March 7, 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 (00:03):
It's that time, time, time, time, luck and load.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
You.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Michael Berry's show is on the air. It's Charlie from
BlackBerry Smoke. I can feel a good one coming on.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
It's the Michael Berry Show.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Any attempt to restrict drinking and driving here is viewed
by some that's downright undemocratic.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Lugs, drax, you don't pay. Anthony felt you enough. That
man lied and people died everything they did. People died alone.
You know, every year in America, a certain number of
people are going to die. They age out, you know,
they die of cancer, they have a heart attack, but
they die with dignity. It's one of the things that
(00:53):
makes our society beautiful. They die with dignity, surrounded by
the people who love them, unless it's an accident, unless
it happened. But if they're old and they have a condition,
they die with their loved ones around them. And that's
a very powerful moment. Because of Fauci and people like him,
(01:14):
you were prohibited from holding the hand of your grandmother
as she slipped away, and I will never ever forgive
them for that. Anthony Fauci began COVID by saying, don't
wear a mask. There's shmuts, you'll get on it. You know,
a mask would just trap all the snot and everything
in your mouth, and that's not good for you. But
(01:36):
then they decided and he admitted even though the mask
doesn't stop you from passing into the particulates because they're
so microscopic. When everyone's wearing a mask, we all know
we're in the middle of a pandemic, and that's important.
We need everybody to be scared. And if everybody's not
wearing a mask, then everybody's not scared. And by the way,
(01:58):
you can't interact with people to stay three feet apart. Well,
why can't we do two? Okay, maybe two? What do
you do? What do you want to do? Let's do six?
Okay six. They literally just pulled it out.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Of a hat.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
Six.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
So schools moved the stuff away. You would go into
iny Goo, into two retail shops and they would have
signs you can stand here, and you can stand here.
It was all a joke. None of it was based
on the science. But I want you to listen here.
I want you to listen to this arrogant little bastard say,
(02:34):
trust me, I am the science. Lest I said, WOI
I am the state. I am the God, you know
this is This is Henry making himself the head of
the Anglican Church, crowning himself. This is Charlemagne having the
crowning ceremony where the crown is put upon the king,
(02:56):
and the only man worthy of crowning the king is Charlemagne.
So he took the crown and placed it on his
head as if it was somehow a transfer of power.
It was just an affirmation of his own arrogance. I
want you to think about how evil this man is.
Not because it's worth your time to, you know, to
(03:19):
make a what do you call those things that you
put needles in the dolls? Voodoo dolls or whatever, but
because you need to understand that a lot of people
are going to get you to do bad things on
the basis of their supposed power and your necessary obedience
to it. Resist.
Speaker 5 (03:37):
But they're really criticizing science, because I represent science.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
If you're vaccinated, you really don't need to worry about
getting it in a way that's serious or transmitting it
that is true, that is correct, Chris.
Speaker 6 (03:53):
They to lead to protect you completely against infection, and
the chances are very likely that you'll not be able
to transmit it other people. The risk is extremely low
of transmitting it to anybody else.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
Full stocksinated people are clearly capable of transmitting the infection.
When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a
mask might make people feel a little bit better. If
people are not wearing masks, then maybe we should be
manned any it.
Speaker 7 (04:23):
I often myself wear two masks, and I'm quoting it now.
Speaker 8 (04:26):
At the population level, masks work at the margins, maybe
ten percent. To hear that they only work at the margins,
maybe ten percent would make a lot of people ask,
then why was I wearing a mask.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
You're really attacking not only doctor Anthony Fauci, you're attacking
science when you say that this is going to go
away tomorrow like magic, when you know that there's no
chance it's going.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
To just disappear.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
We hope this just goes away, burns itself out.
Speaker 8 (04:51):
So my question is, why weren't you straight with the
American people about this to begin with.
Speaker 6 (04:56):
So the bottom line is it's a guestimate.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
I gave a range.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
It seemed in that quote to suggest that you were
basing your recommendation on pulling on what people could accept.
Speaker 9 (05:06):
Is that not what you meant.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
No, I mean it's a bit of that.
Speaker 8 (05:11):
We're seeing all of these school closures around the country.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Is that the right move for children and families? Yeah,
I think what's going on right now is.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Generally an appropriate approach. You want to start doing something
to socially distance yourself. How dramatic that is, closing schools
and doing other things should be proportionate.
Speaker 5 (05:31):
And it went too far that, particularly for kids who
couldn't go to school except remotely, that it's forever damaged them.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Well, I don't think it's forever irreparably damaged anyone.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
The US Surgeon General has called it an urgent public
health crisis, a devastating decline in the mental health of
kids across the country. According to the CDC, the rates
of suicide, self harm, anxiety, and depression are up among adolescents.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Will show Neil that we didn't recommend shutting everything down.
Speaker 7 (06:04):
First of all, I didn't recommend locking anything down. I
recommended to the President that we shut the country down,
and that was very difficult decision because I knew it
would have serious economic consequences, which it did.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
Yeah, because if you look at the people that.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
Are politicizing me.
Speaker 5 (06:24):
There's somebody that are all the way over on one level,
but there are a lot of other people who look
upon me the way they should as a non political
person that I am. If they're not doing it because
they say they don't want to give up their Republicans.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
They don't like to be told what to do, and
we got to break that. But now is the time
to do what you're told. Where did this virus come from?
Do you think today? Did it come from a lab?
Was it man made?
Speaker 5 (06:53):
When you have the animal human interface and you have
animals that come out of the wild that are sold
that these open what they call them, what.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Market place of origin was not within the market though,
I don't think you could say that.
Speaker 9 (07:06):
There's a report today that another intelligence arm of the
US government, this is inside our Energy Department, has joined
the FBI in concluding that COVID began with a lab
leak in China.
Speaker 5 (07:19):
That the NIH has not eva and does not now
fund gain a function research in the Wuhan Institute.
Speaker 10 (07:29):
We now know that a bat coronavirus was enhanced in
a lack The National Institute's.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Of help acknowledge that it funded.
Speaker 10 (07:36):
Research of a virus that was studied at the Wuhan
Institute of Virology. The experiments, unexpectedly were told made a
bat coronavirus more contagious than the original naturally occurring one.
Speaker 7 (07:48):
Take an animal virus and you increase the dressability to humans.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
You're saying, that's not gain the fund.
Speaker 5 (07:53):
That is correct, and Senator Poull, you do not know
what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I want
to say that, of officially, you do not know what
you are talking about. They took animal viruses that only
occur in animals and they increase their transmissibility to humans.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
How you can say that is not Gaina Funk.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
It is not what we're talking about now. Is the
gain of function research in studies that increase predominantly the transmissibility.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
You've got the Michael Berrys Show. One of my favorite
people to have on our show. We don't do a
lot of guests, and these days especially, there is so
much for me to talk about, we just don't do
much of it. But there is a fellow by the
name of Professor Josh Blackman who is a professor of
(08:42):
law at the University of South Texas in Houston, and
he is a nationally renowned expert on the Supreme Court,
and I get a lot of emails we'll say you
need to have Professor Blackman back on and because he's
so knowledgeable about the Supreme Court. And I don't do
it that often because, truthfully, I worry how many people
(09:04):
really care about what the Supreme Court is up to
until there's a ruling that affects our lives regarding abortion
or gun rights or these sorts of things. And I
think it's important to understand who is on the court,
how they got there, why they rule the way they rule,
(09:25):
especially with John Roberts, why is he so wrong in everything?
Or Amy Cony Barrett. I mean, why do we fight
so hard to get her if she's going to end
up going against the president. We got a six to
three majority and we're losing five four decisions. This isn't
how this is supposed to work. Right, Well, there's nobody
better to talk to about the Supreme Court. And I
would tell you a lot of you are aware of
(09:46):
the importance of the Supreme Court because a number of
you during the first election in twenty sixteen were saying, Hey,
whether somebody likes Trump or not, we've got to control
the Supreme Court, and he put three justices on the
Supreme Court. It ended up mattering. Those people have a
lot of foresight. The Supreme Court is very, very relevant
to our lives, and we tend to see the Congressman
(10:08):
all the time. But you need to understand what's going
on with Supreme Court. So we will speak to Professor
Josh Blackman. Let's start with the aforementioned John Roberts. So
he's seventy years old. He was fifty when he came
on to the court, nominated by George W. Bush. Do
you expect him to how long do you expect him
(10:28):
to stay on the court?
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Philie dies Really, I don't think he's ever gonna leave. Yeah.
Chief Justices tend not to retire him to die in office.
I mean Chief Justice Warrant retired early. But that's that's
why you can think of ease. We tend to. Yeah,
I think Rank was one. I'm sorry. Roberts quite like
his boss Ranquist, and they'll say till the very end.
I think Chief Justice Roberts has had a plan, he
(10:52):
had a mission. He wants to come to the court
and reduce Somember five four decisions is to reduce the temperature,
and he realized earlier on he couldn't do that himself, right.
The only way he could do this was by changing
out he votes to sort of make us alf look
less conservative. And that's become his usual philosophy, how to
rule against things he likes but still seem moderate. And
(11:12):
he always makes these decisions like the Obamacare case. He
havepheld the frutal Care Act as part of a taxing power.
You know, he rewrites statues all the time. He rules
against Trump on tax returns, rules against Trump bond doaka,
he rules against Trump and all these things, and he
rules for aun immunity. He sort of just keeps spling
the difference. And it's kind of this balance book. And
I think what you'll see here as well. I think
that Trump Shoff has powdered removed this guy. But I
(11:33):
don't want to be seeing as overly president for Trump,
So maybe I'll make up some new rule that also
deal with Later is always kicking the can down the road,
and eventually the cant so dented and banged up asn't
look like a can anymore.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
I'm going to ask you to get a little more
touchy feely than you normally do. But do you think
that Roberts dislikes Trump? And do you think that drives
some of what he's done, because many people do.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
I think Roberts resents the fact they to deal with Trump, right,
he would want like a Marco Rubio president or maybe
like you know Jeb Bush, that that would be more
of a cup of tea. Right. He had to preside
a Trump's peace print trial and he had to swear
the guy in. He didn't think he has to do that.
So I think he has no love for the guy.
But the problem is that the principles that Trump is articulating,
it's the same set that Reagan argued forty years ago. Right,
(12:13):
Roberts came of age with the Reagan White House, and
Trump is like the manifestation that you know, it's it's amazing.
Trump is what Reagan dreamed about. And Trump, he rob Wade, Right,
Reagan wants to do that. He's fighting for the executive.
Reagan wanted to do that just to have the court
for it. So in the abstract, in the in the
in the outside world, Roberts be saying, yes, go Trump,
(12:34):
But you know Trump is to crass and he insults
judges and these other things, and you know it's it's
it's just it's it can't be you know, it can't
can't be dealt with. We have this kind of person
in office.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Well, further to your point, Reagan went Trump one point
zero on the air traffic controllers, and I think that
ended up being something that he regretted, because I don't
I don't think he ended up stronger out of it.
Reagan wanted a deal on the border, the Amnesty Act,
which ended up making things a lot worse, whereas Trump
(13:04):
is actually doing something about it. I mean, I'm hearing
from border patrol that that you know, they're sitting around
going this is like a ghost town, thank goodness. So
I do think there is something to that. I want
to ask you a question before we move to the
next justice, the question as to whether Donald Trump must
always follow court orders. What is your thought on that.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
I always tell my students never say always, and never
say never, because there's always gonna be exceptions. And I'll
just give you an example. Right, Trump fired the Chairman
of the Joint Chief of Staffs a week ago. Right,
Let's say some judge says no mi as a president,
you must keep this chairman in office. And he's a
guy who sent up in nuclear codes, and you know
you can't fire nuke without this guy in office. If
a judge actually ordered the president to reinstate the chairman
(13:51):
of the Joint Chief of Staffs and the president is
an article to power, a constitutional power to run the military.
You know, Trump can appeel the order, but I don't
think Guess will fly it right away. He say, you
know what, let's that Supreme Court. They think, judge, you're nice,
but I'm gonna I'm gonna keep my my own people
in office. I think there are a lot of examples
that can think of where the president may not have
(14:13):
to follow an order right away.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
I think that was true of Biden, wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Oh my goodness? The Supreme Court basically ruled that the
eviction work. Remember this thing, the COVID thing that you
couldn't evict people during the COVID. Remember this, The Supreme
Court said, you can't do this, but the program is
almost over, so we're not going to tell you not
to do it, right We'll just let this program wind down.
Then Biden renewed it. The streetwort said is illegal. He
did it anyway, right, So again, this stuff happens all
the time. I think Trump gets in trouble for saying
(14:40):
out loud other people I should do quietly. Biden did
sort of quietly on the on the DL and Trump
says I'm going to do this. I think Van susays
I'm gonna do this, and they get in trouble for it.
I think there's there's just a flagrant double standard. But look,
you you want to talk about I nor in court orders.
Courts shouldn't issue insane orders that can't be followed. And
the court issues in order that's flagrantly and constitutional, Well,
(15:00):
then I don't know the president has duty to follow it.
It's awful to say, but that depends on the court's
doing their job.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Also, right, more coming up with Professor Josh Blackman, I
want to go through You don't have to be a
jurisprudential expert to understand the way he breaks things down.
But let's talk about the Supreme Court. We've got a
president with four years ahead of him, God Willing, who's
in his last term. Do we start looking at later
(15:28):
in his term some of the guys, while we have
a majority do we even wait till his next term
in case the Democrats take control of the Senate. Do
we use these two years to replace some of our
older judges? Is that the play? This is where the
strategy comes in for the long term composition of the
Supreme Court. We'll talk about that coming out.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Listen to the Michael Berry Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
If you dare kid cassible for President Trump to get
a Supreme Court nominee through. So while he does have
a fifty three forty seven majority we saw this with,
he hasn't failed to get a single nominee through. That's
why the Matt Gates nomination was pulled back because that
one probably wasn't going to make it. But we've got
Cash Fattel through, we got these others. So does it
(16:11):
make sense because we could eventually have a Democrat majority
in the last two years of President Trump's term, does
it make sense at this point to say, hey, let's
look at some of our older guys that we really
like and let's replace them. I give you a great example,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She held on when they asked her
to step down, and she held on, and then we
(16:32):
end up getting Amy Cony Barrett, we'll turn out in
a whole lot better. But so you look at Thurgood Marshall,
a seat considered a black seat, But when that seat
was replaced, it was with the very conservative and my
favorite living Justice Clarence Thomas, and we moved next to him.
He ascended to the seat at forty three years old.
George H. W. Bush's most consequential thing he did as
(16:54):
a president. Let me ask you, Professor Blackman, does it
make sense to start talking about Thomas stepping down next
year and us replacing him while we still have a
Republican majority?
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Now you're you're absolutely right. I mean, it always makes
sense sort of talk about replacements. So we have the
oldest conservative justice or Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, and
also Chief just Roberts a few years behind them. What
kills me, though, is that Justice Thomas is so much
better than they will. I know, we got a better replacement.
I know, we get someone in their fifties. It's exactly
(17:30):
half as good. So you know, he writes all these
descents by himself, these solo descent, saying, look, you guys
are all wrong, these eight to one decisions. Thomas says,
you guys are wrong, and let's consider this in some
future case and what happens. It happens. Thomas is like
the oracle. He wrote things thirty years ago. They're coming
to fruition now. So I wish he lives to be
one hundred and twenty years old. I don't know that
(17:51):
we get better than Justice Thomas. He's an American hero
and those influential Americans ever, Yeah, just of his influence.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I agree. It's you know, shame on me for even
bringing it up, but it's something we do have to discuss,
because God forbid the Democrats take the White House in
four years and he's eighty at that point, and something
happens to his health and the Democrats get that seat.
You know, it's these don't come along very often. Let's
(18:17):
move now to Samuel Alito, the aforementioned, who is seventy four,
who joined the Court as a George W. Bush appointee
at fifty five. If you were to say who was
most likely to leave, where does Aledo rank in that?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I think he's most likely to leave. There was some
rumors and scuttle Bud earlier this year, and then a
couple of medias to us had just reported friends of
Alito said he's not going to step down. I think
Alito's kind of annoyed that people want to step down. Look,
they don't want to be set being political, right, that
they're only stepping down because they're guys in office that
makes them very political. Then again, Joseph Bryer hid exactly
(18:58):
that he stepped down. I was an office. He waited
a year, then stepped down. Justice Stevens and Justice Suitor,
they both liberals. They stepped down tous Obama Gammets office.
They ran out of office quickly as they could. So
it's done. You know, if Justin Alito steps down, I
think he replaced very easily, even with perhaps an Alito clerk.
But there's a very very deep bench of people that
(19:19):
you can select to replace him.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
But even Alito, and I think, I know, I know
you feel the same.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
I love I love Justice Alito, and I think he's
he's a traditional he he here presents the classical conservative
view and he's like a conscience of conservatives. But you
know it's again when I put comparing like Scalia Elite
Scalia and Thomas and the Alito, they're just their different
stratusphere and it's not to diminished one of the others.
Just they're they're just they're there. You have to you
(19:46):
have to recognize where the impact is and well.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
You know that, which brings us to our next I
met Sir Royce, and that is the man who had
the biggest shoes to replace, and that was antonin Scalia.
In in Neil gorse appointed took the court at forty nine.
He was and he was a Trump nominee and he
(20:09):
is only fifty seven, so we could expect him to
stay there for a while. Has Gorsich been better or
worse about what you expected?
Speaker 2 (20:18):
I think Gorstach is the best of the three Trump appointees,
which is the same terribly much. But I think he's
the least worse of them. He is probably the most
conservative of the three. And also he doesn't give a
damn what anyone thinks about him, which I ide respect,
but on cer an issue he just got to hang
up right. So for example, on gay rights here at
the hey called the boss Sock Decision, which which said
(20:40):
that federal law must protect LGBT people even the lowest
pass the nineteen sixties where it was illegal to be
sexual relations with the same person. It was just this
holding that was just so flawed. But he believed that
the other issue of Gorsuch as a hang up as
Indian law. I mean, I don't know if he had
listeners in Oklahoma right now, but Indian in Oklahoma is
(21:03):
actually Indian territory now right. You know, Tulsa, these other cities,
they're based in your Indian sovereignty now. Because if Neil Gorsa,
she said, well, you know, we the US government's hade
a treaty with the Indians one hundred and fifty years ago,
and we're going to force that treaty. And you know,
if that's it, then Oklahoma's not a real state. It's
really actually Indian territory. I mean a radical ruling. I mean,
he had all these could all these criminals for Indians
(21:26):
who are convicted who actually retried because they weren't convicted
about Indian court or by a federal court, and all
these prisoners will let a prison and they can't be
retried because they were Indians who weren't trying it. I mean,
just if you talk to your listeners and Tulsa, they
know about this. It's a serious issue.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Ted Cruz was stomping his feet when this happened, and
nobody paid attention because I don't think people really understood
how big a deal it was. Let's go next to
Brett Kavanaugh, who replaced Justice Kennedy, and Kennedy is the
gam But I'm talking about Kennedy stepped down, Kennedy's sons
a friend of mine, and Kennedy's up down. And many
(22:01):
people believe it was on the premise that we needed
to get this appointment in in case the Democrats held
the next term. How has Kavanaugh been based on your expectation?
Speaker 2 (22:13):
So I think, just as kavan again, he would out
of my first choice, my second choice, or my tenth choice.
But I think he was needed to get Kennedy to retire.
And I think when you look at that, it was
a necessary act to do because had Trump not replaced
with Kennedy, then you know, in hindsight, Trump didem in
re election. That's he have gone to the Dems. And
(22:34):
if Ginsberg hat held on to a few months, that's
he gone to the Dems and he lose the court.
So I give it there. Kavanaugh. I think it's a
profoundly conservative man. I think his sort of hang up
is is he does worry about how the Court's perceived,
and he's worried about how things were viewed. He often
writes these separate occurrences where he source says, well, we
want to make sure both sides feel loved, and I'm
not trying to hurt anyone, and everyone's just.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
He's a bushy. I mean, he's a bushy, and he's
he's really then administrative staff instead of a deep thinker.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
I think he's actually quite I think he's quite smart,
but I think he's sort of held back by his
bushes and you know, the compassionate conservative, remember that that
that that mantra. He believes that, and he actually thinks
way that George would be Bush thinks, and which is
why I think he's probably not a lover of Trump.
I mean, if you if you watch the Press confidence
where Kavanaugh and Trump comes out, Cavana is trying to
be really friendly to Trump. But you know, you know
(23:25):
he wants Jeb. He doesn't want Sorge, of course Trump.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
He wants Jeb because he wants a Jeb or a
Mitt Romney because they're proper and he he likes things
to be proper.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Yeah, but Kavana again has had some very good opinions.
He I think he's Kavana rules the right way in
most cases. Then he writes that thing loots. It's a
very weird thing. He rarely cast a vote. I can criticize,
but when he writes something, it's always a sort of
Mishi mosh, watering things down. I won't go as far
as Justice Thomas will go. I'll go halfway. And that's
where he got it.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
He Professor Josh Blackman's can you hang with me for
just a few more minutes? First jobs would use that
tone to me, not a joke.
Speaker 7 (24:06):
That's sarcastic, contemptuous tone that means you know everything because
you're a man, and I know nothing because I'm a woman.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
That is not a joke. That is a natural fact
that Michael Joe.
Speaker 11 (24:22):
Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law
and Esteemed Law School located in Houston, renowned under the
former tutelage.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Of the Dean of the Law school, who was a
dear friend of mine named Gerald Trece. Gerald Trees was
a legend in Texas law and in Texas law education.
Interestingly enough, I went to the Universe I went to
University of Texas School of Law, the greatest law school
in the country. My wife went to the University of
Houston School of Law, and those are fantastic law schools.
(24:56):
But I will tell you that for anyone who wants
to be a room litigator, South Texas College of Law
is as good as any in the country. They often
win the national championship, and they they birth and throw
out into the legal world folks who file lawsuits or
defend lawsuits, and they're darn good at It's very, very
(25:17):
well respected law school. And if you don't know them,
just take my word for it on this. And that
is the South Texas College of Law, where Professor Josh
Blackman is on faculty and beloved. Let's move next to
the most disappointing for me. Republicans are appoint, nominated, and
confirmed member, and that is Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement, who
(25:40):
President Trump put on the Court in a fifty two
to forty eight ruling. She was forty eight years old
at the time. She's now fifty three. Originally from New Orleans, Louisiana.
Amy Coney Barrett, your thoughts on her again, I think
you have to see.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Justice Barrett as an emergency pick in a way, right,
Kinsdrick died in September of twenty twenty, like two months
for the election. Trump had to pick someone those are
even vetted that he knew, and it was a woman.
There was just no way. There was no way to
avoid that. He had to pick a woman who had
been vetted, and he had picked there for the Quarter
Appeals only a couple of years early. She's been a
(26:17):
judge forbe a year and a half, two years, not
very long. So the second Kinsdrick died, this was a
done deal, right, no one else had it was hers.
The problem though, is that Barrett was sort of put
in the shortlist way too early. They put her on
the shortlist of the Supreme Court before she even cided
a single case as the lower Court judge. The fix
was in. They knew it was her. I think the
reason why is you look her. She's just very charismatic,
(26:38):
you know, friendly, devoutly Catholic woman with many kids. She
adopted these Haitian children, who you know, she's raised as
her own, and she's as a mom. I love her
like I wish I could be a parent like her.
I mean that sincerely. She her parenting tip I think
actually extremely useful. But as a judge, the track record,
(27:01):
and before she was a judge, I was a law professor,
and frankly she didn't write very much. She didn't write
things on controversial topics. She just wrote sort of you know,
mundane stuff, how to reach statues and how to run
fiddle courts, nothing particularly difficult. But I think people said, oh,
of course this is me, the next Scalia. We got
to pasisically, but the next game.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
And she's pro liant and I just like Mike pins
if you're sufficiently pro life, you must think the way
I do. But she doesn't. And this is where the
pro life folks get get in trouble. I'm pro life,
but there are other issues. I don't want Mike Pince
to be president just because he's the most you know,
openly pro life, pro life constantly. There are other issues
where we have to win anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
That's a bit of a ramp. No, that's right. And
in fact she never said a word. She never said
a word about Roevie Wade, not not a peep. In fact,
at a church she wants sign a petition thinking Rovi
Wai overruled. And what happens is, oh, I just find
of said it was signing. She backed away from it.
She she's avoided controversy her entire life. She just hasn't
(27:58):
leaned into controversy. So she gets to the court, she
again leeds away from controversy.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Yeah, and the problem with that is you're put in
a position where you have to take a stand if
a police if you and I get in a fight
and I've got a knife and you don't, and you go, hey, officer,
can you help me out here?
Speaker 5 (28:13):
Now?
Speaker 3 (28:13):
No, I don't have to get in between things. Well,
that's the problem because that's kind of your job. That's
kind of your job. Fella. All right, let's go, let's
go to our Democrat nominated judges and we'll go in
reverse order. And that is the only one that Biden
put on the court, and she took Justice Brier's position,
and that was Katanji Brown Jackson fifty two at that time.
(28:37):
She's now fifty four, and in a fifty three to
forty seven vote, she was confirmed. Your thoughts on her
in her short tenure.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
You know, I think she's been a pretty predictable or
liberal liberal. I think her most notorious fast as she
talks a lot. They do these sort of graphs of
what percentage of the time he's Justice talks and Jackson
just blows everyone else. But she talks more than anyone else,
just lots of words are uttered. She definitely has an agenda.
She's trying to push her in issues about the government
(29:08):
and how the governments acting is fairly. She hasn't had
much an influence yet. She hasn't read any big opinions,
but she probably won't ever for a career because she
always be in dissent. So I think she's just content
to her just make her points and right which ones
are right, but not much of a not much of
an impact on the world.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
I have two more I want to get to and
they are the only two Obama nominees. And first is
Alana Kagan, who replaced Justice Stevens. She was fifty at
the time, he is now sixty four. Your thoughts on
Alna Kagan?
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Kagan is smart, She's wicked smart. She was the dean
at the Harvard Law School, and as being at the
Harvard Law School, she knows how to deal with people
and deal people with ego. She can negotiate you can
massage ego. She can persuade people very easily. In fact,
when President about put her on the Court, it was
to put someone to persuade Justin Kennedy, and I think
(30:00):
going to sort of figure out her roles to just
sort of persuade John Roberts and persuade Ammy Barrett to
just do things that are liberal. Think the court seem
better that that's her best, her only mission. She can't
cast two votes, but she can persuade others to cast
a vote with her. I think she's done that very
effective over the years. But she's wicked smart.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Interesting for you to say that that means she must be.
How about the wise Latina Sonya Sotomayor, who replaced Justice suitor,
who was fifty five at the time. She's now seventy.
She was the first of Barack Obama's two nominees.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
I think just smily Or brings different perspectives. She was
a criminal defense attorney, she was a trial judge, she
was a criminal prosecutor. She was a trial judge, so
she's a definite sense of how trials should operate, how
law should operate. I think her biggest impact has not
been on the course been off the court, She's had
lots of books. She writes, these children's stories, she tells
her to biography. She inspires a lot of people, but
(30:55):
her juris potential impact has been pretty slight. I'd have
to think hard to think of five opinions she wrote
that actually that matter. Just there's not much. But I
think she's been a very inspirational pick for a lot
of people. But that's mostly stuff she's done off the court.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
On the court, all right, I got about a minute
and a half. Why don't you just rattle off the
big issues that are hovering out there that we could
expect the Supreme Court to rule on that will matter
to us.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Right, The biggest issue right now is how they handled
Trump as a whole. Right during the Rosalt presidency of
the Supreme Court initially pushed back against the results they
ruled against him, but then after some a while the said, okay,
never mind, we're going to go along with the program.
I think you're the first Trump administration. They ruled against
him pretty consistently for conservative court. The question today eventually
flipped do they keep pushing against Trump? And they realized, okay,
(31:41):
you know, he had some points he's making arguments that
we've made before, and I think we served get along
with the program. So I think a lot we'd decide
the next a year or two about how they deal
with Trump, and if it's not Trump, but we maybe
jade vance for four or eight more years, and eventually
the Court will have to sort of see that the
nation's shifting and these sort of settlements we had after
World War Two and the sixties and seventies, those settlements
(32:01):
are not holding anymore.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
Professor Josh Blackman, as always a pleasure to have you
on and share your thoughts on Supreme Court and other
Court rulings. Always a pleasure, Thank you so much. And
with that we wrap for the day, and well at
least for this show. At least for this show. And
a reminder, if you ever miss any part of the show,
(32:25):
you can always hear it in full on the podcast.
We send out a link to some of our bits
every morning in between the Morning Show and this show,
which you can find easily. You can sign up for
that at Michael Berryshow dot com. You can also email
me directly through there, and yes I do read every email.
I just can't respond to every email. That would be crazy,
(32:47):
or you can follow us on Facebook. I post. I'm
the only one who posts on our Facebook page, the
only one who posts on our Twitter page. And I'm
trying to get somebody else on the team to help
me out and do the Instagram pages. I'm not very
good at it, but I haven't found anyone who will
suffer enough to do it yet. We'll see.
Speaker 5 (33:05):
Hey, jellmen, Elvis has luck good today, Thank you, and
good nightsh
It's that time, time, time, time, luck and load.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
You.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Michael Berry's show is on the air. It's Charlie from
BlackBerry Smoke. I can feel a good one coming on.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
It's the Michael Berry Show.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Any attempt to restrict drinking and driving here is viewed
by some that's downright undemocratic.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Lugs, drax, you don't pay. Anthony felt you enough. That
man lied and people died everything they did. People died alone.
You know, every year in America, a certain number of
people are going to die. They age out, you know,
they die of cancer, they have a heart attack, but
they die with dignity. It's one of the things that
(00:53):
makes our society beautiful. They die with dignity, surrounded by
the people who love them, unless it's an accident, unless
it happened. But if they're old and they have a condition,
they die with their loved ones around them. And that's
a very powerful moment. Because of Fauci and people like him,
(01:14):
you were prohibited from holding the hand of your grandmother
as she slipped away, and I will never ever forgive
them for that. Anthony Fauci began COVID by saying, don't
wear a mask. There's shmuts, you'll get on it. You know,
a mask would just trap all the snot and everything
in your mouth, and that's not good for you. But
(01:36):
then they decided and he admitted even though the mask
doesn't stop you from passing into the particulates because they're
so microscopic. When everyone's wearing a mask, we all know
we're in the middle of a pandemic, and that's important.
We need everybody to be scared. And if everybody's not
wearing a mask, then everybody's not scared. And by the way,
(01:58):
you can't interact with people to stay three feet apart. Well,
why can't we do two? Okay, maybe two? What do
you do? What do you want to do? Let's do six?
Okay six. They literally just pulled it out.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Of a hat.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
Six.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
So schools moved the stuff away. You would go into
iny Goo, into two retail shops and they would have
signs you can stand here, and you can stand here.
It was all a joke. None of it was based
on the science. But I want you to listen here.
I want you to listen to this arrogant little bastard say,
(02:34):
trust me, I am the science. Lest I said, WOI
I am the state. I am the God, you know
this is This is Henry making himself the head of
the Anglican Church, crowning himself. This is Charlemagne having the
crowning ceremony where the crown is put upon the king,
(02:56):
and the only man worthy of crowning the king is Charlemagne.
So he took the crown and placed it on his
head as if it was somehow a transfer of power.
It was just an affirmation of his own arrogance. I
want you to think about how evil this man is.
Not because it's worth your time to, you know, to
(03:19):
make a what do you call those things that you
put needles in the dolls? Voodoo dolls or whatever, but
because you need to understand that a lot of people
are going to get you to do bad things on
the basis of their supposed power and your necessary obedience
to it. Resist.
Speaker 5 (03:37):
But they're really criticizing science, because I represent science.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
If you're vaccinated, you really don't need to worry about
getting it in a way that's serious or transmitting it
that is true, that is correct, Chris.
Speaker 6 (03:53):
They to lead to protect you completely against infection, and
the chances are very likely that you'll not be able
to transmit it other people. The risk is extremely low
of transmitting it to anybody else.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
Full stocksinated people are clearly capable of transmitting the infection.
When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a
mask might make people feel a little bit better. If
people are not wearing masks, then maybe we should be
manned any it.
Speaker 7 (04:23):
I often myself wear two masks, and I'm quoting it now.
Speaker 8 (04:26):
At the population level, masks work at the margins, maybe
ten percent. To hear that they only work at the margins,
maybe ten percent would make a lot of people ask,
then why was I wearing a mask.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
You're really attacking not only doctor Anthony Fauci, you're attacking
science when you say that this is going to go
away tomorrow like magic, when you know that there's no
chance it's going.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
To just disappear.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
We hope this just goes away, burns itself out.
Speaker 8 (04:51):
So my question is, why weren't you straight with the
American people about this to begin with.
Speaker 6 (04:56):
So the bottom line is it's a guestimate.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
I gave a range.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
It seemed in that quote to suggest that you were
basing your recommendation on pulling on what people could accept.
Speaker 9 (05:06):
Is that not what you meant.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
No, I mean it's a bit of that.
Speaker 8 (05:11):
We're seeing all of these school closures around the country.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Is that the right move for children and families? Yeah,
I think what's going on right now is.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Generally an appropriate approach. You want to start doing something
to socially distance yourself. How dramatic that is, closing schools
and doing other things should be proportionate.
Speaker 5 (05:31):
And it went too far that, particularly for kids who
couldn't go to school except remotely, that it's forever damaged them.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Well, I don't think it's forever irreparably damaged anyone.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
The US Surgeon General has called it an urgent public
health crisis, a devastating decline in the mental health of
kids across the country. According to the CDC, the rates
of suicide, self harm, anxiety, and depression are up among adolescents.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Will show Neil that we didn't recommend shutting everything down.
Speaker 7 (06:04):
First of all, I didn't recommend locking anything down. I
recommended to the President that we shut the country down,
and that was very difficult decision because I knew it
would have serious economic consequences, which it did.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
Yeah, because if you look at the people that.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
Are politicizing me.
Speaker 5 (06:24):
There's somebody that are all the way over on one level,
but there are a lot of other people who look
upon me the way they should as a non political
person that I am. If they're not doing it because
they say they don't want to give up their Republicans.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
They don't like to be told what to do, and
we got to break that. But now is the time
to do what you're told. Where did this virus come from?
Do you think today? Did it come from a lab?
Was it man made?
Speaker 5 (06:53):
When you have the animal human interface and you have
animals that come out of the wild that are sold
that these open what they call them, what.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Market place of origin was not within the market though,
I don't think you could say that.
Speaker 9 (07:06):
There's a report today that another intelligence arm of the
US government, this is inside our Energy Department, has joined
the FBI in concluding that COVID began with a lab
leak in China.
Speaker 5 (07:19):
That the NIH has not eva and does not now
fund gain a function research in the Wuhan Institute.
Speaker 10 (07:29):
We now know that a bat coronavirus was enhanced in
a lack The National Institute's.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Of help acknowledge that it funded.
Speaker 10 (07:36):
Research of a virus that was studied at the Wuhan
Institute of Virology. The experiments, unexpectedly were told made a
bat coronavirus more contagious than the original naturally occurring one.
Speaker 7 (07:48):
Take an animal virus and you increase the dressability to humans.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
You're saying, that's not gain the fund.
Speaker 5 (07:53):
That is correct, and Senator Poull, you do not know
what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I want
to say that, of officially, you do not know what
you are talking about. They took animal viruses that only
occur in animals and they increase their transmissibility to humans.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
How you can say that is not Gaina Funk.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
It is not what we're talking about now. Is the
gain of function research in studies that increase predominantly the transmissibility.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
You've got the Michael Berrys Show. One of my favorite
people to have on our show. We don't do a
lot of guests, and these days especially, there is so
much for me to talk about, we just don't do
much of it. But there is a fellow by the
name of Professor Josh Blackman who is a professor of
(08:42):
law at the University of South Texas in Houston, and
he is a nationally renowned expert on the Supreme Court,
and I get a lot of emails we'll say you
need to have Professor Blackman back on and because he's
so knowledgeable about the Supreme Court. And I don't do
it that often because, truthfully, I worry how many people
(09:04):
really care about what the Supreme Court is up to
until there's a ruling that affects our lives regarding abortion
or gun rights or these sorts of things. And I
think it's important to understand who is on the court,
how they got there, why they rule the way they rule,
(09:25):
especially with John Roberts, why is he so wrong in everything?
Or Amy Cony Barrett. I mean, why do we fight
so hard to get her if she's going to end
up going against the president. We got a six to
three majority and we're losing five four decisions. This isn't
how this is supposed to work. Right, Well, there's nobody
better to talk to about the Supreme Court. And I
would tell you a lot of you are aware of
(09:46):
the importance of the Supreme Court because a number of
you during the first election in twenty sixteen were saying, Hey,
whether somebody likes Trump or not, we've got to control
the Supreme Court, and he put three justices on the
Supreme Court. It ended up mattering. Those people have a
lot of foresight. The Supreme Court is very, very relevant
to our lives, and we tend to see the Congressman
(10:08):
all the time. But you need to understand what's going
on with Supreme Court. So we will speak to Professor
Josh Blackman. Let's start with the aforementioned John Roberts. So
he's seventy years old. He was fifty when he came
on to the court, nominated by George W. Bush. Do
you expect him to how long do you expect him
(10:28):
to stay on the court?
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Philie dies Really, I don't think he's ever gonna leave. Yeah.
Chief Justices tend not to retire him to die in office.
I mean Chief Justice Warrant retired early. But that's that's
why you can think of ease. We tend to. Yeah,
I think Rank was one. I'm sorry. Roberts quite like
his boss Ranquist, and they'll say till the very end.
I think Chief Justice Roberts has had a plan, he
(10:52):
had a mission. He wants to come to the court
and reduce Somember five four decisions is to reduce the temperature,
and he realized earlier on he couldn't do that himself, right.
The only way he could do this was by changing
out he votes to sort of make us alf look
less conservative. And that's become his usual philosophy, how to
rule against things he likes but still seem moderate. And
(11:12):
he always makes these decisions like the Obamacare case. He
havepheld the frutal Care Act as part of a taxing power.
You know, he rewrites statues all the time. He rules
against Trump on tax returns, rules against Trump bond doaka,
he rules against Trump and all these things, and he
rules for aun immunity. He sort of just keeps spling
the difference. And it's kind of this balance book. And
I think what you'll see here as well. I think
that Trump Shoff has powdered removed this guy. But I
(11:33):
don't want to be seeing as overly president for Trump,
So maybe I'll make up some new rule that also
deal with Later is always kicking the can down the road,
and eventually the cant so dented and banged up asn't
look like a can anymore.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
I'm going to ask you to get a little more
touchy feely than you normally do. But do you think
that Roberts dislikes Trump? And do you think that drives
some of what he's done, because many people do.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
I think Roberts resents the fact they to deal with Trump, right,
he would want like a Marco Rubio president or maybe
like you know Jeb Bush, that that would be more
of a cup of tea. Right. He had to preside
a Trump's peace print trial and he had to swear
the guy in. He didn't think he has to do that.
So I think he has no love for the guy.
But the problem is that the principles that Trump is articulating,
it's the same set that Reagan argued forty years ago. Right,
(12:13):
Roberts came of age with the Reagan White House, and
Trump is like the manifestation that you know, it's it's amazing.
Trump is what Reagan dreamed about. And Trump, he rob Wade, Right,
Reagan wants to do that. He's fighting for the executive.
Reagan wanted to do that just to have the court
for it. So in the abstract, in the in the
in the outside world, Roberts be saying, yes, go Trump,
(12:34):
But you know Trump is to crass and he insults
judges and these other things, and you know it's it's
it's just it's it can't be you know, it can't
can't be dealt with. We have this kind of person
in office.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Well, further to your point, Reagan went Trump one point
zero on the air traffic controllers, and I think that
ended up being something that he regretted, because I don't
I don't think he ended up stronger out of it.
Reagan wanted a deal on the border, the Amnesty Act,
which ended up making things a lot worse, whereas Trump
(13:04):
is actually doing something about it. I mean, I'm hearing
from border patrol that that you know, they're sitting around
going this is like a ghost town, thank goodness. So
I do think there is something to that. I want
to ask you a question before we move to the
next justice, the question as to whether Donald Trump must
always follow court orders. What is your thought on that.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
I always tell my students never say always, and never
say never, because there's always gonna be exceptions. And I'll
just give you an example. Right, Trump fired the Chairman
of the Joint Chief of Staffs a week ago. Right,
Let's say some judge says no mi as a president,
you must keep this chairman in office. And he's a
guy who sent up in nuclear codes, and you know
you can't fire nuke without this guy in office. If
a judge actually ordered the president to reinstate the chairman
(13:51):
of the Joint Chief of Staffs and the president is
an article to power, a constitutional power to run the military.
You know, Trump can appeel the order, but I don't
think Guess will fly it right away. He say, you
know what, let's that Supreme Court. They think, judge, you're nice,
but I'm gonna I'm gonna keep my my own people
in office. I think there are a lot of examples
that can think of where the president may not have
(14:13):
to follow an order right away.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
I think that was true of Biden, wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Oh my goodness? The Supreme Court basically ruled that the
eviction work. Remember this thing, the COVID thing that you
couldn't evict people during the COVID. Remember this, The Supreme
Court said, you can't do this, but the program is
almost over, so we're not going to tell you not
to do it, right We'll just let this program wind down.
Then Biden renewed it. The streetwort said is illegal. He
did it anyway, right, So again, this stuff happens all
the time. I think Trump gets in trouble for saying
(14:40):
out loud other people I should do quietly. Biden did
sort of quietly on the on the DL and Trump
says I'm going to do this. I think Van susays
I'm gonna do this, and they get in trouble for it.
I think there's there's just a flagrant double standard. But look,
you you want to talk about I nor in court orders.
Courts shouldn't issue insane orders that can't be followed. And
the court issues in order that's flagrantly and constitutional, Well,
(15:00):
then I don't know the president has duty to follow it.
It's awful to say, but that depends on the court's
doing their job.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Also, right, more coming up with Professor Josh Blackman, I
want to go through You don't have to be a
jurisprudential expert to understand the way he breaks things down.
But let's talk about the Supreme Court. We've got a
president with four years ahead of him, God Willing, who's
in his last term. Do we start looking at later
(15:28):
in his term some of the guys, while we have
a majority do we even wait till his next term
in case the Democrats take control of the Senate. Do
we use these two years to replace some of our
older judges? Is that the play? This is where the
strategy comes in for the long term composition of the
Supreme Court. We'll talk about that coming out.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Listen to the Michael Berry Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
If you dare kid cassible for President Trump to get
a Supreme Court nominee through. So while he does have
a fifty three forty seven majority we saw this with,
he hasn't failed to get a single nominee through. That's
why the Matt Gates nomination was pulled back because that
one probably wasn't going to make it. But we've got
Cash Fattel through, we got these others. So does it
(16:11):
make sense because we could eventually have a Democrat majority
in the last two years of President Trump's term, does
it make sense at this point to say, hey, let's
look at some of our older guys that we really
like and let's replace them. I give you a great example,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She held on when they asked her
to step down, and she held on, and then we
(16:32):
end up getting Amy Cony Barrett, we'll turn out in
a whole lot better. But so you look at Thurgood Marshall,
a seat considered a black seat, But when that seat
was replaced, it was with the very conservative and my
favorite living Justice Clarence Thomas, and we moved next to him.
He ascended to the seat at forty three years old.
George H. W. Bush's most consequential thing he did as
(16:54):
a president. Let me ask you, Professor Blackman, does it
make sense to start talking about Thomas stepping down next
year and us replacing him while we still have a
Republican majority?
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Now you're you're absolutely right. I mean, it always makes
sense sort of talk about replacements. So we have the
oldest conservative justice or Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, and
also Chief just Roberts a few years behind them. What
kills me, though, is that Justice Thomas is so much
better than they will. I know, we got a better replacement.
I know, we get someone in their fifties. It's exactly
(17:30):
half as good. So you know, he writes all these
descents by himself, these solo descent, saying, look, you guys
are all wrong, these eight to one decisions. Thomas says,
you guys are wrong, and let's consider this in some
future case and what happens. It happens. Thomas is like
the oracle. He wrote things thirty years ago. They're coming
to fruition now. So I wish he lives to be
one hundred and twenty years old. I don't know that
(17:51):
we get better than Justice Thomas. He's an American hero
and those influential Americans ever, Yeah, just of his influence.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I agree. It's you know, shame on me for even
bringing it up, but it's something we do have to discuss,
because God forbid the Democrats take the White House in
four years and he's eighty at that point, and something
happens to his health and the Democrats get that seat.
You know, it's these don't come along very often. Let's
(18:17):
move now to Samuel Alito, the aforementioned, who is seventy four,
who joined the Court as a George W. Bush appointee
at fifty five. If you were to say who was
most likely to leave, where does Aledo rank in that?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I think he's most likely to leave. There was some
rumors and scuttle Bud earlier this year, and then a
couple of medias to us had just reported friends of
Alito said he's not going to step down. I think
Alito's kind of annoyed that people want to step down. Look,
they don't want to be set being political, right, that
they're only stepping down because they're guys in office that
makes them very political. Then again, Joseph Bryer hid exactly
(18:58):
that he stepped down. I was an office. He waited
a year, then stepped down. Justice Stevens and Justice Suitor,
they both liberals. They stepped down tous Obama Gammets office.
They ran out of office quickly as they could. So
it's done. You know, if Justin Alito steps down, I
think he replaced very easily, even with perhaps an Alito clerk.
But there's a very very deep bench of people that
(19:19):
you can select to replace him.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
But even Alito, and I think, I know, I know
you feel the same.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
I love I love Justice Alito, and I think he's
he's a traditional he he here presents the classical conservative
view and he's like a conscience of conservatives. But you
know it's again when I put comparing like Scalia Elite
Scalia and Thomas and the Alito, they're just their different
stratusphere and it's not to diminished one of the others.
Just they're they're just they're there. You have to you
(19:46):
have to recognize where the impact is and well.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
You know that, which brings us to our next I
met Sir Royce, and that is the man who had
the biggest shoes to replace, and that was antonin Scalia.
In in Neil gorse appointed took the court at forty nine.
He was and he was a Trump nominee and he
(20:09):
is only fifty seven, so we could expect him to
stay there for a while. Has Gorsich been better or
worse about what you expected?
Speaker 2 (20:18):
I think Gorstach is the best of the three Trump appointees,
which is the same terribly much. But I think he's
the least worse of them. He is probably the most
conservative of the three. And also he doesn't give a
damn what anyone thinks about him, which I ide respect,
but on cer an issue he just got to hang
up right. So for example, on gay rights here at
the hey called the boss Sock Decision, which which said
(20:40):
that federal law must protect LGBT people even the lowest
pass the nineteen sixties where it was illegal to be
sexual relations with the same person. It was just this
holding that was just so flawed. But he believed that
the other issue of Gorsuch as a hang up as
Indian law. I mean, I don't know if he had
listeners in Oklahoma right now, but Indian in Oklahoma is
(21:03):
actually Indian territory now right. You know, Tulsa, these other cities,
they're based in your Indian sovereignty now. Because if Neil Gorsa,
she said, well, you know, we the US government's hade
a treaty with the Indians one hundred and fifty years ago,
and we're going to force that treaty. And you know,
if that's it, then Oklahoma's not a real state. It's
really actually Indian territory. I mean a radical ruling. I mean,
he had all these could all these criminals for Indians
(21:26):
who are convicted who actually retried because they weren't convicted
about Indian court or by a federal court, and all
these prisoners will let a prison and they can't be
retried because they were Indians who weren't trying it. I mean,
just if you talk to your listeners and Tulsa, they
know about this. It's a serious issue.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Ted Cruz was stomping his feet when this happened, and
nobody paid attention because I don't think people really understood
how big a deal it was. Let's go next to
Brett Kavanaugh, who replaced Justice Kennedy, and Kennedy is the
gam But I'm talking about Kennedy stepped down, Kennedy's sons
a friend of mine, and Kennedy's up down. And many
(22:01):
people believe it was on the premise that we needed
to get this appointment in in case the Democrats held
the next term. How has Kavanaugh been based on your expectation?
Speaker 2 (22:13):
So I think, just as kavan again, he would out
of my first choice, my second choice, or my tenth choice.
But I think he was needed to get Kennedy to retire.
And I think when you look at that, it was
a necessary act to do because had Trump not replaced
with Kennedy, then you know, in hindsight, Trump didem in
re election. That's he have gone to the Dems. And
(22:34):
if Ginsberg hat held on to a few months, that's
he gone to the Dems and he lose the court.
So I give it there. Kavanaugh. I think it's a
profoundly conservative man. I think his sort of hang up
is is he does worry about how the Court's perceived,
and he's worried about how things were viewed. He often
writes these separate occurrences where he source says, well, we
want to make sure both sides feel loved, and I'm
not trying to hurt anyone, and everyone's just.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
He's a bushy. I mean, he's a bushy, and he's
he's really then administrative staff instead of a deep thinker.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
I think he's actually quite I think he's quite smart,
but I think he's sort of held back by his
bushes and you know, the compassionate conservative, remember that that
that that mantra. He believes that, and he actually thinks
way that George would be Bush thinks, and which is
why I think he's probably not a lover of Trump.
I mean, if you if you watch the Press confidence
where Kavanaugh and Trump comes out, Cavana is trying to
be really friendly to Trump. But you know, you know
(23:25):
he wants Jeb. He doesn't want Sorge, of course Trump.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
He wants Jeb because he wants a Jeb or a
Mitt Romney because they're proper and he he likes things
to be proper.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Yeah, but Kavana again has had some very good opinions.
He I think he's Kavana rules the right way in
most cases. Then he writes that thing loots. It's a
very weird thing. He rarely cast a vote. I can criticize,
but when he writes something, it's always a sort of
Mishi mosh, watering things down. I won't go as far
as Justice Thomas will go. I'll go halfway. And that's
where he got it.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
He Professor Josh Blackman's can you hang with me for
just a few more minutes? First jobs would use that
tone to me, not a joke.
Speaker 7 (24:06):
That's sarcastic, contemptuous tone that means you know everything because
you're a man, and I know nothing because I'm a woman.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
That is not a joke. That is a natural fact
that Michael Joe.
Speaker 11 (24:22):
Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law
and Esteemed Law School located in Houston, renowned under the
former tutelage.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Of the Dean of the Law school, who was a
dear friend of mine named Gerald Trece. Gerald Trees was
a legend in Texas law and in Texas law education.
Interestingly enough, I went to the Universe I went to
University of Texas School of Law, the greatest law school
in the country. My wife went to the University of
Houston School of Law, and those are fantastic law schools.
(24:56):
But I will tell you that for anyone who wants
to be a room litigator, South Texas College of Law
is as good as any in the country. They often
win the national championship, and they they birth and throw
out into the legal world folks who file lawsuits or
defend lawsuits, and they're darn good at It's very, very
(25:17):
well respected law school. And if you don't know them,
just take my word for it on this. And that
is the South Texas College of Law, where Professor Josh
Blackman is on faculty and beloved. Let's move next to
the most disappointing for me. Republicans are appoint, nominated, and
confirmed member, and that is Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement, who
(25:40):
President Trump put on the Court in a fifty two
to forty eight ruling. She was forty eight years old
at the time. She's now fifty three. Originally from New Orleans, Louisiana.
Amy Coney Barrett, your thoughts on her again, I think
you have to see.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Justice Barrett as an emergency pick in a way, right,
Kinsdrick died in September of twenty twenty, like two months
for the election. Trump had to pick someone those are
even vetted that he knew, and it was a woman.
There was just no way. There was no way to
avoid that. He had to pick a woman who had
been vetted, and he had picked there for the Quarter
Appeals only a couple of years early. She's been a
(26:17):
judge forbe a year and a half, two years, not
very long. So the second Kinsdrick died, this was a
done deal, right, no one else had it was hers.
The problem though, is that Barrett was sort of put
in the shortlist way too early. They put her on
the shortlist of the Supreme Court before she even cided
a single case as the lower Court judge. The fix
was in. They knew it was her. I think the
reason why is you look her. She's just very charismatic,
(26:38):
you know, friendly, devoutly Catholic woman with many kids. She
adopted these Haitian children, who you know, she's raised as
her own, and she's as a mom. I love her
like I wish I could be a parent like her.
I mean that sincerely. She her parenting tip I think
actually extremely useful. But as a judge, the track record,
(27:01):
and before she was a judge, I was a law professor,
and frankly she didn't write very much. She didn't write
things on controversial topics. She just wrote sort of you know,
mundane stuff, how to reach statues and how to run
fiddle courts, nothing particularly difficult. But I think people said, oh,
of course this is me, the next Scalia. We got
to pasisically, but the next game.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
And she's pro liant and I just like Mike pins
if you're sufficiently pro life, you must think the way
I do. But she doesn't. And this is where the
pro life folks get get in trouble. I'm pro life,
but there are other issues. I don't want Mike Pince
to be president just because he's the most you know,
openly pro life, pro life constantly. There are other issues
where we have to win anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
That's a bit of a ramp. No, that's right. And
in fact she never said a word. She never said
a word about Roevie Wade, not not a peep. In fact,
at a church she wants sign a petition thinking Rovi
Wai overruled. And what happens is, oh, I just find
of said it was signing. She backed away from it.
She she's avoided controversy her entire life. She just hasn't
(27:58):
leaned into controversy. So she gets to the court, she
again leeds away from controversy.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Yeah, and the problem with that is you're put in
a position where you have to take a stand if
a police if you and I get in a fight
and I've got a knife and you don't, and you go, hey, officer,
can you help me out here?
Speaker 5 (28:13):
Now?
Speaker 3 (28:13):
No, I don't have to get in between things. Well,
that's the problem because that's kind of your job. That's
kind of your job. Fella. All right, let's go, let's
go to our Democrat nominated judges and we'll go in
reverse order. And that is the only one that Biden
put on the court, and she took Justice Brier's position,
and that was Katanji Brown Jackson fifty two at that time.
(28:37):
She's now fifty four, and in a fifty three to
forty seven vote, she was confirmed. Your thoughts on her
in her short tenure.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
You know, I think she's been a pretty predictable or
liberal liberal. I think her most notorious fast as she
talks a lot. They do these sort of graphs of
what percentage of the time he's Justice talks and Jackson
just blows everyone else. But she talks more than anyone else,
just lots of words are uttered. She definitely has an agenda.
She's trying to push her in issues about the government
(29:08):
and how the governments acting is fairly. She hasn't had
much an influence yet. She hasn't read any big opinions,
but she probably won't ever for a career because she
always be in dissent. So I think she's just content
to her just make her points and right which ones
are right, but not much of a not much of
an impact on the world.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
I have two more I want to get to and
they are the only two Obama nominees. And first is
Alana Kagan, who replaced Justice Stevens. She was fifty at
the time, he is now sixty four. Your thoughts on
Alna Kagan?
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Kagan is smart, She's wicked smart. She was the dean
at the Harvard Law School, and as being at the
Harvard Law School, she knows how to deal with people
and deal people with ego. She can negotiate you can
massage ego. She can persuade people very easily. In fact,
when President about put her on the Court, it was
to put someone to persuade Justin Kennedy, and I think
(30:00):
going to sort of figure out her roles to just
sort of persuade John Roberts and persuade Ammy Barrett to
just do things that are liberal. Think the court seem
better that that's her best, her only mission. She can't
cast two votes, but she can persuade others to cast
a vote with her. I think she's done that very
effective over the years. But she's wicked smart.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Interesting for you to say that that means she must be.
How about the wise Latina Sonya Sotomayor, who replaced Justice suitor,
who was fifty five at the time. She's now seventy.
She was the first of Barack Obama's two nominees.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
I think just smily Or brings different perspectives. She was
a criminal defense attorney, she was a trial judge, she
was a criminal prosecutor. She was a trial judge, so
she's a definite sense of how trials should operate, how
law should operate. I think her biggest impact has not
been on the course been off the court, She's had
lots of books. She writes, these children's stories, she tells
her to biography. She inspires a lot of people, but
(30:55):
her juris potential impact has been pretty slight. I'd have
to think hard to think of five opinions she wrote
that actually that matter. Just there's not much. But I
think she's been a very inspirational pick for a lot
of people. But that's mostly stuff she's done off the court.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
On the court, all right, I got about a minute
and a half. Why don't you just rattle off the
big issues that are hovering out there that we could
expect the Supreme Court to rule on that will matter
to us.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Right, The biggest issue right now is how they handled
Trump as a whole. Right during the Rosalt presidency of
the Supreme Court initially pushed back against the results they
ruled against him, but then after some a while the said, okay,
never mind, we're going to go along with the program.
I think you're the first Trump administration. They ruled against
him pretty consistently for conservative court. The question today eventually
flipped do they keep pushing against Trump? And they realized, okay,
(31:41):
you know, he had some points he's making arguments that
we've made before, and I think we served get along
with the program. So I think a lot we'd decide
the next a year or two about how they deal
with Trump, and if it's not Trump, but we maybe
jade vance for four or eight more years, and eventually
the Court will have to sort of see that the
nation's shifting and these sort of settlements we had after
World War Two and the sixties and seventies, those settlements
(32:01):
are not holding anymore.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
Professor Josh Blackman, as always a pleasure to have you
on and share your thoughts on Supreme Court and other
Court rulings. Always a pleasure, Thank you so much. And
with that we wrap for the day, and well at
least for this show. At least for this show. And
a reminder, if you ever miss any part of the show,
(32:25):
you can always hear it in full on the podcast.
We send out a link to some of our bits
every morning in between the Morning Show and this show,
which you can find easily. You can sign up for
that at Michael Berryshow dot com. You can also email
me directly through there, and yes I do read every email.
I just can't respond to every email. That would be crazy,
(32:47):
or you can follow us on Facebook. I post. I'm
the only one who posts on our Facebook page, the
only one who posts on our Twitter page. And I'm
trying to get somebody else on the team to help
me out and do the Instagram pages. I'm not very
good at it, but I haven't found anyone who will
suffer enough to do it yet. We'll see.
Speaker 5 (33:05):
Hey, jellmen, Elvis has luck good today, Thank you, and
good nightsh
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.