October 15, 2025 • 37 mins
In Hour 2 of The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show, Clay and Buck deliver sharp analysis on major legal and cultural battles shaping America. The hour opens with a deep dive into the Supreme Court’s pivotal hearing on racial gerrymandering, a case that could redefine congressional redistricting and dismantle race-based districting rules rooted in the Voting Rights Act. The hosts explain the historical context of civil rights-era protections, the tension with the Equal Protection Clause, and why they believe the Court is poised to declare racial gerrymandering unconstitutional. They critique Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s controversial analogy comparing voting access to disability accommodations, arguing it exposes flaws in DEI-driven judicial appointments.
Clay and Buck then broaden the discussion to shifting voter demographics, noting how Black and Hispanic voters are increasingly diverse in political leanings, undermining the decades-old assumption of monolithic voting blocs. They highlight Trump’s gains among Black men and the growing unpredictability of Hispanic voters, framing these trends as a major challenge for Democrats heading into future elections.
The conversation pivots to cultural flashpoints, starting with The View’s claim that Republicans avoid appearing on the show. Clay and Buck reveal behind-the-scenes emails proving they pitched themselves as guests, calling out Joy Behar’s narrative and challenging the show to host a real debate. They share humorous commentary on media bias and the lack of ideological diversity in mainstream platforms.
From there, the hosts tackle the transgender sports controversy, spotlighting a California gubernatorial candidate’s stunning suggestion that gender-neutral Olympic competitions are “worth discussing.” Clay and Buck dismantle this argument with hard data, noting that even high school boys outperform the fastest female Olympians, and warn that such policies would erase women’s sports. They also cover breaking news on a federal judge blocking an attempt to withdraw a transgender athlete lawsuit, setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown over whether men can compete in women’s sports. This ties into broader litigation on gender-affirming care for minors, where recent rulings have upheld state bans, signaling a major legal shift.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
People ask us all the time how we can save
the next generation.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
We've got our show and the info is an antidote.
But we also have a couple of books coming out, Clay.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
That's right, and you can pre order both of them
right now and be book nerds just like us.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
You'll laugh, you'll nod, and you'll get smarter too.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Mine's called Balls, How Trump young men in sports saved America.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
And mine is manufacturing delusion How the Left uses brainwashing,
indoctrination and propaganda against you.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Both are great reads.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
One might even say they would make fabulous gifts.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Indeed, so do us a solid and pre order yours
on Amazon today.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. All right,
you want some spice, I'm gonna give you some spice
right out of the break here. We're gonna have some
fun with the view But I had them. I was
trying to pay attention to the Supreme Court argument on
racial jerrymandering that is happening today because I think it
has the potential to be incredibly consequential transformative to the
(01:01):
political process in the country. And let me give you
a one minute take on exactly what is at stake. Historically,
black voters were suppressed from the polls prior to the
civil rights movement in the South. That is not a
historical fallacy, that is in fact historical truth. As a result,
(01:22):
there was an entire line of jurisprudence dealing with voting
rights that were trying to rectify the wrong of majority
black voters in the South who were being restricted in many.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Ways from poll access.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Therefore they did not have a substantial say in the
Democrat process in many Southern states.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
That was wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
That was before Buck and I were born, a long
time before Buck was born, quite some time before I
was born, since he is much younger than me. But
so that process, unfortunately now has polluted the the court
rulings of the Supreme Court because we no longer even
though Democrats would like it to be the case, live
(02:06):
in a world that is like nineteen sixty five or
nineteen fifty eight or nineteen forty eight, or whatever year
you want to go to in the South, when black
voters did not have the ability to get to the
polls and vote for their preferred candidates. So they put
in place this review of the voting process through the
(02:28):
civil rights laws. Now what you are seeing is that
those precedents are actually extremely racist because they are predicated
on the idea that black voters sort of monolithically and
uniformly vote a certain way, and that is starting to crumble.
And it also creates the Civil Rights era court decisions
(02:52):
create tension with the equal protection clause that tries to
treat everyone equally and does not allow race to be
determined if as a factor. So we have talked about
this quite a lot already in the court system as
it pertains to affirmative action, which the courts have ruled.
Was I correct that John Roberts is the one who
said the way to stop discriminating based on race is
(03:13):
by stopping to discriminate based on race? Do we get
a fact check on that? I believe I'm correct. So
we have seen in the world of colleges and universities
the idea of your race as a dispositive factor when
it comes to your admission is not actually permissible.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Under our constitution.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
And so there are still lots of ways that colleges
and universities are trying to trick their way through that process.
But it is not permissible to strictly have quotas racial analysis.
All of that, okay. With that as a background, they
now today are hearing an argument about that tension between
the Civil Rights era precedents where race is allowed to
(03:57):
be a predominant factor in the in the jerrymandering of
congressional districts, and that tension with the equal rights component
equal protection clause of our amendments in the post Civil
War era. That gets the Sixteenth Amendment. I've been a
(04:17):
while since I passed the bar. How do you reconcile that?
I think the Supreme Court is going to say racial
jerrymandering is no longer allowed. I think it is the
right decision. I think it is the appropriate decision. People
on the left are up in arms about this. You're
going to hear a lot about it. And Katanji Brown
Jackson demonstrated and the futility of that argument. By making
(04:42):
that argument, I had them pull it to try to
argue in favor of racism.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
To combat racism. Here's what she said.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
A kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like
the ADA Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against
the back drop of a world that was generally not
accessible to people with disabilities. And so it was discriminatory
in effect, because these folks were not able to access
(05:10):
these buildings, and it didn't matter whether the person who
built the building or the person who owned the building
intended for them to be exclusionary. That's irrelevant. Congress said,
the facilities have to be made equally open to people
with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I don't understand
why that's not what's happening here. The idea in section
(05:34):
two is that we are responding to current day manifestations
of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make
it so that they don't have equal access to the
voting system. Right, they're disabled.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Okay, So what she analogized there, and I understand we're
going into the weeds a little bit, is she's saying
black voters are the equivalent of disabled people in that
they have to be constantly considered because they are unable
to vote as others would be able to vote, just
as disabled people are unable to access. Now, this is
(06:15):
an incredibly strained and poor analogy by her, and I
think it's actually evidence that she is Frankly, I'm not
sure qualified in any way to be a Supreme Court justice.
I don't think that around these accents. Yeah, I don't
think Katanji Brown Jackson is in the top half of
intelligent lawyers in America. And this is what happens when
(06:40):
you say I'm only going to pick someone based on
their race and gender, which is what Joe Biden did
with her, And then I don't think he picked the
smartest black woman who is a lawyer in America to
be his representative of black women, but in so doing
he excluded ninety five percent of a Manmerricans. In fact,
(07:01):
I would argue that the way that Joe Biden selected.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Katanji Brown Jackson.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Actually violates all of the precepts of the Constitution that
she now is trying to argue should be continued to
be in effect. In other words, she is the quintessential
DEI candidate, and she much likes Soudi mayor. I think
regularly when they ask questions, evinces a very poor comprehension
(07:27):
of the law that is not in any way a
strong left wing tenant. There are lots of people Kagan
buck Kagan's really smart. I don't agree with everything that
most of what Elena Kagan says in her opinions. But
she is of the left, and she is a very
smart person of the left. I do not think Soda
(07:48):
Mayor and Katanji Brown Jackson are even eloquent advocates of
the positions the left would like to put out there,
and this I think is evidence of that with her
line of questioning, Well, yeah, I'm a Ruth badergan Burg.
I disagreed with strenuously on a whole range of things.
But she understood the arguments. She knew what the arguments
on both sides were. I just don't agree with her analysis.
(08:10):
And you know, without getting into the specifics, I think
Katanji Brown Jackson doesn't even understand the argument on the side. Honestly,
that's my just listening to her talk about these things.
She doesn't get it.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
But you know, on the one hand, this is one
of these it's very complicated. It's a VRA section two,
it's a history.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
And I understand people's eyes roll back into their head.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Yes, it's very complicated comma, but actually very simple. Right
there's you're doing the the complicated legal analysis side of this.
Clay gets excited about the law stuff. It's like we're
back in law school professors walking around.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
He's just Travis.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Mister Travis, did you do the reading last night? And
you know Clay's doing his thing. You always did the reading, Clay,
We know you did. I love reading assignments.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
So there's that part of it. But then there's this
part of it.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
We just need to live in a country where we
don't have racial set asides and entitlements for anybody at all, period,
full stop. And if there was ever a time where
we had to make those arguments because of previous discrimination,
or rather we made those concessions because we thought it
would make things better. Now we've reached a point where
everybody should understand that that was a effectively temporary emergency
(09:21):
measure and should no longer be the case. We should
not have racial entitlements masquerading as civil rights protections. And
that is what this is. If a state is allowed,
if the people in a state are allowed to redistrict
however they see fit, really because it's left to the states.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
But here's the problem.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
It's almost like drawing the borders of a country. What
justifies the borders of a country? You know, it's a
complicated thing, but really it's lines on a map. And
they fight over it and whatever, but there's not some
more like the border between the US and Canada is
not a moral question, it's a political question. That's one
that we have solved with our northern neighbors. The borders
(10:04):
of congressional districts in various states are left through the
processes and the legislators in those states, and everybody should
just be playing by the same rules within that state.
There shouldn't be a oh, we don't have enough black
majority districts in this state, so therefore this map is
unfair because it is an equal protection clause violation. Because
(10:27):
a lot of Republicans sit there and say, hold on
a second, my vote has been nullified effectively by the
state legislature. So why isn't it Why is that okay?
But overwhelmingly Democrat black voters in a lot of these
states get to have a special protection. No, I'm sorry.
We either all live by the same rules or we don't.
The complex distilled down to the simple, I rest my case,
(10:50):
counselor I think you're right, and I think that's where
we're headed. Let me add on a couple of layers
here that are hopefully not super legal. NERD esque problem
here was one that should and needed to be redressed.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
The problem is the problem is fixed. It no longer exists,
and so the precedent that made sense in nineteen sixty
five doesn't make sense in twenty twenty five. I would
also point this out. It is predicated on the idea
that black voters are monolithic in the way that they vote.
(11:25):
That is increasingly not the case. This is why I
think it's significant that Donald Trump got twenty one percent
of Black men of their vote in twenty twenty four.
One in five black guys said Trump's my guy. A
lot of black guys are listening to us right now
that are a part of that team, and it's growing,
and there are more some of you guys out there.
You used to never be able to find another Black Republican.
(11:48):
Now one in five. I mean, I bet you're finding
a lot more people that are open to your arguments.
Black women too. This has been applied Buck for Hispanic voters.
Hispanic voters are basically now fifty fifty. They're much more
similar to white voters or Asian voters, where you don't
have a strong sense of how somebody's going to vote
based on their race and gender. If you see a
(12:10):
white guy, now, somebody see a white chick where in
the Rachel Maddow specs, you probably got a pretty good chance.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Hey, that's a lib. But by and.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Large, you see a white person, they could be conservative,
they could be liberal, they could be they don't care
about politics at all. Same thing as increasingly becoming true
of Hispanic voters. As you know because you live in Miami, Buck,
there's also a huge difference between a Cuban voter and
a recent immigrant from Mexico or Venezuela or The Hispanic
voting block is actually very diverse depending on where that
(12:41):
Hispanic voter is from. The monolithic nature of black support
for the Democrat Party is crumbling. In times like these,
they trot out someone like Katanji Brown Jackson to argue
not based on the law, but oh my goodness, based
on the result of this case, it would be harmful
politically to Democrats. And that is why she is a
(13:03):
political actor more than she is a judge. And that
is unfortunate.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
One of the arguments we make here, and this goes
to disparate impact, which is I think a inherently incorrect
legal philosophy of well, if the end result isn't the
same among arbitrary distinctions that we're going to make between people,
then there's something wrong with that law. If the law
(13:29):
is universally applicable and everybody has to live under it,
the outcome of that law does, and then the law
is ethical and moral. The outcome of that law does
not matter.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
To me a meaning.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
And this is where we get into there is a
disparate impact. I know you love this argument, but saying
this for a long time, Clay, there's a disparate impact
between men and women and homicides. That doesn't mean that
homicide laws are bad. It just means that more men
kill people. And that doesn't mean they're sexist in particular. Right,
It doesn't mean that men are being targeted by homicide
(14:02):
laws because men happen to be impacted by them.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
More So.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
The fact of the matter is, if we're going to
have a society where we don't have racial entitlements, we
have to remove racial entitlements, including holdovers from the Civil
rights era, like Section two of the Voting Rights Act.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
And Clay, you were correct.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
It was John Roberts for the win On to stop
discriminating by race stop discriminating by race.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
It's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Alito is my favorite, so I thought it was going
to be an Alito move, but it was actually Roberts.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
So good on you. Probably the best sentence of John
Roberts's career.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race
is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. I
don't understand how that same logic does not govern when
it comes to analyzing racial jerrymandering. And I hope John
Roberts will apply the same principle in this case as
he did in the decision having to do basically with
(14:59):
whether or not they're can be affirmative action in schools.
So that is going to be a huge decision. Maybe
some of you are trying to face a huge decision.
What do you do for the holiday season? I know
I just said the holiday season, and some of you
are having alarm bells go off, and you know it's
basically two months till Christmas? Two months until Christmas? What
(15:21):
are you going to do for Christmas? How about the
dads and the granddads out there? How many of you
are actually great gift givers? I am not. I am
not a good gift giver. I don't enjoy shopping, period,
and I particularly don't try to enjoy shopping for so
many other gifts. But you know what's a great gift
(15:42):
that doesn't require you to shop at all. It just
requires you to listen to this show and pull out
your phones right now. Legacy Box, you can preserve your
family's history in time for the holidays. You can blow
everybody away by being the thoughtful family member who ensures
that your great aunts old timey photos are digitized, that
(16:05):
grandma and Grandpa's VHS tapes are digitized, that the old slides,
the old eight millimeter reels, whatever family history you have.
Legacy Box is all about taking it and making sure
it's preserved for generations to come. I visited their Chattanooga factory.
They've got an incredible business. You send in your old photos,
(16:26):
your old VHS tapes, your old eight millimeters, whatever family
memories you have. They will digitize them and allow you
to be able to share it with everyone. That photo
from nineteen twenty, that VHS tape of Christmas nineteen eighty eight,
that eight millimeter film of Grandma and Grandpa going on
(16:47):
their honeymoon, all of it can be preserved digitally forever,
and right now you get fifty percent off at legacybox
dot Com slash clay. That's a legacybox dot Com slash
clay to say fifty percent. You're gonna love having your
recorded memories preserved forever digitally, easy to share with the grandkids,
(17:09):
the great grandkids, so everybody knows the family history stories.
The legacy box dot Com slash clay fifty percent off.
That's a legacy box dot Com slash clay.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
You don't know what you don't know right, but you could.
On the Sunday Hang with Clay and Buck podcast.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
All right, welcome back in here to Clay and Buck.
We've got a quick turn around. Let's get some some calls,
some talkbacks. Gosh in Springfield, Illinois. He wants to weigh
in on choking.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Okay, stop, yeah, okay. I was wondering if Buck might
agree with your assertion about choking if it was Polish
sausage related. Look at him bringing it all together there. Okay,
this is.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Gosh is impressive. This is impressive. Yeah, you know, I
will tell you some infinity for Holish sausages. You, of
all people have to be concerned about.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Choking Well, I was gonna say sausage is a choking risk.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
This is true.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
It's hot dogs actually, Cause look this up before you
are snickering out there. Hot dog and sausage in particular
choking risk because you can bite off a piece and
it fits into the windpipe in very snug fes.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
You gotta be very careful, very you.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
You lock it up, Travis over there, you lock it up,
all right, buddy.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
This is a public health announcement.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
We're doing a lot of women out there gonna be
saying this weekend, you have no idea what danger I'm in.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Every minute on the clock, two home invasions are reported
the police someplace across our nation. That's a stat that's troubling.
You need to know about it, though, and you need
to prepare. So are you prepared to protect your home
and your family. Saber Home protection tools are what we recommend.
Over fifty years in the business, Saber has safeguarded hundreds
of thousands of people with their self protection tools. Sabers,
(18:58):
pepper sprays, pepper Joe, and projectile devices are all proudly
made here in the USA. Saber spelled s A B
R E. The website is Saber radio dot com. Their
projectile devices are so effective at stopping the threat. They've
got more than four hundred thousand reviews averaging four point
seven stars. Go to Saber radio dot com today. That's
(19:20):
s A b r E dot Com. Uh got s
A b r E radio dot com today, you'll say
fifteen percent? Or call this phone number eight four four
eight two four safe. Eight four four eight two four safe.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you, and there's a lot of reactions pouring in
Pamelad just said, I'm in an I hoop in Pensacola
having breakfast. Almost spit out my coffee with your remark about.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
The danger of women.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Maybe in thank goodness, I was only drinking coffee, not
eating the sausage. You have only yourself to blame, Foster,
so appreciate Pamela. I'm glad that she is still alive.
And there are there are a lot of reactions rolling
in and we are having a great deal of fun.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Time tell everybody, take your time, cheer your food. It's
very straightforward. Okay, let's go the view. This is fun.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Okay, So those of you who follow us on social
media as you all should be doing. You can find
us at YouTube. You can find us at Twitter, Instagram, TikTok.
I don't think there's a social media platform we're not on.
Know that we have had a lot of fun with
the View over the years. And we just shared from
producer Ali and producer Ali you can come up if
(20:37):
you want and tell the full story here. But a
while back, Ali said, Hey, we'll invite you will tell
the View people, Hey, Clay and Buck are happy to
come on the show. So in July and I just
shared this email from Ali to the View and I
will read it for all of you. This is a
producer at the View, Hi LORI can conservative radio host
(21:01):
Clay and Buck would like to pitch themselves as guests
on the View. They often play clips from the program
on their nationally syndicated radio show Granted as a means
to refute them, and thought a sit down would be
productive for both audiences since they come from two completely
different perspectives. Buck lives in Miami and Clay lives in Nashville,
but they'd be willing to travel to New York. Thank
(21:23):
you for the consideration. This went out in July now
I'm going to pull Alli up in a sec. But first,
here is Joy Behar saying, you know, the truth of
the matter is Republicans won't come on the show.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
They're afraid to listen.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
I think that we should have more Republicans on the show,
but they don't want to come on.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
They're scared of us.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
It's like Marjorie's Hyley Green says that she finds the
Republican men afraid of powerful women.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Well, that's maybe true of all the political persuasions. But
if they would come on this show and they can
explain to us what they're trying to do to this.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Can we Okay, I don't think Bucket Eye are afraid
of powerful women.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Challenge accepted, Chile accepted.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
All right, Producer, Ali, you have now written another email
to the View reiterating you can come up. But the
email that I read you sent in July was their
a response to that email from the View.
Speaker 7 (22:18):
Yes, actually there was a quick response, very quick, saying
they only had two more episodes to shoot, so their
schedule was full and they wouldn't be back until the fall,
at which point I said, Okay, I'll follow up in
the fall, and I followed up today and I have
I'm waiting to hear back.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
And you said this is important. We're happy to do it.
This is important.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
The View, according to groc, has frequently had two guests
on simultaneously, two guests including politicians, authors, actors, and even
musical guests who are there as a duo. So I
just want to be clear, there is no reason why
they could not have a clay and buckethon on the
(23:03):
View based on the established parameters they have for guests
in the past, because I don't I don't want them
throwing that at us either. We can because if what
they'll try to do, if it's just one of us,
they're going to try to overtalk and just have too
many voices shouting at you at the same time.
Speaker 7 (23:19):
Just make sure you bring that third hat. Oh.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I would bring a hat for Alyssa Farr Griffin and
I would hand it to her and I would say, hey,
since Trump's brought back to hostages, here is a red
Maga hat. You can put that on for this entire
segment to honor President Trump's great job in bringing back
the hostages.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
I'm gonna tell you something. I think that she actually
would be willing to wear the hat. I think that
she worries that if she wore that hat it would
trigger other members of the table too much, like they
would even though she said this was the marker that
she laid out there, I think she realizes that the
rest of the table would throw a fit about it.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
They would.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
They have no they have no sense of humor about
it at all. Joy Bahar has a writing team. They
write all of her jokes. She's actually not that funny.
She's not coming up with this stuff on the fly.
If you watch her closely now I'm throwing down the
gomble a little bit. You watch her closely, she's trying
to find ways to get in lines that have been
written by her writers. I will give this doesn't happen
(24:17):
very often. She does look great for her age, though,
to be fair, Joy, you look great. I'm just saying.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Also, she is probably not aware of most of the guests,
so she may think to herself when she says Republicans
are afraid to go on the show, because, to be fair,
people pitch themselves on this show all the time. I mean,
producer Ali, you can say, like, if people out there like,
is this a common thing? I mean, we get pitches,
(24:45):
hundreds of pitches a year, maybe thousands, dozens a day
of people who are saying, hey, we'd like to come
on as a guest. So and most of them we
never Bucket, Neither Buck nor I are going and saying
we can't have this person on. So I don't necessarily
know that Joy is aware of the number of people
who are reaching out that would be willing to come on.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
So when she's saying that she may.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Actually believe Buck that she's being truthful, she is not, however,
and we just you know, we shared the so called
receipts of the invitation that we put out there.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Hey, we're happy to come on.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
And by the way, you know, we would have Alyssa
on this show, you know, if they wanted to put
a view member on this show to promote their show.
I mean, we're not running and hiding from any of that.
Speaking of running and hiding, though, Buck, you were talking
about this a little bit earlier, and we got a
couple of guests, by the way, coming in the third hour,
(25:41):
our buddy Ryan Gardusky. We're going to talk about the
absolute latest on Virginia, New York City, and New Jersey.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
As those elections get closer.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Steve Hilton out in California to talk about the Katie
Porter insanity and the potential run there. I wanted to
play this because this is one of the people that
that is running to be a Democrat nominee for California
when Gavin Newsom is forced to term limit himself out.
And she went on Piers Morgan and the LA is
(26:12):
going to have the Olympics in twenty twenty eight. The
Summer Olympics are taking place in Los Angeles. Should be awesome,
be a lot of fun to watch. But Piers Morgan
ask this Democrat California governor's candidate, Hey, what do you
think about the idea of trans women, that is, men
pretending to be women being able to compete in the Olympics.
(26:34):
And he followed up and I just want to play
a cut from this because these people have lost their
minds and they're totally trapped on this trans argument.
Speaker 6 (26:43):
Listen, this seems to me like you would like to
remove any any sexual differentation between the Olympic sports. I
let them all compete, it would be gender neutral with
it if you were a governor.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Well, again, I want to be sure that everyone has
the ability to compete.
Speaker 6 (27:01):
Would you have a gender neutral Olympics where you would
have not you wouldn't have male and female sport, then
you just have one one that everyone could join in.
Speaker 5 (27:09):
Well, I don't think we're going to get that tomorrow,
but I think it's a conversation worth having.
Speaker 6 (27:13):
You think it's a conversation worth having where you have
gender neutral Olympics.
Speaker 5 (27:17):
Because we need to understand what the attributes are of
athletes across the spectrum.
Speaker 6 (27:24):
You've already said that you understand the reason they separate
the sexes is that men have a physical advantage over women.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
He also, then maybe we can grab this because I
think it really kind of brings it home. He says, Wait,
you think that a woman should run against Usain Bolt
in the one hundred meters, the fastest man in the
history of the world, and you think that's going to
be a fair competition, And basically she says yes, she
doesn't know. Maybe the woman would win. These people are crazy, buck,
(27:53):
and I don't know how they get off of this
crazy train without having the Supreme Court. I think your
argument that you've already hit that that's what it is.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
It's well, by the way, there is there are a
few things that are making their way toward the Supreme
Court right now. In fact, there is litigation out of
I think it's in Colorado.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
The case is little the.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Het Coocks, maybe heacocks, but it's a transgender student who
wanted to be on the girls cross country team and
this and brought suit back in twenty twenty. Really at
the peak of this, yeah, I wanted to join. Oh yeah,
this is no it's Idaho that I say Colorado, Sorry, Idaho, Idaho,
Boise State.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
So it's college.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
It's college level and wanted to be on the women's
college cross country team. Sued, sued, and a Ninth Circuit
judge ended up getting involved in this and now it's low.
Without getting too deep into the weeds on this, the
situation is that the original plaintiff is trying to try
(29:06):
to withdraw his case as a her try to withdraw
the case Clay because they don't want the Supreme Court
to actually take this up. And a federal judge just today,
Judge Nye, who is a Trump appointee, said oh, no,
you're not doing this. You know, hide the football situation here.
You wanted to bring a federal lawsuit about, you know, discrimination,
(29:30):
saying that you're actually to be treated as a woman.
We're taking we're taking this thing on, like let's go.
And now that looks like the Supreme Court is eventually
going to be taking this up, and I think they're
going to have to weigh in on no men or
men and women are women and we're allowed to make
different decisions about the two in law as a matter
of law.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
There is a gonna give him credit here, great long
form piece in the New York Times recently looking at
the Scurmetti case. Jonathan Skermmet is the Attorney General of
the state of Tennessee. The Supreme Court came out and
said that the state can restrict this so called gender
affirming care for miners, that there is a state interest,
(30:12):
and the trans community is in a panic because they
thought that they were going to be able to win
these cases, basically that the trans treatments and all this
stuff on miners is actually okay, and instead they're losing.
And what you just pointed out as an important point,
they're now trying to avoid giving the Supreme Court an
opportunity to strike down a lot of the state laws.
(30:37):
And so they're trying to pull back now because they're like,
oh my goodness, the same logic of Scurmetti is certainly
going to apply in sports.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
The transactivists don't want their day in court all of
a sudden, Yes, isn't that so interesting to see?
Speaker 3 (30:51):
They want to rely and this goes into the Weeds book.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
They want to rely on like the Ninth Circuit and
some of the liberal circuit courts without having to get
a nation WI so that in California and Oregon and Washington,
the crazy arguments can prevail instead of the Supreme Court
slapping it down. So I'm very familiar with this tactic, Clay,
because as a longtime New York City and New York
(31:14):
State resident, particularly on the New York City side, this
is the game they used to play all the time.
They would they did flatly unconstitutional things when it came
to firearms, and then the moment somebody brought legislation, they
would change it, and then they would do something else
flatly on conf you know, five hundred dollars fee to
be a con to be not a concealed carrier, to
be a premise permit holder. They would just use the
(31:36):
system in bad faith to do things that they knew
were unconstitutional, and instead of actually find and allowing the
system to then say no, you're disrespecting the rights, the
two way rights of people in New York.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
City, they would pull it and then it's moot, and
they would argue it's moot. That's what this trans athlete
in Idaho is trying to do. And this, thank Heavens,
the Trump appoint has said no, no, no, you brought it. Now,
we're gonna finish it. We're gonna do We're gonna see where.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
This actually goes. Yeah, and it's not going to go
a good place for all these people.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
But I mean, this woman is trying to become the
Democrat nominee for California, and her argument is we don't
really know whether men are faster than women or not.
To put this into context for you, buck, every single
state high school champion in Texas last year for track
and field, every single boy these are you know, eighteen
and younger boys, fifteen to eighteen year old boys. Every
(32:30):
single Texas state champion ran faster speeds than the fastest
women in the history of the Olympics. So we're not
even talking about I think Florence Griffith's Joiner Flow Joe
is still the fastest woman of all time. Every Texas
high school state champion at all district levels smoked flow Joe.
(32:51):
So we're not even talking about men versus women on
the best men in the world. We're talking about the
state of Texas by itself. Every boys state champion is
faster and the fastest woman that's ever existed in the
history of the world.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Switch your cell phone service from AT and T, Verizon
or T Mobile to Puretalk. You'll start saving money immediately
without sacrificing quality. Look, we've always appreciated what pure Talk
stands for here, both in terms of their values and
also the value they provide to you by giving you
great service at the lowest possible price, and also standing
with free speech. Switch your cell phone service to pure
(33:26):
Talk support a business that appreciates free speech. You're also,
of course going to get great five G nationwide coverage
on a reliable, secure network, and the price of pure
Talk service just the best you're gonna find, and it's
why you should change from AT and T, T Mobile
or Verizon. Monthly plans started just twenty five bucks a
month Dial pound two fifty say Clay and Buck to
(33:46):
switch to our wireless company, Puretalk right now. You'll save
in additional fifty percent off your first month dial pound
two five zero say Clay and Buck to switch to
Pure Talk do it today.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
News and politics, but also a little comic relief. Clay
Travis at Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
All right, welcome back here and everybody to Clay and Buck.
We got some great guests coming up the next hour.
Friend ran Gerdusky on Virginia, New Jersey, New York City,
all those races which are going to be determined here
in just a couple of weeks, so it is prime
time on those election cycles. We'll also talk to Steve
Hilton about California, the plans of Gavin Newsom, the failures
(34:31):
of Gavin.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Newsom on policy, and so much more.
Speaker 7 (34:35):
So.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
We've got a big, a big hour that will be
coming your way. I want to tell you to drink
some Crocket coffee, everybody, don't forget subscribe. Great thing to
get into, especially as it gets a little colder in
parts of the country. You get that hot Crocket coffee
going through in the morning. Get that pioneer spirit and
every cup Crocket Coffee dot Com and Clay, your book's
gonna be out next month, so we've got to do
a new Crockett subscriber signed book thing.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
And if you can go buy Balls, which I'm sure
the ladies of the view already have on the reading list, very.
Speaker 3 (35:05):
Easy to find. That is right ba lls Balls.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
If you type in Clay, Travis and Balls, I think
you'll be safely able to click on click on the resulting.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Maybe going to Amazon first. I'm not sure to go
to Google with that one, to go to Amazon.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
First, and.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
I'm telling you, I think you guys will enjoy it.
By the way, producer Greg grabbed that clip, which again
I think I give credit to media that now are
pushing past the opening question because what it eventually leads to,
if you have a genderless Olympics, then you have to
believe that a woman could beat Usain Bolt in one
hundred meter race. And that's exactly where Piers Morgan went.
(35:45):
This is one of the candidates to be the California
Democrat nominee. Listen to this actual conversation.
Speaker 5 (35:51):
I think you can see female athletes where particularly on
track and field where agility is possibly hang.
Speaker 6 (36:00):
On, are you suggesting that women so hang on? Do
you think that women could could compete against men in
track and field, like in one hundred meters, two hundred meters,
ten thousand meters.
Speaker 5 (36:11):
D Perhaps you know I'm not a sports expert.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
Of course I couldn't.
Speaker 6 (36:16):
Have you seen the Have you seen the times that
women and men record in the Olympics for all track
and field events? Have you watched Usain Bolt when he
smashed the world record for one hundred meters? Yes?
Speaker 3 (36:29):
Yes, So you think women could run.
Speaker 6 (36:31):
Against Usain Bolt, for example, at his peak and that
would be fair?
Speaker 5 (36:35):
I think. Look, I'm just going to say this, there's
a lot of misinformation about the ability of transgender wasn't
my question?
Speaker 1 (36:44):
So I mean again, you have to call these people
out on the absurdity, to really put them on the
carpet here, what is more trouble and Clay if this
woman that Peers is talking to, who wants.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
To be obviously a powerful person in California, if she
believed this, or if she knows it's a lion, says this,
which is worse. The second because you're a moron if
you believe it, but at least you're being honest in
your belief. It doesn't mean that you should be better
to be a moron, better to be honest, more on
(37:15):
than intentional liar.
Speaker 3 (37:17):
I think.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Now that's a tough that's a tough balance, and some
of you are going to say, Clay, you're both. We'll
take some of those talkbacks, but yeah, I think this
woman's more moron than intentional liar. You guys may disagree
more with us next week.
People ask us all the time how we can save
the next generation.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
We've got our show and the info is an antidote.
But we also have a couple of books coming out, Clay.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
That's right, and you can pre order both of them
right now and be book nerds just like us.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
You'll laugh, you'll nod, and you'll get smarter too.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Mine's called Balls, How Trump young men in sports saved America.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
And mine is manufacturing delusion How the Left uses brainwashing,
indoctrination and propaganda against you.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Both are great reads.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
One might even say they would make fabulous gifts.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Indeed, so do us a solid and pre order yours
on Amazon today.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. All right,
you want some spice, I'm gonna give you some spice
right out of the break here. We're gonna have some
fun with the view But I had them. I was
trying to pay attention to the Supreme Court argument on
racial jerrymandering that is happening today because I think it
has the potential to be incredibly consequential transformative to the
(01:01):
political process in the country. And let me give you
a one minute take on exactly what is at stake. Historically,
black voters were suppressed from the polls prior to the
civil rights movement in the South. That is not a
historical fallacy, that is in fact historical truth. As a result,
(01:22):
there was an entire line of jurisprudence dealing with voting
rights that were trying to rectify the wrong of majority
black voters in the South who were being restricted in many.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Ways from poll access.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Therefore they did not have a substantial say in the
Democrat process in many Southern states.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
That was wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
That was before Buck and I were born, a long
time before Buck was born, quite some time before I
was born, since he is much younger than me. But
so that process, unfortunately now has polluted the the court
rulings of the Supreme Court because we no longer even
though Democrats would like it to be the case, live
(02:06):
in a world that is like nineteen sixty five or
nineteen fifty eight or nineteen forty eight, or whatever year
you want to go to in the South, when black
voters did not have the ability to get to the
polls and vote for their preferred candidates. So they put
in place this review of the voting process through the
(02:28):
civil rights laws. Now what you are seeing is that
those precedents are actually extremely racist because they are predicated
on the idea that black voters sort of monolithically and
uniformly vote a certain way, and that is starting to crumble.
And it also creates the Civil Rights era court decisions
(02:52):
create tension with the equal protection clause that tries to
treat everyone equally and does not allow race to be
determined if as a factor. So we have talked about
this quite a lot already in the court system as
it pertains to affirmative action, which the courts have ruled.
Was I correct that John Roberts is the one who
said the way to stop discriminating based on race is
(03:13):
by stopping to discriminate based on race? Do we get
a fact check on that? I believe I'm correct. So
we have seen in the world of colleges and universities
the idea of your race as a dispositive factor when
it comes to your admission is not actually permissible.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Under our constitution.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
And so there are still lots of ways that colleges
and universities are trying to trick their way through that process.
But it is not permissible to strictly have quotas racial analysis.
All of that, okay. With that as a background, they
now today are hearing an argument about that tension between
the Civil Rights era precedents where race is allowed to
(03:57):
be a predominant factor in the in the jerrymandering of
congressional districts, and that tension with the equal rights component
equal protection clause of our amendments in the post Civil
War era. That gets the Sixteenth Amendment. I've been a
(04:17):
while since I passed the bar. How do you reconcile that?
I think the Supreme Court is going to say racial
jerrymandering is no longer allowed. I think it is the
right decision. I think it is the appropriate decision. People
on the left are up in arms about this. You're
going to hear a lot about it. And Katanji Brown
Jackson demonstrated and the futility of that argument. By making
(04:42):
that argument, I had them pull it to try to
argue in favor of racism.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
To combat racism. Here's what she said.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
A kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like
the ADA Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against
the back drop of a world that was generally not
accessible to people with disabilities. And so it was discriminatory
in effect, because these folks were not able to access
(05:10):
these buildings, and it didn't matter whether the person who
built the building or the person who owned the building
intended for them to be exclusionary. That's irrelevant. Congress said,
the facilities have to be made equally open to people
with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I don't understand
why that's not what's happening here. The idea in section
(05:34):
two is that we are responding to current day manifestations
of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make
it so that they don't have equal access to the
voting system. Right, they're disabled.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Okay, So what she analogized there, and I understand we're
going into the weeds a little bit, is she's saying
black voters are the equivalent of disabled people in that
they have to be constantly considered because they are unable
to vote as others would be able to vote, just
as disabled people are unable to access. Now, this is
(06:15):
an incredibly strained and poor analogy by her, and I
think it's actually evidence that she is Frankly, I'm not
sure qualified in any way to be a Supreme Court justice.
I don't think that around these accents. Yeah, I don't
think Katanji Brown Jackson is in the top half of
intelligent lawyers in America. And this is what happens when
(06:40):
you say I'm only going to pick someone based on
their race and gender, which is what Joe Biden did
with her, And then I don't think he picked the
smartest black woman who is a lawyer in America to
be his representative of black women, but in so doing
he excluded ninety five percent of a Manmerricans. In fact,
(07:01):
I would argue that the way that Joe Biden selected.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Katanji Brown Jackson.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Actually violates all of the precepts of the Constitution that
she now is trying to argue should be continued to
be in effect. In other words, she is the quintessential
DEI candidate, and she much likes Soudi mayor. I think
regularly when they ask questions, evinces a very poor comprehension
(07:27):
of the law that is not in any way a
strong left wing tenant. There are lots of people Kagan
buck Kagan's really smart. I don't agree with everything that
most of what Elena Kagan says in her opinions. But
she is of the left, and she is a very
smart person of the left. I do not think Soda
(07:48):
Mayor and Katanji Brown Jackson are even eloquent advocates of
the positions the left would like to put out there,
and this I think is evidence of that with her
line of questioning, Well, yeah, I'm a Ruth badergan Burg.
I disagreed with strenuously on a whole range of things.
But she understood the arguments. She knew what the arguments
on both sides were. I just don't agree with her analysis.
(08:10):
And you know, without getting into the specifics, I think
Katanji Brown Jackson doesn't even understand the argument on the side. Honestly,
that's my just listening to her talk about these things.
She doesn't get it.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
But you know, on the one hand, this is one
of these it's very complicated. It's a VRA section two,
it's a history.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
And I understand people's eyes roll back into their head.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Yes, it's very complicated comma, but actually very simple. Right
there's you're doing the the complicated legal analysis side of this.
Clay gets excited about the law stuff. It's like we're
back in law school professors walking around.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
He's just Travis.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Mister Travis, did you do the reading last night? And
you know Clay's doing his thing. You always did the reading, Clay,
We know you did. I love reading assignments.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
So there's that part of it. But then there's this
part of it.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
We just need to live in a country where we
don't have racial set asides and entitlements for anybody at all, period,
full stop. And if there was ever a time where
we had to make those arguments because of previous discrimination,
or rather we made those concessions because we thought it
would make things better. Now we've reached a point where
everybody should understand that that was a effectively temporary emergency
(09:21):
measure and should no longer be the case. We should
not have racial entitlements masquerading as civil rights protections. And
that is what this is. If a state is allowed,
if the people in a state are allowed to redistrict
however they see fit, really because it's left to the states.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
But here's the problem.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
It's almost like drawing the borders of a country. What
justifies the borders of a country? You know, it's a
complicated thing, but really it's lines on a map. And
they fight over it and whatever, but there's not some
more like the border between the US and Canada is
not a moral question, it's a political question. That's one
that we have solved with our northern neighbors. The borders
(10:04):
of congressional districts in various states are left through the
processes and the legislators in those states, and everybody should
just be playing by the same rules within that state.
There shouldn't be a oh, we don't have enough black
majority districts in this state, so therefore this map is
unfair because it is an equal protection clause violation. Because
(10:27):
a lot of Republicans sit there and say, hold on
a second, my vote has been nullified effectively by the
state legislature. So why isn't it Why is that okay?
But overwhelmingly Democrat black voters in a lot of these
states get to have a special protection. No, I'm sorry.
We either all live by the same rules or we don't.
The complex distilled down to the simple, I rest my case,
(10:50):
counselor I think you're right, and I think that's where
we're headed. Let me add on a couple of layers
here that are hopefully not super legal. NERD esque problem
here was one that should and needed to be redressed.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
The problem is the problem is fixed. It no longer exists,
and so the precedent that made sense in nineteen sixty
five doesn't make sense in twenty twenty five. I would
also point this out. It is predicated on the idea
that black voters are monolithic in the way that they vote.
(11:25):
That is increasingly not the case. This is why I
think it's significant that Donald Trump got twenty one percent
of Black men of their vote in twenty twenty four.
One in five black guys said Trump's my guy. A
lot of black guys are listening to us right now
that are a part of that team, and it's growing,
and there are more some of you guys out there.
You used to never be able to find another Black Republican.
(11:48):
Now one in five. I mean, I bet you're finding
a lot more people that are open to your arguments.
Black women too. This has been applied Buck for Hispanic voters.
Hispanic voters are basically now fifty fifty. They're much more
similar to white voters or Asian voters, where you don't
have a strong sense of how somebody's going to vote
based on their race and gender. If you see a
(12:10):
white guy, now, somebody see a white chick where in
the Rachel Maddow specs, you probably got a pretty good chance.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Hey, that's a lib. But by and.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Large, you see a white person, they could be conservative,
they could be liberal, they could be they don't care
about politics at all. Same thing as increasingly becoming true
of Hispanic voters. As you know because you live in Miami, Buck,
there's also a huge difference between a Cuban voter and
a recent immigrant from Mexico or Venezuela or The Hispanic
voting block is actually very diverse depending on where that
(12:41):
Hispanic voter is from. The monolithic nature of black support
for the Democrat Party is crumbling. In times like these,
they trot out someone like Katanji Brown Jackson to argue
not based on the law, but oh my goodness, based
on the result of this case, it would be harmful
politically to Democrats. And that is why she is a
(13:03):
political actor more than she is a judge. And that
is unfortunate.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
One of the arguments we make here, and this goes
to disparate impact, which is I think a inherently incorrect
legal philosophy of well, if the end result isn't the
same among arbitrary distinctions that we're going to make between people,
then there's something wrong with that law. If the law
(13:29):
is universally applicable and everybody has to live under it,
the outcome of that law does, and then the law
is ethical and moral. The outcome of that law does
not matter.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
To me a meaning.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
And this is where we get into there is a
disparate impact. I know you love this argument, but saying
this for a long time, Clay, there's a disparate impact
between men and women and homicides. That doesn't mean that
homicide laws are bad. It just means that more men
kill people. And that doesn't mean they're sexist in particular. Right,
It doesn't mean that men are being targeted by homicide
(14:02):
laws because men happen to be impacted by them.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
More So.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
The fact of the matter is, if we're going to
have a society where we don't have racial entitlements, we
have to remove racial entitlements, including holdovers from the Civil
rights era, like Section two of the Voting Rights Act.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
And Clay, you were correct.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
It was John Roberts for the win On to stop
discriminating by race stop discriminating by race.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
It's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Alito is my favorite, so I thought it was going
to be an Alito move, but it was actually Roberts.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
So good on you. Probably the best sentence of John
Roberts's career.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race
is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. I
don't understand how that same logic does not govern when
it comes to analyzing racial jerrymandering. And I hope John
Roberts will apply the same principle in this case as
he did in the decision having to do basically with
(14:59):
whether or not they're can be affirmative action in schools.
So that is going to be a huge decision. Maybe
some of you are trying to face a huge decision.
What do you do for the holiday season? I know
I just said the holiday season, and some of you
are having alarm bells go off, and you know it's
basically two months till Christmas? Two months until Christmas? What
(15:21):
are you going to do for Christmas? How about the
dads and the granddads out there? How many of you
are actually great gift givers? I am not. I am
not a good gift giver. I don't enjoy shopping, period,
and I particularly don't try to enjoy shopping for so
many other gifts. But you know what's a great gift
(15:42):
that doesn't require you to shop at all. It just
requires you to listen to this show and pull out
your phones right now. Legacy Box, you can preserve your
family's history in time for the holidays. You can blow
everybody away by being the thoughtful family member who ensures
that your great aunts old timey photos are digitized, that
(16:05):
grandma and Grandpa's VHS tapes are digitized, that the old slides,
the old eight millimeter reels, whatever family history you have.
Legacy Box is all about taking it and making sure
it's preserved for generations to come. I visited their Chattanooga factory.
They've got an incredible business. You send in your old photos,
(16:26):
your old VHS tapes, your old eight millimeters, whatever family
memories you have. They will digitize them and allow you
to be able to share it with everyone. That photo
from nineteen twenty, that VHS tape of Christmas nineteen eighty eight,
that eight millimeter film of Grandma and Grandpa going on
(16:47):
their honeymoon, all of it can be preserved digitally forever,
and right now you get fifty percent off at legacybox
dot Com slash clay. That's a legacybox dot Com slash
clay to say fifty percent. You're gonna love having your
recorded memories preserved forever digitally, easy to share with the grandkids,
(17:09):
the great grandkids, so everybody knows the family history stories.
The legacy box dot Com slash clay fifty percent off.
That's a legacy box dot Com slash clay.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
You don't know what you don't know right, but you could.
On the Sunday Hang with Clay and Buck podcast.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
All right, welcome back in here to Clay and Buck.
We've got a quick turn around. Let's get some some calls,
some talkbacks. Gosh in Springfield, Illinois. He wants to weigh
in on choking.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Okay, stop, yeah, okay. I was wondering if Buck might
agree with your assertion about choking if it was Polish
sausage related. Look at him bringing it all together there. Okay,
this is.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Gosh is impressive. This is impressive. Yeah, you know, I
will tell you some infinity for Holish sausages. You, of
all people have to be concerned about.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Choking Well, I was gonna say sausage is a choking risk.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
This is true.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
It's hot dogs actually, Cause look this up before you
are snickering out there. Hot dog and sausage in particular
choking risk because you can bite off a piece and
it fits into the windpipe in very snug fes.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
You gotta be very careful, very you.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
You lock it up, Travis over there, you lock it up,
all right, buddy.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
This is a public health announcement.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
We're doing a lot of women out there gonna be
saying this weekend, you have no idea what danger I'm in.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Every minute on the clock, two home invasions are reported
the police someplace across our nation. That's a stat that's troubling.
You need to know about it, though, and you need
to prepare. So are you prepared to protect your home
and your family. Saber Home protection tools are what we recommend.
Over fifty years in the business, Saber has safeguarded hundreds
of thousands of people with their self protection tools. Sabers,
(18:58):
pepper sprays, pepper Joe, and projectile devices are all proudly
made here in the USA. Saber spelled s A B
R E. The website is Saber radio dot com. Their
projectile devices are so effective at stopping the threat. They've
got more than four hundred thousand reviews averaging four point
seven stars. Go to Saber radio dot com today. That's
(19:20):
s A b r E dot Com. Uh got s
A b r E radio dot com today, you'll say
fifteen percent? Or call this phone number eight four four
eight two four safe. Eight four four eight two four safe.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you, and there's a lot of reactions pouring in
Pamelad just said, I'm in an I hoop in Pensacola
having breakfast. Almost spit out my coffee with your remark about.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
The danger of women.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Maybe in thank goodness, I was only drinking coffee, not
eating the sausage. You have only yourself to blame, Foster,
so appreciate Pamela. I'm glad that she is still alive.
And there are there are a lot of reactions rolling
in and we are having a great deal of fun.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Time tell everybody, take your time, cheer your food. It's
very straightforward. Okay, let's go the view. This is fun.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Okay, So those of you who follow us on social
media as you all should be doing. You can find
us at YouTube. You can find us at Twitter, Instagram, TikTok.
I don't think there's a social media platform we're not on.
Know that we have had a lot of fun with
the View over the years. And we just shared from
producer Ali and producer Ali you can come up if
(20:37):
you want and tell the full story here. But a
while back, Ali said, Hey, we'll invite you will tell
the View people, Hey, Clay and Buck are happy to
come on the show. So in July and I just
shared this email from Ali to the View and I
will read it for all of you. This is a
producer at the View, Hi LORI can conservative radio host
(21:01):
Clay and Buck would like to pitch themselves as guests
on the View. They often play clips from the program
on their nationally syndicated radio show Granted as a means
to refute them, and thought a sit down would be
productive for both audiences since they come from two completely
different perspectives. Buck lives in Miami and Clay lives in Nashville,
but they'd be willing to travel to New York. Thank
(21:23):
you for the consideration. This went out in July now
I'm going to pull Alli up in a sec. But first,
here is Joy Behar saying, you know, the truth of
the matter is Republicans won't come on the show.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
They're afraid to listen.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
I think that we should have more Republicans on the show,
but they don't want to come on.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
They're scared of us.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
It's like Marjorie's Hyley Green says that she finds the
Republican men afraid of powerful women.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Well, that's maybe true of all the political persuasions. But
if they would come on this show and they can
explain to us what they're trying to do to this.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Can we Okay, I don't think Bucket Eye are afraid
of powerful women.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Challenge accepted, Chile accepted.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
All right, Producer, Ali, you have now written another email
to the View reiterating you can come up. But the
email that I read you sent in July was their
a response to that email from the View.
Speaker 7 (22:18):
Yes, actually there was a quick response, very quick, saying
they only had two more episodes to shoot, so their
schedule was full and they wouldn't be back until the fall,
at which point I said, Okay, I'll follow up in
the fall, and I followed up today and I have
I'm waiting to hear back.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
And you said this is important. We're happy to do it.
This is important.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
The View, according to groc, has frequently had two guests
on simultaneously, two guests including politicians, authors, actors, and even
musical guests who are there as a duo. So I
just want to be clear, there is no reason why
they could not have a clay and buckethon on the
(23:03):
View based on the established parameters they have for guests
in the past, because I don't I don't want them
throwing that at us either. We can because if what
they'll try to do, if it's just one of us,
they're going to try to overtalk and just have too
many voices shouting at you at the same time.
Speaker 7 (23:19):
Just make sure you bring that third hat. Oh.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I would bring a hat for Alyssa Farr Griffin and
I would hand it to her and I would say, hey,
since Trump's brought back to hostages, here is a red
Maga hat. You can put that on for this entire
segment to honor President Trump's great job in bringing back
the hostages.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
I'm gonna tell you something. I think that she actually
would be willing to wear the hat. I think that
she worries that if she wore that hat it would
trigger other members of the table too much, like they
would even though she said this was the marker that
she laid out there, I think she realizes that the
rest of the table would throw a fit about it.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
They would.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
They have no they have no sense of humor about
it at all. Joy Bahar has a writing team. They
write all of her jokes. She's actually not that funny.
She's not coming up with this stuff on the fly.
If you watch her closely now I'm throwing down the
gomble a little bit. You watch her closely, she's trying
to find ways to get in lines that have been
written by her writers. I will give this doesn't happen
(24:17):
very often. She does look great for her age, though,
to be fair, Joy, you look great. I'm just saying.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Also, she is probably not aware of most of the guests,
so she may think to herself when she says Republicans
are afraid to go on the show, because, to be fair,
people pitch themselves on this show all the time. I mean,
producer Ali, you can say, like, if people out there like,
is this a common thing? I mean, we get pitches,
(24:45):
hundreds of pitches a year, maybe thousands, dozens a day
of people who are saying, hey, we'd like to come
on as a guest. So and most of them we
never Bucket, Neither Buck nor I are going and saying
we can't have this person on. So I don't necessarily
know that Joy is aware of the number of people
who are reaching out that would be willing to come on.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
So when she's saying that she may.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Actually believe Buck that she's being truthful, she is not, however,
and we just you know, we shared the so called
receipts of the invitation that we put out there.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Hey, we're happy to come on.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
And by the way, you know, we would have Alyssa
on this show, you know, if they wanted to put
a view member on this show to promote their show.
I mean, we're not running and hiding from any of that.
Speaking of running and hiding, though, Buck, you were talking
about this a little bit earlier, and we got a
couple of guests, by the way, coming in the third hour,
(25:41):
our buddy Ryan Gardusky. We're going to talk about the
absolute latest on Virginia, New York City, and New Jersey.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
As those elections get closer.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Steve Hilton out in California to talk about the Katie
Porter insanity and the potential run there. I wanted to
play this because this is one of the people that
that is running to be a Democrat nominee for California
when Gavin Newsom is forced to term limit himself out.
And she went on Piers Morgan and the LA is
(26:12):
going to have the Olympics in twenty twenty eight. The
Summer Olympics are taking place in Los Angeles. Should be awesome,
be a lot of fun to watch. But Piers Morgan
ask this Democrat California governor's candidate, Hey, what do you
think about the idea of trans women, that is, men
pretending to be women being able to compete in the Olympics.
(26:34):
And he followed up and I just want to play
a cut from this because these people have lost their
minds and they're totally trapped on this trans argument.
Speaker 6 (26:43):
Listen, this seems to me like you would like to
remove any any sexual differentation between the Olympic sports. I
let them all compete, it would be gender neutral with
it if you were a governor.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Well, again, I want to be sure that everyone has
the ability to compete.
Speaker 6 (27:01):
Would you have a gender neutral Olympics where you would
have not you wouldn't have male and female sport, then
you just have one one that everyone could join in.
Speaker 5 (27:09):
Well, I don't think we're going to get that tomorrow,
but I think it's a conversation worth having.
Speaker 6 (27:13):
You think it's a conversation worth having where you have
gender neutral Olympics.
Speaker 5 (27:17):
Because we need to understand what the attributes are of
athletes across the spectrum.
Speaker 6 (27:24):
You've already said that you understand the reason they separate
the sexes is that men have a physical advantage over women.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
He also, then maybe we can grab this because I
think it really kind of brings it home. He says, Wait,
you think that a woman should run against Usain Bolt
in the one hundred meters, the fastest man in the
history of the world, and you think that's going to
be a fair competition, And basically she says yes, she
doesn't know. Maybe the woman would win. These people are crazy, buck,
(27:53):
and I don't know how they get off of this
crazy train without having the Supreme Court. I think your
argument that you've already hit that that's what it is.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
It's well, by the way, there is there are a
few things that are making their way toward the Supreme
Court right now. In fact, there is litigation out of
I think it's in Colorado.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
The case is little the.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Het Coocks, maybe heacocks, but it's a transgender student who
wanted to be on the girls cross country team and
this and brought suit back in twenty twenty. Really at
the peak of this, yeah, I wanted to join. Oh yeah,
this is no it's Idaho that I say Colorado, Sorry, Idaho, Idaho,
Boise State.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
So it's college.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
It's college level and wanted to be on the women's
college cross country team. Sued, sued, and a Ninth Circuit
judge ended up getting involved in this and now it's low.
Without getting too deep into the weeds on this, the
situation is that the original plaintiff is trying to try
(29:06):
to withdraw his case as a her try to withdraw
the case Clay because they don't want the Supreme Court
to actually take this up. And a federal judge just today,
Judge Nye, who is a Trump appointee, said oh, no,
you're not doing this. You know, hide the football situation here.
You wanted to bring a federal lawsuit about, you know, discrimination,
(29:30):
saying that you're actually to be treated as a woman.
We're taking we're taking this thing on, like let's go.
And now that looks like the Supreme Court is eventually
going to be taking this up, and I think they're
going to have to weigh in on no men or
men and women are women and we're allowed to make
different decisions about the two in law as a matter
of law.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
There is a gonna give him credit here, great long
form piece in the New York Times recently looking at
the Scurmetti case. Jonathan Skermmet is the Attorney General of
the state of Tennessee. The Supreme Court came out and
said that the state can restrict this so called gender
affirming care for miners, that there is a state interest,
(30:12):
and the trans community is in a panic because they
thought that they were going to be able to win
these cases, basically that the trans treatments and all this
stuff on miners is actually okay, and instead they're losing.
And what you just pointed out as an important point,
they're now trying to avoid giving the Supreme Court an
opportunity to strike down a lot of the state laws.
(30:37):
And so they're trying to pull back now because they're like,
oh my goodness, the same logic of Scurmetti is certainly
going to apply in sports.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
The transactivists don't want their day in court all of
a sudden, Yes, isn't that so interesting to see?
Speaker 3 (30:51):
They want to rely and this goes into the Weeds book.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
They want to rely on like the Ninth Circuit and
some of the liberal circuit courts without having to get
a nation WI so that in California and Oregon and Washington,
the crazy arguments can prevail instead of the Supreme Court
slapping it down. So I'm very familiar with this tactic, Clay,
because as a longtime New York City and New York
(31:14):
State resident, particularly on the New York City side, this
is the game they used to play all the time.
They would they did flatly unconstitutional things when it came
to firearms, and then the moment somebody brought legislation, they
would change it, and then they would do something else
flatly on conf you know, five hundred dollars fee to
be a con to be not a concealed carrier, to
be a premise permit holder. They would just use the
(31:36):
system in bad faith to do things that they knew
were unconstitutional, and instead of actually find and allowing the
system to then say no, you're disrespecting the rights, the
two way rights of people in New York.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
City, they would pull it and then it's moot, and
they would argue it's moot. That's what this trans athlete
in Idaho is trying to do. And this, thank Heavens,
the Trump appoint has said no, no, no, you brought it. Now,
we're gonna finish it. We're gonna do We're gonna see where.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
This actually goes. Yeah, and it's not going to go
a good place for all these people.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
But I mean, this woman is trying to become the
Democrat nominee for California, and her argument is we don't
really know whether men are faster than women or not.
To put this into context for you, buck, every single
state high school champion in Texas last year for track
and field, every single boy these are you know, eighteen
and younger boys, fifteen to eighteen year old boys. Every
(32:30):
single Texas state champion ran faster speeds than the fastest
women in the history of the Olympics. So we're not
even talking about I think Florence Griffith's Joiner Flow Joe
is still the fastest woman of all time. Every Texas
high school state champion at all district levels smoked flow Joe.
(32:51):
So we're not even talking about men versus women on
the best men in the world. We're talking about the
state of Texas by itself. Every boys state champion is
faster and the fastest woman that's ever existed in the
history of the world.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Switch your cell phone service from AT and T, Verizon
or T Mobile to Puretalk. You'll start saving money immediately
without sacrificing quality. Look, we've always appreciated what pure Talk
stands for here, both in terms of their values and
also the value they provide to you by giving you
great service at the lowest possible price, and also standing
with free speech. Switch your cell phone service to pure
(33:26):
Talk support a business that appreciates free speech. You're also,
of course going to get great five G nationwide coverage
on a reliable, secure network, and the price of pure
Talk service just the best you're gonna find, and it's
why you should change from AT and T, T Mobile
or Verizon. Monthly plans started just twenty five bucks a
month Dial pound two fifty say Clay and Buck to
(33:46):
switch to our wireless company, Puretalk right now. You'll save
in additional fifty percent off your first month dial pound
two five zero say Clay and Buck to switch to
Pure Talk do it today.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
News and politics, but also a little comic relief. Clay
Travis at Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
All right, welcome back here and everybody to Clay and Buck.
We got some great guests coming up the next hour.
Friend ran Gerdusky on Virginia, New Jersey, New York City,
all those races which are going to be determined here
in just a couple of weeks, so it is prime
time on those election cycles. We'll also talk to Steve
Hilton about California, the plans of Gavin Newsom, the failures
(34:31):
of Gavin.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Newsom on policy, and so much more.
Speaker 7 (34:35):
So.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
We've got a big, a big hour that will be
coming your way. I want to tell you to drink
some Crocket coffee, everybody, don't forget subscribe. Great thing to
get into, especially as it gets a little colder in
parts of the country. You get that hot Crocket coffee
going through in the morning. Get that pioneer spirit and
every cup Crocket Coffee dot Com and Clay, your book's
gonna be out next month, so we've got to do
a new Crockett subscriber signed book thing.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
And if you can go buy Balls, which I'm sure
the ladies of the view already have on the reading list, very.
Speaker 3 (35:05):
Easy to find. That is right ba lls Balls.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
If you type in Clay, Travis and Balls, I think
you'll be safely able to click on click on the resulting.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Maybe going to Amazon first. I'm not sure to go
to Google with that one, to go to Amazon.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
First, and.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
I'm telling you, I think you guys will enjoy it.
By the way, producer Greg grabbed that clip, which again
I think I give credit to media that now are
pushing past the opening question because what it eventually leads to,
if you have a genderless Olympics, then you have to
believe that a woman could beat Usain Bolt in one
hundred meter race. And that's exactly where Piers Morgan went.
(35:45):
This is one of the candidates to be the California
Democrat nominee. Listen to this actual conversation.
Speaker 5 (35:51):
I think you can see female athletes where particularly on
track and field where agility is possibly hang.
Speaker 6 (36:00):
On, are you suggesting that women so hang on? Do
you think that women could could compete against men in
track and field, like in one hundred meters, two hundred meters,
ten thousand meters.
Speaker 5 (36:11):
D Perhaps you know I'm not a sports expert.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
Of course I couldn't.
Speaker 6 (36:16):
Have you seen the Have you seen the times that
women and men record in the Olympics for all track
and field events? Have you watched Usain Bolt when he
smashed the world record for one hundred meters? Yes?
Speaker 3 (36:29):
Yes, So you think women could run.
Speaker 6 (36:31):
Against Usain Bolt, for example, at his peak and that
would be fair?
Speaker 5 (36:35):
I think. Look, I'm just going to say this, there's
a lot of misinformation about the ability of transgender wasn't
my question?
Speaker 1 (36:44):
So I mean again, you have to call these people
out on the absurdity, to really put them on the
carpet here, what is more trouble and Clay if this
woman that Peers is talking to, who wants.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
To be obviously a powerful person in California, if she
believed this, or if she knows it's a lion, says this,
which is worse. The second because you're a moron if
you believe it, but at least you're being honest in
your belief. It doesn't mean that you should be better
to be a moron, better to be honest, more on
(37:15):
than intentional liar.
Speaker 3 (37:17):
I think.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Now that's a tough that's a tough balance, and some
of you are going to say, Clay, you're both. We'll
take some of those talkbacks, but yeah, I think this
woman's more moron than intentional liar. You guys may disagree
more with us next week.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular 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.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com