June 24, 2022 • 37 mins
Hour 2 of Friday's A&G: Tim Sandefur joins the show to break down the Supreme Court's recent rulings, and as he is on the show, Roe V Wade is overturned. We get his analysis on that as well. U-Haul's study on one way rentals out of states, and more.
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
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 (00:09):
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio and the George Washington
Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty Show.
And so what this ruling said today is that the
Second Amendment that gun rights cannot be treated as second
class rights by our government. But it also speaks to
(00:30):
a larger issue going on with the court. We had
for decades had a court that viewed itself as a
legislative body. If they wanted abortion to be legal, they
voted it in against the will of the people. And
this court that we have a strong majority on thanks
to three Trump appointees, is one that says it's not
really mattering what our personal views are. What matters is
what the Constitution says and what is legal and constitutional.
(00:52):
And so you're seeing that reflected in all sorts of
decisions going forward. That's Molly Hemmingway a yesterday commenting on
the Supreme Court on the gun thing, which we're going
to talk about. But the Supreme Court is rolling out
decisions right now, right this moment, and the abortion thing
could come out while we're talking to Tim, and it'll
blow up everything. Yapes. Tim Sanderford is the vice president
(01:14):
for litigation at the Goldwater Institute, author of a number
of fabulous books. Just yesterday we're discussing the Permission Society.
Tim welcome, How are you hey? I'm just great, Thanks
for having me back. Do you have any idea how
the Supreme Court decides how the Rolling those out. I mean, like,
would they have two big ones back to back or
do they try not to do that the Avenue No,
they definitely would do that. They try to release their
(01:35):
most controversial opinions right before they go off on vacation,
and they go off on vacation around July fourth, so
they usually do postpone the more controversial cases to the
very last day, which is usually before the Joy podcast.
You asked him, I know you actually went to law
school and everything. But let me stip in here, it's
just like a band. They open up with one of
their big songs. Everybody gets excited than the middle stuff
(01:56):
is from the new album. Everybody goes to get a beer,
but then they think is big with that hit you
just headed here? So they actually they actually got the
idea from the Rolling Stones that John Marshall said, you know,
I really like the way this young Mick guy does stuff. Right,
and so you wouldn't be expecting the abortion ruling until
till later. Then that's right, But who knows, right. So
(02:21):
let's talk about the big gun rights ruling yesterday. First,
would you like to explain to people briefly what was decided,
and then we'll get into you know, what it means
and the reactions to it. So this case involved a
New York law that said that you could only have
a firearm for self defense outside the home if you
showed a special need for that. You had to show
some sort of unique need to have this firearm. What
(02:45):
does that exactly mean? It basically means whatever the government
says it needs. And that's the big problem with these
kinds of permit requirements. And that's why it's relevant to
the Permission Society book that you mentioned before, because this
is something we find not just in gun rights, but
in building permits, in issues about free speech and everything.
The government routinely takes your rights away from you and
(03:08):
then says, if you want your rights back, you have
to do what we say in the form of a permit.
And so that's what New York said is they said, well,
we're not going to let anybody have firearms unless you
prove that you have a unique need. And at one
point in the case, Justice Alito said, well, suppose somebody
came to the government and said, I'm worried because there
have been a lot of muggings in my neighborhood, so
I would really like to be able to possess a firearm.
(03:29):
Would that be good enough? And the government said no.
So the Supreme Court said, that's unconstitutional. If people have
a rights to possess a firearm, they have a right
to possess a firearm. You can't just say that it's
a right but turn it into a privilege or a
permission in this way, because we don't do that to
other kinds of constitutional right, all right. And the reality
and the ground, of course, was, since it's a county
sheriff by county sheriff decision, you'd have I live in
(03:52):
a county where they're never going to give out a permit,
and next door you got a county where they'll give
it to pretty much anybody who asks. And that's a
ridiculous way to do right. That's right, and really only,
as Justice Alito pointed out in his separate opinion in
this case, or Justice Cabinet, I guess it was. There's
not that many states that explicitly say just you know,
whenever the government feels like it, we're going to give
(04:14):
out these permits. Many states have shall issue laws which
say you have to show objective criteria. You have to
show you don't have a criminal history, you have to
show that you have some kind of training or whatever
it might be. And the objective criteria. That's good enough
because then you know what is required of you in
order to go to permit. But when the government says, well,
(04:34):
we will give it to you for good cause, or
we'll give you this right if you're a good citizen
or something, I mean, it's just a recipe for reviews.
That's an ability that gives the bureaucrats the ability to
dictate what you do in order to get your rights back.
Do you have any comment on what may be the
dopiest thing ever said on any topic, Governor Hokel of
(04:55):
New York saying the First Amendment is regulated, but now
we have no regulations on the Second Amendment. Yeah, well,
it's I really wish, you know, I have a dream,
my dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a
little dream. Is that people would actually read the opinions
that the Supreme Court puts out. I mean, there's a
reason why they write these opinions. It's so that people
(05:17):
can actually read them and decide for themselves. It's not
that hard to go to Supreme Court dot gov and
you click on opinions and you could read the opinion.
And Justice Thomas points out in the opinion that in fact,
the First Amendment is not governed by these kinds of
good cause or special need requirements. Quite the opposite. The
government could never impose it's never constitutional for the government
(05:38):
to impose one of these unique need or special need
requirements on the First Amendment. But the governor saying is
the exact reverse of the truth, which is, no, the
First Amendment is a real right. The government can't take
that right away except in extremely rare circumstances. And the
same ought to be true of guns. And Justice Thomas
says this in the opinion. But the governor, obviously, I'm
sure it was too busy to have time to actually
(05:58):
read what he was talking about. Clarence Well, And furthermore,
in terms of its wrongness on the other end of it,
there are still many, many regulations about who can own
what gun and what circumstance. So she was just whipped
on both ends of the question. Yeah, Clarence Thomas wrote
the winning opinion there, and you tweeted out and we
read it yesterday that you think Justice Clarence Thomas is
(06:20):
almost consequential justice of like the last half century, which
I thought was interesting. Definitely, Justice Thomas. Now I don't
agree with him on everything. In fact, I would say
I disagreed him about half the time. But he is
an extremely sharp judge, and during his time on the court,
what he's done is he's forced the other justices to
deal with ideas that they used to ignore. And the
(06:43):
big one, of course, is originalism. That is, what was
it that the founding fathers thought they were doing when
they wrote these constitutional provisions. Before Thomas was on the bench,
there were a few judges that would, you know, Justice
Schoolia would talk about that sometimes, as as Renklist to
talk about this sometimes. But when Thomas got on the court,
he brought such an intellectual rigor to this that now
(07:04):
all of the justices are having to address that, even
if they don't agree with him on something, that he
has forced them to talk about what the Founding Fathers thought,
what the history of these pauses are. And you know,
to be frank, one reason why people don't read these
opinions is because they go into such detail about the history.
I mean, Justice Thomas is talking about what happened in
the Middle Ages. He's talking about seventeenth century law and stuff.
(07:27):
It's incredible and that is something that I think the
history books will really see him as a pioneer when
it comes to that. Well, since you brought up originalism,
and we brought up the Governor of New York, she
said this yesterday, and I would like to point out
to the Supreme Court justices that the only weapons at
that time were muskets. I'm tire to go back to muskets.
What were the Founding Fathers talking about the originalism of
(07:50):
the talking about the Second Amendment? Once again, the Governor
should read what she's talking about. Because the Court responded
to that point in the opinion and they said, you know,
the First Amendment governs cell phones and radio and television,
which didn't exist when the Founding Fathers were around, and
for exactly the same reason, the Second Amendment also governs
weapons with today's technology, what the founding fathers did was
(08:13):
they created a government with certain principles involved. They didn't
write a list and say, okay, well you can help.
Old breaking news, breaking news. The Supreme Court has overturned
Roll versus Wade. Oh, here we go, here we go,
Here we go, ladies and gentlemen, I got this piece
of paper in front of me. Oh boy, US braces
for violence against conservatives pro life groups with Supreme Courts
abortion ruling. That's from the Washington Times, So that that
(08:38):
is what will be on a lot of people's mind.
Any breaking news thoughts on this ruling. Tim, here's the
one as well. Two things, First, please read the opinion
before forming what your own opinion about about the what
it says. And second, remember that you're going to hear
a lot of talk today and yesterday and tomorrow about
the undemocratic nature of the court. Oh, the court is
(09:01):
enforcing its will instead of the voters, and what does
the public sinking? But that is the kind of thing
that people say when they lose a case, and most
of the time it's nonsense. The court's job is to
interpret the law, and that is very undemocratic sometimes because
the majority just wants to do what it wants, and
(09:21):
the tyranny of the majority is what happens as a
result of that. And so we write a law to
control what the majority can do, to limit the majority's power,
and the majority very often wants to ignore the law
and do whatever it feels like. And when a judge
steps in and says no, I'm sorry, majority of voters,
you have to obey the law. You have to follow
the law, that is always going to be accused of
(09:42):
being undemocratic. Let me read a time. The barrier we
have protecting us against the tyranny of the majority is
the law. So please don't say undemocratic, undemocratic, undemocrat. Let
me read a quick line here held the Constitution does
not confer a right to abortion. Row and Casey are overruled,
and the authority to regulate abortion is earned to the
people and their elected representatives. It's a pretty good description.
(10:05):
Oh yeah, that is a pretty good description. I think
that will be a loss in a bit of the
discussion today. Tim Sanderford is on the line, vice president
for Litigation for the Goldwater Institute. Sorry, Tim, go ahead.
That means that the power goes to the states. The
question of the constitutionality of abortion goes to the states,
and state constitutions often protect abortion rights anyway. So, for example,
(10:25):
the Kansas Supreme Court two or three years ago issued
a decision saying the right to an abortion is already
guaranteed by the Kansas Constitution, So it doesn't matter whether
the Supreme Court says there is or is not a
federal right. California's constitution protects privacy rights and so forth.
The many states already have these protections in place. Now,
whether that's good enough or not, that's a discussion to have,
(10:46):
whether there should be perhaps the Constitution should be amended
or something. But one thing to keep in mind is
this does not ban abortion across the nation. It means
it falls to the states, and you can amend your
constitutions to protect these rights. Here's a pretty big deal, though,
isn't it. Oh, very big deal. But it's also something
that we've seen coming for many, many years, right, So
(11:07):
I don't know, Tim, can you hang around for another segment? Yeah?
This is this is a like we just said, this
is a very big deal. Yeah, And I don't want
to rush through my next question or two. I'm flipping
around in my news sources. I feel like I'm in
a time warp or I've lost my mind or something.
The wapos, the Washington Post lead story is still US
monkey pox response ners early coronavirus missteps. Yeah, they've they've
(11:30):
missed the breaking news that the Supreme Court has overturned
Row versus Wade. More with our favorite constitutional scholar, Tim
Sanderfer coming up next Armstrong and The Armstrong and Getty Show.
(11:57):
We had our friend Tim Sanderfer on to talk about
the gun ruling. And while we're talking about him about it,
the ruling comes down from the Supreme Court that they
have overturned Row versus Wade. The headlines and some of
your newspapers are interesting the way they word it. For instance,
in the New York Times, the decision eliminating the constitutional
right to an abortion, which is true, that is what
(12:22):
it says here, although but it never is constitutional right
to an abortion should be in quotes well, right, it's
because the what the majority said is there never was
a constitutional right. That's what that's that's what they're saying.
It's six three decision, all three of Trump's lawyers voting
in the majority, and there you have it. The Justices. Yeah,
Tim Sanderford, vice president for Litigation the Goldwater Institute, rejoins us, Tim,
(12:44):
thanks for hanging around. Sure, I'm from So. I was
reading hungrily as much of the decision as I could
during the commercial break, then glanced down realized it's two
hundred and thirteen pages, so to say, I didn't finish it.
But so, what was the underpinning of Roe v. Wade
and why is it now being unpinned? So what happened
(13:08):
was the Supreme Court has said since well, actually, this
is an idea that has been around since the twelfth century,
actually that there are certain basic principles that distinguish a
law from an arbitrary government action a genuine law, which
is a legitimate government action. That's something that is rational.
(13:28):
It applies to everybody, it doesn't it's not just a
command to a particulate person. It makes sense, it's not
just gibberish. And there's these basic elements, philosophical elements that
make something into a law. And that means that the
government cannot just arbitrarily do whatever it feels like to you,
because the government is required to respect due process of law.
(13:49):
And that idea is called substantive due process. It means
that there are certain basic things government can never do
to you, and one of those things is intrude on
your privacy without good reason. And in a case called
Griswold way back in the day, the Supreme Court said,
there's a right to privacy that says there are certain
truly intimate things that are so intimate that the government
(14:12):
can never legitimately intrude in that sphere. And so, based
on the Griswold case, in Row versus Way in the
nineteen seventies, the Supreme Court said that also protects a
woman's right to decide herself whether to have an abortion
or not within certain boundaries. Roe said during the first
three months, then it said, during the second three months,
the state can come in and regulate certain things about abortion.
During the third three months, the government can impose very
(14:34):
severe restrictions on abortion. And so since then, that was
in the seventies. In the past half century, the Court's
kind of elaborated on that, and it's basically drawn very
strict lines protecting this right at very strongly against government interference.
And that, of course has upset a lot of conservatives
who think that this is an illegitimate right. And so
(14:56):
what today's opinion does is it says that right is
not one of the rights, is so intimate the government
has no business dealing with it. Just as Thomas goes
further and just giving his opinion here, I see he
says we should get rid of this entire idea of
substantive due process. And I'll be frank that is such
an extreme and dangerous proposition that I think we would
(15:17):
be we should all be very strongly opposed to getting
rid of this truly fundamental protection for individual liberty. I'm
not talking about abortion, I'm talking about substantive due process,
which is the oldest and most important of all of
our constitutional right. That's a truly extreme proposition, and it's
a good thing that nobody else goes along with him
on that point. Instead, this decision says this is not
(15:40):
something that the federal Constitution protects. It's something that's left
to the states to decide. And each state can decide
in its own constitution whether protect this right or not.
And according to New York Times, it will lead to
all but a total ban on the procedure and about
half the states. I think that overstates it will look
into that more coming up. But you're you're a lawyer,
you're not a cultural historian or whatever. But the respect
(16:04):
for the Supreme Court has been dropping as it's been
seen more of more is a political thing than it's
ever been seen, at least in my lifetime. Are you
concerned that this contributes to that this case, Yeah, a
little bit, I suppose, But I'm I'm kind of lause
about the whole legitimacy of the Supreme Court thing, because
in my mind, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court depends
(16:24):
on the correctness of its decisions. And we can run
around trying to dress it up in all different ways
and and say, oh, well, we have to respect the court,
But truly, if the Supreme Court was run by crazy people,
then it doesn't deserve any respect regardless. And on the
other hand, if it's if it issues wise decisions, then
you don't need a whole bunch of ceremonial or ritualistic
(16:44):
talk about it's about its legitimacy and stuff like that.
So I'm not really concerned about that. The Supreme Court
is a bunch of lawyers that we the people hired
and gave them the job of protecting the Constitution against
us because we know as as voters, we know that
we sometimes go too far across the line, and so
we gave them the job of telling us when we've
(17:05):
gone too far, like when you give your friend your
car keys when you go to the bar and Tim
Sanders Tim, sorry to jump in, Tim Sanderford the Goldwater Institute.
We're just up against a heartbreak. Well summarized. Great to
talk to you, fabulous Timing. Thanks for your time. Thanks guys, Yeah,
I really appreciate it. I mean, we couldn't have gotten
luckier than having Tim on when this big ruling comes down.
(17:26):
We've got more on the fallout of this, as you know,
everybody's tweeting and talking and making their comments and we'll see,
we'll weigh in on what people are having to say.
Some more of the majority opinion is pretty interesting. I'm
looking at what Alito said, So stay tuned for more
coming up on the show. If you missed now, I
gets the podcast Aren't Strong and Getty on demand and
(18:01):
the Armstrong and getting show. So this is what it
sounded like on CNN just a few minutes ago at
the time. And you know that that that's significant and um,
you know, we'll see where it goes. Stand By Jeffrey,
(18:22):
we do have breaking news just into CNN. The Supreme
Court has just issued and this is the decision many
we're waiting for ruling in Dabbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization.
This the major case regarding abortion rights in this country.
Jeffrey Tubin still with us here as we wait to
read this decision. Jeffrey put into context how consequential this is.
(18:46):
Psychologists have a term visual on this is good because
they're all wide eyed and everybody's like trying to talk
while they look through papers because they don't want to
state what happened because they've been wrong before, right remember,
and they're being yelled at in their earpieces as well. Yeah,
constitutional aboard, it's in their ears right now. I guarantee
you that it's been overturned. It's been overturned, but they
don't want to say it, yeah, because they got it
(19:07):
wrong on was it gay married Joe? Obamacare? But one
of one's right to choose abortion. I want to see
if they get it correcting until the moment of n
put it back in your pants and say it out
love as they reaffirmed that many times away, and I
was showing the crowd outside the Supreme Court is just
going nuts out a case a case are your people now?
(19:27):
The Dob's case involving or Mississippi UM is a case
about whether abortion rights will be will continue under the
United States Constitution. UM. Let me cut ahead an important moment,
So Jeffrey standby, want to get straight to our Jessica
Schneider outside the court hot with our Jessica Poppy and Jim.
(19:54):
The Court issuing that landmark ruling that this nation has
been bracing for, and the Supreme Court ha has overturned
Roe v. Wade that they have eliminated the constitutional rights
to an abortion. And at first glance, this opinion is
very similar to that draft opinion. So there you go.
And it's interesting the language a lot of people are using,
eliminated the constitutional right. What the justices are saying is
(20:16):
there never was a constitutional right. You know, what they're
saying is not inaccurate, but so part of the majority opinion.
This is from Justice Alito who wrote it. Row was
egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak,
and the decision has had damaging consequences. This is the
(20:37):
part that I like that I think is really interesting
and far from bringing about a national settlement of the
abortion issue, Rowan Casey have inflamed debate and deepened division.
This is the argument that a lot of people, David
French and the Dispatch has been making for years. Doing
away with Roe versus Wade is going to settle down
our politics, not inflame it. I'll be interested to see
(20:58):
if that interested to see if that plays out the
way they predict that. But a lot of the whole
fighting over the Supreme Court. Every time there's an opening
the Supreme Court, question number one, whether it's a democratic
president of Republican president, is what does this justice think
about Roe versus Wade? And they get that's the first
question they get asked, and the reviews of their answers
and everything I get, we'll take this out of the mix,
(21:20):
and does that calm things down? I don't know. Yeah,
I wouldn't decide a case on that basis, but it's
a really interesting political sociological question. So I'm reading the
decision written by Justice Alito, and it's actually very well
written and really interesting. Let me hit you with the
first part of it. Abortion presents a profound moral issue
(21:41):
on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently
that a human person comes into being at conception and
that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as
strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman's right
to control her own body and prevents women from achieving
full equality. I think that's a very fair stature of
those two. Still, others in a third group think that
(22:02):
abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances,
and those within this group hold a variety of views
about the particular restrictions that should be imposed. For the
first one hundred and eighty five years after the adoption
of the Constitution, each state was permitted to address this
issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then,
in nineteen seventy three, this Court decided Roe v. Wade.
Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the
(22:24):
court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.
It did not claim that American law or the common
law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey
of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant. Like its discussion
of abortion in antiquity to the plainly incorrect, for instance,
its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under
the common law. After cataloging a wealth of other information
(22:46):
having no bearing upon the meaning of the Constitution, the
opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules, much like
those that might be found in a statute enacted by
a legislature. I'm going to jump off the text here
and point out not many people have read Rowe Vwade
the decision or understand that the decision is very much
like a set of laws, as Alito describes. Under this scheme,
(23:11):
each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most
critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the
second trimester, which at the time corresponded to the point
at which a fetus was thought to achieve viability, or
the ability to survive outside the womb. Although the court
acknowledged that states had a legitimate interest in protecting potential life,
it found that this interest could not justify any restriction
(23:32):
on pre viability abortions. The court did not explain the
basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found
it hard to defend Roe's reasoning. One prominent constitutional scholar
wrote that he would vote for a statute very much
like the one the court ended up at if he
were a legislator. But his assessment of Rowe was memorable
and brutal. Rowe was not constitutional law at all and
(23:55):
gave quote, almost no sense of an obligation to try
to be UM. And then he goes into a fair
amount of analysis of the Row decision and very carefully
and in great detail, picks apart it's reasoning and how
it doesn't make any sense really, and this clearly ought
(24:17):
to be something that the states decide. In short, right,
I'm looking at this um tweet from a right wing
pundit you don't know, UM saying you're going to hear
somewhere near zero legal arguments today about why Row should
have been upheld. You aren't you, And you don't hear
that very much. The legal reasoning why Roe is correct.
(24:39):
You hear a lot of it's a woman's body, she
should decide. Men shouldn't decide all that sort of stuff,
and maybe agree with that completely, but that's not the
same as the legal reasoning why Row should stay. Yeah. Right,
And it's interesting because part of the legal reasoning is
that if a right and I hope I'm summarizing this well. Um,
(25:04):
if a right is not specifically mentioned in the constitution,
you have to look to tradition and the history of
the country and whether it's been a recognized right, that
sort of thing before you just elevate, you know, the
right to skateboard as a constitutional right, for instance, or
(25:25):
the right to roll around on any wheeled implement I guess.
And they just said there is nothing in the country's
history or the tradition of common law or anything like
that that suggests this is a fundamental right, especially given
the balance of rights of the woman allowed, you know,
just to oversimplify it, the woman and the fetus. So
(25:46):
it's worth reading. It's it's interesting, it's long. So a
couple of things I suppose we had to point out. Well, um,
the things we had to point out, we'll mention after this,
after we tell you about simply safe. With a rising
crime all across the country, people's perception is that crime
is rising. You know why, because crime is rising, and
it might be a good time if you've never had
one before, to get a security system for your home,
(26:07):
and the best one out there, we think, and a
lot of people think, is simply safe. Yeah, one more
common actually on that topic, there are various news organizations
that will tell you, you know, crime rates are actually
not up. That's because there is so much property crime
and the cops know that the people won't be prosecuted
(26:27):
because of some of the woke DA's nobody even reports it.
Property crime is all over the place anyway. Simply Save
Home security the best home security system you can have
to protect you not only against intruders and burglaries, but
also fires and floods. And it's less than a dollar
a day, and there are no long term contracts you
get locked into a year or two, like pretty much
(26:49):
every other security system that exists out there. And they
call it simply safe because it's simply to set up.
You set it up yourself in about thirty minutes. It's
simple to use, you'll actually use it, and you customize
it to your needs to it simply safe dot com
slash armstrong distakes a few minutes. Simply safe dot com
slash armstrong go to day claim of free indoor security
camera plus twenty percent off with interactive monitoring. Go to
(27:09):
simply safe dot com slash armstrong. It will be says
the New York Times one of the signal legacies of
President Donald J. Trump, who vowed to name justices who
would overrule Row. All three of his appointees were in
the majority in the six three ruling today that did
overturn Row versus Way. Now the headline, I'm seeing a
lot of places, as The New York Times says, it
(27:30):
will lead to all but total bands on the procedure
and about half of the states. I don't claim to
know what all the states are planning to do now
that it is a state decision on abortion, but I
do know this that it's going to be portrayed as
a horror that a lot of states are going to
(27:53):
go to where the point where a lot of American
people are that it's okay in the first trimester, but
I don't dig it after that. And that's where the
vast majority of Democrats and Republicans are on the issue.
Right Yeah. The Wall Street Journal puts it like this.
Almost half the states have laws in place or at
the ready to curtail or outlaw abortion if rov Wade
(28:14):
is overturned, while others have laws that would preserve its legality.
There are a big handful I think it might be
in the low teens, but don't quote me on this
that are going to flat outlaw abortion. That is true,
but the half ruling will include quite a few that were,
like Jack described, just restrict second trimester abortions. Especially. I'm
(28:37):
more of a you know, analyzing culture than I am
a lawyer, So I just wonder what this is going
to do to our culture. We're already in this weird
point where I have heard people say, well, we know
people are moving to states based on the politics. I've
heard people say, who are looking for jobs, Yeah, I
got offered a job in Florida, but I'm not going
to go there, or Texas, or I'm not gonna go there,
(28:57):
or the or the other side the other way around.
And well, which wasn't a thing very many years ago
that you would turn down a job opportunity because of
the States politics. You wouldn't even have known what the
States politics were not very many years ago. And I
feel like that this is going to increase that a lot.
And are we going to become that bifurcated as a
country even more solidly? You're this or that kind of
(29:21):
state and you will just not live there if you're
this person or there. If you're that person, we're headed
in that direction. There's no doubt about that. Whether that
trend continues or strengthens. If I had to bet in
some sort of a weird compulsory casino, I would bet, yeah,
you're right, it is going to go further that way. Wow.
I I mean, I'm not arguing that the Supreme Court
(29:41):
shouldn't do Like Tim Sandiford brought up earlier. The Supreme
Court has got to decide these things based on, you know,
their view of how it fits in with the Constitution,
not how it affects society. Obviously that would never work
or how many people are going to get mad. You can't.
You can't do it that way. But man, Man becoming
more bifurcated as a country, where does that end up?
(30:03):
I don't know. I don't know either, with everybody getting
more and more tribal too. Oh, speaking of people moving
in and out of states, I continue to dig through
the data of that giant U haul. They study one
way rentals and the inflows and outflows of different states
and cities, And the more I look at it, the
more interesting it becomes to me. So maybe I'll will
share some of that with you in a couple of minutes. Yeah. Man,
(30:24):
There is a lot of strong talk flying around on
cable news and social media, as you would expect, all
on one topic. Well, it's kind of a shame that
yesterday the lefty media absolutely wet their pants over the
gun ruling because now their bladders are empty and they
would like to wet their pants over the abortion ruling.
(30:44):
But got to drink some more water or something. I
should have saved some Now. That is not analysis you're
getting anywhere else. We've got more on the way. Stay
with us, the Armstrong and Getty show care. The Court
(31:14):
is just saying, look, we got it wrong at the beginning.
It recognizes the sorry decisives is about preserving precedent, but
it says that doesn't mean that you can't overturn precedent. Well,
Brown v. Board of Education overturned, plusy there are other
cases that we decided are simply wrong. And that's what
they're saying today. The Supreme Court has overturned roversus Wig,
(31:35):
according to the Associated Press, by a five four decision.
Everywhere else says it's six three, So well, it's hard
to count to justices. They keep moving, keep moving around,
it seems to be sixty three. But anyway, the three
Trump justices on the majority side. What's it gonna mean
now that it goes back to the states. We'll take
a look at that to kick off our three of
(31:57):
the Armstrong and Getty Show. Indeed, yes, I have poured
through the laws of all fifty states during the commercial
wow and have come up with that answer. And or
I came across an article that had a list, so
speaking of list, and yes, we will kick off the
next hour with that. It's pretty damned interesting. There are
definitely some places no more abortion period till further notice. Interesting. Yeah,
(32:21):
so Jack just posed an excellent question. The bifurcated polarized,
the tribal nature of America. People want to move to
a red state or a blue state, and they wouldn't
even consider moving to the other one, at least in
some cases. And would that trend just continue and continue
till I mean, it's just we got twenty five red
(32:42):
states and twenty five blue states or whatever it ends
up in It's difficult to answer that question. There's definitely
some of that going on. But as I look at
you haul's growth index, in which they measure the number
one way rentals in and out of states. Yeah, it's imperfect,
but it's about as it as anything. Uh there's one.
(33:02):
There are a couple of trends that that I want
to point out that may weaken that argument a little bit.
But first, it's interesting that your top five inflow states
are leading up to number one Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida,
and Texas. That's where the people are going, right, Is
(33:23):
that because the several of the most populated states are
blue states? Is that why? I mean? Is that how
the math works on that? Uh? No, No, it's it's
a question. It's like your approval rating being upside down.
So it's it's it's the difference between inflow and outflow
that gets you the ranking. All right, I get that,
the ratio, but why is it all what it appears
(33:46):
to all be red states? You know, there's been a
boom in the southeast. Everybody knows that for various reasons,
in the Sun Belt and stuff. And then look at me,
assuming that it's a political thing. Maybe I shouldn't be
assuming that, Well, they are all red states. Number six
is Indiana, seven's Colorado, which is very purple, but they're
primarily red states. New Mexico at number ten's an exception.
(34:09):
The top five outflow states are well, I'll go six
because New York is a sixth. Alabama, which is the
loan standout in the outflow states, very weird, a red
southeastern state in with a big outflow. But then it's Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
(34:29):
and California number one outflow states. All of those except
Alabama blue high tax states. What that means, I'll let
you figure out. But here are your top inflow cities
metro areas, and I'll just count down. Number one is Kissimi,
(34:51):
Saint Cloud, Florida. Number two is Raleigh, Durham, North Carolina.
And then I'm just gonna give you the states. Florida, Florida, Wisconsin,
Madison kind of an outlier, then Florida, Texas, Roseville, California,
that of an outlier. Then Florida, Florida, Florida, San Diego, Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, Texas,
(35:12):
South Carolina, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, etc. It's just
it's just occurred to me that I've had three conversations
this week, three different people mentioning job opportunities they would
not take because of the state they were in. That
is just a new thing ladies in general. Yeah, oh yeah,
I've never given it a seconds thought. No, no, never
(35:35):
had in my life. Maybe I would now, I don't know,
but nobody ever did before. If you heard somebody got
a job, all I heard you got a job. Yeah, yeah,
we're moving to Colorado or whatever the state is, nobody'd
have thought, oh, good luck there because of something you
heard about the governor or something. I mean, that's this
is all new. Yeah, and I'm not sure it's good.
I guarantee you it's not. But I don't know that.
(35:58):
At the same time, though, I mean if for instances,
I've often said, you know, in the national media always
misses this about the outflow from California. When they admit
it's happening, they say, well, it's the high cost of
living in the traffic or whatever, and all those things
are true. But a lot of it is like when
Gavin Newsom says We're gonna be the new Disneyland of abortion.
(36:20):
Everybody can get an abortion. Everybody should come to California
and get an abortion on demand up till the kid's
five years old. We're gonna pay for the flights exactly.
Even if you're an undocumented alien, we're gonna give you
an abortion. A lot of people are like, I don't
want to be party to that. The state has swung
culturally and politically so far left. People think no, not
(36:40):
for me, goodbye. I'm not paying my taxes to lunatics,
and so I don't know they're they're negatives, they're positives
to it. So Nancy Plosi, the Speaker of the House,
has said some pretty strong things about the Supreme Court
ruling that just came down this hour, overturning Roe versus. Wade. Also,
as it goes back to the states, about half the
(37:02):
states have some pretty strong restrictions on abortion. That will
be new. Joe is gonna list those for us and Nancy.
Nancy did not hold back. I hope she didn't say
anything irresponsible that will lead to more violence and anger. Boy,
oh boy, oh boy. These are some turbulent times we're in. Man. Wow,
it's the spicy times. Hey, if you didn't hear Tim
(37:23):
Sandiford talking about this when the news broke, it's damned interesting.
You can grab it and podcast form Armstrong and Getty
on demand Armstrong and Getty
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio and the George Washington
Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty Show.
And so what this ruling said today is that the
Second Amendment that gun rights cannot be treated as second
class rights by our government. But it also speaks to
(00:30):
a larger issue going on with the court. We had
for decades had a court that viewed itself as a
legislative body. If they wanted abortion to be legal, they
voted it in against the will of the people. And
this court that we have a strong majority on thanks
to three Trump appointees, is one that says it's not
really mattering what our personal views are. What matters is
what the Constitution says and what is legal and constitutional.
(00:52):
And so you're seeing that reflected in all sorts of
decisions going forward. That's Molly Hemmingway a yesterday commenting on
the Supreme Court on the gun thing, which we're going
to talk about. But the Supreme Court is rolling out
decisions right now, right this moment, and the abortion thing
could come out while we're talking to Tim, and it'll
blow up everything. Yapes. Tim Sanderford is the vice president
(01:14):
for litigation at the Goldwater Institute, author of a number
of fabulous books. Just yesterday we're discussing the Permission Society.
Tim welcome, How are you hey? I'm just great, Thanks
for having me back. Do you have any idea how
the Supreme Court decides how the Rolling those out. I mean, like,
would they have two big ones back to back or
do they try not to do that the Avenue No,
they definitely would do that. They try to release their
(01:35):
most controversial opinions right before they go off on vacation,
and they go off on vacation around July fourth, so
they usually do postpone the more controversial cases to the
very last day, which is usually before the Joy podcast.
You asked him, I know you actually went to law
school and everything. But let me stip in here, it's
just like a band. They open up with one of
their big songs. Everybody gets excited than the middle stuff
(01:56):
is from the new album. Everybody goes to get a beer,
but then they think is big with that hit you
just headed here? So they actually they actually got the
idea from the Rolling Stones that John Marshall said, you know,
I really like the way this young Mick guy does stuff. Right,
and so you wouldn't be expecting the abortion ruling until
till later. Then that's right, But who knows, right. So
(02:21):
let's talk about the big gun rights ruling yesterday. First,
would you like to explain to people briefly what was decided,
and then we'll get into you know, what it means
and the reactions to it. So this case involved a
New York law that said that you could only have
a firearm for self defense outside the home if you
showed a special need for that. You had to show
some sort of unique need to have this firearm. What
(02:45):
does that exactly mean? It basically means whatever the government
says it needs. And that's the big problem with these
kinds of permit requirements. And that's why it's relevant to
the Permission Society book that you mentioned before, because this
is something we find not just in gun rights, but
in building permits, in issues about free speech and everything.
The government routinely takes your rights away from you and
(03:08):
then says, if you want your rights back, you have
to do what we say in the form of a permit.
And so that's what New York said is they said, well,
we're not going to let anybody have firearms unless you
prove that you have a unique need. And at one
point in the case, Justice Alito said, well, suppose somebody
came to the government and said, I'm worried because there
have been a lot of muggings in my neighborhood, so
I would really like to be able to possess a firearm.
(03:29):
Would that be good enough? And the government said no.
So the Supreme Court said, that's unconstitutional. If people have
a rights to possess a firearm, they have a right
to possess a firearm. You can't just say that it's
a right but turn it into a privilege or a
permission in this way, because we don't do that to
other kinds of constitutional right, all right. And the reality
and the ground, of course, was, since it's a county
sheriff by county sheriff decision, you'd have I live in
(03:52):
a county where they're never going to give out a permit,
and next door you got a county where they'll give
it to pretty much anybody who asks. And that's a
ridiculous way to do right. That's right, and really only,
as Justice Alito pointed out in his separate opinion in
this case, or Justice Cabinet, I guess it was. There's
not that many states that explicitly say just you know,
whenever the government feels like it, we're going to give
(04:14):
out these permits. Many states have shall issue laws which
say you have to show objective criteria. You have to
show you don't have a criminal history, you have to
show that you have some kind of training or whatever
it might be. And the objective criteria. That's good enough
because then you know what is required of you in
order to go to permit. But when the government says, well,
(04:34):
we will give it to you for good cause, or
we'll give you this right if you're a good citizen
or something, I mean, it's just a recipe for reviews.
That's an ability that gives the bureaucrats the ability to
dictate what you do in order to get your rights back.
Do you have any comment on what may be the
dopiest thing ever said on any topic, Governor Hokel of
(04:55):
New York saying the First Amendment is regulated, but now
we have no regulations on the Second Amendment. Yeah, well,
it's I really wish, you know, I have a dream,
my dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a
little dream. Is that people would actually read the opinions
that the Supreme Court puts out. I mean, there's a
reason why they write these opinions. It's so that people
(05:17):
can actually read them and decide for themselves. It's not
that hard to go to Supreme Court dot gov and
you click on opinions and you could read the opinion.
And Justice Thomas points out in the opinion that in fact,
the First Amendment is not governed by these kinds of
good cause or special need requirements. Quite the opposite. The
government could never impose it's never constitutional for the government
(05:38):
to impose one of these unique need or special need
requirements on the First Amendment. But the governor saying is
the exact reverse of the truth, which is, no, the
First Amendment is a real right. The government can't take
that right away except in extremely rare circumstances. And the
same ought to be true of guns. And Justice Thomas
says this in the opinion. But the governor, obviously, I'm
sure it was too busy to have time to actually
(05:58):
read what he was talking about. Clarence Well, And furthermore,
in terms of its wrongness on the other end of it,
there are still many, many regulations about who can own
what gun and what circumstance. So she was just whipped
on both ends of the question. Yeah, Clarence Thomas wrote
the winning opinion there, and you tweeted out and we
read it yesterday that you think Justice Clarence Thomas is
(06:20):
almost consequential justice of like the last half century, which
I thought was interesting. Definitely, Justice Thomas. Now I don't
agree with him on everything. In fact, I would say
I disagreed him about half the time. But he is
an extremely sharp judge, and during his time on the court,
what he's done is he's forced the other justices to
deal with ideas that they used to ignore. And the
(06:43):
big one, of course, is originalism. That is, what was
it that the founding fathers thought they were doing when
they wrote these constitutional provisions. Before Thomas was on the bench,
there were a few judges that would, you know, Justice
Schoolia would talk about that sometimes, as as Renklist to
talk about this sometimes. But when Thomas got on the court,
he brought such an intellectual rigor to this that now
(07:04):
all of the justices are having to address that, even
if they don't agree with him on something, that he
has forced them to talk about what the Founding Fathers thought,
what the history of these pauses are. And you know,
to be frank, one reason why people don't read these
opinions is because they go into such detail about the history.
I mean, Justice Thomas is talking about what happened in
the Middle Ages. He's talking about seventeenth century law and stuff.
(07:27):
It's incredible and that is something that I think the
history books will really see him as a pioneer when
it comes to that. Well, since you brought up originalism,
and we brought up the Governor of New York, she
said this yesterday, and I would like to point out
to the Supreme Court justices that the only weapons at
that time were muskets. I'm tire to go back to muskets.
What were the Founding Fathers talking about the originalism of
(07:50):
the talking about the Second Amendment? Once again, the Governor
should read what she's talking about. Because the Court responded
to that point in the opinion and they said, you know,
the First Amendment governs cell phones and radio and television,
which didn't exist when the Founding Fathers were around, and
for exactly the same reason, the Second Amendment also governs
weapons with today's technology, what the founding fathers did was
(08:13):
they created a government with certain principles involved. They didn't
write a list and say, okay, well you can help.
Old breaking news, breaking news. The Supreme Court has overturned
Roll versus Wade. Oh, here we go, here we go,
Here we go, ladies and gentlemen, I got this piece
of paper in front of me. Oh boy, US braces
for violence against conservatives pro life groups with Supreme Courts
abortion ruling. That's from the Washington Times, So that that
(08:38):
is what will be on a lot of people's mind.
Any breaking news thoughts on this ruling. Tim, here's the
one as well. Two things, First, please read the opinion
before forming what your own opinion about about the what
it says. And second, remember that you're going to hear
a lot of talk today and yesterday and tomorrow about
the undemocratic nature of the court. Oh, the court is
(09:01):
enforcing its will instead of the voters, and what does
the public sinking? But that is the kind of thing
that people say when they lose a case, and most
of the time it's nonsense. The court's job is to
interpret the law, and that is very undemocratic sometimes because
the majority just wants to do what it wants, and
(09:21):
the tyranny of the majority is what happens as a
result of that. And so we write a law to
control what the majority can do, to limit the majority's power,
and the majority very often wants to ignore the law
and do whatever it feels like. And when a judge
steps in and says no, I'm sorry, majority of voters,
you have to obey the law. You have to follow
the law, that is always going to be accused of
(09:42):
being undemocratic. Let me read a time. The barrier we
have protecting us against the tyranny of the majority is
the law. So please don't say undemocratic, undemocratic, undemocrat. Let
me read a quick line here held the Constitution does
not confer a right to abortion. Row and Casey are overruled,
and the authority to regulate abortion is earned to the
people and their elected representatives. It's a pretty good description.
(10:05):
Oh yeah, that is a pretty good description. I think
that will be a loss in a bit of the
discussion today. Tim Sanderford is on the line, vice president
for Litigation for the Goldwater Institute. Sorry, Tim, go ahead.
That means that the power goes to the states. The
question of the constitutionality of abortion goes to the states,
and state constitutions often protect abortion rights anyway. So, for example,
(10:25):
the Kansas Supreme Court two or three years ago issued
a decision saying the right to an abortion is already
guaranteed by the Kansas Constitution, So it doesn't matter whether
the Supreme Court says there is or is not a
federal right. California's constitution protects privacy rights and so forth.
The many states already have these protections in place. Now,
whether that's good enough or not, that's a discussion to have,
(10:46):
whether there should be perhaps the Constitution should be amended
or something. But one thing to keep in mind is
this does not ban abortion across the nation. It means
it falls to the states, and you can amend your
constitutions to protect these rights. Here's a pretty big deal, though,
isn't it. Oh, very big deal. But it's also something
that we've seen coming for many, many years, right, So
(11:07):
I don't know, Tim, can you hang around for another segment? Yeah?
This is this is a like we just said, this
is a very big deal. Yeah, And I don't want
to rush through my next question or two. I'm flipping
around in my news sources. I feel like I'm in
a time warp or I've lost my mind or something.
The wapos, the Washington Post lead story is still US
monkey pox response ners early coronavirus missteps. Yeah, they've they've
(11:30):
missed the breaking news that the Supreme Court has overturned
Row versus Wade. More with our favorite constitutional scholar, Tim
Sanderfer coming up next Armstrong and The Armstrong and Getty Show.
(11:57):
We had our friend Tim Sanderfer on to talk about
the gun ruling. And while we're talking about him about it,
the ruling comes down from the Supreme Court that they
have overturned Row versus Wade. The headlines and some of
your newspapers are interesting the way they word it. For instance,
in the New York Times, the decision eliminating the constitutional
right to an abortion, which is true, that is what
(12:22):
it says here, although but it never is constitutional right
to an abortion should be in quotes well, right, it's
because the what the majority said is there never was
a constitutional right. That's what that's that's what they're saying.
It's six three decision, all three of Trump's lawyers voting
in the majority, and there you have it. The Justices. Yeah,
Tim Sanderford, vice president for Litigation the Goldwater Institute, rejoins us, Tim,
(12:44):
thanks for hanging around. Sure, I'm from So. I was
reading hungrily as much of the decision as I could
during the commercial break, then glanced down realized it's two
hundred and thirteen pages, so to say, I didn't finish it.
But so, what was the underpinning of Roe v. Wade
and why is it now being unpinned? So what happened
(13:08):
was the Supreme Court has said since well, actually, this
is an idea that has been around since the twelfth century,
actually that there are certain basic principles that distinguish a
law from an arbitrary government action a genuine law, which
is a legitimate government action. That's something that is rational.
(13:28):
It applies to everybody, it doesn't it's not just a
command to a particulate person. It makes sense, it's not
just gibberish. And there's these basic elements, philosophical elements that
make something into a law. And that means that the
government cannot just arbitrarily do whatever it feels like to you,
because the government is required to respect due process of law.
(13:49):
And that idea is called substantive due process. It means
that there are certain basic things government can never do
to you, and one of those things is intrude on
your privacy without good reason. And in a case called
Griswold way back in the day, the Supreme Court said,
there's a right to privacy that says there are certain
truly intimate things that are so intimate that the government
(14:12):
can never legitimately intrude in that sphere. And so, based
on the Griswold case, in Row versus Way in the
nineteen seventies, the Supreme Court said that also protects a
woman's right to decide herself whether to have an abortion
or not within certain boundaries. Roe said during the first
three months, then it said, during the second three months,
the state can come in and regulate certain things about abortion.
During the third three months, the government can impose very
(14:34):
severe restrictions on abortion. And so since then, that was
in the seventies. In the past half century, the Court's
kind of elaborated on that, and it's basically drawn very
strict lines protecting this right at very strongly against government interference.
And that, of course has upset a lot of conservatives
who think that this is an illegitimate right. And so
(14:56):
what today's opinion does is it says that right is
not one of the rights, is so intimate the government
has no business dealing with it. Just as Thomas goes
further and just giving his opinion here, I see he
says we should get rid of this entire idea of
substantive due process. And I'll be frank that is such
an extreme and dangerous proposition that I think we would
(15:17):
be we should all be very strongly opposed to getting
rid of this truly fundamental protection for individual liberty. I'm
not talking about abortion, I'm talking about substantive due process,
which is the oldest and most important of all of
our constitutional right. That's a truly extreme proposition, and it's
a good thing that nobody else goes along with him
on that point. Instead, this decision says this is not
(15:40):
something that the federal Constitution protects. It's something that's left
to the states to decide. And each state can decide
in its own constitution whether protect this right or not.
And according to New York Times, it will lead to
all but a total ban on the procedure and about
half the states. I think that overstates it will look
into that more coming up. But you're you're a lawyer,
you're not a cultural historian or whatever. But the respect
(16:04):
for the Supreme Court has been dropping as it's been
seen more of more is a political thing than it's
ever been seen, at least in my lifetime. Are you
concerned that this contributes to that this case, Yeah, a
little bit, I suppose, But I'm I'm kind of lause
about the whole legitimacy of the Supreme Court thing, because
in my mind, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court depends
(16:24):
on the correctness of its decisions. And we can run
around trying to dress it up in all different ways
and and say, oh, well, we have to respect the court,
But truly, if the Supreme Court was run by crazy people,
then it doesn't deserve any respect regardless. And on the
other hand, if it's if it issues wise decisions, then
you don't need a whole bunch of ceremonial or ritualistic
(16:44):
talk about it's about its legitimacy and stuff like that.
So I'm not really concerned about that. The Supreme Court
is a bunch of lawyers that we the people hired
and gave them the job of protecting the Constitution against
us because we know as as voters, we know that
we sometimes go too far across the line, and so
we gave them the job of telling us when we've
(17:05):
gone too far, like when you give your friend your
car keys when you go to the bar and Tim
Sanders Tim, sorry to jump in, Tim Sanderford the Goldwater Institute.
We're just up against a heartbreak. Well summarized. Great to
talk to you, fabulous Timing. Thanks for your time. Thanks guys, Yeah,
I really appreciate it. I mean, we couldn't have gotten
luckier than having Tim on when this big ruling comes down.
(17:26):
We've got more on the fallout of this, as you know,
everybody's tweeting and talking and making their comments and we'll see,
we'll weigh in on what people are having to say.
Some more of the majority opinion is pretty interesting. I'm
looking at what Alito said, So stay tuned for more
coming up on the show. If you missed now, I
gets the podcast Aren't Strong and Getty on demand and
(18:01):
the Armstrong and getting show. So this is what it
sounded like on CNN just a few minutes ago at
the time. And you know that that that's significant and um,
you know, we'll see where it goes. Stand By Jeffrey,
(18:22):
we do have breaking news just into CNN. The Supreme
Court has just issued and this is the decision many
we're waiting for ruling in Dabbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization.
This the major case regarding abortion rights in this country.
Jeffrey Tubin still with us here as we wait to
read this decision. Jeffrey put into context how consequential this is.
(18:46):
Psychologists have a term visual on this is good because
they're all wide eyed and everybody's like trying to talk
while they look through papers because they don't want to
state what happened because they've been wrong before, right remember,
and they're being yelled at in their earpieces as well. Yeah,
constitutional aboard, it's in their ears right now. I guarantee
you that it's been overturned. It's been overturned, but they
don't want to say it, yeah, because they got it
(19:07):
wrong on was it gay married Joe? Obamacare? But one
of one's right to choose abortion. I want to see
if they get it correcting until the moment of n
put it back in your pants and say it out
love as they reaffirmed that many times away, and I
was showing the crowd outside the Supreme Court is just
going nuts out a case a case are your people now?
(19:27):
The Dob's case involving or Mississippi UM is a case
about whether abortion rights will be will continue under the
United States Constitution. UM. Let me cut ahead an important moment,
So Jeffrey standby, want to get straight to our Jessica
Schneider outside the court hot with our Jessica Poppy and Jim.
(19:54):
The Court issuing that landmark ruling that this nation has
been bracing for, and the Supreme Court ha has overturned
Roe v. Wade that they have eliminated the constitutional rights
to an abortion. And at first glance, this opinion is
very similar to that draft opinion. So there you go.
And it's interesting the language a lot of people are using,
eliminated the constitutional right. What the justices are saying is
(20:16):
there never was a constitutional right. You know, what they're
saying is not inaccurate, but so part of the majority opinion.
This is from Justice Alito who wrote it. Row was
egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak,
and the decision has had damaging consequences. This is the
(20:37):
part that I like that I think is really interesting
and far from bringing about a national settlement of the
abortion issue, Rowan Casey have inflamed debate and deepened division.
This is the argument that a lot of people, David
French and the Dispatch has been making for years. Doing
away with Roe versus Wade is going to settle down
our politics, not inflame it. I'll be interested to see
(20:58):
if that interested to see if that plays out the
way they predict that. But a lot of the whole
fighting over the Supreme Court. Every time there's an opening
the Supreme Court, question number one, whether it's a democratic
president of Republican president, is what does this justice think
about Roe versus Wade? And they get that's the first
question they get asked, and the reviews of their answers
and everything I get, we'll take this out of the mix,
(21:20):
and does that calm things down? I don't know. Yeah,
I wouldn't decide a case on that basis, but it's
a really interesting political sociological question. So I'm reading the
decision written by Justice Alito, and it's actually very well
written and really interesting. Let me hit you with the
first part of it. Abortion presents a profound moral issue
(21:41):
on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently
that a human person comes into being at conception and
that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as
strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman's right
to control her own body and prevents women from achieving
full equality. I think that's a very fair stature of
those two. Still, others in a third group think that
(22:02):
abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances,
and those within this group hold a variety of views
about the particular restrictions that should be imposed. For the
first one hundred and eighty five years after the adoption
of the Constitution, each state was permitted to address this
issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then,
in nineteen seventy three, this Court decided Roe v. Wade.
Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the
(22:24):
court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.
It did not claim that American law or the common
law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey
of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant. Like its discussion
of abortion in antiquity to the plainly incorrect, for instance,
its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under
the common law. After cataloging a wealth of other information
(22:46):
having no bearing upon the meaning of the Constitution, the
opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules, much like
those that might be found in a statute enacted by
a legislature. I'm going to jump off the text here
and point out not many people have read Rowe Vwade
the decision or understand that the decision is very much
like a set of laws, as Alito describes. Under this scheme,
(23:11):
each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most
critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the
second trimester, which at the time corresponded to the point
at which a fetus was thought to achieve viability, or
the ability to survive outside the womb. Although the court
acknowledged that states had a legitimate interest in protecting potential life,
it found that this interest could not justify any restriction
(23:32):
on pre viability abortions. The court did not explain the
basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found
it hard to defend Roe's reasoning. One prominent constitutional scholar
wrote that he would vote for a statute very much
like the one the court ended up at if he
were a legislator. But his assessment of Rowe was memorable
and brutal. Rowe was not constitutional law at all and
(23:55):
gave quote, almost no sense of an obligation to try
to be UM. And then he goes into a fair
amount of analysis of the Row decision and very carefully
and in great detail, picks apart it's reasoning and how
it doesn't make any sense really, and this clearly ought
(24:17):
to be something that the states decide. In short, right,
I'm looking at this um tweet from a right wing
pundit you don't know, UM saying you're going to hear
somewhere near zero legal arguments today about why Row should
have been upheld. You aren't you, And you don't hear
that very much. The legal reasoning why Roe is correct.
(24:39):
You hear a lot of it's a woman's body, she
should decide. Men shouldn't decide all that sort of stuff,
and maybe agree with that completely, but that's not the
same as the legal reasoning why Row should stay. Yeah. Right,
And it's interesting because part of the legal reasoning is
that if a right and I hope I'm summarizing this well. Um,
(25:04):
if a right is not specifically mentioned in the constitution,
you have to look to tradition and the history of
the country and whether it's been a recognized right, that
sort of thing before you just elevate, you know, the
right to skateboard as a constitutional right, for instance, or
(25:25):
the right to roll around on any wheeled implement I guess.
And they just said there is nothing in the country's
history or the tradition of common law or anything like
that that suggests this is a fundamental right, especially given
the balance of rights of the woman allowed, you know,
just to oversimplify it, the woman and the fetus. So
(25:46):
it's worth reading. It's it's interesting, it's long. So a
couple of things I suppose we had to point out. Well, um,
the things we had to point out, we'll mention after this,
after we tell you about simply safe. With a rising
crime all across the country, people's perception is that crime
is rising. You know why, because crime is rising, and
it might be a good time if you've never had
one before, to get a security system for your home,
(26:07):
and the best one out there, we think, and a
lot of people think, is simply safe. Yeah, one more
common actually on that topic, there are various news organizations
that will tell you, you know, crime rates are actually
not up. That's because there is so much property crime
and the cops know that the people won't be prosecuted
(26:27):
because of some of the woke DA's nobody even reports it.
Property crime is all over the place anyway. Simply Save
Home security the best home security system you can have
to protect you not only against intruders and burglaries, but
also fires and floods. And it's less than a dollar
a day, and there are no long term contracts you
get locked into a year or two, like pretty much
(26:49):
every other security system that exists out there. And they
call it simply safe because it's simply to set up.
You set it up yourself in about thirty minutes. It's
simple to use, you'll actually use it, and you customize
it to your needs to it simply safe dot com
slash armstrong distakes a few minutes. Simply safe dot com
slash armstrong go to day claim of free indoor security
camera plus twenty percent off with interactive monitoring. Go to
(27:09):
simply safe dot com slash armstrong. It will be says
the New York Times one of the signal legacies of
President Donald J. Trump, who vowed to name justices who
would overrule Row. All three of his appointees were in
the majority in the six three ruling today that did
overturn Row versus Way. Now the headline, I'm seeing a
lot of places, as The New York Times says, it
(27:30):
will lead to all but total bands on the procedure
and about half of the states. I don't claim to
know what all the states are planning to do now
that it is a state decision on abortion, but I
do know this that it's going to be portrayed as
a horror that a lot of states are going to
(27:53):
go to where the point where a lot of American
people are that it's okay in the first trimester, but
I don't dig it after that. And that's where the
vast majority of Democrats and Republicans are on the issue.
Right Yeah. The Wall Street Journal puts it like this.
Almost half the states have laws in place or at
the ready to curtail or outlaw abortion if rov Wade
(28:14):
is overturned, while others have laws that would preserve its legality.
There are a big handful I think it might be
in the low teens, but don't quote me on this
that are going to flat outlaw abortion. That is true,
but the half ruling will include quite a few that were,
like Jack described, just restrict second trimester abortions. Especially. I'm
(28:37):
more of a you know, analyzing culture than I am
a lawyer, So I just wonder what this is going
to do to our culture. We're already in this weird
point where I have heard people say, well, we know
people are moving to states based on the politics. I've
heard people say, who are looking for jobs, Yeah, I
got offered a job in Florida, but I'm not going
to go there, or Texas, or I'm not gonna go there,
(28:57):
or the or the other side the other way around.
And well, which wasn't a thing very many years ago
that you would turn down a job opportunity because of
the States politics. You wouldn't even have known what the
States politics were not very many years ago. And I
feel like that this is going to increase that a lot.
And are we going to become that bifurcated as a
country even more solidly? You're this or that kind of
(29:21):
state and you will just not live there if you're
this person or there. If you're that person, we're headed
in that direction. There's no doubt about that. Whether that
trend continues or strengthens. If I had to bet in
some sort of a weird compulsory casino, I would bet, yeah,
you're right, it is going to go further that way. Wow.
I I mean, I'm not arguing that the Supreme Court
(29:41):
shouldn't do Like Tim Sandiford brought up earlier. The Supreme
Court has got to decide these things based on, you know,
their view of how it fits in with the Constitution,
not how it affects society. Obviously that would never work
or how many people are going to get mad. You can't.
You can't do it that way. But man, Man becoming
more bifurcated as a country, where does that end up?
(30:03):
I don't know. I don't know either, with everybody getting
more and more tribal too. Oh, speaking of people moving
in and out of states, I continue to dig through
the data of that giant U haul. They study one
way rentals and the inflows and outflows of different states
and cities, And the more I look at it, the
more interesting it becomes to me. So maybe I'll will
share some of that with you in a couple of minutes. Yeah. Man,
(30:24):
There is a lot of strong talk flying around on
cable news and social media, as you would expect, all
on one topic. Well, it's kind of a shame that
yesterday the lefty media absolutely wet their pants over the
gun ruling because now their bladders are empty and they
would like to wet their pants over the abortion ruling.
(30:44):
But got to drink some more water or something. I
should have saved some Now. That is not analysis you're
getting anywhere else. We've got more on the way. Stay
with us, the Armstrong and Getty show care. The Court
(31:14):
is just saying, look, we got it wrong at the beginning.
It recognizes the sorry decisives is about preserving precedent, but
it says that doesn't mean that you can't overturn precedent. Well,
Brown v. Board of Education overturned, plusy there are other
cases that we decided are simply wrong. And that's what
they're saying today. The Supreme Court has overturned roversus Wig,
(31:35):
according to the Associated Press, by a five four decision.
Everywhere else says it's six three, So well, it's hard
to count to justices. They keep moving, keep moving around,
it seems to be sixty three. But anyway, the three
Trump justices on the majority side. What's it gonna mean
now that it goes back to the states. We'll take
a look at that to kick off our three of
(31:57):
the Armstrong and Getty Show. Indeed, yes, I have poured
through the laws of all fifty states during the commercial
wow and have come up with that answer. And or
I came across an article that had a list, so
speaking of list, and yes, we will kick off the
next hour with that. It's pretty damned interesting. There are
definitely some places no more abortion period till further notice. Interesting. Yeah,
(32:21):
so Jack just posed an excellent question. The bifurcated polarized,
the tribal nature of America. People want to move to
a red state or a blue state, and they wouldn't
even consider moving to the other one, at least in
some cases. And would that trend just continue and continue
till I mean, it's just we got twenty five red
(32:42):
states and twenty five blue states or whatever it ends
up in It's difficult to answer that question. There's definitely
some of that going on. But as I look at
you haul's growth index, in which they measure the number
one way rentals in and out of states. Yeah, it's imperfect,
but it's about as it as anything. Uh there's one.
(33:02):
There are a couple of trends that that I want
to point out that may weaken that argument a little bit.
But first, it's interesting that your top five inflow states
are leading up to number one Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida,
and Texas. That's where the people are going, right, Is
(33:23):
that because the several of the most populated states are
blue states? Is that why? I mean? Is that how
the math works on that? Uh? No, No, it's it's
a question. It's like your approval rating being upside down.
So it's it's it's the difference between inflow and outflow
that gets you the ranking. All right, I get that,
the ratio, but why is it all what it appears
(33:46):
to all be red states? You know, there's been a
boom in the southeast. Everybody knows that for various reasons,
in the Sun Belt and stuff. And then look at me,
assuming that it's a political thing. Maybe I shouldn't be
assuming that, Well, they are all red states. Number six
is Indiana, seven's Colorado, which is very purple, but they're
primarily red states. New Mexico at number ten's an exception.
(34:09):
The top five outflow states are well, I'll go six
because New York is a sixth. Alabama, which is the
loan standout in the outflow states, very weird, a red
southeastern state in with a big outflow. But then it's Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
(34:29):
and California number one outflow states. All of those except
Alabama blue high tax states. What that means, I'll let
you figure out. But here are your top inflow cities
metro areas, and I'll just count down. Number one is Kissimi,
(34:51):
Saint Cloud, Florida. Number two is Raleigh, Durham, North Carolina.
And then I'm just gonna give you the states. Florida, Florida, Wisconsin,
Madison kind of an outlier, then Florida, Texas, Roseville, California,
that of an outlier. Then Florida, Florida, Florida, San Diego, Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, Texas,
(35:12):
South Carolina, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, etc. It's just
it's just occurred to me that I've had three conversations
this week, three different people mentioning job opportunities they would
not take because of the state they were in. That
is just a new thing ladies in general. Yeah, oh yeah,
I've never given it a seconds thought. No, no, never
(35:35):
had in my life. Maybe I would now, I don't know,
but nobody ever did before. If you heard somebody got
a job, all I heard you got a job. Yeah, yeah,
we're moving to Colorado or whatever the state is, nobody'd
have thought, oh, good luck there because of something you
heard about the governor or something. I mean, that's this
is all new. Yeah, and I'm not sure it's good.
I guarantee you it's not. But I don't know that.
(35:58):
At the same time, though, I mean if for instances,
I've often said, you know, in the national media always
misses this about the outflow from California. When they admit
it's happening, they say, well, it's the high cost of
living in the traffic or whatever, and all those things
are true. But a lot of it is like when
Gavin Newsom says We're gonna be the new Disneyland of abortion.
(36:20):
Everybody can get an abortion. Everybody should come to California
and get an abortion on demand up till the kid's
five years old. We're gonna pay for the flights exactly.
Even if you're an undocumented alien, we're gonna give you
an abortion. A lot of people are like, I don't
want to be party to that. The state has swung
culturally and politically so far left. People think no, not
(36:40):
for me, goodbye. I'm not paying my taxes to lunatics,
and so I don't know they're they're negatives, they're positives
to it. So Nancy Plosi, the Speaker of the House,
has said some pretty strong things about the Supreme Court
ruling that just came down this hour, overturning Roe versus. Wade. Also,
as it goes back to the states, about half the
(37:02):
states have some pretty strong restrictions on abortion. That will
be new. Joe is gonna list those for us and Nancy.
Nancy did not hold back. I hope she didn't say
anything irresponsible that will lead to more violence and anger. Boy,
oh boy, oh boy. These are some turbulent times we're in. Man. Wow,
it's the spicy times. Hey, if you didn't hear Tim
(37:23):
Sandiford talking about this when the news broke, it's damned interesting.
You can grab it and podcast form Armstrong and Getty
on demand Armstrong and Getty
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
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.