Judge Napolitano - Who cares what the government thinks?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Time for the weather.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Dine.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
First, one of what the forecast tells us today is
going to be a sunny day going up to fifty four,
down to thirty five overnight clear, put some frost Tomorrow
sunny and sixty two more frost overnight Thursday with clear
skies in a little thirty seven and then a sunny
Friday with IM sixty eight. It is thirty seven right
now here. For the Buck care Seaton talk station, Chuck Ingram,
what's going on.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
With traffic from the UCL Tramphics Center. Mammogram saved Vive's
called five one three five eight four pink. It's because
of your annual mammogram with you see hewsanks per team.
That's five one three, five to eight four pink. Cruise
continue to work for the Rex Seth Band. Seventy five
neer seventh left wing block heading into downtown traffic packing
up pass toppole. You're in for an extra twenty minutes

(00:47):
through the block when split into the town in Bend.
Seventy four, there's an accident near Montana right hand side
and slow traffic northbound seventy one across the Jeremiah Morrow Bridge,
right lanes blocked up improved coming up next. It's just
hard to figure out which judge to root for when
you've got Aaron Judge, who has three RBIs on a

(01:08):
home run y last night, and then you had Mandy Judge, well, no,
I haven't seen her since college, and then our next guest,
so I guess you're gonna have to be the judge.
Now there's more choices, Chuck ingramon fifty five KRC, the
talk station.

Speaker 1 (01:25):
I can only pray whoever Mandy Judges. She was in
the listening audience when Ingram made that statement, you haven't
seen her since college. Judge entered Apolitano. One of my
favorite times of the week is my conversations with you,
my friend. Welcome back your honor.

Speaker 2 (01:40):
Thank you, Brian, and thank you for the generous comments
you made about our work together. It's an absolute pleasure
and it is one of my favorite times of the
week as well. And Aaron Judge did have quite an
evening last night, through which I slept because, like you
have to go to bed just after sundown. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
I know, it's a weird, weird hours that we work,
but it's all worth it because you know, I get
times like this to speak with you and absorb the
brilliance of your op ed piece, which my listeners will
be able to get tonight. Who cares what the government thinks?
You know, you and I obviously strong believers in our
First Amendment rights, which precedes the government, as you articulate

(02:20):
and spell out so well at the outset. But the
question then pivots over to something that I don't think
many people really have considered your point about whether the
government has the freedom of speech and can the government
articulate specific views and visions of life that and force
us to toe the line with what they have concluded.

(02:42):
Whoever they happen to be, is is right? And appointed
doubt stated differently the column headline, who cares what the
government thinks? Let's talk about this, your honor.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
You know, when I was a professor at Brooklyn Law School,
I was privileged to do a one on one program
with Justice Scalia. Now this was not a Fox program.
This was just me questioning him and him going back
at me in front of twenty five one hundred people
at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, and it was sponsored

(03:15):
by the law school. On the entire legal community was there.
He took the opposite view. He claimed that the government
does have the freedom of speech. It's got to tell
you things like twenty five miles an hour, this is
amend's room, this is a lady's room. And of course
everybody laughed because that's not what I was talking about.
What I'm talking about is when the government gets involved

(03:37):
in political speech and uses its political speech to dial
back the speech of those with whom it disagrees. And
what brought this to mind to mind was a very
little noticed story last week involving Elon Musk. I've written

(03:58):
by Elon Musk twice in one week. I mean, the
government stifled his freedom of speech when it served an
order on x formerly known as Twitter, for the contents
of Donald Trump's iPhone or mobile device. And Musk wanted
to tell Trump and the court said, no, you can't
talk about it in the Supreme Court refused to overturn that.

(04:20):
Again this week, he asked the California Coastal Commission, which
is an appointed body nominated by the governor, confirmed by
the state Senate, and it regulates the use of private property.
No surprise in California, so he needed permission from the
California Coastal Commission. To launch one of his spaceships from

(04:43):
his own launchpad on his own property, and in debating
whether or not to do that, two members of the commission,
there's only five of them, said, well, he uttered political
falsehoods about FEMA and Federalurgency Management Administration and about climate control,

(05:05):
and therefore we don't trust him, and therefore we're going
to vote against him. This is the government evaluating the
content of someone else's speech. This is the government advancing
its own version of speech and punishing the person with
whom it disagrees. Where there safety issues, no, whether mechanical issues, no,

(05:25):
whether engineering issues, no, it was just his politics that
prevented them from giving him the right to use his
property as he sees fit, which.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
Of course will provide him a vehicle to go to
court infringing on his First Amendment rights to utter whatever
Elon Musk wants to utter. Independent of again, safety issues.
This isn't a twenty five mile on hour speed and
we need those because children are around or crossing the
street or whatever. Understand that that's not a free speech issue.
It's a safety issue. This isn't anything like that. This

(05:56):
is simply saying no, Elon Musk we don't like you.
We don't like your political leanings. We don't like that
you support Trump. Now you can't engage in otherwise lawful activity.

Speaker 2 (06:08):
Well, i'll tell you what God under justice scaliest skin.
What I did to get under his skin. When we
were talking about this, knowing how Catholic he is and
how he studied aquinas as I did, and now he
understands natural rights, I threw that one liner that a
lot of professors throw at law students, not a brilliant

(06:30):
legal scholar like he was. If the States enacted ratified
an amendment to repeal the First Amendment, would we still
have the freedom of speech? And the answer is, well, yes,
of course we would. It's a natural right. It doesn't
come from the government. It comes to our humanity. And
he gave that answer, Well, how can the government have
a natural right. The government is an unnaturally existing creature

(06:53):
created by God. The government is something we've created to
protect our natural rights, and of course it ends up
taking them away from us. So he didn't want to
hear that. He looked at me and he goes, you're
a freak for the natural rights. This was a Friday afternoon.
By Monday, morning, there were coffee mugs all over the
law school that said, freak for them. I don't know

(07:14):
how the kids did this. Freak for the natural law.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
Oh, that's amazing.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
But my point is the freedom of speech, like the
other freedoms protected in the First Amendment, they don't come
from the Bill of Rights. They don't come from the government.
They come from our humanity. The Bill of Rights consists
of negative rights. It restrains the government from interfering with them.
If the government has those same rights and competes with us,

(07:43):
if the government can compete with individuals in the marketplace
of ideas, the government will always win.

Speaker 4 (07:49):
Its megaphone is louder. It has an army to back
up what it's going to say. It is profoundly unfair, unjust,
and illogical for the government to have the same free
speech rights as the rest of us. And when the
government does what this California Coastal Commission did, it is
the duty of the courts to invalidate it, and I expect.

Speaker 1 (08:11):
That they will indeed, and a most notably adding insult
to injury on your very point. There, they have that
huge army of folks that obviously outnumber maybe our individual
voices and can create this megaphone of a message, trumping
our nupun trumping our ability to get a message out.
But they do it on our money, our labor converted

(08:31):
into tax dollars gives them all the ammunition and ability
to suppress our message.

Speaker 2 (08:38):
Look at what the government coerced big tech into doing.
Suppress these ideas. Oh, it's unsafe. Bobby Kennedy is crazy.
When he says something about vaccines, you've got to suppress it. Ah,
But when the CDC says something about vaccines, you have
to push it up in your algorithm. Push it up

(08:58):
in your algorithm, will go easy on you. Don't suppress it,
and you're gonna have a swarm of government people looking
under every refrigerator in your headquarters. That's how the government operates,
with a carrent and with a stick to interfere with
the freedom of speech.

Speaker 1 (09:15):
I don't get too much of the details with the
Supreme Court. I believe it was just yesterday throughout a
ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas,
there was a citizen journalist. She was reporting on police
activity and border patrol activity. And she in reporting got
information and she went to the police department, had someone
inside the Laredo Police Department who verified the information she

(09:40):
was reporting on. They arrested her for working with that
internal source and reporting on that because some obscure law
says it's illegal to solicit non public information if the
person asking intended to benefit from it. Apparently the origins
of law were like insider trading. You know, you can't
get inside of training and benefited financially. They said that

(10:02):
her presence on Facebook might benefit from this reporting. Ergo,
it was illegal conduct as she wonted the original opinion,
but an unbound decision by the full phys ceror Court
of Appeals said no and absurdly. And this is one
of the reasons I wanted to get to this, and
pardon me being long winded about it. They're talking about

(10:22):
the mainstream media or valid standard journalism. Citizen journalists has
every bit as much of a right as someone who
graduated from law school with a journalism degree to say
what they want in any social media format or elsewhere.
Is this real journalist?

Speaker 2 (10:39):
What the government will do when it fears the truth?
This is what they said about Julian Assange. Well, he's
not a real journalist. He's not in the United States.
All he does is exposed is stolen secrets. Well, that's
what journalists do. This lady. Her journalism consists of posting
pieces on her her Facebook page. She has two hundred

(11:03):
thousand followers, which is more than any newspaper has in
the Laredo, Texas area. She sued the police. The trial
court threw it out. She appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
A three judge panel reinstated it. The government appealed to
the full Fifth Circuit. They threw it out. She appealed
to the Supreme Court, and they said, back to the

(11:24):
trial court for a trial. Who the heck are you
to arrest somebody because they asked you a question about
a matter of public interest. This is how horrific the
government can be when it fears the truth in the
exposure of what it's been up to.

Speaker 1 (11:43):
Well, in the latter seems to be the bigger problem
for those in government these days. Judge Anapolitano, brilliant as
always and force fighting hard for the to maintain and god.

Speaker 2 (11:55):
Government on this Your Bengals really took it to my
giants on much better. They played a much better game
than we did, and they deserved the victory.

Speaker 1 (12:05):
I don't know why I'm inclined to want to say
even a blind squirrel finds it not occasionally, but at
least we can say we have a victory under our
belts at this point, Judge, sorry, you came at the
expense of your team, but you know, we take what
we can get around here in Cincinnati. Now, let us
pivot over to judging freedom, your podcasts, and who you
and me talking to about.

Speaker 2 (12:25):
Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven o'clock this morning on the
latest in Ukraine where the government is just about to collapse,
hanging on until let's see how long do they have
to hang on till November sixth? And the latest in Israel?
Will the Israelis attack Iran because they can't do it

(12:49):
without American assistance? And Joe Biden doesn't seem to want
to start World War three until after November sixth?

Speaker 1 (12:56):
Yeah? Really? And the other thing, and I talked with
this earlier with I do it with there's something called
the Daniel Davis Deep Divers, the retired lieutenant colonel, and
I asked him about the Israel's interceptor missiles and I
observe and I think accurately, so he curse concurred with me.
They do have a finite supply of those, and they're really, really,

(13:17):
really expensive. And apparently the rebels, whether they're in Gaza
or in Lebanon, the terrorist organizations have hundreds of thousands
of rockets. So I was kind of wondering, at some
point won't the Israeli defense systems get exhausted with this
constant onslaught of rockets. Yes they will, Yes, they will,
Yes they will.

Speaker 2 (13:35):
And even what we sent the other day, where the
missles are that we sent are a million dollars each each,
we only sent forty eight of them. Now these things
have a dud at the head of them. They're not explosive.
What they do is they destroy an incoming missile and
the impact is what causes it to explode. So do

(13:58):
the math We sent the israelis forty eight, the other
side has tens of thousands.

Speaker 1 (14:06):
That's my take on the whole thing. It's yeah, it's
gonna be about it.

Speaker 2 (14:09):
I don't know where this is going to go. I mean,
the question I'm putting to Colonel mcgregors, can Israel survive
nets in Yahoo? Can it possibly survive all these wars,
no matter how much American aid we give them. The
other day, the Israelis attacked you and peacekeepers. That's a
war crime under international law. So this is going to
get worse before it gets better. But I don't think

(14:32):
there'll be anything dramatic again without sounding facetious, until after
election day.

Speaker 1 (14:38):
They'll keep their powder dry till after the election. That's
when it's all going to hit the fan. Most of
my listeners are all that mind. Jud Jenna Polatano. I
just think pleasure to have you on my program every week.
I look forward to it already for next Wednesday. God
bless you, sir. Have a wonderful, wonderful time between now
and then.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
Thank you, Brian. Right back at you.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
It's a forty two here, fifty five krs. The talk
station stick around. You feel free to call all phone
lines open five one, three, seven, four, nine, fifty five hundred,
eight hundred eighty two to three talk tun five fifty
on AT and T phones. I'll be back after these
brief words.

Speaker 4 (15:10):
Years of the United States have turned into months.

Speaker 3 (15:13):
Nomination for president.

Speaker 1 (15:14):
In two weeks.

Speaker 4 (15:16):
President today the most important day.

Speaker 2 (15:19):
Now, this is it the time for talk is over.

Speaker 3 (15:25):
Our big game.

Speaker 2 (15:26):
Big game game is here.

Speaker 4 (15:27):
Worth of the election world to play by play.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
Any battlegrounds, watching the swing.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
Stage and the final score the Electoral College votes. We're
gonna win.

Speaker 3 (15:37):
We will win.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
Fifty five KRC the talk station