July 15, 2025 • 33 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
The Michael Verie Show is on the air. Professor Josh
Blackman joined us the program again our legal expert aka
mister smarty pants. We have had a busy Supreme Court
(00:25):
session with some important rulings as it affects the Trump
administration's ability to do their job and hence this country.
And you, professor, let's start with the Trump v. Casa Inc.
Case or Casa Inc. Regarding whether district courts can simply
decide in anywhere America. Oh, you know what, Trump can't
(00:49):
do that That ended up at the Supreme Court in
an expedited fashion. Talk about that case if you wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
This is probably the most important case from last year.
It involved Trump's birthright citizenship order, where Trump said that
we will not give any citizenship papers to children of
legal aliens. But the Quick didn't decide whether that order
itself was lawful, and so they decided kind of a
procedural issue, that is, how can it be challenged in court?
(01:21):
Moments after Trump signed the order, judges in Washington and
in the Northeast issued these universal injunctions that basically applied
to everyone everywhere. So even though Texas hadn't challenged the policy,
children of aliens in Texas would still be protected by it,
and that's not how things we're supposed to work. So
we have a six or three decision Justice Barrett Routh majority,
(01:41):
and the court held that, no, you can't issue these injunctions,
but we won't talk about whether Trump's order is legal.
We'll do that later.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
That was the upshot, leaving President Trump the ability to
be the executive which our constitution empowers him to be.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Fair, right, Yeah, I mean you have these distrect.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Court judges who are truly intruding on the powers an
executive and they're going beyond the powers of the judicial branch.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Do you recall ever seeing that in the modern era? Before?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
You know, it started in earnest during the end of
the Obama administration, ramped up during the first Trump administration,
got even more during the Biden administration, and then during
the second Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Went off the chain.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
You had more universal injunctions in the first few months
of Trump than all of Biden combined. So I think
the stream court really has to give in till the
judges chill, you can't do this. This is not how
we're supposed to run a system.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Well, my concern throughout all of this is that the
Supreme Court should not be as important to our daily
lives as it is and continues to be. And that
is because they are in aged in legislative and executive
actions and instead of simply judiciary behavior. And that concerns
(03:07):
me because we don't elect a Supreme Court. But in
any case, the case of Free Speech Coalition Inc. Versus Paxton,
the state of Texas restrictions on porn and an age verification.
Talk about that if you would. This is an.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Important case for Texas and many states. As I'm sure
people know, the Internet has a lot of pornography, and
some of it you have to pay to get. So
it's like pornhob have always required people to register, but
they didn't really do much to verify that they were
actually adults. So it was unsurprising that a children and
miners were able to access material. Texas enacted what I
(03:49):
think is a pretty common sense law that if you
want me to provide pornography online, you have to have
age verification.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
You and I old enough.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
You knowrder Michael. Back in the day, if you wanted
to go to the video story, you had a little
beaded curtain, right, and you'd go there and you'd show
your idea to get those other not they ever did this,
but you would go there to get your adult videos.
If you want to go buy a Playboy magazine? Who
is you wrapped in that plastic and you have to
go show your idea to the cashier. Online, there's no cashier, right,
(04:19):
there's no video clerk. So will you verify your age?
Is by uploading a copy of your driver's license? Is
how you buy wines, how you buy tobacco, and lots
of things. But people said, oh no, no, this will
a chill or access to pornography. People will be afraid
of sharing the information online. So it goes to the
Supreme Court, and the court rules six to three that
(04:39):
this policy is constitutional and Texas can use age verification
that even though this might burden some adults from accessing
their porn, it's a very useful means to protect children
from this material.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
So I think fair to say falls under constitutional authority
because it's narrowly limited with a with a real purpose,
or narrowly tailored with a purpose, as opposed to an
outright ban on pornography, which could be argued is free
speech not conclusive, right, just as Thomas wrote the majority
(05:11):
and he said that, look, this isn't a ban, it's
a restriction, and it.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Does make a difference. And there's a long tradition of
governments using age verification for accessing adult materials goes back forever.
It's different because it's online and there's a risk that
you know, people's credit cards might be you know, released
in people. You know, what kind of point did it
like to watch that's blackmail material. That risk does exist,
(05:36):
but I think it was enough to override the Texas
enacted law well.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
And I think what we can take from this is
there has long been an American jurisprudential tradition that a
law should be as narrowly tailored as possible and for
a specific lawful purpose. And in this case, when you
can make the argument that it is for the protection
of children, that would be relatively consistent with American Jewish prudence.
(06:04):
The case of Mahmood versus Taylor, the public school said
to have violated the First Amendment religious freedom rights of
parents by eliminating an opt out option for elementary students
exposed to LGBTQ plus inclusive storybooks in the curriculum. Make
that make sense. Please, This is.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Such a common sense case, Michael. In Montgomery County, Maryland,
which is not Texas, they decided that children were not
open enough to learning about gays, lesbians, and transgender people,
and they need to bring books into the curriculum, even
for five year olds in kindergarten to learn about this.
(06:45):
And I hope was this would simulate discussion and break
what they call heteronormativity. If you know what that is,
you're normal rights to note that is when you're kindergarten.
But this was designed to great this idea of what
gays and lesbians and transgender people are. Some of these
books talked about children, you know, saying I don't feel
(07:06):
like a boy, I feel like a girl, and the
parents said, well that's okay. So you can imagine that
parents objected to their kids having this material. Initially, Montgomery
County let kids opt out of this as their parents
opted them out, but turned out almost everyone opted out,
and so then they got really opt out and the
children had to sit through this instruction. So this was
(07:28):
a case really about religion, and these are religious parents.
That's the case, suggests Mahmoud was not a Christian. It
was a Muslim parent. But the Mahmoud family didn't want
their kids seeing this material, which directly underminds what they
teach about religion and morality and gender. Again, the courts
put six to three on this one, and the court said, yes,
(07:50):
parents be able to opt out their kids from this
sort of instruction. There was a very vigorous as sensing
that this is harmful for transgender people, and then that
the Supreme Court shouldn't a school board, but they are
very deeply d to write a parents to direct how
their kids to talk.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Right one moment, Professor Josh Blattin aka mister smarty Pants
is our guest. More Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
Coming up nowadays can actually break your.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Ball, are you not at the time the Michael Barry shows.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Josh Latin and mister smarty Pants of the South Texas
College of Law, Supreme Court expert is our guest. Let me,
let's rush through a couple of these. We did have
some rare unanimous decisions. One of them Ames versus Ohio
Department of Youth Services, which is referred to as a
reverse discrimination case. What's that.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
So?
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Ames was an unusual case where you had BAC heterosexual
woman who allegeds to discriminate against for for BC being
a heterosexual woman, and the lower court stakes she said,
oh well, she can't bring a claim because she's heerosexual woman,
and the court reversed that. Any times a discrimination either
(09:06):
against someone a majority or minority sexual orientation, that still applies,
you don't see a member of a majority group. This
was a nine no decision by Justin Jackson, and I
think it was, you know, a high leader mark for
the court that not on these cases split sixty three,
they often have nine hour results.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
And also builds credibility. If you don't rule like a
crazy person every time, at least someone can say, see,
she's not totally crazy. Gun makers liability the Mexican government
suing Smith and Western Brands to claim us liability over
gun violence by drug cartels.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Yeah, this isn't unusual. Isn't the usual case? Michael. There's
a federal law that prevents people from suing gum manufacturers
because their guns are dangerous. The reason why is it, Well,
uns're dangerous. That's a big exist for But Mexico tried
to sue Smith and Wesson, saying, oh well, the problem
is that they marketed these guns improperly. They tried to
(10:09):
appeal to all these gang members and these cartels they
named guns after, like you know, drug runners and stuff.
And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that.
As a federal ban on soon gun manufacturers and Mexico
can't get around this. This is a case of the
lower courts allow of the suits to go forward. He
got a bankrupt that Smith and West and put these
gun manufacturer in a business. So again the court had
(10:31):
some high water marks where they were nine to oh,
realizing that you can't you can't do this.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Another nine O ruling on May fifteenth, police use of
excessive force in the Barnes versus Felix case.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Right, this is one of these issues that sort of
pops up over and over again about when you're able
to sue police officers for engaging in excessive force. And
I think that again the court was pretty unanimous here.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
It's generally the police get different, but sometimes a little
bit too far. They have these subject to liability and
I think even we all agree sometimes and you're a
lot of work, you screw up and people get treated poorly.
She gets some really.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Concord another Nino decision, regulation of flavored vapes FDA versus
Wages and White Lion investments.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Right, this isn't really even about vaping. It's more about
sort of the process that can go forward before you
sort of make these regulatory changes. It's kind of a
nerdy decision, but again not about vaping, but kind of
just about the administrative process that you go through.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Why do you think they took that case because they
don't have to.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Usually it's to settle what's called a split where the
lower courses are divided. An issue also, it's an issue
of importance where a lot of people in the vape
industry were really, you know, whyt to get the disue settled,
but went to nine to oh, especially nine zero reversal.
That doesn't mean the lower court got it wrong. It
just means that the court says, here's for the national standard.
(12:08):
Here we're going to do it.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
The case of Ghost Guns Garland versus vander Stock seven.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Yeah, this one sucked. I also know lawyers on this case.
My colleague Chat Flora is another lawyer in Houston. We
legated this case for several years. For the longest time
people have been able to make their own guns at home.
You know the eighty percent receiver kits. People have done
this for years and then recently decided no, no, no,
you can't, you can't. You can't make these guns at home.
(12:38):
Even having a block of metal itself is a gun.
You can do it through a background check. When the
government changes are positioned on short notice, it's usually signed.
Something's up. But we lost this one. I think the government,
both Biden and then Trump, persuaded the court that these
ghost guns are dangerous and we can't have them. So
I'm so little, a little bitter on this one.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
We lose the case because run him to TikTok versus Garland,
Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law that sought to ban
the wildly popular app TikTok in the US unless it
were sold. That's the New York Times description.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Yeah, this is a this is an unusual case because
Congress bipartisan vote to band TikTok. The Streame Court said
this law is constitutional, that it can't go to an effect. Yet.
I'm sure people listening have TikTok on the phones right now.
Why because before Biden left office, he said I'm not
going to enforce this law, and Trump said, I'm not
(13:36):
going to enforce this law. So with this law on
the books and the Streme Court have held it, yet
TikTok continues, and I guess Trump's trying to work out
some big beautiful deal to sell TikTok because it's owned
by the Chinese. But it's one of these weird cases
where the court spoken it didn't really matter the law.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
The law soul never went to effect, which is interesting
because they don't have a self enforcing mechanism. So for
everyone who says, well, the Supreme Court ruled this about
Trump and they're so upset about it, you know, he
is disregarding the ruling. Well, who was the president who
said I've heard your ruling, now enforce it. I'm trying
to remember who that was.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
But well, people say with Jackson, but he never actually
said it's coming miss But it got the gist right.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
United States versus Scremetti, the Tennessee case.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Oh, this is a big one, Michael So, Tennessee, like
Texas and acted laws that banned what they call gender
transition medicine for minors. This is puberty blockers, cross sex hormones.
And then even you know operations to change genitals. People
said that no, this law is on constitutional, it's form
(14:46):
sex discrimination, and that it infringed in the rights of
parents to provide this medical treatment to their kids. The
courts puts six to three in this one, and the
opinion is by Chief Justice Roberts. It was kind of
a narrow decision. All Roberts said is this is just
a regulation on age, because if you're over the age
(15:06):
of eighteen, you can get this treatment. If you're age
eighteen you can't.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
I'm not sure if.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
That's quite right. I mean, it's pretty much about sex
that if you are a boy and you want to
get these drugs and you're trying to become a girl,
you can't. But if you're a boy trying to say
the boy, you can get these drugs. It's kind of
a weird ruling and it kind of avoided the underlying issue.
I think the basic issue here is that the state
kind have an interest in saying we don't want miners
changing their genders, and we think that this is tough
(15:34):
that could be harmful to them. Later on in life
they might decide to detransition. That the science is far
from settled, and we don't want this.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
So the court I think got the right result.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
But the reasoning was not as tie as it should
have been.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Talk us all the way up to the break. I'm
going to give you talk through the music until we
cut you off. How has this court been different than
you expected it to be?
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Well, so far, I think the Court had a fairly
decent term, and I think we're they sort of said
to the lower courts, you need to stop the rate
at which they're ruling against Trump and basically stopping from
doing anything as too much. A lot of these cases
will eventually get to the court in a couple of years.
We can't have these lower courts issued universal injunctions and
(16:17):
after the we often talk about the trumpepointees.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
This was Kavanaugh's best term.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
I think he did a pretty good job this term.
Gorcich okay, Barrett okay, but Kavanaugh good one. Hell yeah,
we're gonna take your ar fifteen opao. Oh yes, yes, yes,
oh yes.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
What is being called crypto week? The bitcoin bulls are very,
very hopeful. This is the week. Bitcoin is the original
digital currency, and it hit a new high of one
hundred and twenty three thousand yesterday. More than double its
(16:58):
value from one year ago. We have a show sponsor
called Archpublic dot com. They do not sell bitcoin. It
is a platform through which you buy and sell bitcoin.
It is more the exchange than it is the seller
(17:20):
of the coin. But it's based on a set of
algorithms they have created that allow you to trade at
to buy and sell. To simplify what they do at
a certain time, whether you know, if bitcoin rises to
one twenty five thousand, you could buy at that number,
(17:44):
or if you're worried that it's dropped, it's going to
drop if it drops to one twenty, so you could
have kind of a stopgap gap a floor of one twenty.
The reason that's important is because whereas the New York
Stock Exchange is only open for a limited window during
(18:05):
the day, bitcoin can be traded twenty four to seven.
So if you're trying to sell at the moment that
it hits a particular number, that might happen at two
eighteen in the morning and you're not around to see
that they are well. I will get into that in
(18:25):
just a moment, but this is for folks who are
watching cryptocurrency. This is the week to watch it because
what Congress does this week could make Crypto go absolutely crazy.
It's going to be interesting to watch the aforementioned to
Steve Toath announcing today that he will be running for
(18:46):
Congress representative from currently state representative. Steve Toath, Welcome to
the program. Great to do with you, Michael.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
You're not supposed to call me representative though my wife
wi't let me hang out with you.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
If you do, Yeah, I understand. Yeah, representative to take
out the trash. That's that's an old standard and I
love it.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
First of all, let's talk about before we get into
your biography. I always ask if you're running against a
candidate in your own party who is holding an office,
there needs to be something you feel they're not doing
well and you can do better. And so let's start
with that premise.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
So Frenshaw came into the Woodlands, which house Sister fifteen
that I represent one of it is in Congressional District two,
and this is you know three ors two three years
ago when he sided with the Democrats to say that
(19:47):
we want to pass legislation that allows five thousand people
into the United States every single day, and when it
hits five thousand, it then drops down to fourteen hundred,
so sixty four hundred people into the in the United
States every year, in other words, nearly two million people. Michael,
and when we said it's not acceptable, he just absolutely
(20:13):
belittled us, denigrated us, Me and Senator Creighton saying this
is not acceptable. We're not going to put up with that.
We want the border closed. And he said this is
the best that we can do.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
And we're like, just close the border.
Speaker 4 (20:29):
And if you won't close the border, get.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
The hell out of our way.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
We can close the border. And he laughed at us
and said, Texas can't close its border. You need the
FEDS to do that for you, which we've closed the
border in the past.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
We have done that.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
The only thing that we needed was for the United
States federal government to get out of our way.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
So that we could do it.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
And so, yeah, he betrayed us, absolutely has betrayed us.
You know, Trump saying closed the border, and Biden said,
we can't close the border. We need legislation to close
the border, and you know, in the Democrats and then
Crenshaw sided with Biden to keep the border open and
(21:10):
to allow this catastrophe to go on.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
You know, I find Cringshaw to be consistent with neocons
in that they want to send our men abroad to
fight every war and open our borders to allow illegal
aliens here. Those two go part and parcel. And it's
not until you understand the the forum that they go
(21:39):
to in Davos and that that is the mindset wars
abroad illegal immigration at home, and they hold dear to
both of those. But almost every Neocon is for wide
open borders of some sort or another. And it's interesting
how those two go together hand in glove. It's almost
(22:01):
as if that's how they're told they're supposed to feel
on the issue, and it's very disturbing. They also want
to relocate as quote unquote refugees half the countries that
we after we invade and bomb and lose our men,
let's bring some of their folks home while we lose
hours over there. It drives me nuts. I'll let you talk.
You're the candidate. Let's talk about you. Let's talk about
(22:24):
who Steve told this for someone who doesn't know who
you are.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
I'm a small business owner and I'm a pastor. I've
done marriage, family of counseling for thirty years and It's
been the greatest thrill in my life. I still do
a lot of it. I love veterans. I feel a
deep sense of obligation towards them because I feel like
(22:50):
I missed out on something as a young man. We're
at peace, we weren't at war when I got out
of school, and I never went into the military.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
I feel like I should have.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
I feel like.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
All young men should do that.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
It's it's something of a character building experience, but it's
also an incredible thing to do for your nation. And
I feel like I missed out on that, and I
feel like I just have an obligation towards it.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
And so I got involved.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
With Chad Robis Show several years ago.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
And starting Mighty Oaks for a faith based veteran service organization,
and it's just been the greatest thrill in my life
to be part of it. I'm married for forty two years.
I am a grandfather. I have Michael two sets of twins.
Both sets of twins were born six years apart to
(23:41):
the month.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
And what else can I say?
Speaker 4 (23:45):
A small business owner have a dozen employees and we
have a.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Full construction and service business.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
And you've done that for how.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Long third twenty twenty five years.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
And you have been a state rep. For how long.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
This is?
Speaker 4 (24:06):
This will be my fifth term and I'm right now
it's about eight and a half years.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
So the obvious fact running for uh Congress in even
numbered years, you'll have to give up your state rep seat?
Speaker 3 (24:23):
Correct? Correct?
Speaker 1 (24:25):
And is there a candidate in the offing that you
support or you're just leaving that open to the to
the to the voters. Yeah, all right, hold hold in
for this moment. Your big Michael Berry State Representative Steve
(24:50):
Toathe is our guest. He is announcing today. There will
be a gathering this evening for the big announcement that
he is running for the United States Congress. The last
congressional candidate we had to announce on our show was
Morgan Latrell, who cruised to a big victory in his race.
(25:13):
Steve tothe will be ten year state rep. Challenging Dan Crenshaw,
who will be finishing his fourth term as a United
States Congressman. Steve Toad, let's talk first about tonight for
folks who want to come out and be with you
at your announcement, can you give those details?
Speaker 2 (25:33):
You bet?
Speaker 4 (25:34):
Michael, So we'll be at Grace Church for pizza and
food and fun. Chad Prather and Kenny Webster are going
to be master of ceremonies, and it just should be
a great time. We're going to have several of the
Freedom Caucus people there, including Ny Chastline, who's going to
be heading up the Freedom Caucus for the Texas House
next year. And yeah, it should be a great, great evening.
(25:56):
We're really excited about it. A lot of people. We've
had over one hundred people of step forward and endorse
my campaign, and we're excited, really excited.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
You know, usually a first time or usually a candidate
for office may not have a political background and votes
they've taken and actions they've taken, and fights they've been
willing to engage.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
But you do.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
I think that gives you a certain amount. There is
a frustration in the land right now, especially in that
congressional seat, where folks say Crenshaw is not one of us,
he doesn't share our values. He belongs to the swamp,
he belongs to the establishment, he belongs to the people
who fly you to Davos in Switzerland and give those
big speeches. I think being a more regular person, a
(26:46):
real person at church, a small business fighting in the
state house. I think that gives you an advantage. It's tough,
it's tough to beat a sitting congressman, but I think
that gives you a leg up that most folks would
not enjoy.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Yeah, I mean, you've been in an elected office. You
know how it is, and you know how elected office
changes people. And I have a pastor friend that once
said to me. He said, he said, you don't know
a man's character and what he's really made of until
you drop him in hot water. In that way, they're
(27:24):
kind of like a tea bag, right, you don't really
know what it tastes like. You don't really know what
it is until they're dropped in hot water. And there's
no hotter water than politics. And there's just something about
it when you get into when you get into an
elected position, that for whatever reason, it tests a man's character,
and so many of them. I like, you got behind Crenshaw.
(27:45):
I was really concerned about who they were running for
that office, and it was an anointed state rep. That
had a terrible voting record, total swamp creature. And then
along comes this guy that's a war hero, Navy seal,
which you know, well, I love Navy seals, I love veterans,
and I thought this guy was going to be great.
Morgan has done a great job, Michael, he's just been amazing.
(28:08):
Wesley Hunt's done a great job. Amazing two guys. But
Dan just wanted to become part of the furniture in
Washington as soon as he got there.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
It's frustrating because I've seen things he has said doing
interviews where it's late at night. He doesn't seem to
be at himself. He's very angry, he's raging, he's very
insulting of any constituent who questions him. It is most disappointing.
(28:41):
It's not just that he's gone up there to do nothing,
it's that he's gone up there to be a person
who attacks the very people who voted for him, as
if they're a bunch of heathens or heillbillies and idiots,
and they don't understand the things he does. Very disappointing.
He has also reacted in a snarly manner when questioned
(29:01):
about how he has seen such incredible percentage trade increases
on his stop trades. I think I think voters have
every right to ask that question, and he starts cussing
when they ask that. That's it's pretty ridiculous. If you
ask me, he's out performing Warren Buffett.
Speaker 4 (29:20):
The only person he's not outperforming is Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
And well, maybe you know what a career could be.
But I don't know if he could do so well
of you. He doesn't have inside information, right he and
Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 4 (29:32):
Right, I mean, they're just amazing.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
It's an interesting thing, you know. I guess the one
thing you could be really proud of in your congressional
service is the one thing that the base absolutely despises
you for because it's so incredibly, incredibly questionable at a minimum.
And I'm holding my tongue. So what does it take
to win this race? Let's talk about the parameters of
(29:55):
this district and what this district looks like.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
So it's the southern half of Montgomery County, basically all
of House District fifteen, which is my district, and it
goes all the way over to the east side of
Montgomery County, over towards Splendora and Montgomery County is actually
fifty five point five percent of the district Harris County.
(30:20):
The east side of Harris County is only forty four
point side of it, and it goes over you know,
starts in the northeast of Harris County, which is Kingwood
down to a task Casita, Crosby, and Channel View and
that's pretty much. And then it goes along the southern
part of Montgomery County, northern Harris County, which is the
(30:41):
Woodlands Creek.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Side, and it has I've looked at the numbers in
a minute, but it has been a reliably Republican district
in November, which makes this primary like the general and
a very very important primary. You know, it strikes me
that Crenshaw is probably a better November candidate than he
is a March candidate.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Exactly.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
And one of the things that he has prided himself
on when we're doing is redistricting. I was concerned about
how the district was being drawn. I wanted to draw redder,
I want it. I wanted it to be an eighty
five percent district. And he cussed me out for wanting
to bring more rural area into it, less democrat less
(31:27):
democrats into it, and he said, only I could win
a district like that, and like, you're.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Proud of that.
Speaker 4 (31:31):
I mean, I don't want to work with Democrats. I
want to defeat him. I want to beat him because
that's what they want to do to us.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Yeah, I think Crenshaw recognizes that he is better being
a candidate for Democrats who they can deal with, than
Republicans who he won't. He won't follow what Republican primary
voters want as their baseline. I think Republicans scare him
a lot more than Democrats.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
I really do.
Speaker 4 (32:01):
Oh absolutely, he does not understand who the Republican base
is because he's not part of you. He's never part
of it. He did a really good job posing as
one of us, but he's never really walked the line.
He's never walked the party line. He's never been interested
in anything that we've really had to say to him.
I've reached out to in my office from time to time.
(32:23):
You know, all of constituents that will have federal issues,
and from time to time congressman will have issues that
are state issues, and we work together. We've never been
able to work with him ever. And so when I
have an issue federal issue for a constituent, I reach
out to Wesley Hunt, or I reach out to Morgan Latrelle,
and their offices are amazing.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
State Representative Steve Toath announcing today he is challenging Nan
Crenshaw on the second Congressional District, once represented by Ted
Coe for a number of years. That announcement tonight to
the big party tonight at Grace Woodland's Church at six
point thirty. We've got about a minute or so State
Representative Steve Toath, why don't you talk about what you've
(33:06):
done in the State House and I'll let you take
it to the direct.
Speaker 4 (33:10):
And one of the greatest challenges that we've got. Fifteen
years ago when I got into politics, we were winning
elections statewide elections with twenty four point margins. Now it's
only eight. We've got to do a better job and
empowering parents and getting our school back because they're inculcating
our kids into Marxism.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
We know that this nice last thank you and good night.
The Michael Verie Show is on the air. Professor Josh
Blackman joined us the program again our legal expert aka
mister smarty pants. We have had a busy Supreme Court
(00:25):
session with some important rulings as it affects the Trump
administration's ability to do their job and hence this country.
And you, professor, let's start with the Trump v. Casa Inc.
Case or Casa Inc. Regarding whether district courts can simply
decide in anywhere America. Oh, you know what, Trump can't
(00:49):
do that That ended up at the Supreme Court in
an expedited fashion. Talk about that case if you wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
This is probably the most important case from last year.
It involved Trump's birthright citizenship order, where Trump said that
we will not give any citizenship papers to children of
legal aliens. But the Quick didn't decide whether that order
itself was lawful, and so they decided kind of a
procedural issue, that is, how can it be challenged in court?
(01:21):
Moments after Trump signed the order, judges in Washington and
in the Northeast issued these universal injunctions that basically applied
to everyone everywhere. So even though Texas hadn't challenged the policy,
children of aliens in Texas would still be protected by it,
and that's not how things we're supposed to work. So
we have a six or three decision Justice Barrett Routh majority,
(01:41):
and the court held that, no, you can't issue these injunctions,
but we won't talk about whether Trump's order is legal.
We'll do that later.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
That was the upshot, leaving President Trump the ability to
be the executive which our constitution empowers him to be.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Fair, right, Yeah, I mean you have these distrect.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Court judges who are truly intruding on the powers an
executive and they're going beyond the powers of the judicial branch.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Do you recall ever seeing that in the modern era? Before?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
You know, it started in earnest during the end of
the Obama administration, ramped up during the first Trump administration,
got even more during the Biden administration, and then during
the second Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Went off the chain.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
You had more universal injunctions in the first few months
of Trump than all of Biden combined. So I think
the stream court really has to give in till the
judges chill, you can't do this. This is not how
we're supposed to run a system.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Well, my concern throughout all of this is that the
Supreme Court should not be as important to our daily
lives as it is and continues to be. And that
is because they are in aged in legislative and executive
actions and instead of simply judiciary behavior. And that concerns
(03:07):
me because we don't elect a Supreme Court. But in
any case, the case of Free Speech Coalition Inc. Versus Paxton,
the state of Texas restrictions on porn and an age verification.
Talk about that if you would. This is an.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Important case for Texas and many states. As I'm sure
people know, the Internet has a lot of pornography, and
some of it you have to pay to get. So
it's like pornhob have always required people to register, but
they didn't really do much to verify that they were
actually adults. So it was unsurprising that a children and
miners were able to access material. Texas enacted what I
(03:49):
think is a pretty common sense law that if you
want me to provide pornography online, you have to have
age verification.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
You and I old enough.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
You knowrder Michael. Back in the day, if you wanted
to go to the video story, you had a little
beaded curtain, right, and you'd go there and you'd show
your idea to get those other not they ever did this,
but you would go there to get your adult videos.
If you want to go buy a Playboy magazine? Who
is you wrapped in that plastic and you have to
go show your idea to the cashier. Online, there's no cashier, right,
(04:19):
there's no video clerk. So will you verify your age?
Is by uploading a copy of your driver's license? Is
how you buy wines, how you buy tobacco, and lots
of things. But people said, oh no, no, this will
a chill or access to pornography. People will be afraid
of sharing the information online. So it goes to the
Supreme Court, and the court rules six to three that
(04:39):
this policy is constitutional and Texas can use age verification
that even though this might burden some adults from accessing
their porn, it's a very useful means to protect children
from this material.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
So I think fair to say falls under constitutional authority
because it's narrowly limited with a with a real purpose,
or narrowly tailored with a purpose, as opposed to an
outright ban on pornography, which could be argued is free
speech not conclusive, right, just as Thomas wrote the majority
(05:11):
and he said that, look, this isn't a ban, it's
a restriction, and it.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Does make a difference. And there's a long tradition of
governments using age verification for accessing adult materials goes back forever.
It's different because it's online and there's a risk that
you know, people's credit cards might be you know, released
in people. You know, what kind of point did it
like to watch that's blackmail material. That risk does exist,
(05:36):
but I think it was enough to override the Texas
enacted law well.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
And I think what we can take from this is
there has long been an American jurisprudential tradition that a
law should be as narrowly tailored as possible and for
a specific lawful purpose. And in this case, when you
can make the argument that it is for the protection
of children, that would be relatively consistent with American Jewish prudence.
(06:04):
The case of Mahmood versus Taylor, the public school said
to have violated the First Amendment religious freedom rights of
parents by eliminating an opt out option for elementary students
exposed to LGBTQ plus inclusive storybooks in the curriculum. Make
that make sense. Please, This is.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Such a common sense case, Michael. In Montgomery County, Maryland,
which is not Texas, they decided that children were not
open enough to learning about gays, lesbians, and transgender people,
and they need to bring books into the curriculum, even
for five year olds in kindergarten to learn about this.
(06:45):
And I hope was this would simulate discussion and break
what they call heteronormativity. If you know what that is,
you're normal rights to note that is when you're kindergarten.
But this was designed to great this idea of what
gays and lesbians and transgender people are. Some of these
books talked about children, you know, saying I don't feel
(07:06):
like a boy, I feel like a girl, and the
parents said, well that's okay. So you can imagine that
parents objected to their kids having this material. Initially, Montgomery
County let kids opt out of this as their parents
opted them out, but turned out almost everyone opted out,
and so then they got really opt out and the
children had to sit through this instruction. So this was
(07:28):
a case really about religion, and these are religious parents.
That's the case, suggests Mahmoud was not a Christian. It
was a Muslim parent. But the Mahmoud family didn't want
their kids seeing this material, which directly underminds what they
teach about religion and morality and gender. Again, the courts
put six to three on this one, and the court said, yes,
(07:50):
parents be able to opt out their kids from this
sort of instruction. There was a very vigorous as sensing
that this is harmful for transgender people, and then that
the Supreme Court shouldn't a school board, but they are
very deeply d to write a parents to direct how
their kids to talk.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Right one moment, Professor Josh Blattin aka mister smarty Pants
is our guest. More Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
Coming up nowadays can actually break your.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Ball, are you not at the time the Michael Barry shows.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Josh Latin and mister smarty Pants of the South Texas
College of Law, Supreme Court expert is our guest. Let me,
let's rush through a couple of these. We did have
some rare unanimous decisions. One of them Ames versus Ohio
Department of Youth Services, which is referred to as a
reverse discrimination case. What's that.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
So?
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Ames was an unusual case where you had BAC heterosexual
woman who allegeds to discriminate against for for BC being
a heterosexual woman, and the lower court stakes she said,
oh well, she can't bring a claim because she's heerosexual woman,
and the court reversed that. Any times a discrimination either
(09:06):
against someone a majority or minority sexual orientation, that still applies,
you don't see a member of a majority group. This
was a nine no decision by Justin Jackson, and I
think it was, you know, a high leader mark for
the court that not on these cases split sixty three,
they often have nine hour results.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
And also builds credibility. If you don't rule like a
crazy person every time, at least someone can say, see,
she's not totally crazy. Gun makers liability the Mexican government
suing Smith and Western Brands to claim us liability over
gun violence by drug cartels.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Yeah, this isn't unusual. Isn't the usual case? Michael. There's
a federal law that prevents people from suing gum manufacturers
because their guns are dangerous. The reason why is it, Well,
uns're dangerous. That's a big exist for But Mexico tried
to sue Smith and Wesson, saying, oh well, the problem
is that they marketed these guns improperly. They tried to
(10:09):
appeal to all these gang members and these cartels they
named guns after, like you know, drug runners and stuff.
And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that.
As a federal ban on soon gun manufacturers and Mexico
can't get around this. This is a case of the
lower courts allow of the suits to go forward. He
got a bankrupt that Smith and West and put these
gun manufacturer in a business. So again the court had
(10:31):
some high water marks where they were nine to oh,
realizing that you can't you can't do this.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Another nine O ruling on May fifteenth, police use of
excessive force in the Barnes versus Felix case.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Right, this is one of these issues that sort of
pops up over and over again about when you're able
to sue police officers for engaging in excessive force. And
I think that again the court was pretty unanimous here.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
It's generally the police get different, but sometimes a little
bit too far. They have these subject to liability and
I think even we all agree sometimes and you're a
lot of work, you screw up and people get treated poorly.
She gets some really.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Concord another Nino decision, regulation of flavored vapes FDA versus
Wages and White Lion investments.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Right, this isn't really even about vaping. It's more about
sort of the process that can go forward before you
sort of make these regulatory changes. It's kind of a
nerdy decision, but again not about vaping, but kind of
just about the administrative process that you go through.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Why do you think they took that case because they
don't have to.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Usually it's to settle what's called a split where the
lower courses are divided. An issue also, it's an issue
of importance where a lot of people in the vape
industry were really, you know, whyt to get the disue settled,
but went to nine to oh, especially nine zero reversal.
That doesn't mean the lower court got it wrong. It
just means that the court says, here's for the national standard.
(12:08):
Here we're going to do it.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
The case of Ghost Guns Garland versus vander Stock seven.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Yeah, this one sucked. I also know lawyers on this case.
My colleague Chat Flora is another lawyer in Houston. We
legated this case for several years. For the longest time
people have been able to make their own guns at home.
You know the eighty percent receiver kits. People have done
this for years and then recently decided no, no, no,
you can't, you can't. You can't make these guns at home.
(12:38):
Even having a block of metal itself is a gun.
You can do it through a background check. When the
government changes are positioned on short notice, it's usually signed.
Something's up. But we lost this one. I think the government,
both Biden and then Trump, persuaded the court that these
ghost guns are dangerous and we can't have them. So
I'm so little, a little bitter on this one.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
We lose the case because run him to TikTok versus Garland,
Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law that sought to ban
the wildly popular app TikTok in the US unless it
were sold. That's the New York Times description.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Yeah, this is a this is an unusual case because
Congress bipartisan vote to band TikTok. The Streame Court said
this law is constitutional, that it can't go to an effect. Yet.
I'm sure people listening have TikTok on the phones right now.
Why because before Biden left office, he said I'm not
going to enforce this law, and Trump said, I'm not
(13:36):
going to enforce this law. So with this law on
the books and the Streme Court have held it, yet
TikTok continues, and I guess Trump's trying to work out
some big beautiful deal to sell TikTok because it's owned
by the Chinese. But it's one of these weird cases
where the court spoken it didn't really matter the law.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
The law soul never went to effect, which is interesting
because they don't have a self enforcing mechanism. So for
everyone who says, well, the Supreme Court ruled this about
Trump and they're so upset about it, you know, he
is disregarding the ruling. Well, who was the president who
said I've heard your ruling, now enforce it. I'm trying
to remember who that was.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
But well, people say with Jackson, but he never actually
said it's coming miss But it got the gist right.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
United States versus Scremetti, the Tennessee case.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Oh, this is a big one, Michael So, Tennessee, like
Texas and acted laws that banned what they call gender
transition medicine for minors. This is puberty blockers, cross sex hormones.
And then even you know operations to change genitals. People
said that no, this law is on constitutional, it's form
(14:46):
sex discrimination, and that it infringed in the rights of
parents to provide this medical treatment to their kids. The
courts puts six to three in this one, and the
opinion is by Chief Justice Roberts. It was kind of
a narrow decision. All Roberts said is this is just
a regulation on age, because if you're over the age
(15:06):
of eighteen, you can get this treatment. If you're age
eighteen you can't.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
I'm not sure if.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
That's quite right. I mean, it's pretty much about sex
that if you are a boy and you want to
get these drugs and you're trying to become a girl,
you can't. But if you're a boy trying to say
the boy, you can get these drugs. It's kind of
a weird ruling and it kind of avoided the underlying issue.
I think the basic issue here is that the state
kind have an interest in saying we don't want miners
changing their genders, and we think that this is tough
(15:34):
that could be harmful to them. Later on in life
they might decide to detransition. That the science is far
from settled, and we don't want this.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
So the court I think got the right result.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
But the reasoning was not as tie as it should
have been.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Talk us all the way up to the break. I'm
going to give you talk through the music until we
cut you off. How has this court been different than
you expected it to be?
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Well, so far, I think the Court had a fairly
decent term, and I think we're they sort of said
to the lower courts, you need to stop the rate
at which they're ruling against Trump and basically stopping from
doing anything as too much. A lot of these cases
will eventually get to the court in a couple of years.
We can't have these lower courts issued universal injunctions and
(16:17):
after the we often talk about the trumpepointees.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
This was Kavanaugh's best term.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
I think he did a pretty good job this term.
Gorcich okay, Barrett okay, but Kavanaugh good one. Hell yeah,
we're gonna take your ar fifteen opao. Oh yes, yes, yes,
oh yes.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
What is being called crypto week? The bitcoin bulls are very,
very hopeful. This is the week. Bitcoin is the original
digital currency, and it hit a new high of one
hundred and twenty three thousand yesterday. More than double its
(16:58):
value from one year ago. We have a show sponsor
called Archpublic dot com. They do not sell bitcoin. It
is a platform through which you buy and sell bitcoin.
It is more the exchange than it is the seller
(17:20):
of the coin. But it's based on a set of
algorithms they have created that allow you to trade at
to buy and sell. To simplify what they do at
a certain time, whether you know, if bitcoin rises to
one twenty five thousand, you could buy at that number,
(17:44):
or if you're worried that it's dropped, it's going to
drop if it drops to one twenty, so you could
have kind of a stopgap gap a floor of one twenty.
The reason that's important is because whereas the New York
Stock Exchange is only open for a limited window during
(18:05):
the day, bitcoin can be traded twenty four to seven.
So if you're trying to sell at the moment that
it hits a particular number, that might happen at two
eighteen in the morning and you're not around to see
that they are well. I will get into that in
(18:25):
just a moment, but this is for folks who are
watching cryptocurrency. This is the week to watch it because
what Congress does this week could make Crypto go absolutely crazy.
It's going to be interesting to watch the aforementioned to
Steve Toath announcing today that he will be running for
(18:46):
Congress representative from currently state representative. Steve Toath, Welcome to
the program. Great to do with you, Michael.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
You're not supposed to call me representative though my wife
wi't let me hang out with you.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
If you do, Yeah, I understand. Yeah, representative to take
out the trash. That's that's an old standard and I
love it.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
First of all, let's talk about before we get into
your biography. I always ask if you're running against a
candidate in your own party who is holding an office,
there needs to be something you feel they're not doing
well and you can do better. And so let's start
with that premise.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
So Frenshaw came into the Woodlands, which house Sister fifteen
that I represent one of it is in Congressional District two,
and this is you know three ors two three years
ago when he sided with the Democrats to say that
(19:47):
we want to pass legislation that allows five thousand people
into the United States every single day, and when it
hits five thousand, it then drops down to fourteen hundred,
so sixty four hundred people into the in the United
States every year, in other words, nearly two million people. Michael,
and when we said it's not acceptable, he just absolutely
(20:13):
belittled us, denigrated us, Me and Senator Creighton saying this
is not acceptable. We're not going to put up with that.
We want the border closed. And he said this is
the best that we can do.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
And we're like, just close the border.
Speaker 4 (20:29):
And if you won't close the border, get.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
The hell out of our way.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
We can close the border. And he laughed at us
and said, Texas can't close its border. You need the
FEDS to do that for you, which we've closed the
border in the past.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
We have done that.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
The only thing that we needed was for the United
States federal government to get out of our way.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
So that we could do it.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
And so, yeah, he betrayed us, absolutely has betrayed us.
You know, Trump saying closed the border, and Biden said,
we can't close the border. We need legislation to close
the border, and you know, in the Democrats and then
Crenshaw sided with Biden to keep the border open and
(21:10):
to allow this catastrophe to go on.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
You know, I find Cringshaw to be consistent with neocons
in that they want to send our men abroad to
fight every war and open our borders to allow illegal
aliens here. Those two go part and parcel. And it's
not until you understand the the forum that they go
(21:39):
to in Davos and that that is the mindset wars
abroad illegal immigration at home, and they hold dear to
both of those. But almost every Neocon is for wide
open borders of some sort or another. And it's interesting
how those two go together hand in glove. It's almost
(22:01):
as if that's how they're told they're supposed to feel
on the issue, and it's very disturbing. They also want
to relocate as quote unquote refugees half the countries that
we after we invade and bomb and lose our men,
let's bring some of their folks home while we lose
hours over there. It drives me nuts. I'll let you talk.
You're the candidate. Let's talk about you. Let's talk about
(22:24):
who Steve told this for someone who doesn't know who
you are.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
I'm a small business owner and I'm a pastor. I've
done marriage, family of counseling for thirty years and It's
been the greatest thrill in my life. I still do
a lot of it. I love veterans. I feel a
deep sense of obligation towards them because I feel like
(22:50):
I missed out on something as a young man. We're
at peace, we weren't at war when I got out
of school, and I never went into the military.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
I feel like I should have.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
I feel like.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
All young men should do that.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
It's it's something of a character building experience, but it's
also an incredible thing to do for your nation. And
I feel like I missed out on that, and I
feel like I just have an obligation towards it.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
And so I got involved.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
With Chad Robis Show several years ago.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
And starting Mighty Oaks for a faith based veteran service organization,
and it's just been the greatest thrill in my life
to be part of it. I'm married for forty two years.
I am a grandfather. I have Michael two sets of twins.
Both sets of twins were born six years apart to
(23:41):
the month.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
And what else can I say?
Speaker 4 (23:45):
A small business owner have a dozen employees and we
have a.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Full construction and service business.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
And you've done that for how.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Long third twenty twenty five years.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
And you have been a state rep. For how long.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
This is?
Speaker 4 (24:06):
This will be my fifth term and I'm right now
it's about eight and a half years.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
So the obvious fact running for uh Congress in even
numbered years, you'll have to give up your state rep seat?
Speaker 3 (24:23):
Correct? Correct?
Speaker 1 (24:25):
And is there a candidate in the offing that you
support or you're just leaving that open to the to
the to the voters. Yeah, all right, hold hold in
for this moment. Your big Michael Berry State Representative Steve
(24:50):
Toathe is our guest. He is announcing today. There will
be a gathering this evening for the big announcement that
he is running for the United States Congress. The last
congressional candidate we had to announce on our show was
Morgan Latrell, who cruised to a big victory in his race.
(25:13):
Steve tothe will be ten year state rep. Challenging Dan Crenshaw,
who will be finishing his fourth term as a United
States Congressman. Steve Toad, let's talk first about tonight for
folks who want to come out and be with you
at your announcement, can you give those details?
Speaker 2 (25:33):
You bet?
Speaker 4 (25:34):
Michael, So we'll be at Grace Church for pizza and
food and fun. Chad Prather and Kenny Webster are going
to be master of ceremonies, and it just should be
a great time. We're going to have several of the
Freedom Caucus people there, including Ny Chastline, who's going to
be heading up the Freedom Caucus for the Texas House
next year. And yeah, it should be a great, great evening.
(25:56):
We're really excited about it. A lot of people. We've
had over one hundred people of step forward and endorse
my campaign, and we're excited, really excited.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
You know, usually a first time or usually a candidate
for office may not have a political background and votes
they've taken and actions they've taken, and fights they've been
willing to engage.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
But you do.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
I think that gives you a certain amount. There is
a frustration in the land right now, especially in that
congressional seat, where folks say Crenshaw is not one of us,
he doesn't share our values. He belongs to the swamp,
he belongs to the establishment, he belongs to the people
who fly you to Davos in Switzerland and give those
big speeches. I think being a more regular person, a
(26:46):
real person at church, a small business fighting in the
state house. I think that gives you an advantage. It's tough,
it's tough to beat a sitting congressman, but I think
that gives you a leg up that most folks would
not enjoy.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Yeah, I mean, you've been in an elected office. You
know how it is, and you know how elected office
changes people. And I have a pastor friend that once
said to me. He said, he said, you don't know
a man's character and what he's really made of until
you drop him in hot water. In that way, they're
(27:24):
kind of like a tea bag, right, you don't really
know what it tastes like. You don't really know what
it is until they're dropped in hot water. And there's
no hotter water than politics. And there's just something about
it when you get into when you get into an
elected position, that for whatever reason, it tests a man's character,
and so many of them. I like, you got behind Crenshaw.
(27:45):
I was really concerned about who they were running for
that office, and it was an anointed state rep. That
had a terrible voting record, total swamp creature. And then
along comes this guy that's a war hero, Navy seal,
which you know, well, I love Navy seals, I love veterans,
and I thought this guy was going to be great.
Morgan has done a great job, Michael, he's just been amazing.
(28:08):
Wesley Hunt's done a great job. Amazing two guys. But
Dan just wanted to become part of the furniture in
Washington as soon as he got there.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
It's frustrating because I've seen things he has said doing
interviews where it's late at night. He doesn't seem to
be at himself. He's very angry, he's raging, he's very
insulting of any constituent who questions him. It is most disappointing.
(28:41):
It's not just that he's gone up there to do nothing,
it's that he's gone up there to be a person
who attacks the very people who voted for him, as
if they're a bunch of heathens or heillbillies and idiots,
and they don't understand the things he does. Very disappointing.
He has also reacted in a snarly manner when questioned
(29:01):
about how he has seen such incredible percentage trade increases
on his stop trades. I think I think voters have
every right to ask that question, and he starts cussing
when they ask that. That's it's pretty ridiculous. If you
ask me, he's out performing Warren Buffett.
Speaker 4 (29:20):
The only person he's not outperforming is Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
And well, maybe you know what a career could be.
But I don't know if he could do so well
of you. He doesn't have inside information, right he and
Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 4 (29:32):
Right, I mean, they're just amazing.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
It's an interesting thing, you know. I guess the one
thing you could be really proud of in your congressional
service is the one thing that the base absolutely despises
you for because it's so incredibly, incredibly questionable at a minimum.
And I'm holding my tongue. So what does it take
to win this race? Let's talk about the parameters of
(29:55):
this district and what this district looks like.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
So it's the southern half of Montgomery County, basically all
of House District fifteen, which is my district, and it
goes all the way over to the east side of
Montgomery County, over towards Splendora and Montgomery County is actually
fifty five point five percent of the district Harris County.
(30:20):
The east side of Harris County is only forty four
point side of it, and it goes over you know,
starts in the northeast of Harris County, which is Kingwood
down to a task Casita, Crosby, and Channel View and
that's pretty much. And then it goes along the southern
part of Montgomery County, northern Harris County, which is the
(30:41):
Woodlands Creek.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Side, and it has I've looked at the numbers in
a minute, but it has been a reliably Republican district
in November, which makes this primary like the general and
a very very important primary. You know, it strikes me
that Crenshaw is probably a better November candidate than he
is a March candidate.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Exactly.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
And one of the things that he has prided himself
on when we're doing is redistricting. I was concerned about
how the district was being drawn. I wanted to draw redder,
I want it. I wanted it to be an eighty
five percent district. And he cussed me out for wanting
to bring more rural area into it, less democrat less
(31:27):
democrats into it, and he said, only I could win
a district like that, and like, you're.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Proud of that.
Speaker 4 (31:31):
I mean, I don't want to work with Democrats. I
want to defeat him. I want to beat him because
that's what they want to do to us.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Yeah, I think Crenshaw recognizes that he is better being
a candidate for Democrats who they can deal with, than
Republicans who he won't. He won't follow what Republican primary
voters want as their baseline. I think Republicans scare him
a lot more than Democrats.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
I really do.
Speaker 4 (32:01):
Oh absolutely, he does not understand who the Republican base
is because he's not part of you. He's never part
of it. He did a really good job posing as
one of us, but he's never really walked the line.
He's never walked the party line. He's never been interested
in anything that we've really had to say to him.
I've reached out to in my office from time to time.
(32:23):
You know, all of constituents that will have federal issues,
and from time to time congressman will have issues that
are state issues, and we work together. We've never been
able to work with him ever. And so when I
have an issue federal issue for a constituent, I reach
out to Wesley Hunt, or I reach out to Morgan Latrelle,
and their offices are amazing.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
State Representative Steve Toath announcing today he is challenging Nan
Crenshaw on the second Congressional District, once represented by Ted
Coe for a number of years. That announcement tonight to
the big party tonight at Grace Woodland's Church at six
point thirty. We've got about a minute or so State
Representative Steve Toath, why don't you talk about what you've
(33:06):
done in the State House and I'll let you take
it to the direct.
Speaker 4 (33:10):
And one of the greatest challenges that we've got. Fifteen
years ago when I got into politics, we were winning
elections statewide elections with twenty four point margins. Now it's
only eight. We've got to do a better job and
empowering parents and getting our school back because they're inculcating
our kids into Marxism.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
We know that this nice last thank you and good night.
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.