now officially with the Hawaiian's
Speaker 1: called a pa or pig gorged myself at the lou House.
Speaker 1: So hey, by the way, I saw that post on
Speaker 1: your Twitter, and you and your and that your wedding
Speaker 1: anniversary and the picture of you and Christine on the
Speaker 1: couch is a Simpsons drawing where'd you come up with that?
Speaker 1: That was awesome? I don't know. My wife contacted the
Speaker 1: artist and got that done Simpson's style portrait of our
Speaker 1: family sitting on the Simpsons couch. It's absolutely perfect. Well
Speaker 1: on my law. That is so cool. Wow, that is
Speaker 1: a cool gift. Yeah. Indeed, so, Tim, we have a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff to talk to you about. A couple
Speaker 1: of big cases, one that you've been working on personally,
Speaker 1: and then your new book is out and we want
Speaker 1: to talk to you about that. But let's let's first
Speaker 1: bring the gabble down and talk about the cases. Now.
Speaker 1: For instance, you're working on an Indian Child Welfare Act case.
Speaker 1: We've talked to you about it, but for folks not
Speaker 1: familiar with it, give them the thumbnail sketch if you would.
Speaker 1: That's a federal that that that law is a federal
Speaker 1: law that says how states have to treat child welfare
Speaker 1: cases like abuse and neglect and adoption and foster care
Speaker 1: if a child is biologically eligible for membership in an
Speaker 1: Indian tribe. So it draws this biological distinction between kids
Speaker 1: and says that states have to treat these Indian children differently.
Speaker 1: And what's amazing about it is. It says they have
Speaker 1: to treat these Indian children worse because this law actually
Speaker 1: overrides the best interest of the child rule, which is
Speaker 1: the rule that governs how these kinds of cases are
Speaker 1: dealt with, and it forces state officials to send Indian
Speaker 1: children back to abused homes in situations that would not
Speaker 1: happen if the kids were white or Black, or Asian
Speaker 1: or Hispanic or whatever. And as a result, this law
Speaker 1: has led to the preventable murder of Indian children across
Speaker 1: the country in case after case after case. So we've
Speaker 1: been challenging the constitutionality of this law, and that case
Speaker 1: went to the U. S. Supreme Court and was argued
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago. I went out to d
Speaker 1: C to to attend these oral arguments. The very exciting
Speaker 1: thing to witness, well, it was what's the argument for
Speaker 1: the status quo? Because it sounds horrifically racist, it really is.
Speaker 1: But the reasoning behind it at the time was actually
Speaker 1: they thought they were doing a good thing because in
Speaker 1: the decades that preceded its passage, which was the states
Speaker 1: and federal officials, they had been engaged in this pro
Speaker 1: program of purposely taking Indian children away from their families
Speaker 1: in order to forcibly assimilate them with white society. And
Speaker 1: so that that was like that, you know, taking kids
Speaker 1: away from their families for no good reason. And so
Speaker 1: they said, well, how can we stop this from happening?
Speaker 1: So they passed as law intending to put an into that,
Speaker 1: but as almost seems to almost always happen, the government
Speaker 1: went too far the other direction and ended up passing
Speaker 1: a law that actually prohibits states from protecting these children nowadays.
Speaker 1: In many cases, Wow, that's just the results are unthinkable,
Speaker 1: and just the logic strikes or the lack of logic
Speaker 1: is so troubling. Um. But so that it's in argued,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's difficult to say how it went.
Speaker 1: But how did it go? Oh, it went pretty well,
Speaker 1: it was. It was four hours of oral argument, which
Speaker 1: is incredibly low. I mean, that's like nineteenth century style,
Speaker 1: back when they used to take all day, and the
Speaker 1: justices were all very attentive to the very complicated constitutional
Speaker 1: questions here, because it's not just that it's race based,
Speaker 1: it's also what are the limits between federal and state authority?
Speaker 1: And what are the what do the regulations say there's
Speaker 1: a lot of parts of the law that actually aren't defined,
Speaker 1: so nobody really knows what some of these terms mean
Speaker 1: and things. So it went back and forth. There were
Speaker 1: some really good arguments on both sides. I'm optimistic. I
Speaker 1: think that the argument went pretty well for US. I'm
Speaker 1: predicting it will be a five four. I think it'll
Speaker 1: be close, but I think it. I'm optimistic that this
Speaker 1: case is going to to declare this law unconstitutional and
Speaker 1: forced Congress to say, look, with regard to children's race,
Speaker 1: we need to prioritize their best interests. You can't say,
Speaker 1: you know, like this law basically prohibits white adults from
Speaker 1: adopting Indian children. Children who are in need, don't They're
Speaker 1: not interested in color lines. They need protection and help.
Speaker 1: And this law is a law that says that even
Speaker 1: when there are adults willing to help children in need,
Speaker 1: they're not allowed to if they're the wrong race. And
Speaker 1: that's really outrageous. How much of the oral arguments was
Speaker 1: that new Chatty Supreme Court justice just talks too much? Yeah,
Speaker 1: there there was a little bit of that. It wasn't
Speaker 1: too much, but you know, after four hours, I think
Speaker 1: we were also exhausted that when actually it was funny
Speaker 1: that Chief Justice said, thank you, the case is submitted,
Speaker 1: which means everybody's done well. One of the lawyers had
Speaker 1: not had his chance to to finish up his argument,
Speaker 1: so he stood there with this funny look on the
Speaker 1: stays until the Chief Justice said, oh, I'm sorry, go ahead,
Speaker 1: and he went up to the podium and he said,
Speaker 1: I take the hint, your honor, and you could be yeah, wow, wow, Okay.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about another case that I was asking about
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago. Uh, that had to do with
Speaker 1: in forcing laws against public camping, blocking sidewalks, etcetera. In Phoenix.
Speaker 1: As you know, every need not be reset. But everybody
Speaker 1: in every blue city in the country and some of
Speaker 1: the Purple cities is dealing with this horrific influx of
Speaker 1: of junkie camps everywhere. What's that case about. Yeah, Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: Phoenix is now the location of one of the largest
Speaker 1: homeless encampments in the country, over a thousand people who
Speaker 1: are living in what we call the zone on several
Speaker 1: blocks of downtown Phoenix intens and on the streets because
Speaker 1: of a city policy to refuse to enforce laws against
Speaker 1: vagrancy and camping and pollution and these sorts of things,
Speaker 1: and as a result, it's destroying the businesses in the area.
Speaker 1: These people who are trying to run a business in
Speaker 1: these several blocks that are now being occupied by the
Speaker 1: homeless are they're they're finding that they can't have they
Speaker 1: can't hire people to work in these businesses, they can't
Speaker 1: protect the safety of their employees. They can't even protect
Speaker 1: their own businesses from from from arson. There these people
Speaker 1: of setting fires to stay warm now that it's getting colder.
Speaker 1: And one person testified at a recent hearing that he
Speaker 1: had to have all the wheel the windows in the
Speaker 1: building sealed because of all the urine soaking into the
Speaker 1: to the place where he works because of these homeless encampments.
Speaker 1: So several business owners have filed suit in the state
Speaker 1: courts here challenging that the city's maintenance of a public nuisance.
Speaker 1: A nuisance is, you know, when you use your property
Speaker 1: in a way that damages somebody else's property. And the
Speaker 1: government is not allowed to run a nuisance anymore than
Speaker 1: anybody else's. And by maintaining this homeless encampment now for
Speaker 1: for a couple of years now and and basically attracting
Speaker 1: this this element to the community to destroy people's property.
Speaker 1: The city is engaged in a nuisance. Now, unfortunately, we
Speaker 1: had a hearing several weeks ago and then the case
Speaker 1: got reassigned to a new judge. So now we have
Speaker 1: to have another hearing next week. Uh seeking a court
Speaker 1: order commanding the city to start enforcing its own laws. Well,
Speaker 1: obviously this could have far reaching consequences if it goes
Speaker 1: the correct way. To my mind, I don't know where
Speaker 1: you draw the line at nuisance, but maybe that would
Speaker 1: finally be the way you break up these camps. Right,
Speaker 1: that's that's right. And in fact, there is one precedent
Speaker 1: already in place. Remember when when uh, I think it
Speaker 1: was Portlands, they were operated what they called chairs or
Speaker 1: chop or whatever the the yeah, yeah, to set up
Speaker 1: this autonomous community zone in the middle of the city
Speaker 1: and refused to enforce the law there. As a result,
Speaker 1: a lot of people suffered their their property was being
Speaker 1: destroyed and taken away from so they sued the city
Speaker 1: and the federal court allowed that case to go forward,
Speaker 1: saying that that was a taking of their property without
Speaker 1: due process of law. So there is precedents on the
Speaker 1: book that says that when the government just completely washes
Speaker 1: its hands of its obligation to enforce the law and
Speaker 1: protect people's property rights, then it can be liable for
Speaker 1: depriving people of their constitutional rights. Yeah, that's interesting, cause
Speaker 1: I know I know business owners who feel like they
Speaker 1: can't They don't get near the as many customers as
Speaker 1: they would normally get because it's so hard to get
Speaker 1: to the front door. And what's so frustrating for us
Speaker 1: the largely law abiding is that they're violating sewage laws,
Speaker 1: they're violent and camping laws, they're violating drug use laws,
Speaker 1: and just there's a lack of political will, or I
Speaker 1: should putting in the affirmative, there's a political will to
Speaker 1: ignore the law. Unlicensed dogs off leash. I mean, it's endless.
Speaker 1: Refusing to enforce the laws against pollution. It's illegal in
Speaker 1: Arizona to pollute the public waterways. Well, this zone is
Speaker 1: within walking discnse of the Salt River. People are urinating
Speaker 1: and defecating on the streets and the sidewalks, and that
Speaker 1: when it rains that runs off into the river. Well,
Speaker 1: no private party would be allowed to do that in
Speaker 1: the city. Isn't allowed to do that either. How it's
Speaker 1: kind of surprised when you said it's been going on
Speaker 1: for years, because when you first set a thousand people,
Speaker 1: I thought, well, can't you just wait till summer and
Speaker 1: will kind of take care of itself. But it's been
Speaker 1: going on for years. How do you How do you
Speaker 1: stay in one of those places in the summertime? Good?
Speaker 1: I can't imagine. And of course in the winter, they're
Speaker 1: gonna start setting even or fires than they currently are,
Speaker 1: which sets fires to the tents out of the time
Speaker 1: and starts to burn down the buildings. And we're talking
Speaker 1: about these buildings. Are these these tents are basically situated
Speaker 1: between the main campus of Arizona State University and the
Speaker 1: state Capitol building in Phoenix. So you're talking about places
Speaker 1: we would really rather not have violent crime and arson
Speaker 1: going on. Tim Sandford's vice president for litigation in the
Speaker 1: Goldwater Institute. If you just missed our conversation with him
Speaker 1: about a couple of really interesting cases grabbed via podcast later,
Speaker 1: I'm strong and getting on demand. But now let's move
Speaker 1: on to his brand new book, Freedom's Furies. How Isabel Patterson,
Speaker 1: Rose Wilder Lane and Mine Rand found liberty in an
Speaker 1: Age of Darkness. Uh, it's ladies night, tim Sanderford's word processor.
Speaker 1: What inspire Well, I it's just I have always thought
Speaker 1: it was a really interesting story that these three women
Speaker 1: in the year nineteen forty three, each of them published
Speaker 1: books that basically started the modern libertarian movement. And turns
Speaker 1: out that they knew each other and we're friends, and
Speaker 1: they were all very interesting people. Rose Wilder Lane, for example,
Speaker 1: basically ghost wrote the Little House on the Prairie novels
Speaker 1: with her mother, Laura Ingalls Wilder, and of course rand
Speaker 1: started a philosopical philosophical movement that was very influential. She
Speaker 1: had been born in the Soviet Union and escaped to
Speaker 1: the United States as a young woman to to get
Speaker 1: away from Stalin's Russia. And Patterson is not very well known,
Speaker 1: but in during her lifetime she was the most influential
Speaker 1: book critic, probably in a in in New York City,
Speaker 1: and a very powerful voice. And the three of them together,
Speaker 1: they were friends and and they decided to kind of
Speaker 1: push back against the New Deal. And so I decided
Speaker 1: to write a little bit about them, and it turned
Speaker 1: into a book that's more on the literary and political
Speaker 1: history of the New Deal and of their own writing
Speaker 1: in their own careers than anything else. UM. I like
Speaker 1: the books pushing back against the New Deal because you know,
Speaker 1: it's regularly hailed in mainstream media's an obviously good thing
Speaker 1: for everyone in the country. UM how did how did
Speaker 1: they define their political views? I mean, what was the
Speaker 1: what were the main tenants of their political view? They
Speaker 1: consider themselves individualists, so they didn't really use the word libertarian.
Speaker 1: Um Rand particularly hated the word libertarians. They considered themselves
Speaker 1: radicals for capitalism. That is, they were kind They were
Speaker 1: a kind of liberal in the sense that they were
Speaker 1: in favor of liberating individuals, which is what liberals used
Speaker 1: to mean. But they thought the best way to liberate
Speaker 1: individuals was through the free market, to let people do
Speaker 1: their own thing and only bring that have the government
Speaker 1: become involved if people start violating each other's rights by
Speaker 1: taking their stuff away or beating them up or whatever.
Speaker 1: They didn't believe in government as a savior or a
Speaker 1: protector figure. And I think that's part of the reason
Speaker 1: why they're being women. Was relevant because Patterson and Lane
Speaker 1: were born in six so they were in their thirties
Speaker 1: when the women got the right to vote in America,
Speaker 1: and so they they were very familiar with the way
Speaker 1: that being protected, or she did from from the the
Speaker 1: harsh things in life, is really a euphemism for taking
Speaker 1: people's freedom away from them. And of course, rand you know,
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union, they have been promised, oh well,
Speaker 1: where government is going to oversee an era of utopia
Speaker 1: and plenty, and she of course witnessed personally how that
Speaker 1: actually worked out, so that I think they were especially
Speaker 1: sensitive to the idea that being protected means taking your
Speaker 1: freedom away. Interesting especially because it's it's fairly indisputable that
Speaker 1: when women gained the right to vote, sympathy in chreased
Speaker 1: a great deal for a more mommy ish government, a
Speaker 1: more caretaker government. That was certainly their view. That was
Speaker 1: certainly what Patterson thought. Patterson thought that she was very,
Speaker 1: very a kind of a cynical personality, and she thought
Speaker 1: that when the New Deal came along, the masculine virtues
Speaker 1: all basically disappeared. And she late in her life she
Speaker 1: used to say, I grew up in a in a
Speaker 1: in a world where men were men. But she thought
Speaker 1: that that with with the coming of Franklin Roosevelt and
Speaker 1: the bureaucratic state that is supposed to protect everybody. That
Speaker 1: men just vanished from the earth, and what we were
Speaker 1: left with was guys who were just begging for favors
Speaker 1: and protection instead. And it disgusted her Lane. Of course,
Speaker 1: she grew up on the Western Frontier. She grew up
Speaker 1: on the prairie. She hated it so much that she
Speaker 1: moved to Albania to get away from it. But she
Speaker 1: grew up in the West, and so she knew what
Speaker 1: it was from her parents and her grandparents, what it was,
Speaker 1: what what masculine virtues were necessary to settle the Western frontier.
Speaker 1: And Rand had this idea of what masculine virtue meant of,
Speaker 1: of being bold and uncompromising, self reliant and so forth,
Speaker 1: and she thought that was being undermined by the New Deal.
Speaker 1: So they all, they all thought the American character of
Speaker 1: boldness and enterprises being destroyed by government intervention. That's fantastic.
Speaker 1: I love that. I promise I will read this book.
Speaker 1: And I, like I said, I love any pushback against
Speaker 1: the idea that the New Deal was just overwhelmingly positive
Speaker 1: for America. So the title is Freedom's Furies. How Isabel
Speaker 1: Patterson Rosewild? Their Lane nine Rand found Liberty and Age
Speaker 1: of Darkness will have a link at Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 1: dot com so you can find it easily. Tim, We apologize,
Speaker 1: but we're up against a heartbreak and must bid you
Speaker 1: a fond Do you appreciate your time though, Thanks guys. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's always great to talk. Thanks Tom. Yeah, you run
Speaker 1: into that all the time in mainstream media, that the
Speaker 1: the new Deal, you know, that's that's what that's what
Speaker 1: Biden should do. That's what you should do. This out
Speaker 1: of the Darkness art Strong and Getty