Amy Coney Barrett vs. Ketanji Brown Jackson

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, I don't want to get too sidetracked. I want
to stay on the Supreme Court decision. But it goes
to the historic, say, last seven or ten days that
Trump has had and the incredible role that he's on,
which is Scott and Weymouth asked just before the break,
you know, do you think Israel needs to go back
in there and finish the job? I e. Take out

(00:22):
the Ayatolas. Well, soon they may have no choice. And
this is what happened over the weekend. Everybody, you need
to hear this. So the Grand Supreme Ayatola, not how
Many himself, but sort of one of his one of
the top clerics in Iran who's a big supporter of

(00:46):
how Many, but he runs the council that essentially runs Iran. Okay,
in a nutshell, the Grand Supreme Ayatola has now issued
a fatwa basically, it's a death sentence, a religious edict
on both President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister bib Net Niau.

(01:10):
And in that fatua over the weekend, he is now
ordered it's an order, it's an edict, it's a religious duty,
an obligation. He has now ordered every Muslim in the
world to assassinate and kill Trump, and to assassinate and
kill Bibie. And by the way, this is the exact

(01:32):
same fatwa that was issued against Salmon Rushti, remember him,
the novelist the Satanic verses. And they've tried what is
it three or four times to kill him and what
was it a couple of years ago in New York
they badly heard him. He's blinded in one eye. They
almost killed him and basically had to live underground for

(01:55):
most of his life. So the exact same fatua that
they issued against Salmon Rushti is what they've issued against Trump.
And according now to the Ayatolas, again this is a
religious edict, a religious commandment. They say that anyone who
kills Trump or bb will be considered quote unquote a

(02:21):
warrior for Allah, which means if you die in the process,
you will not just get eternal salvation and peace in heaven,
but I yes, the seventy two Virgins. I'm not kidding.
You get everything. You get eternal peace, eternal salvation, eternal happiness,

(02:42):
and you get the seventy two Virgins thrown in as well.
It's essentially a declaration of war, a declaration of religious war.
It's a jihad. And so as I said on X yesterday,
I want to repeat it. I want you all of
you to think about this. The Ayatolas would be dead,

(03:06):
The Supreme Leader would be a dead man right now.
Bibi and the Israelis knew exactly which bunkers they were in.
They were in a sub suburb in Tehran, and he
wanted to take out the all of them, all the Iyatolas,
just take them out. And it was Trump who said,
don't do that. You're going to decapitate the regime. We

(03:27):
don't have no we'll have nobody to negotiate with. It
could throw the country into anarchy, into chaos, and so
literally they would be dead now if it wasn't for
President Trump. And this is how they pay us back.
This is their gratitude for saving their lives, putting a

(03:51):
bounty on Trump's head and of course Bbe's head. And
as I said, you know, Israel should have just been
a lot out to finish the job. Man. I mean,
these people are unbelievable. They're sick, they're scum, they're evil,
they're vile. But the point is now Trump, for the

(04:11):
rest of his life is going to be living now
under the sword of Damocles. He's going to be living
now under the threat of Islamis terrorists directed by Tehran,
saying it is now a religious duty and obligation to
murder him and his family. You know, that's why Scott said,

(04:38):
you think the Israelis are going to finish it. These
Mullas may give him no choice. I mean, if you're
putting bounties on the heads of the free world and
the head of the state of Israel, you know pretty
much you're taking a lot of options off the table.
Is getting to the point. It's getting there either we

(04:59):
take you out or you take us out. And we're
not gonna let you take us out anyway. So that's
the answer to your question, Scott. I think Israel eventually
will take them out because these Mullah's, again, they're evil
knows no bounds. Now as for these radical left wing judges,

(05:24):
their evil knows no bounce. And I know I touched
on this, okay earlier, but you got to read parts
of this Supreme Court decision. I have never ever seen
anything like this. It was authored by Amy Coney Barrett.

(05:47):
There were five other justices that agreed with her. Three
liberals dissented. The Key descent, however, came from Katanji Brown Jackson,
and if you remember, she was the one during her
nomination hearings that couldn't define what a woman is. Was

(06:09):
asked repeatedly, well can you just define a biological woman?
And she's like, no, that's not that's that's not within
my purview. They're like, you can't define a woman. No,
I refuse to define a woman. I can't define a woman. Okay,
this is the intellectual caliber of what we're dealing with.

(06:30):
This is how stupid this woman is. And remember Biden
picked her because, in his words, the only two qualifications
he was looking for only two person had to be black.
Person had to be a woman. That's it. Like, that's it.

(06:51):
If you're a black, If you're a black person and
you happen to be a woman, the plumbing is right.
Then you're in. You're in now. Even if you just
went with black women, there are many more qualified women
than her, but he went with her. Now, in her dissent,

(07:12):
this is key now, she literally takes the slogan you
know from the no King's protest and says this decision
will make the president a king. This decision takes the
United States, and the majority is now culpable. So she's saying,

(07:37):
the Supreme Court majority of the six justices voting, you know,
to stop these nationwide injunctions, are literally putting the United
States on the road to a king like tyranny. She's
accusing the other six justices of killing democracy and enabling

(08:00):
Trump to become a tyrant, a dictator, a king, whatever
you want to call him. Now never in the history
of the Supreme Court has someone leveled that kind of
a vicious, frankly stupid, utterly ignorant, but nasty ad hominem attack.

(08:24):
And so Amy Coney Barrett, with the full support of
all the other justices, gave her rebuttal. If they didn't
want her to include the words that Amy Coney Barrett
did it put in the text, they would have told
her to. They wanted her. Now, I'm going to read
it at the after this break, and I want to

(08:46):
get your take. She went, as far as you can
possibly go. Okay, before I get into this, I mean,
just by Supreme Court standards, trust me, this was like
a cage match. Okay, like a judicial legal cage match
by Supreme Court standards. But before I get into this

(09:09):
Amy Coney Barrett versus Katanji Brown Jackson slaughter. That's what
it was. I mean, just a SmackDown. I want to
ask all of you. It is the Kooner Country Pole
Question of the Day sponsored by Marios Marios Quality Siding,
Roofing and Windows. Do you think activist left wing judges

(09:36):
will abide by the Supreme Court's historic ruling? In other words, yes,
they've been rained in. Yes, their individual power to issue
nationwide injunctions has been severely limited by the Supreme Court,
no question, But will they abide by it? A? Yes,

(10:01):
B no. I want to hear from you. You can
vote on our web page wrko dot com slash cooner
wrko dot com slash cooner. Kuh And is in national Er.
You can also vote via X again. I was very
active on X my handle. There all one word at

(10:25):
the Kooner Report. Kuh And is in national Er at
the Kooner Report. Obviously, I hope the answer is yes.
They're duty bound. They're legally bound to abide by the
Supreme Court. But knowing then, I think some will not,

(10:45):
which means then they should be arrested. Enough is enough?
How many times do you have to have to have
the Supreme Court rule against you? Six one seven two, six, six,
sixty eight sixty eight is the number. So here it is.
Katangi Brown Jackson, as I pointed out, did something that's

(11:06):
never been done before. She literally took slogans from protests
anti Trump protests and just threw them into her descent.
And one of the big ones was this mindless slogan
from the no Kings protests a couple of weeks ago,
if you remember that. And so she went on about, well,

(11:31):
if these judges can't issue nationwide injunctions, universal injunctions against
against Trump's policies, then, as she put it, this majority
i e. The six who are voting, who are on
the side of the majority in the opinion, this six

(11:53):
now have are enabling Trump down the path to now
become quote a king, a tyrant, or a dictator. So
she's accusing these justices of being toadies to tyranny of essentially,

(12:15):
according to her, you are betraying democracy, according to Katangi
Brown Jackson, and you are now enabling and empowering the
rise of a Hitler, the rise of a king, the
rise of a tyrant. Now amy Cony Jackson did something

(12:36):
that is rarely done. Again, I want to stress this
by your standards, my standards, the standards of talk radio
or of Congress or what you see on cable news.
This is tame stuff. What you're going to hear for
the Supreme Court, it's unheard of because the Supreme Court,

(12:59):
the basis of this Supreme Court is that it must
be reasoned, measured, the language itself has to be scholarly.
That even though there are deep issues that divide the country,
even if you agree or disagree, the Supreme Court is
supposed to show the way that you can have a
good faith argument. So the Supreme Court never makes a

(13:23):
personal attack or criticism. The Supreme Court never specifically mentions
a certain job or rarely mentions a specific justice and
then just goes after them hard. This was by Supreme
Court standards, this was brutal. This was the equivalent of

(13:46):
Amy Cony Barrett throwing Haymaker after Haymaker after Haymaker against
Catanji Brown Jackson. And I'm telling you it was a
beautiful thing, a beautiful thing to So here is what
she wrote in part of the majority opinion quote. So

(14:06):
she's now dealing with her ridiculous arguments supporting these nationwide injunctions.
It's going to lead to tyranny, dictatorship, an imperial executive,
as she calls it, an imperial presidency. Will this is
what Amy Cony Barrett writes, We will not dwell on

(14:28):
Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than
two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,
we observe only this Justice Jackson. The cries an imperial

(14:49):
executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. Boom, I mean boom.
So what she's saying is you're you're flagrantly ignoring the Constitution.
What you're arguing is against two hundred years of precedent. Basically,

(15:15):
she's saying, you're just making this up as you go along. Okay,
that's already a smack. But then she says, yeah, you're
going on about this imperial executive, this supposed dictatorship. Well,
what you really want is judicial tyranny. What you're really
embracing here, and you should be ashamed of yourself, is

(15:37):
quote an imperial judiciary. Now, if that wasn't bad enough,
she then goes on to describe I mentioned the Judiciary
Act of seventeen eighty nine, okay, which is where they
designed the judicial system and what a judge's role is
and the oath he's supposed to follow. She then writes this.

(16:02):
She says, as as she lays out the Judiciary Act
of seventeen eighty nine and the impact it had on
our judiciary going on for over one hundred years. She
then says to Jackson, quote Justice Jackson skips over that

(16:23):
part about the Judiciary Act of seventeen eighty nine, about
what judges were historically told what to do and what
not to do, what their proper limits are, and then
she says, because analyzing the governing statute, meaning the Judiciary
Act of seventeen eighty nine, involves boring legalese. Now, I

(16:52):
mean every Supreme Court watcher said, you don't stand. What
Barrett is essentially saying, as far as she can say
within the framework of the Supreme Court is that Ketanji
Brown Jackson is literally too stupid, too dumb, too mentally

(17:20):
lazy to understand basic constitutional law. That did you even
read our opinion? Do you even know what our opinion says?
That's what she's saying, like in other words, this is
clearly above your head, and you're so mentally lazy you

(17:42):
can't even take the effort to read the paragraphs that
we've inserted about the Judiciary Act of seventeen eighty nine.
She's essentially calling her a dei higher and she's saying
all this with the full support of the other five
concurring justices. So the majority are basically calling Katangi Brown

(18:07):
Jackson forgive me an idiot. Six one seven two six
six sixty eight sixty eight is the number. Okay, very
very quickly, listen now to Jonathan Turley on Fox. He's
their legal analyst, saying, look, you want to know why
they really smack down Katangi Brown Jackson. I mean, by

(18:31):
Supreme Court standards, they just slapped her in the face
and then slapped her again and then just you know,
like slap slap, slap, slap slap.

Speaker 2 (18:42):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (18:42):
They're getting tired of the histrionics and the hysteria. They're
sick of it. Everything is a threat to democracy, Everything
is the coming of a dictatorship. They said it for
four years the first time. They've been saying it for
the last couple of years. Years that had been saying
it for the last six months, like really, it's your

(19:04):
act is getting boring and frankly stupid and juvenile. Roll
cut twenty seven, Mike.

Speaker 3 (19:12):
As you noted, the opinion was really radioactive in this
takedown of Justice Jackson. It's rare. I've been covering the
Supreme Court for decades. It's rare to see that type
of exchange. The important thing to remember is that, you know,

(19:35):
Justice Barrett delivered what was essentially a pile driver, but
she didn't do it alone. I mean, her colleagues signed
on to this. And I think it's very clear that
the majority is getting tired of the histrionics and the
hysteria that seemed to be growing a bit on the
left side of the court. But this was really an

(19:57):
astonishing takedown by by the Justice.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
No, there's no question to me, he says rare. To me,
it's unheard of. But you know, he's a court watcher.
I don't know. Maybe you can point to another example
or two, but to me, this is unheard of. And look,
it's not just that she said it is that she
said it in the majority opinion, which means the other
five agree with her. They signed onto this. If they

(20:24):
didn't like a certain phrase or a certain personal attack,
they would have removed it, but they kept it in.
So this is what's happening now on the Supreme Court.
The six who voted in favor of this ruling are
telling Katangi Brown Jackson, not even behind closed doors now,
but to her face in public, in a ruling in

(20:47):
front of the whole world. You're an idiot, That's what
they're telling her. You're a woke idiot, and that you're
clearly unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice. You don't
know what you're talking about. You're ignorant of the Constitution.
You make stuff up as you go along, and you're

(21:11):
literally now an activist on the High Court. You're no
different than then No King's protesters. You're just taking cheap
sloganeering and just throwing it into Supreme Court decisions. You're
essentially you're out of your league, you're out of your depth.
You're a diversity equity inclusion ADI higher who never should

(21:38):
have been installed on the Supreme Court. That's I'm telling you.
That's what they're essentially telling her to her face, And
I think she's so stupid. Again, this is a woman
that can't define what a woman is. I think even
this is going above her head like she's she may

(21:59):
be the word I. He may be the worst Supreme
Court justice we've ever had. And that's saying something. So
this ruling is historic for many many reasons. What it's
now shown is there's a chasm, an ideological chasm, on
the Supreme Court. And the six have now told the

(22:21):
three not only are you wrong, but they've told one
of the three, you're an embarrassment. You're an embarrassment. That's
how bad your reasoning is. Now Quickly, I want to
play one more cut that. I want to go back
to the phone lines six one, seven two six, six,
sixty eight sixty eight. Another dissenting liberal justice moon Bat

(22:45):
was Elina Kagan Okay Sutta Mayor. Kagan and Jackson were
the three dissenting voices, the three dissenting justices. Now you
want to see what a bunch of phonies and frauds
and hypocrites liberals and leftists are in twenty twenty two

(23:05):
at Northwestern Universities, we're talking just three years ago, not
ten years, not twenty, not thirty, just three years ago.
This was when Biden Joey dementia. Joe was technically president, okay,
And there were some conservative judges that were blocking things

(23:27):
that Biden was trying to do, like student loan forgiveness,
for example, and then liberals fumed, how dare you issue
a nationwide injunction? How dare you block Joey? And so
in an interview at Northwestern University, listen now to what

(23:50):
Olagan Kagan said. Can you say hypocrite? This was her
just three short years ago. Roll cut twenty four.

Speaker 4 (24:04):
Mike, that can't be right that one district court, whether
it's in you know, in the Trump years, people used
to go to the Northern District of California, and in
the Biden years they go to Texas. And it just
can't be right that one district judge can stop the
nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stop for

(24:27):
the years that it takes to go through normal process.

Speaker 1 (24:35):
It's not right, It's not right. It's just a no
one district court judge, one low level judge, say in
California can block President Trump, or one low level judge
in Texas can block Biden. It's just not right, and

(24:59):
this is gotta stop. That was then, this is now here.
You phony, you fraud you, and it just goes to
show you Liberals and Democrats always want to change the
rules when it suits their political objectives. If Biden is

(25:20):
in power, injunctions are bad. They're bad because it blocks
Joey and what the Democrats want to do. Trump is
in power, injunctions are great because it stops the dictator.
It's part of lass tones, the resistance. That's why these

(25:42):
liberal justices are a constitutional legal judicial joke. Okay, they're
a joke. Trump just broke them again. Agree, disagree. Six
one seven two, six sixty eight. Sixty eight is the number,

(26:04):
Jake in Gloucester. Thanks for holding, Jake, and welcome.

Speaker 5 (26:09):
Yeah it's been a while.

Speaker 1 (26:11):
Go ahead, Jake. The floor is yours, my friend, Jeff.

Speaker 5 (26:14):
Besides calling out that stupid, stupid justice Jackson, I knew
when she says she didn't know what a woman was,
we knew she didn't belong to the Supreme Court. She
just never did. She's a DEI appointee, obviously part of
the globalists, and it's just a disgrace. But call out
big time that big phony hypocrite. Kagan, who two and

(26:37):
a half years ago says we can't have these Distra
Court judges making national injunctions. They don't belong, that's not there,
that's not their statue. And they and she votes all
the time with these Distra Court injunctions, and she did
this time. And of course she's quiet, she's not saying
the word because she was outed on Fox News in

(26:57):
late twenty twenty two when the what ruled with against Biden.
And now she's all in favor of the district court
judges ruling against Trump. How much more do we think
that these Supreme Court judges are so intelligent, so smot
people like Jackson, Kig and Sodamaya. She might even be

(27:19):
the lowest IQ judge on the Supreme Court because she
always always votes against any Republican Court decision, any conservative decision.
But Jackson is an outright dfist. And I hope Jeff
that does it doesn't continue. I'll tell you what I
just watched Fox News. You know who Jason shaffis is.

(27:40):
He just wrote a book They're still coming for us.
It's going out tomorrow nationally, and he says, these these
Supreme Court are these district court judges are not going
to shop. They're going to continue to issue national injunctions
even though the Supreme Court has said they're illegal. Basically,
but Alito warned us, Jeffrey, if you saw the actual decision,

(28:01):
Alito won us we had to go a step further,
two steps further and outright being these injunctions. But he said,
we didn't do that, and could could you explain exactly
what Alito meant? Because I didn't see the whole decision.
He did want us this is not the end. It's
going to continue. There's a problem. There's some problem with
that court decision. It's not going to come down until October.

(28:23):
As father as the birth right citizenship, I believe. But
there was another thing Alito said, which I'm not sure about.
You know what I'm talking about?

Speaker 1 (28:30):
Well, yeah, no, Jake, look Alito, and I think he's right. Well,
in some ways I think he's right. Alito basically is saying, look,
you have these active as judges who don't care about
their oath, who don't care about the constitution or precedent
or what the intention of any act or statute was

(28:52):
or is, like the Judiciary Act of seventeen eighty nine.
They don't care, but they just they don't care. Make policy.
That's what they think they're there for, which is again
a violation of separation of powers. If you want policy enacted,
you pass it through Congress, you get elected. They think, no,

(29:13):
they need to enact national policy, and they are so drunk.
And by the way, Alito says, that is a dagger
aimed at the heart of the rule of law, because
that's classic judicial tyranny, and our founding fathers warned us
we cannot have that. That would be death to our republic.
And so Alito is telling everybody they're not going to

(29:36):
stop because we don't have a mechanism to stop them.
We don't have a mechanism to enforce our rulings. Now,
this is where the Department of Justice is going to
be absolutely seminal, pivotal, indispensable. Pambondi is going to have

(29:59):
to have the courage and the spine. The next time
an activist judge issues a nationwide injunction and says, you
just violated the Supreme Court. Baby, excuse me. If it's
a you know, a gentleman, sir, I it's a woman, ma'am.
Excuse me, ma'am, Excuse me, sir. You just violated the

(30:21):
Supreme Court, We're done with this garbage. You're now being
kicked off the bench. You're gonna be disrobed, and you're
gonna go to jail. This is gonna come with serious consequences.
If she doesn't, they are going to continue to enact

(30:42):
these nationwide injunctions. Now, what I think is gonna happen
is Trump is going to counter now by waving this
decision Trump vi Cassa, as it's called. So he's gonna
wave the Trump Vicasta decision like this and say you
don't have the power to do that. The Supreme Court
shot you down. The sure the Supreme Court has blocked you.

(31:05):
So you know what, I'm gonna ignore anything that you say.
What are you gonna do? Hold me in contempt? Good luck?
Good luck, because we'll just appeal to the Supreme Court
and you'll lose every time. So what you're gonna see
now is the continuing of the battle of wills. But

(31:26):
now Trump pardoned the pond, he holds the Trump card.
He now has this decision, and from this point forward,
the Supreme Court is bound by its own decision. So yes,
they're gonna continue to issue nationwide or they're gonna try
to universal injunctions. But if banned, if Pam Bondi and

(31:49):
Trump hold the line and don't break and don't retreat
and don't cave. All they gotta do now is go
after these judges. Impeach these judges, arrest these judges, and
ignore these judges. If they do that, there's nothing they

(32:10):
can do to stop them. Like enough is enough. Look, Jake,
I can't believe this. I remember growing up. I don't
want to sound like you buck. In my day, a
ruling from the Supreme Court was a ruling from the
Supreme Court. Now, if you don't like the Supreme Court
or the composition of the Supreme Court, like we did

(32:33):
after Roe v. Wade, you elect a president I say
Ronald Reagan, and say whenever the Supreme Court, opening get
a conservative justice to replace a liberal justice, and eventually,
over time you'll get a ruling that's favorable to you.
But this idea that well the Supreme Court, that the

(32:54):
hell with the Supreme Court. We're gonna keep doing what
we want to do. Coming from judge, Yes, you're supposed.
Judges are supposed to follow the Supreme Court. There's a hierarchy,
a food chain, a pecking order, the Supreme Court's at
the top, they're at the bottom. This idea that a

(33:16):
judge would say, at the hell with the Supreme Court
that don't make I make policy, the hell with their rulings.
That's unheard of professionally. You'd be considered a national joke.
They would laugh you out of the courtroom. You would
be ashamed, you would be embarrassed. It just wouldn't be done,

(33:39):
like seriously, it's like going to a funeral naked, no really,
like without any clothes, or going to a wedding naked.
Like no one's going to arrest you. But it's just
not done. Like you're gonna be considered an outcast, a pariah,
a loser now because they're not appointing judge Katanji Brown.

(34:02):
Jackson is not a serious judge Katanji Brown. You know
what she is. She's a female version of Al Sharpton.
I'm telling you that's what it's a black woman instead
of a black man. They would have put Sharpton on
the bench if they could. I promised a black woman. Okay,
so let's get Katanji That's what she is. She's Al

(34:24):
Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in pantsuits. That's all. That's it.
So you throw her on the bench, and they're saying, like,
this woman doesn't know what she's talking about. She's there
to make law and make policy. That's not the job
the job of a judge. That's not the job of

(34:45):
the judiciary, that's not the job of the Supreme Court.
And that's what this ruling makes crystal clear. It's Congress
and the president. Why because they're elected and elected representatives
according to any constitutional republic and frankly, any democracy, I

(35:08):
don't care, take your pick. The people's representatives make the
laws and they make policy, not unelected men and women
in black robes. And that's why this decision is so monumental,
and that's why the left is losing their mind, and

(35:29):
all they can yell their only rebuttal is hey's a dictator.
He's a dictator. Do you know how stupid that is? Like, Seriously,
my parents came from an actual communist dictatorship, a real dictatorship.

(35:50):
There was no food, there was no meat, there was
no freedom, there was no liberty. They took our homes,
they took our farm, they took everything. My ancestors had
no problem. There was no opposition. You criticize the regime,

(36:13):
they put you in jail. You stand up to them,
they put you in jail. There was no heating, there
was no energy, there was no electricity. The regime controlled everything.
And just two three weeks ago. Again, I'm just going

(36:36):
by what the media and the Democrats have said. They
had this No King's protest, which according to them, was
the largest biggest protest in American history. That's what they said.
In my parents's homeland. Okay, then Yugoslavia, but it's Croatia today,

(36:57):
Croatia that dictates Tito H. Raised your head against him,
your hand and you're dead or you're in some torture dungeon.
You think any communist dictatorship, any dictatorship, would allow people
by the millions to go on the streets and protest them.

(37:19):
You're on drugs, you're so stupid. Honestly, it's mind boggling.
But there they are, most of them, a bunch of
fat pigs gorging at the trough, all making book deals
on MSNBC and CNN, and they're young dictatorship, dictatorship, dictatorship

(37:43):
as they live in one of the freest countries in
the world, with all the liberties and privileges that come
with being an American. Honestly, it's disgusting. It's disgusting because
you can't beat him at the polls, you can't beat
him with policy, you can't beat them with ideas, and

(38:04):
so now it's just smear, lie, hysteria, fear monger, panic, porn,
and eventually you see it's like Joseph Goebels, the big Lie.
You repeat a lie often enough, just by sheer repetition,
and the uneducated masses in this case the liberals, gay moonbats,

(38:28):
We'll believe it, and that's what they're trying to do.
The problem is everybody looks around themselves and said, we've
never been doing better, We've never been freer, What what dictatorship? Look?
What are these people talking about. It's honestly, it's pathetic
and disgusting. Six one seven two six six sixty eight

(38:54):
sixty eight. Janice in Melrose, Thanks for holding Janice, and welcome.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
I just wanted to say that I think credit should
go to the American Center for Laar Injustice and j
Seculo for this ruling. They partnered with West Virginia and
Jay Seculo said that a lot of things from his
brief were quoted in the ruling, so I think they
had a lot to do with that.

Speaker 1 (39:26):
Yeah, no, Janie, You're You're completely right. J Seculo has
done incredible work and I think you should be commended. Look,
I got to tell you, it's it's a bit dry.
I'm going to be honest with you. It's a bit
you know, it's dry reading. It's Supreme Court. It's a
Supreme Court decision. But if you take the effort, unlike
the Tangi Brown Jackson, if you take the effort to

(39:47):
actually read it first, it's a great history lesson, okay,
on the law and the Constitution and the role of
the judge and the design of our judicial system. It's
a great history lesson. But you read this and you
go Amy Coney Barrett has a very powerful mind, like
this woman. This is the Amy Coney Barrett that we

(40:09):
all thought we were going to get on the Supreme Court.
So I agree with you, Jay Sekuel deserves a lot
of credit. But Amy Coney Barrett, honestly, I tipped my
hat off.

Speaker 2 (40:20):
Yeah, okay, I had one of the thing about Pam Bondy.
I heard another host say that he had a conversation
with a senator who said that she fired a lot
of people in the beginning.

Speaker 1 (40:34):
Yeah, she fired. In particular, she fired three of these
deranged J six prosecutors