May 12, 2026 • 15 mins
Justin Haskins, Heartland Institute, made the case for a long forgotten provision which the Founders intended, but States did not adopt due to confusion. Does it make sense to consider?
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Staring at the correct page of the rundown to yours truly,
Preston Scott. How are You? Show five thousand, six hundred
and one of The Morning Show with Preston Scott. He's Oaseia,
I'm Preston, and this my friends is now. I embrace
him as not just a brother in Christ, but as
(00:26):
a friend of this radio program. He's the vice president
of policy for the Heartland Institute. Justin Haskins, Hello, sir.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Good morning.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
How are you are you?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Oh? I'm good.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Are you an early morning person by nature? Or do
you just get up for us?
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I absolutely am not. I just get up for you.
I love you that much. Preston.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
You know, I was a night owl almost well for
the first forty years of my life, and when I
started doing this show everything changed choice. But to become
a early to bed, early to rise.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Guy, it's terrible.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
I'm sorry. Do you have to have coffee like to
do this segment?
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Oh? Oh yeah, yeah, I have a whole I have
like an IV system.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Okay, look to me. You know, we have spent a
lot of time in the in the last few weeks
talking about the Supreme Court and redistricting battles across the country. Now,
states are taking an active look at their maps because,
as you well know, there are a lot of maps
that have been drawn for racial purposes over the years,
(01:35):
and now those are going to need to be looked at.
But you, I'm sure have your own vision of what's
going on here. What do you see?
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Yeah, so I think there's some some really important pieces
of information that the average person just does not know
on this issue.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
The first is that, because of the way the system
is set up, and because of Supreme cour or rulings
that have occurred in the past, every congressional house district
has to be roughly the same size. Okay, So you
can't have house districts by same size I mean population.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Wise, okay, okay, But the.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Problem is states don't have populations that are equally distributed
across the state. So the only way to have all
the you know, all the districts roughly the same size
is to draw really weird maps. So you have to
draw weird maps. That's just part of the rules. There's
(02:37):
really no way around it with the current rules that
we have now. So the question is how do you
draw those weird maps? And of course, politicians are going
to draw them in a way that benefits them, and
in places like New England and Illinois and in other
parts of the country that have been run by Democrats
largely for a long time, they've drawn the maps to
benefit them, and that's been going on for a lot
(03:00):
of people are now waking up to realizing that, you know,
over forty percent of the people who live in New England,
where I'm originally from, are Republicans, but they don't have
any congressional representatives. If they're lucky they get one, and
the whole set of states and makeup New England. Why
is that Because they're all gerrymandered districts. And this has
been going on forever, by the way, not just in
(03:22):
New England, but all across the country. This has just
been part of the system. So the idea that the
only reason we're having this conversation now is because Republicans
have been really bad at doing this compared to Democrats
historically in the states where they can get away with it,
and then in other states. The reason they were bad
is because there were laws on the books and supreme
(03:45):
courts that had determined that it was basically racist for
Republicans to try to do what Democrats had already been
doing for a long time. And now that the Supreme
Court has just overturned some of its previous decisions, we
now have a completely different maps, you know, that's going
to be put into place over the next decade. Really,
(04:08):
it's going to take probably a decade to get all
of the maps changed all across the country, and it
is a huge advantage for Republicans, but really it's just
resetting the way things are supposed to be. Now, there
is a solution to all of this, and this is
kind of the unique tape.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Back with Justin Haskins. He's an author, prolific writer, researcher,
and vice president of policy with the Heartland Institute. Our guest, So,
what is a solution to all of this redistricting mess
that we're now going to be thrust into with In
my opinion, justin the threat that if the Republicans don't
(04:45):
do something before they lose power, they're going to pack
the Supreme Court and they're going to do everything that
they can to overturn all of this.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Right, Okay, So the first thing is I think what
Republicans are doing is the right thing. To do under
the current rules. But I think the current rules are
garbage and they were created a long long time ago, effectively,
not the people who actually wrote the constitution. This came
along a lot later. The reason we have this problem
(05:16):
is because the original design for the Constitution was that
the House of Representatives would grow along with population growth.
That was the whole idea behind it. It was going
to get bigger and bigger and bigger because as we
have more people, we need more districts in order for
the districts to be accurate, you know, have accurate representation
(05:37):
that for you know, people in Washington that are representing
the people who actually live in the district. Right now,
the district sizes are so large that you have one
person representing you know, seven eight hundred thousand people. Soon
it will be a million people. In some places, they
represent the whole state. They're not really good representatives. This
(05:57):
is not what the founders intended. The district sizes were very,
very small when the country was first started. Just tens
of thousands of people lived in one congressional district. That
was the original plan for the constitution. Okay, the solution
to all of this, which sounds kind of crazy at
first glance. But the solution to all of this is
(06:18):
to significantly increase the size of the House of Representatives.
The Congress in the nineteen twenties, run by Republicans with
the Republican President, passed the law that capped the number
of representatives in the House of Representatives to four thirty five.
That's why we have four hundred and thirty five representatives
in the House, and Congress has never changed it. Okay,
(06:40):
even though we have like three or four times the
population now than we did then, the congressional districts keep
getting bigger and bigger and bigger in terms of the
population size, and we have to constantly have this cherrymandering problem.
You could solve jerrymandering really easily by just having congressions
districts being very small, so that so that they're they're
(07:02):
like the size of they could be the size of towns,
or in more rural areas, they would be the size
of maybe several towns or something like that. Your member
of Congress would represent maybe thirty forty fifty thousand people,
maybe maybe you could do one hundred thousand people something
like that. But running for Congress would be like running
for mayor. It wouldn't be running like it is today,
(07:25):
where you need millions and millions and millions of dollars
and you name recognition, and you need lobbyists in your
pocket and all this stuff in order to win office.
Is what This is what the Founding fathers originally intended, actually,
and we got away from it because corrupt politicians in
Washington realized that if they capped the number, they would
become increasingly more powerful over time, and they didn't want
(07:47):
to add more and more districts as the population was
rapidly growing in the early twentieth century. So my argument
would be that that's a model that if we had
that model where instead of having one representative representing seven eight,
nine hundred thousand people, you had one representative representing, say,
fifty thousand people. You wouldn't have jerrymandering because you couldn't
(08:10):
draw the districts large. The districts wouldn't be large enough
have jerrymandering, and if you did, it would be very
minor and you would get much better representatives than you
have today.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
I love this guy. I mean, I mean not just
as a brother in Christ, I just I was just
telling him I have such an appreciation for what he's
doing to try to help our nation be aware, you know,
he and I are in a similar place, and that
we can't make anything happen right. And as much as
we all understand and know God's will is going to
(08:43):
be sovereign when the big and the grandest picture, but
he still gives us the right to be wrong. He
gives our politicians the right to be wrong. He gives
us the free will to elect the wrong people, and
we've done a lot of that justin Are there any
as you look at this idea of how to redo
(09:04):
Congress in a broad sense, are there any potential downfalls
to this where it could get really messy and ugly?
Speaker 2 (09:16):
You know, I think that there's downsides to every kind
of system. I think a lot of people would argue
that what I'm proposing, which is essentially to create thousands
of new districts across the country, because if you had
a representative ratio like the one that we started with
in this country, where you had, you know, one representative
for say fifty thousand people roughly around that, you're talking
(09:37):
about having thousands of members of Congress, not four hundred
and thirty five well, it's.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Not unlike the Parliament in the UK.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Well, there are states in our country that have systems
that are more in line with this, and this is
part of the reason why I spot about all this
so much as I come from New Hampshire. That's where
I'm from. For those people who don't know, New Hampshire
has four hundred members in their House of Representatives, their
state House of Representatives, for a state with about a
million and a half or so people. So the average
(10:08):
district size at the state level in the House is
thirty five hundred people in New Hampshire. So every small
town in New Hampshire has their own state representative, and
they're regular people that get paid almost nothing, and there's
very little corruption in New Hampshire and very low taxes
and a lot of freedom that even though there's a
lot of people who vote for Democrats, that's still the
way the system works because they're regular people who run
(10:29):
for office. And so I really do think that this
model is the model. And by the way, just so
that people know, the original Bill of Rights first ten
amendments to the Constitution of the United States was actually
twelve amendments. Most people don't know this Congress passed twelve amendments,
but the states did not ratify all twelve of them.
One of the two amendments that they did not ratify,
(10:50):
it's called Article the First. This amendment, this very first amendment,
is the what was an attempt to do exactly what
I'm saying. It was a trying to create amendment to
the Constitution that required representative ratios to grow at a
certain pace and then eventually make it so that Congress
(11:14):
could had to have a representative ratio like the one
I'm talking about, so that you couldn't have these mass
congressional districts. And the only reason it didn't end up
being ratified by the states, even though Congress passed it,
is because the people, the scribes who were writing this
down botched it and when they sent it out to
the states, the language was screwed up, the mathematical formula
(11:38):
was all messed up, and some of the states realized
it was messed up and didn't ratify it. And that's
the only reason that it didn't happen. So this was
the intention. This was the plan, and I think it
was a good plan. And since then, because that didn't happen,
we've ended up with all this cherryman nonsense, with a
Congress that doesn't care about the people with corrupt in Washington,
(12:00):
d C. I think all of this could be solved
by having thousands of members of Congress who are regular
people who don't get paid very much money, but are
doing it for the right reasons, and then you wouldn't
have to worry about Jerry manderin. You would have people
who really do come from the communities that they're representing.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
So this would require then a complete overhaul of, at
least on the House side, the math on what these
people are paid to serve, and they would have to
become part time politicians, yeah, or people.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Who get paid very low amount of money. Yeah. I
think that's how it works in New Hampshire. They get
paid I think it's like less than five thousand dollars
a year to do that job in New Hampshire. There's
no reason why we can't have plenty of people who
would be in Congress. You're not going to have trouble
finding people who want to be in Congress, and they'd
be there for the right reasons, and you couldn't have lobbyists.
(12:54):
Just think about how hard it would be to be
a lobbyist who's trying to buy off four thousand politicians.
That's a lot harder to do than to buy off
just a handful of swing votes. So this whole system,
I think all it would require, by the way, is,
and that is a law from Congress that changes how
many members of Congress there are. Congress could do this
(13:14):
at any time. Now, I think this is the path forward.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Now, you and I both know that such an idea
is a remarkably heavy lift, right, yes, unquestionably. So realistically,
what do you think is going to happen in the
next ten years.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Realistically what's going to happen is the House is going
to stay the same size four thirty five. They're not
going to listen to Justin Haskins, that is for sure,
and they are going to become increasingly more partisan. You're
going to have everybody jerry mander the districts all across
the country in every single state to the best of
their ability, and Republicans will probably end up with a
(14:00):
light advantage over the Democrats, but it won't be as
big of an advantage as it's going to be this
particular election season, because once Democrats have enough time to
further gerrymander their districts. They'll eat away at some of
the advantage for Republicans. But I think it's just going
to create this sense just like we have continuously, this
has been we've been moving into ditrection for a long time.
(14:21):
Americans feel that the system is rigged, that Washington doesn't care,
that Congress is not listening to them, that and everyone is.
This is just going to solidify that idea in people's minds.
And you know what, I think for a large to
a large extent, it's true. And the most ironic part
of all of it is the House is really not
the reason why things don't get passed anyway. It's the
Senate that's the real problem. They're not doing anything related
(14:44):
to that.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Ah. Yes, Kat Camick, Us, Congresswoman, that's our guests from Florida.
She said it. The Democrats are the opposition party. The
Senate is the enemy.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Yeah. I think that's one hundred percent true. The Senate
is designed to not get anything done. We're not going
to get anything done until we change the filibuster rule
in the Senate, which is a whole different conversation. But
I think that that's something that needs to happen.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Justin, thanks as always for your time. I appreciate you
getting up early for us on the Left Coast and
blessings to you and your family.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Same to you, brother.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Thank you. Justin Askins with us this morning on the
Morning Show with Preston Scott
Staring at the correct page of the rundown to yours truly,
Preston Scott. How are You? Show five thousand, six hundred
and one of The Morning Show with Preston Scott. He's Oaseia,
I'm Preston, and this my friends is now. I embrace
him as not just a brother in Christ, but as
(00:26):
a friend of this radio program. He's the vice president
of policy for the Heartland Institute. Justin Haskins, Hello, sir.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Good morning.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
How are you are you?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Oh? I'm good.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Are you an early morning person by nature? Or do
you just get up for us?
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I absolutely am not. I just get up for you.
I love you that much. Preston.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
You know, I was a night owl almost well for
the first forty years of my life, and when I
started doing this show everything changed choice. But to become
a early to bed, early to rise.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Guy, it's terrible.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
I'm sorry. Do you have to have coffee like to
do this segment?
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Oh? Oh yeah, yeah, I have a whole I have
like an IV system.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Okay, look to me. You know, we have spent a
lot of time in the in the last few weeks
talking about the Supreme Court and redistricting battles across the country. Now,
states are taking an active look at their maps because,
as you well know, there are a lot of maps
that have been drawn for racial purposes over the years,
(01:35):
and now those are going to need to be looked at.
But you, I'm sure have your own vision of what's
going on here. What do you see?
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Yeah, so I think there's some some really important pieces
of information that the average person just does not know
on this issue.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
The first is that, because of the way the system
is set up, and because of Supreme cour or rulings
that have occurred in the past, every congressional house district
has to be roughly the same size. Okay, So you
can't have house districts by same size I mean population.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Wise, okay, okay, But the.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Problem is states don't have populations that are equally distributed
across the state. So the only way to have all
the you know, all the districts roughly the same size
is to draw really weird maps. So you have to
draw weird maps. That's just part of the rules. There's
(02:37):
really no way around it with the current rules that
we have now. So the question is how do you
draw those weird maps? And of course, politicians are going
to draw them in a way that benefits them, and
in places like New England and Illinois and in other
parts of the country that have been run by Democrats
largely for a long time, they've drawn the maps to
benefit them, and that's been going on for a lot
(03:00):
of people are now waking up to realizing that, you know,
over forty percent of the people who live in New England,
where I'm originally from, are Republicans, but they don't have
any congressional representatives. If they're lucky they get one, and
the whole set of states and makeup New England. Why
is that Because they're all gerrymandered districts. And this has
been going on forever, by the way, not just in
(03:22):
New England, but all across the country. This has just
been part of the system. So the idea that the
only reason we're having this conversation now is because Republicans
have been really bad at doing this compared to Democrats
historically in the states where they can get away with it,
and then in other states. The reason they were bad
is because there were laws on the books and supreme
(03:45):
courts that had determined that it was basically racist for
Republicans to try to do what Democrats had already been
doing for a long time. And now that the Supreme
Court has just overturned some of its previous decisions, we
now have a completely different maps, you know, that's going
to be put into place over the next decade. Really,
(04:08):
it's going to take probably a decade to get all
of the maps changed all across the country, and it
is a huge advantage for Republicans, but really it's just
resetting the way things are supposed to be. Now, there
is a solution to all of this, and this is
kind of the unique tape.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Back with Justin Haskins. He's an author, prolific writer, researcher,
and vice president of policy with the Heartland Institute. Our guest, So,
what is a solution to all of this redistricting mess
that we're now going to be thrust into with In
my opinion, justin the threat that if the Republicans don't
(04:45):
do something before they lose power, they're going to pack
the Supreme Court and they're going to do everything that
they can to overturn all of this.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Right, Okay, So the first thing is I think what
Republicans are doing is the right thing. To do under
the current rules. But I think the current rules are
garbage and they were created a long long time ago, effectively,
not the people who actually wrote the constitution. This came
along a lot later. The reason we have this problem
(05:16):
is because the original design for the Constitution was that
the House of Representatives would grow along with population growth.
That was the whole idea behind it. It was going
to get bigger and bigger and bigger because as we
have more people, we need more districts in order for
the districts to be accurate, you know, have accurate representation
(05:37):
that for you know, people in Washington that are representing
the people who actually live in the district. Right now,
the district sizes are so large that you have one
person representing you know, seven eight hundred thousand people. Soon
it will be a million people. In some places, they
represent the whole state. They're not really good representatives. This
(05:57):
is not what the founders intended. The district sizes were very,
very small when the country was first started. Just tens
of thousands of people lived in one congressional district. That
was the original plan for the constitution. Okay, the solution
to all of this, which sounds kind of crazy at
first glance. But the solution to all of this is
(06:18):
to significantly increase the size of the House of Representatives.
The Congress in the nineteen twenties, run by Republicans with
the Republican President, passed the law that capped the number
of representatives in the House of Representatives to four thirty five.
That's why we have four hundred and thirty five representatives
in the House, and Congress has never changed it. Okay,
(06:40):
even though we have like three or four times the
population now than we did then, the congressional districts keep
getting bigger and bigger and bigger in terms of the
population size, and we have to constantly have this cherrymandering problem.
You could solve jerrymandering really easily by just having congressions
districts being very small, so that so that they're they're
(07:02):
like the size of they could be the size of towns,
or in more rural areas, they would be the size
of maybe several towns or something like that. Your member
of Congress would represent maybe thirty forty fifty thousand people,
maybe maybe you could do one hundred thousand people something
like that. But running for Congress would be like running
for mayor. It wouldn't be running like it is today,
(07:25):
where you need millions and millions and millions of dollars
and you name recognition, and you need lobbyists in your
pocket and all this stuff in order to win office.
Is what This is what the Founding fathers originally intended, actually,
and we got away from it because corrupt politicians in
Washington realized that if they capped the number, they would
become increasingly more powerful over time, and they didn't want
(07:47):
to add more and more districts as the population was
rapidly growing in the early twentieth century. So my argument
would be that that's a model that if we had
that model where instead of having one representative representing seven eight,
nine hundred thousand people, you had one representative representing, say,
fifty thousand people. You wouldn't have jerrymandering because you couldn't
(08:10):
draw the districts large. The districts wouldn't be large enough
have jerrymandering, and if you did, it would be very
minor and you would get much better representatives than you
have today.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
I love this guy. I mean, I mean not just
as a brother in Christ, I just I was just
telling him I have such an appreciation for what he's
doing to try to help our nation be aware, you know,
he and I are in a similar place, and that
we can't make anything happen right. And as much as
we all understand and know God's will is going to
(08:43):
be sovereign when the big and the grandest picture, but
he still gives us the right to be wrong. He
gives our politicians the right to be wrong. He gives
us the free will to elect the wrong people, and
we've done a lot of that justin Are there any
as you look at this idea of how to redo
(09:04):
Congress in a broad sense, are there any potential downfalls
to this where it could get really messy and ugly?
Speaker 2 (09:16):
You know, I think that there's downsides to every kind
of system. I think a lot of people would argue
that what I'm proposing, which is essentially to create thousands
of new districts across the country, because if you had
a representative ratio like the one that we started with
in this country, where you had, you know, one representative
for say fifty thousand people roughly around that, you're talking
(09:37):
about having thousands of members of Congress, not four hundred
and thirty five well, it's.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Not unlike the Parliament in the UK.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Well, there are states in our country that have systems
that are more in line with this, and this is
part of the reason why I spot about all this
so much as I come from New Hampshire. That's where
I'm from. For those people who don't know, New Hampshire
has four hundred members in their House of Representatives, their
state House of Representatives, for a state with about a
million and a half or so people. So the average
(10:08):
district size at the state level in the House is
thirty five hundred people in New Hampshire. So every small
town in New Hampshire has their own state representative, and
they're regular people that get paid almost nothing, and there's
very little corruption in New Hampshire and very low taxes
and a lot of freedom that even though there's a
lot of people who vote for Democrats, that's still the
way the system works because they're regular people who run
(10:29):
for office. And so I really do think that this
model is the model. And by the way, just so
that people know, the original Bill of Rights first ten
amendments to the Constitution of the United States was actually
twelve amendments. Most people don't know this Congress passed twelve amendments,
but the states did not ratify all twelve of them.
One of the two amendments that they did not ratify,
(10:50):
it's called Article the First. This amendment, this very first amendment,
is the what was an attempt to do exactly what
I'm saying. It was a trying to create amendment to
the Constitution that required representative ratios to grow at a
certain pace and then eventually make it so that Congress
(11:14):
could had to have a representative ratio like the one
I'm talking about, so that you couldn't have these mass
congressional districts. And the only reason it didn't end up
being ratified by the states, even though Congress passed it,
is because the people, the scribes who were writing this
down botched it and when they sent it out to
the states, the language was screwed up, the mathematical formula
(11:38):
was all messed up, and some of the states realized
it was messed up and didn't ratify it. And that's
the only reason that it didn't happen. So this was
the intention. This was the plan, and I think it
was a good plan. And since then, because that didn't happen,
we've ended up with all this cherryman nonsense, with a
Congress that doesn't care about the people with corrupt in Washington,
(12:00):
d C. I think all of this could be solved
by having thousands of members of Congress who are regular
people who don't get paid very much money, but are
doing it for the right reasons, and then you wouldn't
have to worry about Jerry manderin. You would have people
who really do come from the communities that they're representing.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
So this would require then a complete overhaul of, at
least on the House side, the math on what these
people are paid to serve, and they would have to
become part time politicians, yeah, or people.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Who get paid very low amount of money. Yeah. I
think that's how it works in New Hampshire. They get
paid I think it's like less than five thousand dollars
a year to do that job in New Hampshire. There's
no reason why we can't have plenty of people who
would be in Congress. You're not going to have trouble
finding people who want to be in Congress, and they'd
be there for the right reasons, and you couldn't have lobbyists.
(12:54):
Just think about how hard it would be to be
a lobbyist who's trying to buy off four thousand politicians.
That's a lot harder to do than to buy off
just a handful of swing votes. So this whole system,
I think all it would require, by the way, is,
and that is a law from Congress that changes how
many members of Congress there are. Congress could do this
(13:14):
at any time. Now, I think this is the path forward.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Now, you and I both know that such an idea
is a remarkably heavy lift, right, yes, unquestionably. So realistically,
what do you think is going to happen in the
next ten years.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Realistically what's going to happen is the House is going
to stay the same size four thirty five. They're not
going to listen to Justin Haskins, that is for sure,
and they are going to become increasingly more partisan. You're
going to have everybody jerry mander the districts all across
the country in every single state to the best of
their ability, and Republicans will probably end up with a
(14:00):
light advantage over the Democrats, but it won't be as
big of an advantage as it's going to be this
particular election season, because once Democrats have enough time to
further gerrymander their districts. They'll eat away at some of
the advantage for Republicans. But I think it's just going
to create this sense just like we have continuously, this
has been we've been moving into ditrection for a long time.
(14:21):
Americans feel that the system is rigged, that Washington doesn't care,
that Congress is not listening to them, that and everyone is.
This is just going to solidify that idea in people's minds.
And you know what, I think for a large to
a large extent, it's true. And the most ironic part
of all of it is the House is really not
the reason why things don't get passed anyway. It's the
Senate that's the real problem. They're not doing anything related
(14:44):
to that.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Ah. Yes, Kat Camick, Us, Congresswoman, that's our guests from Florida.
She said it. The Democrats are the opposition party. The
Senate is the enemy.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Yeah. I think that's one hundred percent true. The Senate
is designed to not get anything done. We're not going
to get anything done until we change the filibuster rule
in the Senate, which is a whole different conversation. But
I think that that's something that needs to happen.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Justin, thanks as always for your time. I appreciate you
getting up early for us on the Left Coast and
blessings to you and your family.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Same to you, brother.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Thank you. Justin Askins with us this morning on the
Morning Show with Preston Scott
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com