The Chief Balderrama Fallout

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
The city placed Chief of Police PacoBalderama on paid administrative leave during the investigation.
I've been a little loath to talkabout it because there are different media
outlets running with different stories at differentlevels of confirmation, and so I was
a little bit I was a littlehesitant to talk about it in too much

(00:24):
depth. Our friend Alex Tavlian fromthe Sanlaquin Valley Sun kind of had the
story in its details. He hadsort of confirmed and ran with it sooner
than the Fresno b and other televisionoutlets did. But now pretty much everyone
is reporting largely similar things as faras the nature of the allegations against Paco

(00:50):
Balderama, basically that he the Cityof Fresno, I think, frankly,
in their initial press release, massivelydownplayed the significance of it in terms of
what they said. What they saidwas technically accurate. Balderama was being investigated
for a possible inappropriate relationship quote witha non city employee. The police union

(01:19):
issued a statement sort of angrily pointingout that the city left out a very
key detail in its characterization of thisrelationship Balderama was having. It wasn't just
any quote non city official. Itwas a two year long affair with the

(01:40):
wife of another police officer, anotherpolice officer under Balderama in the chain of
command. That's a much bigger deal. Okay, yeah, if I mean,
in all fairness, if Balderama wasjust having air with somebody you know,

(02:01):
I don't know, but with theI don't know, some ranom so
the lady who runs the dry cleaningstore where he does his dry cleaning,
who has no relationship with the policedepartment whatsoever, her husband's not in the
police department whatever. That would beterrible, that would be deeply morally wrong,
but it probably doesn't rise to thelevel of, you know, this

(02:24):
kind of an hr problem. Ifyou're sleep, if you're the chief of
police and you're having an affair withanother officer's wife, that's a much bigger
deal. That's a much bigger deal. So the City of Fresno announced they're

(02:45):
finally putting Balderama on paid administrative leave, and that made sense, especially yesterday.
So yesterday, Baldorama, he didn'treally have a press conference. It
was sort of just a media mediawe're sort of hanging out outside the city
council chambers. Baldarama was walking by. He said, I'm not going to

(03:06):
talk about the investigation, and thenproceeded to talk about it, which is,
you know, bad PR you knowbad PR one oh one. If
you're not going to talk about something, don't talk about it. So a
couple of outlets and GV wire hadhas the video of it of him talking

(03:27):
at length about this thing, andat one end I got to say the
video hearing him talk about it,I was Look, I've never had any
reason to dislike Paco Baldarama. Hehas seemingly done a very good job.
All the statistics about crime rates inFresno have been positive. Nobody has an

(03:53):
ill word has up to this pointhad an ill word to say about Balderama
other than extreme liberals. Frankly,when Balderama came in, it was right
after all the George Floyd's stuff andFresno had set up that I think bogus
Police Reform Commission, which had gottenstacked for Oliver Bains, I think had

(04:15):
gotten railroaded by Sandra Celadon and allthese ultra left wing, lunatic nonprofit activists
who were very much within the youknow, the the about you know,
defund the Police School, of thinking, and Baldarama basically said, yeah,

(04:35):
some of your recommendations are just notworkable and we're just not going to do
them. And I thought that wasgreat. I was, you know,
applauding the guy. So I've hadno occasion to dislike Baldarama up to this
point. You know, I don'tknow him. I don't know of him
all that well. All I knowis what I know of public stuff,

(04:58):
and most of the public stuff I'veseen from him has been just fine.
But gosh, his attitude in thislittle press scrum was so arrogant and so
like unaccountable. I mean, firstof all, getting angry at the media

(05:21):
and saying, don't ask anything salacioushere, to which I was thinking,
don't ask anything slatious. Maybe youdon't, maybe you shouldn't do something salacious
like a two year long affair withsomeone else's wife, Ask anything slatious.
And I don't think any of themedia was asking anything salacious. They were

(05:44):
asking this is the story, thisis the story that's out in the open.
He First of all, Balderama hashimself now admitted to an inappropriate relationship.
He released a letter in which aletter that he released to other officers
within the police department, expressing hisremorse for having had this relationship. He
does not specify that this was withanother officer's wife, so he has admitted

(06:14):
that he's done this. There's noquestion he's done this. So he's in
this press scrum. At one point, he's almost like trying to rationalize or
justify it when he says he hadthis quote if I sold insurance and I'm

(06:43):
ellipsis, and he's giving other examplesof other kinds of job, or if
I think he was saying, youknow, if I sold insurance, or
was head of another department, orwas the principal at a school, would
any of this would this make news, to which the reporter from GVRE sort
of said back to him incredulously.But you're the chief of police, and

(07:05):
yeah, that's the point here heis like, he's like, well,
well, this wouldn't even be anynews if I were a principle or if
I were, you know, sellinginsurance or something. Yeah, it probably
wouldn't be. Well maybe it wouldn'tbe. I maybe I'll get to that
later. Maybe it wouldn't be.But that's the point. You're the chief

(07:30):
of police. This is a veryvery big important job. You're the chief
of police of a major California city. This is a huge job. It
has, this is an enormous publictrust, and you spent two years on
the job. And by the way, he's been here for not that long

(07:56):
of a time. I mean,he was worn in in January of twenty
twenty one. He's been having anaffair with this woman for two years.
We're in June of twenty twenty four, so basically about he'd been on the
job for a year and then healready started having an affair with this person.

(08:24):
So he's spent most of his tenurehaving an affair with another officer's wife.
If the reporting is accurate here thatthis was a two year long affair,
I'm sure that the exact parameters anddetails of this are you know,
maybe it's probably not exactly twenty fourmonths on the dot or something, but

(08:45):
seemingly he spent most of his timeas mayor having an affair. He talks
about out of one side of hismouth and the other he's sort of saying
two different things about sort of hisstanding and his ability to keep doing his
job on an ongoing basis. So, on the one hand, he on

(09:05):
the one hand, he kept sayingthings in this press conference that MA can
indicate he fully intends and expects tokeep being the police chief, that you
know, I'm going to continue tolead this department. I intend to continue
leading this department. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

(09:26):
And then he says two things.One is that he's got so much support,
that so many people in the communitysupports me, and I know this
because I've heard from them and everyone, so so many people in the community
have reached out and supported me.But then on the other side of his
mouth he's got he's sort of sayingstuff like like there's a shadowy cabal that

(09:48):
definitely wants to take him down.There are definitely people who want to see
me fail. That was one ofthe things he said in this little press
scrum. Nearly people that want tosee me fail. No, there I
reject that contention. Out of anyprominent person in Fresno public life and Fresno

(10:13):
political life, there are probably fewpeople who had a better approval rating than
Paco Balderama did. Nobody wanted tosee him fail. Nobody, he as
by his own admission. He hada pretty good working relationship with the union.
He had two union grievances against himthat had both been withdrawn prior to

(10:35):
this, but that was it.He worked pretty well with the union,
He worked well with the city council, He worked well with the mayor.
Mayor likes him, Everyone likes him. Nobody had any reason really to dislike
Paco Balderama. He got in onelittle spat with Sandra seladon the ultra lefty
nonprofit sort of side of the universe, and that was it. Paco Balderama

(10:58):
had a very higher proof. Ireally don't think there are a lot of
people who would be happy to seehim fail. I don't know, maybe
other than the husband, other thanthe husband of the woman he's sleeping with.
So he's sort of talking out ofboth sides of his mouth to say,

(11:20):
well, this community supports me,but there are definitely people who want
to take me down. It wasalso sort of one of the questions he
was asked, was you know,are you worried? He said, I'm
not worried. There's so many worsethings happening every day and said, I'm
not worried about it. The BS, of course, you're worried, you're
having an investigation about your job.Don't tell me that this is a huge

(11:46):
job that you uprooted. He usedto be an officer in Oklahoma City.
He was hired from Oklahoma City tobe the chief of police for the city
of Fresno. You uprooted your wholelife to come out here to be the
chief of police of a major city. Of course you're worried. Dingle Berry.
He's got this false tough guy machismothing combined with this all this kind

(12:09):
of religious talk that frankly not soundingas great coming from a guy who's you
know, had an affair for twoyears. Frankly, the city should have
put him on paid administrative leave beforethis. I think, I think,

(12:33):
if you're actually doing an investigation intosomebody about whether or not he's had an
ef he's having an affair with asubordinate's wife, that where he has admitted
he's had he had an affair witha subordinate's wife and it went on for
two years. I guess I don'tunderstand how you don't put him on paid

(12:56):
administrative leave right away. And thenafter this press conference it becomes painfully obvious
because that was a train wreck ofa little press scrump. What he should
have said was, I had myletter that I wrote to the President police,
which was released to the media.That's all I'm going to say about
it. Move on away from thecamera. Maybe if he handled it like

(13:20):
that, I mean, that wouldbe better. But you know, he
has this press scrum. He saysall these stupid things. He's at the
verge of breaking up in tears throughoutthe press scrum. I mean, you
can tell his voice is like crackingthroughout the whole thing, Like this should
not be someone who's around a televisioncamera at any point. But it's also

(13:43):
a thing I heard, you know. I think it's a little odd to
have someone still sitting there in thebig guy's chair while the investigation is going
on as to his conduct. Imean, are subordinates going to be as

(14:05):
free and open with their thoughts abouthim if he's still in the big seat.
So, I I don't know.I find it odd how relatively kid
Glove the treatment of Balderama has been. And I'll note that yesterday the city

(14:28):
Council met in they had a oneparticular closed session portion of their meeting.
Certain for most things, the citycouncil has to meet in public, in
public session that's open to you know, scrutiny. And there's California a good
government like transparency laws that requires citycouncil meetings to be open in public.

(14:50):
But there are certain kinds of thingsthat need to be that can be in
closed session, particularly city personnel questionsand city litigation questions. And apparently they
met in closed session for an undisclosedpotential city litigation question. So I wonder
if Baldarama's people are trying to indicateto the city, you know, hey,

(15:16):
if you take adverse action against misterBalderama, that we might you know,
sue here. I don't know.I don't know if Balderama's secured council.
I'm not sure. The timing ofit, though, is suspicious.
Now, when we return, Iwant to talk about the idea of sexual
harassment in the workplace the John Girardiwherein John Girardi starts moralizing. That's next

(15:37):
on The John Girardi Show. Inlight of this whole Paco Balderama's story,
I want to just talk through theconversation my wife and I had last night
about this. So my wife hasan ongoing list. It's a list you
don't want to be on. It'sHolly Gay's list of people who have engaged

(16:03):
in inappropriate sexual conduct that she justbasically despises for the rest of all eternity.
And when you get on the list, you don't get off because Holly
remembers. Holly's got a mind likea steel trap, and you This is
not to say that Holly does notbelieve in forgiveness, and that you know,

(16:25):
you can seek forgiveness from God andget forgiveness from God, but you're
not going to get forgetfulness from oldHolly Girardi. That's that's That's that Hollykleivsky.
She does not forget. She remembersthings I've forgotten that there was another
there was some athlete from twenty yearsago or something who had done something really

(16:48):
stupid and she had remembered and Ihad forgotten. Like Ben Roethlisberger. She
does not forget that time that BenRoethlisberger possibly maybe sexual assaulted some woman and
the cops basically didn't charge him.With the prosecutors, the local prosecutors didn't
charge him, but they were like, hey, they released a bunch of
info about it to say, hey, something fishy happened here, but we

(17:11):
don't have the evidence to actually bringcharges, but we're pretty dang sure something
fishy happened. Holly's never forgiven orforgotten. Well, she's never forgotten anyway,
that about Ben Roethlisberg. She's stillnot forgotten Tom Brady ditching Bridget moynihan
for Giselle Bunch, and Tom Brady'son her list. A lot of guys,

(17:32):
a lot of people are on Holly'slist, And it's just a thing
of with Balderramo. He's been thepolice chief for three years, almost three
and a half years. He's carriedon an affair with another officer's wife for
two of those three years. Howdo you find the time? This is

(17:59):
the thing that baffles me. Andmaybe I'm maybe I'm just a dough eyed
naive, you know, naive person. How do you find the time?
I mean, being chief of policehas got to be an unbelievably time consuming,

(18:19):
stressful, your phone is buzzing twentyfour to seven kind of job.
It's a high stress, high workdemand job where you're working a lot.

(18:41):
And I've had time, you know, I you know, I can't say
that being a nonprofit director is astime consuming as being chief of police.
I highly doubt that, but I'vehad times over the course of my career,
especially like when we were starting ourclinic where I was burning the candle
at both ends. I was workingreally hard. I I don't know.
Maybe I've just got less game,I guess, But I not only I

(19:04):
don't have the time in my lifeto spend trolling for some other woman to
sleep with even if I and nordo I think. I don't understand how
he I would even to have theopportunity, Like it just baffles my mind,

(19:26):
Like I try to think of myself, like, Okay, here's this
person who has succumbed to human weakness. Could I see myself in these shoes?
And honestly, I have a hardtime thinking about how I could even
manage my time and my schedule,which is not as intense as his,
in order to facilitate a two yearlong affair of cheating on my wife.

(19:48):
And it's also a thing of it'snot just a succumbing to human weakness,
all right. I'm standing by thefridge at night, grabbing something for dessert,
and I s come to the humanweakness to grab one more cookie than
is good for me. This isa two year long affair. There's so
much like deliberate planning that has tohave gone on and deception that has to

(20:12):
have gone on. I guess Ijust don't understand. I find it difficult
to fathom that. And again maybeI'm just naive. I mean, clearly
people do that all the time,and it remind it reminds me of this

(20:34):
that. Okay, there are certainconservatives during the whole me too thing who
were like, oh Jesus, no, people are so upset about sexual harassment
and the world. These liberals havetaken the me too thing too far and
bar bla bla blah blah blah blah. And I'll agree that with there was
a certain aspect of the you know, believe all women thing that I think

(20:56):
turned into at times deny basic dueprocess protections for men. And I think
I try to have a balanced viewon the idea of sexual harassment and sexual
assault claims that yes, we shouldtake claims of sexual assault seriously and follow

(21:19):
the evidence where it leads, andwhile still though respecting due process rights for
those who are accused, but whenit comes to sexual harassment, in the
workplace. I take a very moralizingview. I've been working for you know,

(21:41):
when did I graduate laws? Twentythirteen? Okay, I've been working
ever since. I've worked with allkinds of people. I've worked with women,
I've worked with women. I've workedwith older women, I've worked with
younger women. I've worked with veryattractive women. I've worked with all kinds
of people. It's very easy notto sexually harass somebody. It's very easy,

(22:07):
in the context of your work,not to be a creep, not
to sexually harass somebody, not totouch people in ways that don't call for
it, not to sleep with someoneelse's coworker's wife. It's really very easy.

(22:32):
And it's the thing where it isn'treally human weakness here. Human weakness
again is standing in front of thefridge and eating that one extra oreo that
you shouldn't eat. It's so stupid, it's so evil. It involves so
much planning and positive decision making andlying and sneaking around. I think we

(22:53):
should it's and it's so easy notto do. I think they should just
canbald I'm on the spot, liketo do that to another officers with another
officer's wife. It destroys trust withinthe department. How can you possibly how
can you possibly be a leader ifyou're doing stuff like that, How can
you possibly enforce you know, correctHR standards within the department if you're off

(23:18):
doing that. I think he's gotto go. It's just I have a
very short fuse with stuff like this, and this is such bs. I
think he's got to go. Whenwe return, I want to talk about
this lingering in the background noise ofstories about Justice Alito. Now beyond commenting

(23:40):
on the flagsy waves, we're nowtalking about comments he made that were secretly
recorded. That's next on the JohnGirardi Show. Justice Alito has been the
target of everybody on the left.Really, all the conservative justices on the
Court have been part of this consistentcampaign that I think probably goes back to

(24:06):
at least the appointment of Amy ConyBarrett to the Supreme Court. Amy Cony
Barrett being put on the Supreme Courtto replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg was for Democrats
this unacceptable catastrophe because they knew there'snow a genuine conservative majority on the Court

(24:30):
at least five to four, ifnot in some cases. It's going to
be six to three, and thatthey are in deep due to the Supreme
Court. That they'd always been ableto count on for years and years and
years at least being on any importantissue, being five to four in their
favor was now flipped and it wassomething that was now so far outside of

(24:52):
their control that it was making thempanicky. And indeed that panic was justified,
as the Court would go one intwenty twenty two to overturn Roe v.
Wade, the most precious, sacredthing for the left. So ever
since then there's been this sort ofcampaign. Liberals realized they couldn't just come

(25:15):
out and say we want to packthe Supreme Court. They sort of tried
that at the start of the Bidenadministration. It got nowhere. They couldn't
get all well, they got Ithink they got like forty eight out of
the fifty Democrat senators to basically beon board with getting rid of the filibuster

(25:36):
rules so that they could expand thenumber of justices on the Supreme Court.
So again, let me just letme just res give our definitions here.
What Democrats wanted to do is packthe Supreme Court Court. Packing is a
term of art within American history andAmerican legal history. It calls to mind

(26:00):
the actions of Franklin Roosevelt, whowas very annoyed that so many of his
New Deal policies were being blocked bythe justices, the Republican appointee justices on
the Supreme Court. He was gettingreally frustrated they kept stopping him, stopping

(26:22):
him, stopping him. And soin the nineteen thirties, Roosevelt proposed legislation
to expand the number of seats onthe Supreme Court. Roosevelt had massive Democrat
majorities in the House of Representatives inthe US Senate, and so basically what
Roosevelt was proposing was he wanted toincrease the number of seats on the Supreme

(26:45):
Court so that he could appoint andhave his Senate confirm all these new replacements
in order precisely to change the ideologicalbalance of power on the court and get
different outcomes. That's what court packingmeans, and that's what Democrats want to
do. Now, Democrats have retorted, well, Donald Trump was court packing.

(27:07):
No, Donald Trump was aggressively fillingvacancies. He was not creating new
judgeships or new seats on the USSupreme Court. In order to change the
ideological outcome. He was filling vacancies. That's not court packing. That's just
aggressively filling vacancies. That's it.Every historian prior to the year twenty twenty

(27:37):
or yeah, basically, every historianprior to the year twenty twenty thought of
Roosevelt's conduct trying to pack the SupremeCourt. History has judged it very,
very negatively. Essentially, every historian, every historian of law, every historian
of the court has thought that Roosevelt'sdesire to pack the Supreme Court in the
nineteen thirties was a hugely destabilizing thing. It was not good, and it

(28:02):
was thoroughly rejected at the time byRoosevelt's own Democrat majorities in the House and
Senate. The Democrat leadership in theHouse and Senate said, nope, look,
we love the new Deal, butPresident Roosevelt, this is a step
too far, and you absolutely shouldnot do this. We should never take
this step of packing the Supreme Courtjust purely to achieve ideological outcomes. We

(28:25):
favor that that's wrong. So Democratsknow that if they're just purely brazen about
this, about wanting to pack theSupreme Court today because they think the current
conservative majority is unacceptable. They can'tjust do it baldly saying, Hey,

(28:48):
the Supreme Court has issued all thesedecisions we disagree with, We need to
flip those. They need to givesome other kind of bs rationale or why
they want to pack the Supreme Courtnow. They're not really in a position
to do that right now. Republicanshave control of the House to Representatives.

(29:11):
It would make no sense for Democratsto try to introduce legislation right now to
pack the Supreme Court. And frankly, I don't think Democrats have the votes
to do that in the Senate either. So what are Democrats hoping. Democrats
are hoping that they get at leastfifty two or so votes in the Senate,

(29:32):
that they take back the House toRepresentatives, and that they win the
White House, that President Biden getsre elected this November. If all that
happens, what they're going to sayis that the Supreme Court is so compromised
right now, so ethically compromised,that the only thing to do that would

(29:56):
be fair. We can't, youknow, we don't have the votes to
to kick to you know, toimpeach the sitting members of the Supreme Court,
although maybe they will initiate such proceedingsonce they have the house back.
But at the very least, wehave to to bring balance to the court.
To restore the court's reputation. Wehave to add four seats to the

(30:18):
US Supreme Court. And how arethey doing that with this campaign of stories
alleging ethical improprieties on the part ofall the conservative justices. So first,
it was Clarence Thomas who had thisfriendship with this billionaire who he wrote on

(30:40):
his jet a bunch of times,This billionaire who never had any cases in
front of the court. He wasbuddies with Justice Thomas. He let Justice
Thomas fly in his private jet.There was nothing he was doing that was
violating any kind of ethics, codeof conduct or anything of the sort.
But the story gets reported, andyou find enough lefties who just hate Clarence

(31:00):
Thomas, some lefty lawyer who's willingto say in a news story, oh,
this raises some very serious questions.Okay, well, it raises a
serious question. And here's the seriousanswer. It's not a conflict of interest.
It's not something that he has torecuse himself from. It's not something
he inappropriately failed to disclose he didn'tdo anything wrong. They release a story

(31:25):
about Justice Roberts that his wife isa high powered attorney in Washington, d
c. That she's basically kind ofa legal headhunter who helps recruit sort of
people to come into law firms assort of partner level status. So not
you know, new recruits coming freshout of law school, this is a
law firm that's looking for existing lawyerswith the long standing track record of practice

(31:49):
to kind of come in a sortof a lateral move. Oh, that
she makes something like a million dollarsper year. Yeah, his wife is
a really successful, accomplished attorney.Lots of Supreme Court justices have had spouses
that were highly successful, accomplished attorneys. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's husband was a very
successful, accomplished the fact that shehas a job and makes income, and

(32:10):
you know, yeah, probably she'sa little more prominent because her husband is
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But that's not her. That's not
something that's inappropriate. That's not someinappropriate cashing in on her husband's position.
They had all these stories. Theyhad even they tried to go after Neil

(32:32):
Gorsich because he sold one of hisHe had a house in Colorado that he
decided to sell and he sold itto some other lawyer in Colorado, and
it was all this. This issuch raises questions of propriety. No,
he sold a house. They're tryingto raise issues about Clarence Thomas that his

(32:55):
wife is super right wing and shewas kind of super supportive of Stop the
Steal stuff. It's like, okay, maybe she is. You cannot attach
espouses opinion to a justice. Wedon't do that. You can't say that,

(33:21):
well, Ginny Thomas was supportive ofStop the Steal. Therefore Clarence Thomas
needs to recuse himself from any casesinvolving the twenty twenty elections. No,
Thomas hasn't expressed anything. Clarence Thomashimself has not expressed anything. The fact
that Ginny Thomas believes what she wantsto believe, that's her business and it

(33:42):
does not necessarily impact anything that ClarenceThomas does. Well, now we get
to this whole thing with sam Alito. So you've got the flat this idiotic
story that sam Alito's wife flew anupside down American flag at their house.
This was after one of their neighborswas really nasty to her. It was

(34:06):
after January sixth. She was reallyupset, and for a couple of days
she flew the American flag upside down, which media members are allegedly saying that
was a notorious stop the steel logoor message to fly your flag upside down.
No flying the American flag upside down. First of all, I've never

(34:27):
heard of that as a stop thesteel thing. I know plenty of right
wingers who very firmly believe in stoppedthe steal. I've never seen any of
them fly the American flag upside down. I think generally flying the American flag
upside down it's just a distress signal, like what is wrong with this country?
What is you know? We're indistress. Then they said, oh
yeah, this other flag that wasanother stopped the steel thing. No,

(34:50):
it was some flag George Washington's secretarydesign it said appeal to Heaven on it
and flew that at his beach house. And that's another stop the steel thing.
No, it's not to stop thesteel thing. The arguments being made
he should therefore recuse himself from DonaldTrump's January sixth cases presidential immunity stuff.
No, that's ridiculous. Then wehave this reporter who secretly recorded comments by

(35:15):
Alito and Roberts at some party wherefrankly, the specific comments were made.
Alito was talking about divisions in thecountry. Justice privately said the Justice leader

(35:37):
is talking. He's talking to privatecontext where he said he hopes the country
couldn't return to some form of godlinesswas one of the things he said,
which, yeah, I think ajustice in a private moment is allowed to
express an opinion like that. Hesaid that he had little hope that the
country would be able to find compromiseon certain things, again in private.

(36:00):
That's probably true and not exactly aninappropriate thing for a justice to think in
private. So this is when wereturn. I want to talk about this
concept called the fog of news andhow I think that's the strategy that's being

(36:20):
employed next on the John Girardi Show. I think the problem we're facing when
it comes to the justices on theSupreme Court and all these stories about Sam
Alito some comments he made to areporter who lied to him, who clandestinely
recorded what he thought was a privateconversation where he said some very bland political

(36:42):
views about hoping the country returns togodliness, something that probably millions and millions
of Americans believe, and that hedoesn't have much hope that there's going to
be much compromise in American political life. This is on top of story after
story after story after story, noneof which had any merit to them,

(37:05):
about conservative justices allegedly doing things thatwere unethical and not recusing themselves for alleged
unethical conduct. Let's ignore Elena Kagannot recusing herself from the Obamacare case when
she had been Obama's Solicitor General workingon that precise case. Let's ignore Ruth
Bader Ginsberg openly opposing the election ofDonald Trump not appropriate. Let's ignore Sonya

(37:28):
Sotomayor openly encouraging college students to opposepro life laws. All these stories,
I think are creating a fog ofnews. It's creating a fog of Well,
the court seems pretty unethical. Sotherefore, if Democrats get all the
majorities in the House and Senate andwin the White House, it's okay if
they want to pack the Supreme Courtbecause we got to fix this. Yeah,
it seems like the Supreme Court's prettyunethical. No, they're not unethical.

(37:53):
This is a bogus attempt by theleft to pack the court. That'll
do it for John Jordi Show,See next time on Power Talk.