Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Apr 14 2026

Clay is Optimistic

Clay Travis highlights what he sees as clear economic momentum under President Donald Trump, noting that the Iran naval blockade appears to be working as intended, with crude oil prices falling and both the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average pushing toward record highs. Clay emphasizes that listeners who avoided panic during recent geopolitical tensions and tariff scares are being rewarded, as retirement accounts and 401(k)s are rebounding strongly—underscoring a recurring theme of market confidence and economic stability tied to Trump’s policies.

The hour then pivots to one of the most dramatic political collapses in recent memory: the downfall of California Congressman Eric Swalwell. Clay and Buck explain that Swalwell, once a leading favorite to become California’s next governor, has now not only withdrawn from the governor’s race but has also resigned his congressional seat amid escalating allegations of sexual misconduct and criminal behavior. The hosts stress how extraordinary the speed and severity of the collapse is, noting that Swalwell had survived previous scandals—including connections to a suspected Chinese spy and constant media exposure—only to see his career end just weeks before early voting in California’s June primary. They also note that a Republican congressman in Texas has stepped down around the same time over unrelated allegations, pointing to a broader moment of political reckoning around misconduct.

Sen. Rand Paul on Everything 

A wide‑ranging interview with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who offers a constitutional critique of the U.S. military action against Iran. Paul reiterates that while he opposes Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, he believes Congress must authorize war and questions claims of imminent threat. He discusses the risks of escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, the economic impact of rising energy prices, and the uncertainty of whether negotiations can truly resolve the conflict. Paul also weighs in on Kentucky politics, strongly endorsing Congressman Thomas Massie as a constitutional conservative, emphasizing fidelity to the Constitution over unquestioning loyalty to any single political figure.

The conversation broadens into Second Amendment rights, where Senator Paul argues for national constitutional carry, citing data showing lawful gun owners commit crimes at significantly lower rates than the general population. Drawing on his personal experience during the 2017 congressional baseball shooting, Paul criticizes gun‑free zones and inconsistent state laws that disarm law‑abiding citizens while leaving criminals unchecked. He also addresses the SAVE Act and voter ID, arguing that voter identification should be a basic requirement for elections and criticizing mass mail‑in voting systems that weaken confidence in electoral integrity.

Two Can Play at That Game

A continued focus on the U.S.–Iran conflict, as Clay and Buck note signs of de‑escalation: the S&P 500 is within a half‑percent of an all‑time high, crude oil has fallen sharply to around $88 a barrel, and gas prices appear to be stabilizing after early war‑related spikes. They explain that markets are signaling confidence that President Trump’s blockade strategy and pressure campaign are working, with Iran’s leverage shrinking and expectations growing that further negotiations—possibly in Pakistan—could follow. Buck frames the standoff as a waiting game, describing Iran’s threats in the Strait of Hormuz as “economic terrorism” and highlighting comments from Vice President JD Vance that the United States can outlast Tehran economically and militarily.

The conversation then pivots back to the Eric Swalwell scandal, which dominates much of Hour 3. Clay plays extended audio from Lana Drews, the newly public accuser who alleges Swalwell drugged and violently raped her in a West Hollywood hotel room, choking her into unconsciousness. The hosts stress that this accusation is separate from and more severe than earlier reporting, helping explain why Swalwell abruptly resigned from both his gubernatorial race and Congress. They analyze the rapidly expanding fallout, including viral videos allegedly showing Swalwell in compromising situations, and public denials from figures like Senator Ruben Gallego, who had previously endorsed Swalwell but is now scrambling to distance himself. Clay and Buck argue the scandal is triggering a broader reckoning within Democratic circles, as journalists and politicians who long protected Swalwell now appear to be running for cover.

This Will Make You Laugh

An in‑studio interview with Sarah Isgur, SCOTUSblog editor, Advisory Opinions podcast host, and author of Last Branch Standing. Isgur challenges popular narratives about

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in Tuesday edition Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. I
am filled with optimism as we begin the show. We're
gonna have some fun. We've got a great show coming
your way. But let's start with some news. Off the top,
Eric Swaalwell looked like he was going to be potentially

(00:20):
elected the next governor of California. Then revelations began about
him and his inappropriate behavior, allegations of criminal behavior, and
now not only has he dropped out of the governor's race,
but he is dropping his congressional seat as well. Also,
another Republican is dropping his congressional seat as well down

(00:44):
on the border in Texas over similar allegations of impropriety
relating to women. We will discuss that, I'm sure as
the program proceeds. The Iran blockade seems to have been
quite effective. The crude oil price continues to decline, and

(01:06):
stock market. As you all know, I love watching the
stock markets. The S and P five hundred is approaching
an all time high and the Dow is also approaching
an all time high. Both of these markets moving near
record high. So if you just didn't panic, as we
always say to you, don't panic and you just held

(01:30):
onto your stocks during all of the Iran situation, during
all of the big tariff implosions.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
If you just held onto.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
Your stocks and said I trust that Trump is going
to get the economy roaring, you are in a good spot. Congratulations,
your stocks, your four oh one K, your retirement is
near an all time record high if you are holding
on to those stocks. Also, we have Buck Sexton with

(02:03):
an all time take on pants, which we can have
some fun with because I've got to take and I
actually think there's tons of people out there who will
have interesting takes on this. Let me just put it
out there as an idea and we'll come back to
it a bit later. What still exists and should not
exist because it has been technologically replaced?

Speaker 2 (02:24):
Ie, there is something better than it.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
Buck says, drawstring pants infinitely better than zipper and button pants.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
Really, I've read it this morning.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
Actually, Jesse Kelly, our friend was responding, but it also
got me fired up. I've been making this argument for
a long time. Chopsticks shouldn't exist. Every time I go
to an Asian restaurant, they bring me out chopsticks, and
I just say, can I have a fork? The fork
is a far better implement than chopsticks. This is not
some cultural attack on Asia. But the fork is better

(02:59):
than the chopstick, and so what are good do you
sign off? I understand people show off and they're like, oh,
I can do my chopsticks, and but the fork is better.
It like is better, it's better to use, it's reusable.
It's just a far better way to eat than the chopsticks.

Speaker 3 (03:15):
How did we go from my very important drawstring pants
announcement to chopsticks?

Speaker 4 (03:21):
Though?

Speaker 1 (03:21):
This is just well, I I saw your drawstring pants
argument that they're superior. I wanted to I was thinking,
I bet this audience has things that they believe are superior.
For instance, I'll give you another one buck here as
we have some fun starting off the show.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
Very optimistic mood.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
I don't think we failed when it comes to the
dash on heating and air in cars. Right blue to
make it cooler, red to make it warmer was perfection.
I get in cars now and many times it's incredibly
difficult to figure out how do I turn on the

(03:58):
heat or the air. We had it solved, and we've
continued to technologically change it, but it's not as good
as it was when you just twisted to the blue
or to the red and everybody knew how to work that.

Speaker 3 (04:12):
We've talked about this before and I think it's an
eight bargatzi bit. But hotel room lights, Yeah, how about
a switch? How about a switch by the door light on,
gimmer light off? Maybe maybe if we want to be spicy,
we put a light by the bedside for reading and bedtime.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
That is it.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
I stayed in a hotel recently. I basically kind of
on the show. I can't think different light switches in
this place, and like some.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
Of them are like partial and some of the I'm.

Speaker 3 (04:44):
Like, who I don't want to have to read a
manual to turn the lights off at night?

Speaker 2 (04:49):
Yeah? I agree.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
And so anyway out there you can give us talkbacks
what has been better and could be.

Speaker 2 (04:56):
Fixed going forward.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
But Buck, as we start, it appears that the situation
in Iran is There are reports that there could be
talks again on Thursday.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
I feel bad for Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff and JD
Vance if they have to get back on a plane
and fly all the way back to Pakistan for more
talks after they were there for twenty one hours of
talks and then turned around and came back.

Speaker 2 (05:24):
There are reports out there.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
That the United States is saying we want twenty years
of you guys ceasing to pursue nuclear weapons, and that
Iran has offered five years.

Speaker 2 (05:37):
Now.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
The challenge with this, Buck, as you can well imagine,
and I'm sure all of you out there are going
to recognize as well, is Iran has been lying for
decades about everything. So whatever they agree to is unlikely,
in my opinion, to be upheld. And so whether they
say they're going to do it for five years or

(05:58):
ten years, or fifteen or twenty years, I am quite
confident they are lying. Which is why my solution here
is we have to in some way grab what Trump
called the nuclear dust, the uranium deposits that they have,
in order to push them back further. I imagine, Buck, even
based on your time when you were with the CIA

(06:21):
twenty some odd years ago, Iron has been lying to
us for the entirety of the time that they have
had the iotol is in charge. And so nothing that
they say to us now do I remotely believe is honest.
So them saying anything is not good enough. We either
have to get the uranium if that's our goal, and
on the straight of horror moves we have to just

(06:43):
see everybody coming through and the oil and gas tankers
being able to traverse. We have to actually verify in
my opinion, that they're saying anything honest. Is that a
fair assessment in your mind?

Speaker 3 (06:58):
Yeah, Look, this reminds me of the whole Iraq situation
in so far as the policy or the strategy of
Saddam Hussein.

Speaker 2 (07:09):
Was essentially I don't know.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
Maybe it got nukes, maybe I don't, Maybe I got
chemical weapons, maybe I don't. Because he found value in
that strategic ambiguity, and then when it came time for
us to make decisions about what he had and didn't have,
it was really obviously we got it wrong, but it
was really hard to sift through what was a bluff

(07:31):
and what was reality because he thought that was particularly
after the Iran Iraq War, which is probably the most
devastating war of the twentieth century that nobody ever talks about. Right, Yes,
I mean, obviously they're much bigger, more devastating wars, but for.

Speaker 2 (07:45):
A war that is completely wiped.

Speaker 3 (07:50):
From the memory banks of certainly people in the West,
it went on for eight years, nine years actually, and
it was hundreds and hundreds of thousands of casualties. And
this changed the dynamic in the Middle East dramatically and
the security calculations specifically for Iraq and Iran as well

(08:10):
as other regional players. So, yes, the notion of an
here's the problem with an Iranian deal. There's no deal
that you can have that you can trust that does
not in some way have us with our boot heel
on the side of their face. Really, I mean, we
have to be in a position to say, all right,
we don't believe you, so now we're going to go

(08:32):
check the stuff. This is the intrusive inspections component of this,
which we went through with Iraq too, by the way,
and sovereign nations good guys, bad guys, doesn't really matter. Generally,
don't really want people to be able to just show
up and look at all of their stuff. Right, There's
something that they think is degrading about this, and certainly
the Iranians would find it degrading to have America and

(08:55):
so really they view it as Israel's proxy able to
just show up and look at all their nuke stuff
whenever we want. So Clay this is where we come
down to. There's not really a deal to be had here, folks.
There's not really a deal because even if we do
get to and remember you can pull that clip later.
If we do get to a deal, even if we
have some deal with the current regime, that they will

(09:16):
break it. Yes, And this is the problem with the
whole Obama approach to all of this too.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
This is why I want the tangible to the extent
that we can seize it. The tangible uranium deposits in
our hands, right in the control of the United States,
and some people out there aren't happy about that take.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
But to me, I don't see any.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
Form of resolution that you can rely on other than
that as a way to conclude this. If the goal
is to try to ensure that Iran doesn't continue to
pursue nuclear weapons. Now, again, the area that we struck
in June, we have optics, so we have eyes on,
we have recognition if Iran tries to go reclaim those material.

(10:00):
So I suppose the argument can be we know what
we've got there and it's secure. But if we want
to have a full throated victory, one that everyone recognizes,
even the New York Times editorial page and even MSNBC
and CNN commentators. If Trump brings the uranium out of
Iran and says we have seized it, they cannot use

(10:24):
this anymore. I think it will be very hard to
argue that this was anything other than a supreme success.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
Right. If we leave it, then the people.

Speaker 1 (10:33):
Who don't like Trump are going to argue, oh, we
didn't accomplish anything. I do think, and I've been saying
this for some time. You know, the stock market is
doing well when it's not shown on MSNBC or CNN.
We're near record highs. The markets are judging the Trump
economic situation as a very positive one, and I do

(10:55):
think that is significant overall as to the likelihod of
where we are headed.

Speaker 2 (11:01):
But what do you think?

Speaker 1 (11:02):
Do you care if we actually have the uranium in
possession or in your mind, if we say, hey, we've
got eyes on it, we're gonna watch it, and we
just pull back and this thing ends and the traffic
returns to some form of normalcy in the strait of
horror moves, is that satisfactory in your mind? Or do
you also want to see the tangible asset of Iranian

(11:25):
nuclear pursuit in the control of the United States.

Speaker 3 (11:30):
This thing is not over until we have Iranians winning
an election with people who are willing to sit down
with the leadership of the United States and Israel with
smiles on their faces and talk about how to make
Iran a regional ally and a peaceful and prosperous place

(11:51):
without all this lunacy. That's the real truth. This thing
doesn't really end until that day. And I don't know
where that day is, but it may not be into
life anybody living today, to be fair. Yeah, in the meantime,
you have a situation where we're just Trump has done
a lot more than anybody before him, but to truly

(12:13):
end this threat. When Trump says Iran will never have
a nuclear weapon and that's his goal, think about what
that really means. It does not mean we sign a
piece of paper with Iran. They still have some enrich
uranium or even the technical know how to enrich uranium
in the future. And the people what happens in two years, everybody,

(12:33):
what happens.

Speaker 2 (12:34):
I know, we can't even think this stuff right now.

Speaker 3 (12:36):
What happens if a Democrat wins the next election, Yeah,
the Iranians will run circles around the next Democrat administration,
because all they're going to want to do is play
the big peacemaker and say, big, bad, mean Trump did
all these bad things to you. So we'll bend over backwards.
We'll give you taxpayer cash, We'll show up with palettes
full of dollar dollar bills, everybody anything to make it

(12:57):
seem like the Democrats are the peacemaker is with Iran.
So these are all the layers of complexity to come
to bear. I'm really just thinking about this in a
six month well, I guess more like eight in front
of the math nine month timeline here of how does
this play out between now until the midterms, because if
you try to think about what this really means long term,
you'll drive yourself crazy because nobody can really know and

(13:19):
there's too many variables for anyone to be able to
properly assess it. But really, this is can Trump win
this round against Iran and substantially delay their nuclear program
and nuclear progress through it all? Regime change is not
on the table. It's not happening. So that's where we are.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
We will take back, We will take your calls, we
will take your interactions. Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky will
join us at the bottom of the at the bottom
of the second hour, and Sarah Isker, who's got a
book about the Supreme Court, is going to be in
studio and we'll see what she thinks about increasing speculation
that Justice Alito might decide to step down and that

(14:03):
Trump could have another Supreme Court vacancy to fill that
story out there and starting to get more attention as
we come up on the end of the June recess.
I was reading over the weekend that Alito has not
hired his clerks fully. Sometimes that's a little bit of

(14:23):
a sign. Again, the Supreme Court comes back in session
in October, so from June to October we could have
a window there where President Trump could have a Supreme
Court seat to fill, and given the Senate is unclear
exactly what might happen there, we're paying attention to. So
we will discuss that and more with her about her
new books surrounding the Supreme Court. In the meantime, work

(14:46):
being done throughout Israel by the International Fellowship if Christians
and Jews is remarkable. This is an incredibly caring nonprofit organization.
They've worked for decades in many towns on so many
kibbutz's paying attention to the people out there to try
to help social services. They don't get caught up in
the bureaucracy, no red tape when they see someone in

(15:07):
need or something amiss there on it. It could be
as simple and sympathetic as caring for a single elderly person.
Could be rebuilding a hospital underground so that the attacks
from missiles don't rain down on people inside of hospitals.
The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, they've built a

(15:28):
bridge between charitable Christians and others in this country and
the Jewish population in Israel. Selfless work, excellent results. Your
donations can make a life changing result. And you can
join us right now give forty five dollars to rush
life saving essentials to the vulnerable under fire eight eight
eight four eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight eight four

(15:52):
eight eight IFCJ. You can also go online at IFCJ
dot org. That's IFCJ dot.

Speaker 2 (16:01):
Last, learn and hang with the guys. Clay and Buck
pre said on the iHeart apps, all.

Speaker 3 (16:07):
Right, welcome back in here to Clay and back Kentucky
Senator Rand Paul joins us now Senator appreciate you making
the time for us.

Speaker 5 (16:15):
Sir glad to be with you.

Speaker 3 (16:16):
Thanks for welcoming all right, you would not have I
think this is fair to say, if not, by all
means correct me, you would not have called for the
bombing campaign in Iran and did not agree with it
from the start. It has been going on. It is
now to cease fire moment. If you can take us
just fast forward us in this process to how you

(16:39):
think this is going now? How do you assess the
status of this ceasefire, the current negotiations. Basically, how do
we end this thing and get out of this thing
as you see it?

Speaker 6 (16:51):
I think the one thing we can all agree with
is that we'd love to see freedom for the Iranian people.
We'd like to see the regime Paul. There are other
questions though about.

Speaker 5 (16:59):
The advisability of the war. How you go to war.

Speaker 6 (17:02):
The Constitution and our founding fathers were pretty clear that
when you go to war, Congress needs to vote. They
said that to declare war or to initiate war, it
would be the Congress that declares this. Now some have said, well,
there are exceptions to that, and one of the exceptions
is that if we're eminently.

Speaker 5 (17:18):
To be attacked.

Speaker 6 (17:19):
You know, someone's shooting at one of our ships, or
we're eminently under attack. The president can make some immediate
decisions even under that circumstance, though the founding fathers wanted
the president then to ask for permission from Congress, even
if he responded or she responded immediately. In this case,
though the adversary nation, the country that we've been at
odds with, is forty seven years in the making, it's

(17:40):
a little hard to make the imminence argument. The other
argument is, well, we have to stop them from having
a nuclear weapon. Well, I think all of us want that,
but our intelligence reports really showed no evidence that they
were changing or getting closer to a nuclear weapon. We
have eighteen different parts of our intelligence agency all tell
about the same thing that there really hadn't been a

(18:02):
reconstitution of a nuclear program. There was essentially where they
were when we blew them up six months ago, and
the President said.

Speaker 5 (18:10):
At that time the nuclear program was obliterated.

Speaker 6 (18:13):
So there are many arguments for why we should do
it constitutionally. Then there's also another argument about practically whether
or not we'll be better off right now economically. The
price of oil has gone up tremendously. People are noticing
at the gas pump. I think it's going to be
bad electorally for the party. The party already faces a
very difficult election, and really, frankly, I think the soldiers

(18:35):
that put their lives on the line deserve to have
a full, a fulsome debate and a vote on the
floor of the Senate and the House before we go
to warm.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
No doubt we're talking to Senator Ran Paul from Kentucky.
There's a big decision that's going to be made soon
in terms of who's replacing Mitch McConnell in your state,
big primary decision.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
There's also a big bag attle.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
Thomas Massey is also got to see what's going to
happen in the primary there. What are you seeing and
hearing from Kentucky voters. You just mentioned the mid term.
What are you seeing as the primary driver for the primary?
It's going to happen in about a month there.

Speaker 6 (19:18):
I think people understand in Kentucky that you can be
supportive of Donald Trump as I am, and also supportive
of Thomas Massey. I think Thomas Massey is the most conservative,
most constitutionally oriented person in the House. He's fearless. He's
the head of the Liberty Caucus. He's also the head
of the Second Amendment Caucus. And so I am all
in for Thomas Massey, a campaign for him several times,

(19:41):
will continue to do so.

Speaker 5 (19:43):
And I think it's important to have independent voices. You know,
if people want.

Speaker 6 (19:46):
A rubber stamp and they say, will you support the
president one hundred percent of the time, and then the
other candidate says, no, I'll support him a one hundred
and fifty percent of the time. No, I'll support him
two hundred percent of the time, you leave yourself wondering
are they concernedervative? Do they support a balanced budget? Do
they support the Constitution? Do they support the Second Amendment?
So to me, it's not so much about fidelity or

(20:07):
faithfulness to one person. It's about fidelity and faithfulness to
the Constitution, to conservative values, to limited government, to balance budgets.
And I think Thomas Massey is unparalleled in being the
best defender of the Constitution currently in the Congress.

Speaker 3 (20:24):
Speaking of Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky, Senator I appreciated
the If I could circle back on this for a second,
your feelings about the overall Iran conflict. But right now
there's a negotiation happening. Are you hopeful for this negotiation
actually ending the conflict? What would you advise Trump advanced
the others who are making decisions on this to do

(20:45):
to stop this? Because I know you want this war over.
I think that's very I would have known that before
you said it. You don't want us to be continuing
to bomb them. You don't want the straight Orf forward
moves to be under threat. Do you see a way forward?
Or are we just looking at months of instability here?

Speaker 6 (21:01):
I don't know that anybody knows the answer yet. I
think the sticking point really is the Straits of Remouse.
Will the Iranians give in? Will the Iranians say that
we won't develop a nuclear weapon? I think actually they
will negotiate on that. They've been willing to negotiate on
it before. It's whether or not they're believable in the negotiations.
As far as the Straits go, our decision to blockade

(21:22):
it will will now be something that militarily will be decided.

Speaker 5 (21:26):
Whether or not we can do that. I think we
probably can. We've removed minds from it. We have the
capability to do that.

Speaker 6 (21:33):
The missiles they shoot are very very close to us.
So the way we intercept missiles is I think we're
better the farther away they shoot it shoot the missiles from.
The closer they are, the more difficult it is to
intercept missiles. So militarily, we'll see what happens.

Speaker 5 (21:46):
I hope for the best. I hope that they will
negotiate over.

Speaker 6 (21:49):
The straits and that we will move forward. I don't
like the idea of us continuing forever to control the
Straits of Removes and charging a fee as some have indicated,
or can'rolling it jointly with Iran and charging a fee.
I think it's unknown what will happen. But I think
the big sticking point really now is what will happen
with the straits. While the Iranians are completely defeated, their

(22:11):
military is completely defeated, I don't know that the people
are necessarily defeated, And in some ways the new regime
there's a question whether or not they're going to be
more compliant or less, whether it be more radical or
less radical. Some say that the radicals that were killed
off may be well replaced with even people more radical.

Speaker 2 (22:31):
We're talking to Senator Ram Paul of Kentucky.

Speaker 1 (22:33):
I know you've got a big hearing on the Second
Amendment that's coming up. You're in Washington, d C. I
know we got listeners all over the country that have weapons,
have guns, and when they drive from one state to another,
they're worried about what the rules are, what the laws are,
and I do think this factpoint should get more attention
than it has. Thankfully, we set an all time record

(22:56):
low for murders in twenty twenty five. I think you
probably could speak to this because I'm pretty sure it's
factually connected, but there hasn't been much discussion about it.
We also have record numbers of firearms in the hands
of American citizens. That is, never before have there been
more guns in the hands of American citizens. Yet in

(23:17):
twenty twenty five, we set what may well be the
lowest murder rate in the history of the country. What
can you tell us about the Second Amendment? What does
that say about lawful guns in the hands of gun owners?
And how frustrating is it to you that you're in Kentucky.
I'm in Tennessee. We drive to Florida quite a lot.
The rules are different depending on what states we go

(23:37):
through to get to Florida from where I live in Nashville.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
That seems crazy to me.

Speaker 6 (23:43):
Well, the statistics are pretty clear that lawful gun owners
and people who carry weapons actually commit crimes at a
much lower rate than the general public. Most of the
people who lawfully owning guns are actually some of the
most law abiding people you'll meet. Most people carry weapons
for self defense and are actually some of the best
citizens we have.

Speaker 5 (24:02):
The Second Amendment of the right to.

Speaker 6 (24:04):
Own guns to me, is a natural right. It's God given.
It's the right to self defense. It's codified in the
Bill of Rights. And really you should have a constitutional
right to carry. In Kentucky, you do. We no longer
have a concealed carry law. We have a constitutional carry,
which means the Constitution protects it. So I'm for a
national constitutional carry such that if you go from Tennessee

(24:27):
and you drive up to d C, you may well
want self defense in d C. But right now it's
difficult because d C basically bans people from having guns.
It's difficult to own a gun or to bring a
gun into d C. But I see guns as self defense.
Everywhere I go, the people with me are armed I'm
often armed, and.

Speaker 5 (24:45):
I think that.

Speaker 6 (24:48):
It's something that is the idea of self defense to me,
is a god given right that shouldn't be infringed.

Speaker 3 (24:54):
Senator Paul Obviously everyone knows as well that you were
on that baseball diamond when a bad guy had a
gun who was trying to shoot you, and other members
of Congress did shoot Steve Scalise, who had to fight
for his life. So your thoughts on the Second Amendment,
I mean, there were fortunately I believe it was actually
a woman, a female member a capitol police, right, but

(25:16):
there were the proverbial good guys with guns there to
handle the situation. But to your point about DC versus Virginia,
you really can't go into the district with a gun,
and so people who are law abiding are disarmed, and
people who want to harm others, like that maniacal shooter
on that day, they enter into situations knowing that they're
effectively dealing with what is either a gun free or

(25:38):
a very limited gun zone.

Speaker 6 (25:41):
Yeah, and I think when you look at crime, John
Lott's written several books on this, but when you look
at crime, most of the crime that is committed with
weapons is committed with weapons that are not legally bought.
These are guns with the identification mark scratched off, and
they're solded and traded hands in the black market. So
of legally owned guns, very very little crime is committed

(26:03):
with that. Almost all of the crime in the US
is with illegally traded guns. So making more gun laws
and making more guns illegal doesn't necessarily affect a crime rate.
What it does is it just affects those of us
who are law abiding who buy guns for self defense.

Speaker 1 (26:19):
We get asked about this all the time, the Save Act.
What's going to happen? What should happen? Is anything going
to progress in any way there? In terms of a
resolution we're talking with Senator Ram Paul of Kentucky.

Speaker 5 (26:35):
I'm a co sponsor of it.

Speaker 6 (26:36):
I think it should be a minimum to vote in
our country that you have to.

Speaker 5 (26:40):
Present an ID.

Speaker 6 (26:41):
Another problem we have besides the idea, is also this
idea of voting by mail.

Speaker 5 (26:47):
In our state.

Speaker 6 (26:47):
We went ahead and got rid of voting by mail
for the most part, ninety seven percent of kentucky AND's
vote in person. We still have about five Republican or
battleground states that haven't done it. So while I'm for
a national ID to be shown for voting in national elections.
I think we should also have a push. Because we
may not get enough votes to pass it in the Senate,

(27:07):
we should also be pushing at the state level. So
you taw Arizona, Alaska, Iowa, West Virginia, all Republican leaning
states maybe except for Arizona, still don't have sufficient voter
ID laws. And they also mail ballots to everyone and
keep mailing them and mailing them and mailing them and
soliciting voters who normally don't have the energy to get

(27:29):
off their couch. And so I think we need to
keep addressing it national level. If we're not successful there,
I think the next step is to go to the
five remaining Republican or battleground states and let's change the
laws in those states to have better voter ID laws.

Speaker 1 (27:44):
Tomorrow is tax Day, a day that many of us hate.
I've got some data hear that I thought was interesting.
Irs top one percent of income tax filers contribute about
forty percent of the overall revenue. Top ten percent pay
seventy two percent of all the revenue, top quarter eighty
seven point two percent, bottom half pays no federal income tax.

(28:09):
Yet Democrats are going to be all up in arms
and continue to be that tax rates need to be raised.

Speaker 2 (28:15):
Your thoughts.

Speaker 6 (28:17):
I was on the view one time, and I don't
recommend it, but I was on the view and I
told the ladies that people under fifty thousand dollars don't
pay income tax. And they all started squawking and yelling
at me back and forth, and they wouldn't listen to it.

Speaker 5 (28:32):
But it is a fact.

Speaker 6 (28:33):
Under fifty thousand you don't pay income tax, particularly husband
and wife and two kids. The standard deduction is fifty thousand,
so you don't pay under fifty thousand the income tax.
When people say on the left, when Bernie and other
peoples on this left say, oh, the rich are not
paying their fair share, it's the opposite. The rich are
not only paying their fair share, they're paying most of

(28:54):
the income tax. You're exactly right, top one percent paying
forty percent, almost half of the income tax, top ten
percent seventy percent.

Speaker 5 (29:02):
So yes, the wealthy. We have a more progressive.

Speaker 6 (29:05):
Tax code in our country than they do in Sweden,
so that we have plenty of taxes that we have
too much, But we also have a spending problem. So
even with all the taxes we pay, we have this
massive deficit. But what we do don't need is more revenue.
I don't want more taxes, but we do need to
cut spending and cut it dramatically.

Speaker 3 (29:24):
Senator Paul and Paul, Senator rem Paul, thanks so much
for being with us. Appreciate you, sir, Thank you.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
Look, I want to tell you a business owner, we're
just talking about taxes. Business owners know the line item
on the profit and loss statement in addition to taxes.
That gets really frustrating. Oftentimes, insurance you've got to have it.
It's the only thing you buy that you know you
have to have, that you hope you never use, and
you're thankful, but when you don't have to use it,

(29:52):
But y' also question am I getting the best deal?
Paying so much insurance across so many different properties, It's
really frustrating. You got multiple insurance policies, multiple brokers, multiple applications,
and sometimes you don't know how it all is fitting together.
Supersure changes that one broker for all your business insurance,

(30:13):
backed by a team that works with you year round,
not just at renewal. If you've ever stared at a
policy wondering what it covers. Super Sure has a fine
print fax tool that translates the legal jargon into plain English,
so you know what's covered and what's not. Go online
to supersure dot com. Get a full report on your

(30:34):
current policies with no obligations. Find out if you're overinsured, underinsured,
or somewhere in between. Supersure dot com one powerful platform,
all of your policies in one place.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
What do you have to lose?

Speaker 1 (30:49):
Go check it out supersure dot Com. That's supersure dot
Com paid for by Supersure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed
insurance agency.

Speaker 2 (31:00):
Miss the show while you're on the go.

Speaker 1 (31:02):
Wind down your day with the Daily Review podcast.

Speaker 2 (31:05):
Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcast.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
Welcome back in our number three Clay Travis buck Sexton Show.
I've got a bunch of different news stories that we
are tracking for all of you. Reports that there may
be yet another round of discussions in Pakistan between Iran
and the United States as we are talking with all

(31:32):
of you, S and P five hundred up substantially only
about one half of a percent away about thirty eight
points in the S and P five hundred from an
all time record high for stocks. The price of gas
continuing to decline as I am looking at it right now.

(31:56):
Crude oil futures down to eighty eight a barrel in
real time, down about five percent today. The expectation of
the blockade having a negative impact seems to have largely vanished.
There are possible, like I just said, additional talks coming

(32:18):
and that is the latest as it pertains to Iran.

Speaker 2 (32:23):
Buck anything that you would.

Speaker 1 (32:24):
Add on the Iran news again, stock market near record high,
price of oil and gas down substantially today now. To
be fair, it's up about twenty dollars ish from before
the before the war started in Iran. I think oil
and gas price is sixty six sixty seven dollars a
barrel ish and they are at eighty eight right now,

(32:47):
but down pretty substantially from the early days of the war.
Reason why I mentioned markets in this respect is there
seems to be a sense that things are calming down
fairly substantially in the Gulf region. And if you're out
there and you're thinking, okay, what does that mean for
oil and gas prices? To me, Clay, they got up

(33:09):
to about one hundred and twenty bucks, and now they're
back down to eighty eight, so they have fallen pretty
precipitously from their peak during the.

Speaker 2 (33:19):
Course of this war.

Speaker 3 (33:23):
Yes, I think that we are seeing the Trump administration
tallying what the Iranians have in terms of leverage and
weaknesses and what we have, or what Trump has on
his side, bringing to bear the full force and way
of the United States military and saying, if you guys
want to turn this into a version of medieval siege warfare,

(33:46):
we can do that. And that just turns into who
has more, who has better preparations, who has more stuff,
who can outlast the other? Right, So that's where we are.
I think it's a bit of a waiting game with
the pressures that are there. The things that could shake
it up dramatically would be if we went in to
take the uranium. That would be a big that would

(34:08):
be a big gamble. But that's something that may happen.
Or if the Iranians decided, you know what, We're just
going to blow up a tanker and see what happens.
I don't see them doing that because it would cause
such problems for them too. But when someone is cornered,
you never know what they're willing to do, and if
we really have our foot on the jugular of the molocracy,

(34:32):
they may react in a way that is hard to
foresee and could be very drastic. So that's how I
see it. I mean JD. Vance is saying that do
you see this here? This is cut thirteen. He's talking
about economic terrorism that Iran has engaged in, and he's like,
we can play this game, play thirteen.

Speaker 7 (34:52):
Here's the very interesting thing about all this is that
the only thing the Iranians have been able to do.
They haven't, of course, beaten US militarily, They've had their
military been decimated. They haven't been able to prosecute the
case when it comes to weapons of war. What they
have done is engage in this act of economic terrorism
against the entire world. They've basically threatened any ship that's

(35:13):
moving through the Straits of Horror moves well. As the
President of the United States showed, two can play at
that game. And if the Iranians are going to try
to engage in economic terrorism, we're going to abide by
a simple principle that no Iranian ships are getting out either.

Speaker 3 (35:27):
This is what I mean by who can wait this
out more who can handle the pressure better. Now, I
think that the thing that the Iranians have going for them,
or the regime has going forward, is they view this
as existential and they're used to a lot of suffering
and inflicting a lot of suffering as well as taking
it themselves. We have a democracy, we have a republic,

(35:48):
I know, but we have democratic elections, and therefore we
have to think about the political pressures, but economically and
militarily play it's checkmate on it wrong. It is those
of you out there, and I get it because I
filled up my car over the weekend and price of
oil and gases up to around on average. I always

(36:10):
like to have phone with this on average about four
dollars a gallon.

Speaker 1 (36:14):
And the overall price increases have effectively stopped. And again
I think you're going to start to see a dial
back pretty significantly between now and Memorial Day when prices
are likely to go up again. It's just me analyzing

(36:34):
the larger marketplace. Because a lot more people go on
the road, they switch out the type of oil and
gas that is primarily sold. So if you're out there
and you are using the price of oil and gas
as a proxy for how the economy is going. Then
I think you're going to start to see those prices
come back down based on what we are what we

(36:58):
are seeing in the larger, more marketplace. Okay, so again,
stock market near record highs, about one half of a
percent off all time highs. If you had just not
paid attention at all the stock prices, and not paid
attention at all to what's going on with Iran, and
just done nothing at all different, you would be in

(37:19):
a good shape and in the We will see what
exactly ends up happening going forward, but definitely the trend
lines are positive. I did want to play this buck
do we know? Producer Ali, let me know. Is the
audio good enough now to play of the accuser at

(37:39):
the press conference. We played this earlier and some of
you had a little bit of difficulty of hearing it.
I don't know what happened. It was somewhat garbled. Let's
see if that's true or not. This is cut thirty three.
This is the accuser Lana Drus of Eric Swallwell. Pause
for sec before we play that. If you are just

(38:01):
getting in your car. There is a new accuser of
Eric Swalwell, and she has gone public. She just had
a press conference in Beverly Hills. She alleges that he
drugged and raped her. This is a new allegation. Helps
to explain why Eric Swalwell not only has dropped out
of the governor's race, as we discussed yesterday with Steve Hilton,

(38:23):
but also why he has decided to give up his
congressional seat.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
Listen to that.

Speaker 4 (38:29):
My delay in taking action against Eric was driven by fear,
not doubt, fear of his political power, his background as
an attorney, and his family law enforcement tye.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
All right, so that was part of it. Here is
a little bit longer version. This is her saying I
was drugged and raped in his hotel room. Cut thirty two.

Speaker 4 (38:55):
I had contact with Eric Swowell on three separate occasions.
After meeting him socially, he offered me connections to further
my software company, and I also had an interest in
local politics. He invited me to two public events. I
knew he was married at the time and that his

(39:16):
wife was pregnant. He was my friend. On the third occasion,
I believe he drugged my drink. I only had one
glass of wine. We were supposed to go to a
political event. And he said he needed to get paperwork
from his hotel room. When I arrived at his hotel room,

(39:36):
I was already incapacitated and I couldn't move my arms
from my body. He raped me and he choked me.
And while he was choking me, I lost consciousness and
I thought I died. I did not consent to any
sexual activity.

Speaker 1 (39:56):
Okay, book, Now the fallout is wal Well done. He
may well face criminal charges again. That is a new accuser,
different than what the San Francisco Chronicle reported and different
than what CNN had previously reported. There is a video
that is circulating of Eric Swalwell what appears to be

(40:16):
making out with hooker with a hooker in it looks
like a hotel room of some sort. And Senator Ruben
Diego from Arizona, who was best buds with Eric Swalwell
and just endorsed him as recently as a couple of
weeks ago to be the next governor of California, now

(40:37):
says that he had heard rumors, but he's been misled.
There are people alleging that Swallwell is actually accompanied by
Gaego in some of these videos, including the one that
has now gone viral Well, Diego was asked about this
and Greg producer, Greg pulled this. He says, he was

(40:59):
not in the same room. It's not an accusation you
want to be responding to. Buck says he was not
in the same room as Swallwell making out with hookers.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
This is cut thirty six.

Speaker 3 (41:11):
Is that you sitting next to him is an example
of their lives?

Speaker 5 (41:14):
No, I was not sitting next to him.

Speaker 2 (41:16):
I was not in the room. I was nowhere.

Speaker 5 (41:17):
I don't even know where it happened.

Speaker 7 (41:19):
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Chris La Savida
and a bunch of other right wing.

Speaker 3 (41:23):
Political operatives are pushing this narrative that somehow I was
in that room with Eric swallerin.

Speaker 5 (41:28):
That is an absolute lie.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
Okay, so Buck, I think one of these conversations that
is going to spread rapidly is a lot of people are, now,
what were we talking about before that journalists are okay
doing propaganda until it starts to humiliate them, until it
starts to look bad for them to be the propagandist.

(41:51):
In the same way that everybody turned on Joe Biden
almost immediately and said, oh, well, you know, it turns
out he was no after the debate, I do want
or whether there's a little bit of running for cover
now starting to happen on Capitol Hill, because, as we've discussed,
Swalwell's behavior was not a very well kept secret, and
a lot of people were endorsing and encouraging others to

(42:14):
support him. And now you're starting to see the heat
get shifted from Swalwell to sort of the you know,
the downrange aspects of how did you allow this guy
to stay in power and how did you protect him?

Speaker 3 (42:28):
All the Democrats care about his power. The Democrat Party
cares about one thing and one thing only that is
to be in power. There is no ethical constraint, There
is nothing that they view as more important than that.
And you see this from the fact that people were
even comfortable effectively coming forward to.

Speaker 2 (42:44):
Say, oh, I've known that Swalwell.

Speaker 3 (42:47):
Has been doing bad things, not as bad as the
reason stuff necessarily, but that he was a what's the
kind of lascivious that.

Speaker 2 (42:58):
You're breaking out a lot of good vocabulary today?

Speaker 3 (43:00):
Thank you? You know that he was what's the word
that people will use for like an old man a leccheris.

Speaker 2 (43:07):
There we go? That's another good one.

Speaker 3 (43:08):
That he has got like a leacherous, gross member of Congress.
They they were fine to come out and say, yeah,
we all knew this, but you know, we needed him,
and he was really good on being I'll notice something
else about this. Notice how some of the people who
are the most vocally anti Trump.

Speaker 2 (43:25):
I'm a naddi swall.

Speaker 3 (43:27):
Well, you see these people who are held up as heroes,
and there are other names that I'm sure you're shouting
out right now, held up as heroes for their anti trumpness,
and then it comes out that they are degenerate scumbags
and in no position to be calling out anybody for
the behavior that they are so offended by. Democrats are
perfectly fine with this. They're fine with elevating Anthony Wiener,

(43:48):
by the way, huge attack dog for the Democrats against
any Republican. That was his job to go on MSNBC
and be kind of smug and snarky and attack, attack attack.
Could you imagine this guy, You're sending photos of your
of your genitalia to strangers on the Internet, and you
think you should be lecturing Republicans on how bad they

(44:09):
are on TV. But sure enough, you see this over
and over again with these Democrats, they get absolutely do.
But by the way, Joe Biden, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden,
the whole thing. These people are attacking Republicans all the time.
You're Hunter Biden, you think you're in a position to
attack anyone for anything, or Joe Biden for that?

Speaker 2 (44:27):
Man, I agree with that.

Speaker 1 (44:28):
How about Swollwell was one of the foremost accusers.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
On the Epstein files?

Speaker 1 (44:33):
Like, yeah, but I mean, if you were engaged in
behavior like of like this, as as he has been
alleged to be involved in, are you going to be
the guy running around saying can you believe Jeffrey Epstein
was trading on relationships and being involved with lots of women?

(44:54):
And I just it is to your point, Buck, either
he is a he's got a mental illness of an
incredibly high level, or in his mind he had convinced
himself that all of these acts were consensual and he
was just a paragon of virtue, at least in his

(45:17):
relationships with women, even though obviously he's married, he's got
multiple kids. And I just this story is really kind
of staggering. I don't know that we've ever seen a
political collapse happen this quickly. And again we've talked about it.
Democrats to me at some point basically ordered the code

(45:38):
red on this guy, and he ran for president. Nobody
came after him, right, I mean usually when you run
for president if there's dirty laundry. Now, maybe he was
just such a far down the list of presidential candidates
that nobody took him seriously. And maybe it's just that
he was now the favorite in California and that explains
the code red suddenly happening. The guy's been in Congress

(45:59):
for a long time time to suddenly have all of
this happen. You know that social media trend of people
posting how it started and how it's going, whether it
be relationship journeys, pets, DIY home projects. You can do
that now with our new sponsor, Fast Growing Trees. Take
a photo of your new tree, shrub, or plant from
Fast Growing Trees, then wait a few months and take

(46:21):
another to show the growth progress and tag them on
Instagram at Fast Growing Trees. Fast Growing Trees is America's largest,
most trusted online nursery with more than two million customers.
The website is easy to use.

Speaker 3 (46:34):
Just go to Fastgrowingtrees dot com pick out what you want,
and they'll ship Mother Nature right to your front door.
We just got ours over the weekend. Make sure you
take some baby photos of your new plants, trees or
shrubs because they grow fast and in a few months.
Remind us how it started, and then share how it's
going by tagging at Fast Growing Trees.

Speaker 2 (46:53):
Everything you order at.

Speaker 3 (46:54):
Fast Growing Trees dot Com is backed by their alive
and thrive guarantee. That's how well they've nurtured your new
trees and plants. Again, that's Fastgrowingtrees dot Com. Use my
name Buck as your promo code to get twenty percent
off your first order Fastgrowingtrees dot Com. My name Buck
for twenty percent off.

Speaker 1 (47:13):
Level off your brain mental mugging with Clay and Buck.

Speaker 3 (47:17):
Welcome back in here too, Clay and Buck. We're joined
by Sarah Isgerb, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, editor
of Scotus Blog, Play's excited author of the new book
Last Branch Standing, a potentially surprising, occasionally witty journey inside
Today's Supreme Courtchi is in our New York studio.

Speaker 2 (47:39):
Sarah, great to have you on the program.

Speaker 8 (47:41):
Thanks for having me here.

Speaker 4 (47:42):
Guys.

Speaker 3 (47:44):
Let's just get to if I could this court. What
is so interesting about it to you? Right now? Why'd
you write the book? Tell us some things about the
Supreme Court. You write for Scotus Blog. That's where everyone
goes to get their crib notes about what's happening.

Speaker 8 (47:59):
That's exactly where we do live blogs for the oral arguments,
for the opinion handdowns. And I wrote the book because
basically every narrative we have about the Supreme Court is wrong.
This idea that it's a six' three partisan, court the
idea that The court is you, know the one that's
left to decide all of our most important. ISSUES i,
mean let's just start with that one for a. Second

(48:21):
we are at the end of a hundred year failed
experiment from the progressive, era where, like let's not Have
congress do anything because those you, know dumb dumb representatives
and the voters who put them there can't be. Trusted
we should instead have experts decide. Everything fast, Forward congress
doesn't legislate. Anymore the president is doing everything by executive,

(48:43):
power regardless of which party they belong, to and so
The Supreme court is forced to play this, role you,
know deciding What congress meant by some old statute that
the president. Cites and instead of the headline, saying you,
Know Supreme court strikes Down trump's tariffs Or Supreme court
strikes Down biden's student loan debt, forgiveness the correct headline

(49:04):
should Say Supreme court says Only congress can do worldwide,
Tariffs Supreme court says Only congress can do student loan debt.
Forgiveness but we're Letting congress off the, hook and we're
blaming the.

Speaker 2 (49:16):
Court, SARAH i got a.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
BUNCH i love, This The Supreme court behind the, scenes everything.
Else let me start with this one BECAUSE i actually
Read The New York times is now covering. It but
the polymarket says right now That Justice alito is favored
to step down this, year which would mean that we

(49:39):
would have A Supreme court vacancy sometimes sometime after this
term ends In. June do you buy? It do you
think it is? Likely do you think That President trump
will get an? Appointment how would you read the tea
leaves behind the scenes right?

Speaker 8 (49:54):
Now, SO i mean it's it's basically fifty to fifty
at this. Point the big thing that we have to
go on is One Supreme court justices tend to Retire july,
second right before a midterm, election if they're sort of
of that.

Speaker 2 (50:07):
Age on the.

Speaker 8 (50:09):
Other, Hand Samuel alito's actually relatively young for A Supreme
court justice who's considering. Retiring he's got a book coming
out In. October you, know books sell better if you're
an Active Supreme court. Justice SO i don't, KNOW i
can argue it either. Way what's fun is to look
at Who trump would potentially appoint and whether they might
be trying behind the scenes to make Sure Justice alito

(50:31):
knows that if he, retires they will, appoint for, instance
one of his former, clerks Like Fifth Circuit Judge Andy,
oldham to take his. Spot so you, know don't worry
your honor if you, leave your legacy will continue because
we're going to pick someone from your clerk. Family and in,
fact three of the current justices are replaced their, bosses

(50:51):
The chief replace the Old, Chief Justice kavanaugh Replace Justice,
kennedy And Justice jackson Replaced Justice. Bryer so that would
be kind of in life with what we've seen.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
Recently, okay, drama you were talking about The Supreme court.
Relationships do you buy into the fact That Kaitanji Brown
jackson is the least liked justice by her colleagues on
The Supreme court right.

Speaker 2 (51:17):
Now and the reason WHY.

Speaker 1 (51:18):
I would ask, is you've Seen kagan really kind of
take aim at Her Amy coney bart that's on the.
Left Amy Coney barrett is seems, very very. Nice she
seems like a mom in a pickup line very much
of the. Time and she HAS i don't, know fifteen
kids or whatever the heck she, has so she's used
to putting up with. FRUSTRATIONS i would imagine as a.

(51:40):
Mom she just took a two by four To Katanji
Brown jackson recently in her. Opinions what's going on? There
what do you think about the interpersonal?

Speaker 8 (51:49):
Dynamics, YEAH i have little mini biographies of each of
the justices in the. Book what they like to binge,
watch what shows they're into right, Now Justice kagan's poker.
Game and you, know a way to think about the,
justices there's no question is ideology. Right some justices are,
conservative some are. Liberal they're doing sort of different projects
along that you, know. Spectrum but it doesn't really help

(52:12):
you understand, why for, Instance Justice kavanaugh was more likely
to agree with every other justice on The court Except
jackson other Than Justice. Gorsic, right they're the same amount of.
Conservative so why are they only together fifty percent of
the time last? Term and the answer and don't, Worry
i'm getting to The Justice jackson part is there's this,
other you, know spectrum to think about the justices. ON

(52:36):
i like to think of it as. Institutionalism and you,
Know Justice gorsic is, like it's just. Me ALL i
do is tell you WHAT i think of the. Case
that's my only job. Here he writes a lot of
concurrences because of, That, like, ah here's my. Take Justice
kavanaugh thinks of this as more of a middle school group.
Project we're all in this. Together we speak with a
single voice when. Possible it's not about. Me Justice Jackson

(53:00):
Justice gorsich are very similar in terms of being low
institutionalists who see that like this is about what they
think about the. Case they don't have to think that
much about what previous courts thought about precedent for. Instance
so When Justice jackson joins the, court she does a
lot of things that are, Unusual LIKE i forget exactly

(53:24):
how many years it took for The Chief, justice for,
instance to write a solo descent about a. Decade she
wrote three her first year on the. Court she's just
not like a dues paying type of. Girl and, YEAH
i think that can rub your colleagues the wrong. Way
but there's only nine of. Them they take collegiality very.
Seriously As Justice barrett has, said it's kind of like

(53:45):
an arranged marriage for. Life and, SO i you, know
she Talks Justice jackson talks the most adoral. Argument she's
writing these solo. Descents she's you, know in these eight
to one, cases like in the conversion therapy. Case you
Know kagan And Soda mayor are with The. Conservatives, Nope
jackson's off on her. Own, YEAH i think that can tweak.

Speaker 3 (54:06):
People speaking To Sarah Sarah iger and she has a
book out which you should all check, Out Last Branch,
STANDING a potentially, surprising occasionally witty journey and to Just
Last Branch. Standing go find out On, Amazon go. Bye
you can get the rest of the title when you
buy the. Book So i'm glad you And clay are
having fun with all the legal nerds, stuff nerding it

(54:27):
out on the legal. Stuff clay wants to talk to
you about Previous supreme. Courts you guys can do a
whole podcast on. THAT i have to ask you, something which,
IS i heard you were on The view. Today what
was that like and what is the similarity between explaining
The Supreme court and being on The view to explaining
The Supreme court to a kindergarten.

Speaker 8 (54:46):
Class SO i will just tell, you, GUYS i was
so nervous about. It i've never been on The view. Before,
obviously you, KNOW i worked in the First trump. ADMINISTRATION
i worked, in you, know on a Gazillion republican campaigns
during my, career AND i was just, like, oh this
could go, really really. Poorly BUT i have to SAY

(55:07):
i actually had a great time BECAUSE i like introducing
people to The Supreme court and the audience was like
nodding along and they were, like, oh, Yeah congress isn't
doing its. Job it's like the one thing that Unites
americans is that nobody like approves Of. Congress they have
like a nine percent approval, rating And i'm dying to
meet one of those nine, percent if you know any

(55:28):
send them my. Way so it's fun to explain to
people that, like, hey you're being told this lie about
The Supreme. Court let me explain to you why that's not,
true and like who you should? Blame and we all
have control over that Because congress is the most representative.
Branch we get to vote on these guys every two.
Years so if they're not doing their, job blame, them
vote them. Out The Supreme court is supposed to be.

(55:49):
Countermajoritarian they're supposed to be a lagging indicator of our.
Politics they're actually doing their.

Speaker 1 (55:55):
Job, Okay so we mentioned what the possibility might be
going forward in terms of Is alito going to step?

Speaker 2 (56:02):
Down Katanji Brown.

Speaker 1 (56:03):
Jackson we have a massive, number i would, say of
significant cases still to be resolved between now and the
end of the, year, birthrights, citizenship The Voting Rights, act
in particular, jerrymandering whether it is allowed on a racial.
Basis what do you think in terms of super significant
decisions that we will, See will anything upset the proverbial

(56:27):
apple cart in terms of between now and when the
final opinions are released near the end Of.

Speaker 8 (56:34):
June there's no question that That Voting Rights act case
that you're talking about just has loomed over this whole.
Term you, know we've had, tariffs and we've had birthright, citizenship.

Speaker 2 (56:46):
But for the justices.

Speaker 8 (56:47):
Themselves The Voting Rights act has kind of plagued them for.
Years at this, point they keep having these cases come.
Back in this, case it's sort of, funny isn't the right.
Word it's not, like haha. Funny But louisiana draws their,
district they get sued because they only have one majority minority.
District so they're, like, fine so they draw a second
majority minority. District then they get sued by white voters

(57:10):
who are, like you racially jerrymandered that second district In louisiana's, like,
so what are we supposed to?

Speaker 2 (57:15):
DO i have one or have?

Speaker 8 (57:16):
Two because we get sued and we get found liable either.
Way so that's what The Supreme court is having to.
DECIDE i personally am into sort of the some of
the other statutory, cases if you. Will, so Can mississippi
receive ballots five days after election? Day or Did congress
say no to that because they said there's an election?

(57:38):
Day as they send the oral, argument do you have
to consummate the election on election? Day that was people
giggled in the. Courtroom if you're curious of.

Speaker 1 (57:48):
A nerdy law, JOKE i would imagine would be very
appealing to your average.

Speaker 2 (57:53):
Lawyer.

Speaker 8 (57:54):
Csummate there's this other case about the remain In mexico
policy and the question of Whether congress allows the administration
to prevent someone from getting to the southern border to
ask for. Asylum but to put this in bigger, context
all The court is being asked to do in those
cases is to say What congress said and their. Statute
so what's supposed to happen in our system if it

(58:16):
were functioning correctly based on The. Constitution after The Supreme
court says one way or the, other it shouldn't actually
matter Because congress the next day could amend their laws
to fix it to whichever way they wanted it to
say or what the people wanted it to. Be but
none of us believe That congress will actually do. That
so The Supreme court becomes the last. Word then we

(58:39):
blame The Supreme, court and then The Supreme court becomes really.
Important it becomes the focus of our. Politics but it's
not responsive to. Us it's supposed to be against these,
majorities and AS i, said like a lagging indicator of our.
Politics and so we've really got to put that pressure
back On congress and stop saying, like, well The Supreme court,
said so toss our hands. Up nothing we can do, like.

Speaker 7 (59:01):
No, no.

Speaker 8 (59:01):
No Whether mississippi can accept ballance is not a constitutional.
Question it's just up To. Congress that's, it.

Speaker 3 (59:09):
All, Right go get the. Book last branch, Standing. Sarah
great to have you on the. Program thanks for being
here with.

Speaker 8 (59:16):
Us thank you guys for having. Me really appreciate.

Speaker 3 (59:17):
It SO i was just drinking some blue looking water over.
Here you can actually see. It i'm almost done with.
It it's From chalk BECAUSE i use The chalk Chad mode pre,
workout which is delicious and also super. Effective gives me
a lot of. Energy after, This i'm probably gonna do a.
Podcast i'm gonna go play some, Padel i'm gonna clean
up the. House a wifey is happy with. Me i'm

(59:39):
gonna take care of Baby. SPEED i got a million
THINGS i gotta, do and thanks To chalk's Chad, MODE
i got the energy to push through my.

Speaker 2 (59:45):
Day that's their pre.

Speaker 3 (59:46):
Workout but if you want something that also is holistic
for overall support from the supplement, category you gotta check
out The Male Vitality.

Speaker 2 (59:55):
Stack.

Speaker 3 (59:55):
GUYS a lot of stuff happens when you have a
Boosted testostero And chalk's Mail Vitality sack can really help
in that. Equation proven INCREASED t levels by up to
twenty percent in just three months. Time chalk is spelled
with A q as in c h O. Q you'll
feel the increase in energy within weeks of including A
chalk product in your daily. Regimen go To chalk dot

(01:00:16):
com choq dot com Unlock Chalk's spring. Special when you
subscribe with my Name buck as your promo, Code chalk
will pack a free ninety nine dollars back of chocolate
powder with your first. Delivery That's chalk choq dot. Com
chalk choq dot com Code buck precent your pillows Clean
buck on The iHeart ap