← Federalist Radio Hour
Federalist Radio Hour
How Senate Republicans Can Save the SAVE America Act
00:42:51
On this edition of The Federalist Radio Hour, Vice President of Programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute and former Senate Legislative Director Rachel Bovard joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the path...
Loading summary
Transcript50 lines
- [00:01]
A
All new drinks are now at McDonald's with refreshers like the Strawberry Watermelon Refresher and the Mango Pineapple Refresher with Popping Boba to crafted sodas like the Sprite Berry Blast with berry flavors and cold foam. Who knew ice cold drinks could be so fire six? All new drinks are here now at McDonald's.
- [00:28]
B
Refreshers contain caffeine.
- [00:48]
A
We are back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior elections correspondent at the Federalist and your experience Sherpa on today's quest for knowledge. As always, you can email the show at radio the federalist.com follow us on XDRLST. Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast and of course, to the premium version of our website as well. Our guest today is Rachel Bovard, vice president of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute led by former representative and Senator Jim DeMint. Rachel has spent over a decade on Capitol Hill in various capacities in the House and Senate, including as legislative director to Senator Rand Paul. She most recently served as the executive director of the Senate Steering Committee, the caucus of conservative senators chaired by Senator Mike Lee. Rachel, thank you so much for joining us on this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
- [01:47]
B
Thanks so much for having me.
- [01:49]
A
There's so much to talk about. I've wanted to have you on the show for a long time. Obviously you have. I love your pieces at the Federalist and elsewhere. I know they appear in, in so many different publications trying to get the the word out, of course, about so many different things on the conservative policy front, I guess I want to begin with the biggest policy, the biggest bill that unfortunately the, the rhinos in the Senate don't want anything to do with. And that is a bill that 80% or more of American support, the Save America Act. We've seen this bill languishing in the Senate really since late February, March. What, what do you think the chances are? I guess given the latest not surprising revelations from one of the biggest rhinos, if not the biggest in in the Senate, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. Is there any hope left for this thing?
- [02:52]
B
Well, it does seem like the administration is making one final push, you know, to put this in context. You know, the bill has passed the House and there's been different versions of this bill. To be clear, there's been the SAVE act, now the Save America act, which is probably the one people are most familiar with, which does just two basic things. It says you must proof provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote and you must have a voter ID present to actually cast a vote in a federal election. Those two things are what that bill requires. And it's one of those things where people find this out, that this is in the bill and they're like, wait, this isn't already the law? And this is, it's a very common sense thing. Now, there's been various iterations of this bill which have included bans on mail in ballots. The President wanted additions on, you know, banning boys and girls, sports, all these different things. But the crux of the Save America act is, are those two policies and those that bill itself has received the support of at least 50 senators on the Republican side. So it has, you know, majority of the conference support. However, what the Senate Republican leadership will not do is to bring that bill to the floor, to have a full on floor process to try and pressure Democrats into voting to achieve Cloture, which is 60 votes, or use other novel procedural mechanisms available to them. Chief among them the talking filibuster, which is to exhaust Democrats and break a filibuster that way. And so, given that environment, the White House has said, look, President Trump wants this bill and he has proposed a last ditch effort in the third iteration of another reconciliation bill through the Congress, which people may be aware reconciliation is what's called privileged. It's a privileged vehicle in the Senate, so it cannot be filibustered. So it passes a, you don't have to invoke cloture on it, so it passes its simple majority. And so they're looking at different options to get that done. Now, in the past, people have used reconciliation as a way to, like, try to do something while doing nothing. But there's never actually been a concerted effort to put the Save America act with teeth, meaning, you know, a mandatory program to say to states, if you take this money, you must then do the requirements of the Save America Act. There's never actually been an effort to try to do that through reconciliation. So it seems like the White House is pretty bent on doing that. However, they will at some point run into the wall that is the United States Senate. But what's interesting about it this time is that, you know, previously Jonathan could have said, well, we just don't have 60 votes. We don't have 10 Democrats or seven Democrats that will cross over. Well, here he doesn't have that excuse. And the basic Save America ACT has received 50 votes of Senate Republicans. So there's not as many places for John Thune to hide this time around. I do think it's an uphill climb, but the White House has made it clear this is a priority. So it's a question of whether, you know, Senate Republicans are just going to sort of waste more floor time on crypto legislation or whatever it is that they're doing now, or they're going to try to do something that the president and the majority of their voters want to see.
- [05:54]
A
This is what I have come to understand in the ten year, as brief as it has been of John Thune as Senate majority leader. If there is a place to hide, he will find it, at least when it comes to the Save America act, as he said, done over and over again. We keep hearing from him, it's just a matter of simple math. We don't have the numbers. Yeah, you do have the numbers if you're willing to, to do something, if you're willing to work. So you're telling me, Rachel, though, that, that, that little effort they had there for what, a handful of days back in March where they were going to do the performative, we're going to keep the, this debate going until the Democrats break. And of course, then they stopped it and haven't been back to it. You don't think that was, that was enough to send a message to conservatives that the Senate's really working for you?
- [06:50]
B
Well, it goes back to this idea that no one has actually tried to pass this bill, not on the floor, not in reconciliation, not in any other mechanism. And this gets to the heart of really what's wrong with the Senate because they don't try and pass legislation anymore. They, they, you know, take a bill to the floor and they, there's a mechanism called cloture, which is meant to end debate in the Senate. They file cloture immediately to end debate before debate even starts. And they say, oh, we either have 60 or we don't, and then we just pack up and go home at the end. That is not what the Senate was designed for. Right. The Senate is a problem solving institution. So if you actually bring a bill to the floor, let the Senate deliberate. And what's so frustrating about this is because you have you mentioned, you know, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who wrote an op ed, you know, just a couple of days ago in Alaska, saying, well, I don't support the Safe America act because it has, it's going to have all these problems for Alaskans, rural Alaskans can't, you know, book a flight to present proof of citizenship to register to vote. She may have legitimate concerns with the way the bill is constructed the way to solve that is to offer an amendment on the floor. It is to work with your colleagues to try to get your concerns addressed, to then support the product that is negotiated. At the end of the day, that is what the Senate is designed to do and that is what conservatives have been asking for, actually try to pass the bill. You had Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer on day two of that debate, a thon that you mentioned in March. Day two, they said, oh well, we're not opposed to the voter ID part. Oh really? Has any Republican talked to them? Have they come up with some sort of consensus language? Have they proposed anything like this is the process of being a senator. This is the, this is when we say deliberation, this is what deliberation is. None of that has happened. And so that's why it's just so frustrating to watch Lisa Murkowski write an op ed saying I'm not supporting this bill when she's never actually tried to improve it. And you know, John Thune really hasn't, to be fair, given her a chance on the floor to try to improve it. So we just like to see a process to try and pass the bill.
- [08:45]
A
Yeah, I mean, and this is Lisa Murkowski being Lisa Murkowski. Of course, she's, she has made up her mind that she's not going to support it. I, I have heard a number of things. There's funding involved with this from campaign financers indirectly or, or, or what have you, from the folks like Bill Gates all in on the ranked choice voting. Of course, Lisa Murkowski benefited immensely from ranked choice voting. And that's what it's intended to do. It's to give you the, the most mealy mouthed version or it could give you, you know, a radical leftist when all is said and done. But what do you, what do you think, what do you make of Murkowski's arguments this time? That, Well, I, I like the idea of the Save America act, but it would disenfranch who would have to travel. It would cost them $1,000 by plane to get to their, their local voting sites. You mentioned that the Senate is a, supposed to be, it's supposed to be a deliberative body. Why doesn't she say, okay, well here's what I want to do. There are only six DMV offices in Alaska. I want some funding so that we can get more sites to these people who would have to travel at great length. I, I have a feeling that there would be a lot of Republicans. Yeah, I I get that. I understand that. What, what did you make of her argument?
- [10:09]
B
Lisa Murkowski represents Alaska very well. I have watched her closely over the course of my career, and she always, in every single bill, will hold out until something is given for the state of Alaska, whatever priority it is. I am very confident that if she were to propose something or something were to be proposed to her, like you mentioned, it's money or it's some kind of other Alaska specific accommodation that you could get Lisa Murkowski to the table. I do not think in this case her concerns are ideological, because they usually aren't. They usually are. And to give her the benefit of the doubt, that is her job, right. To represent as best as possible the unique concerns of the state of Alaska. I do think these things could be addressed. And again, this goes back to, like, my head pounding against the wall frustration with. This is how you pass a bill. Right. If. If what Lisa Brinkowski needs to get to vote yes on the Save America act is an Alaska specific accommodation of some kind of, great, let's talk about what it is. But instead, we don't legislate, we don't deliberate. We just sort of tweet at each other or write op eds. And the Senate continues to slide into dysfunction.
- [11:14]
A
Yeah. Well, without Lisa Murkowski, there are still 50 votes. There's still the vice President of the United States that could break a tie. So that begs the question, why not do this?
- [11:27]
B
Right? And I think, you know, it gets to this other issue that I think comes up in the Senate is if you are doing this outside of reconciliation, a floor process is grueling, Right. It takes time and it takes a lot of effort, especially if you're going the talking filibuster route, which is you're forcing the other party to stand up and speak to, you know, physically hold the floor to defend their opposition. That takes effort from the Republicans in addition, you know, to making the Democrats do that. And one thing we've seen from the modern Senate is that its allegiance, in many ways, it's to the comfort of its members. You know, The Senate works 2 1/2 days a week. They work Monday night through Thursday at noon. That's it. Any attempt to work outside those parameters, half the senators just won't show up. And, you know, it's not that they're at home with their feet up. A lot of them have fundraisers. They have, you know, codels. They have just every other priority in the world except for being on the Senate floor. And, and I honestly think if the Senate's going to function again, that calculation has to change. And, you know, John Thune hasn't really wanted to upset that apple cart. And so he really hasn't, you know, pressed the issue. But it's not just a John Thune problem. There are many members of the Republican conference that would balk at the idea of having to spend five days a week, nine to five, on the Senate floor.
- [12:45]
A
Indeed, they are not accustomed to it, as you say, and sometimes two and a half days a week was quite generous. You know, you, you wrote this on X today. And I think this gets to the core of your point. It's becoming more unbelievable by the day that the Senate GOP won't force Senate Dems to publicly defend their voter ID idiocy with an actual floor process on the Save America Act. And this is what I'm kind of curious about, because I've seen this over and over again. You've talked about this before. John TH Has a number of levers that he could pull. He has a number of avenues that he could pursue. On Lisa Murkowski alone. He could do some things to make the Senate very uncomfortable for the comfortable Lisa Murkowski, for the sleepy senators who only want to work two and a half days a week, he could say, hey, we're about to have a really long, extended break. You either come to the table on this thing and go along with reconciliation or whatever has to happen, or I'm going to keep this floor open and we're going to work through this and you're going to have to be here. Do you get a sense that any of that is happening?
- [14:06]
B
No. To just be frank, I don't think that there has been a real effort to muscle this through in the way that it would require, because again, the Senate, you hear it referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. But those rules are based around the physicality of debate and, you know, bringing members to the floor and using procedural levers to make them uncomfortable. There's a great quote from Trent Lott, who was a former Senate majority leader himself, and he captures this, the essence of it, which is really this. He says there are only actually two rules in the Senate, exhaustion and unanimous consent. And you only reach the second after you've reached the first. It's this idea that you raise the physical cost of obstruction, right? You say to the Senate Democrats or anyone else, it is your right to oppose this bill, but you are going to have to pay the physical price for it. You're going to have to stand on the floor or you're going to have to respond to late night votes. You're going to have to stay through the weekend. You know, early in my career, I was in Washington when Harry Reid passed Obamacare and if people remember, it passed in two parts. There was a reconciliation component which got around the filibuster, but there was also a statutory component that required 60 votes. And he had 60 Democrats, but he did not have 60 votes. And Republicans were, you know, throwing every obstructive tool at the book. He was still trying to get Lieberman and Nelson, his two independents that caucuses Democrats on board. And the first thing he did was he said, we're not going home. We're working 24, seven nights and weekends until I don't care who it is, but some of you have to break. And he broke them. And so he understood that the physical process was a tool to wear down an obstructive minority. It doesn't mean you're going to get everything you want. But that obstructive, the physical response to obstruction, it does two things. First, again, it imposes a cost that people don't like and they want it to end. But two, it forces a negotiation that would never take place otherwise. You would never get Democrats to negotiate with you on the Save America act unless you force them to the floor and you force them to debate. And that's what a talking filibuster does. But it's also just what a, you know, weeks long, grueling floor process does. And for whatever reason, the Republican Senate and really just any Senate at this point does not prioritize this type of work. But that's the essence of what the Senate should be doing.
- [16:28]
A
Yeah, it's, it's amazing to me just conservatives who, who depend on this, you don't have the kind of leadership at least willing to put in the time the sweat equity like the Democrats had in a Harry Reid. And I, I think that the conservative base looks at this and has looked at this for a long time and said, okay, why do we keep electing people who aren't willing to do what Democrats are to the extent 10th degree, to get what they want, to get what the country they believe the country needs. And this is something that the country absolutely needs is the talking filibuster right now. Is it too late for that? Even if you could get this Senate to stick around for the long summer
- [17:14]
B
break ahead, I mean, they'd probably have to blow through their August recess plans.
- [17:20]
A
Yeah, right.
- [17:21]
B
But you know, it's an open question. When you say talking filibuster, well, how long would this take? The reality is it's an unknown. You know, the deliberative environment is unknown. And that's, you know, why people like me who are adrenaline junkies, love, love the Senate because so much of it is unpredictable. But you know, this people think about it. Well, every Senate Democrat would come down and make unlimited speeches. No, they wouldn't. Right. Bernie Sanders, who is in his 80s, cannot give the same length of a speech as Cory Booker, who is much
- [17:49]
A
younger than him and may or may not be wearing adult diapers during such speeches.
- [17:55]
B
So, you know, there would be long speeches, definitely. But the Senate is also so unaccustomed to the late night voting and the constant, you know, days long debating that, you know, my sense is both sides would say we want this to end and would hopefully begin the negotiation that would get us to potentially, you know, maybe invoking cloture on the bill at 60 votes, you know, or maybe just, you know, moving toward the passage of some kind of vehicle. But we're never going to know unless we try. And that's what the Senate has just been unwilling to do. And I think it's just the frustration for everybody watching this is they have never actually tried to pass this bill by any mechanism. And that's I think again why so many of us are so frustrated.
- [18:36]
A
Very frustrating. So let me ask you the political question. If they don't move on this, what does the polling show? What do you think will happen in November? I don't know if the Democrats can pull off a victory in the Senate. Anything is, is definitely possible. But there are a lot of, a lot of conservatives who are more than frustrated. They, they feel disconnected. They feel like they were sold a bill of bad goods in 2024. What are the political ramifications of all of this?
- [19:13]
B
I do think, you know, there's an old adage in politics that people don't remember what you've done, they remember what you're doing. And a lot of Senate Republicans really want to run on, you know, all the tax relief in OB3 and the housing bill. And you know, there have been good things done in the Congress this term. The Trump judges, all these things, but there is none of that effort at transformative policy that I think that's what people really want to see. And they want to see something that they really viscerally care about being debated on the Senate floor. Right. That's the cathartic element of representative democracy that we forget about A lot of times is people want to see themselves, people want to see what they care about on the national stage being talked about and debated by the people in power and instead they're just brushed off. Right. You ask a Senate Republican about it now and they treat the voters like peasants. Well, you just don't know how hard it is, you know, we just don't have the votes. Why are you asking? You're stupid for asking us this. Go, go sit down, you serf. Right? That's sort of the attitude that they give to the voter. So of course that's demoralizing, you know, and I think people, you know, in Washington Senators get very scared. Well, what if we don't win? What if we fight this and then we don't win? And you know, that'll be even worse because we've over promised and under, under delivered. And my response to that is, well, you over promise and underdeliver literally everything. So it's par for the course. But second, I think, you know, having sort of been raised in the conservative movement, the movement gives a lot of grace to the senators when they actually in the Congress, generally when they actually lean in and leave it all on the field because people can tell when you're faking it versus when you're actually trying. If they actually launched a talking filibuster and ran all night for multiple days and forced Democrats to the floor and were calling middle of the night quorum calls and then they tried everything and they still couldn't get it, I think Republicans would still get a lot of grace and a lot of credit from the base. And that's just something I guess the Republicans up here don't believe. But I do think it is very demoralizing.
- [21:11]
A
Well, I mean here's the other part of it. As you mentioned, it is inexcusable that Republican leadership has failed to force the Democrats to explain to 80 to 90% of Americans why they think requiring us to citizenship, proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in U.S. elections. And voter ID, very popular voter ID, why that should be required or shouldn't be required to vote in US Elections. This really is in so many ways the midterm elections. An election that really is about sanity and insanity. And so I think there will be Republicans who will be saved on that debate alone because I think a lot of voters, a lot of independent voters in particular are going, oh my God, I, I don't know what this DSA thing is, but I don't like the sound of it. I don't like what's happening in places like Minnesota where, you know, they've run roughshod over federal law enforcement, where they're letting illegal immigrants who have raped children free because they don't want ICE involvement in their communities. I mean, these are things that I think will really stand out in the election, but their failure to do something about this, the Save America Act, I think that will have lingering consequences not only into this November election, but it could, could be a problem for them coming up in 2028 as well. Our guest today is Rachel Bovard, vice president of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute, led by former representative and senator Jim Dement. And Rachel, you have been around the policy side of things for, for some time now. You worked with two people who really vehemently support this legislation, Rand Paul and Mike Lee. And I, I think Mike Lee is, I think that he has to go through more of this stuff with leadership. His head may explode. What are you hearing from, from these folks about what is internally happening in.
- [23:28]
B
Well, Mike Lee deserves a lot of credit for being the tip of the spear on this in the Republican conference. And I can tell you he is battle scarred because of it. You know, it's interesting to watch the, the dynamics of the conference and a lot of this happens behind closed doors, although it leaks out into the press. So people may not know, but the Senate Republicans have lunch together three times a week and it's very nice. It's very nice.
- [23:53]
A
Yes.
- [23:54]
B
It's the only time they really see each other, honestly, you know, and it's where the conference discusses things as a group and many lunches. Now there's been select members of the conference that have ganged up on Mike Lee in front of his colleagues and said some not nice things to him for forcing this debate. So it is, you know, I wish there was more unity on this front. I wish because again, as you point out, many of us that are, that want this bill to have a floor process, we support the policy, but it's also just good politics for the Republicans. There was an amazing clip that people may have seen from, I believe it was the Sunday shows on ABC where Senator Warner from Virginia is asked by Jonathan Karl, you know, about the voter id and, and, and Warner, Mark Warner, who represents for Virginia in the Senate has for quite some time says, well, in Virginia we have voter id, so it's not really an issue. And John Carl, facts check, fact checks him in real time and says, well, actually I'm a Virginia voter and no, we don't.
- [24:50]
A
That was, that was a stunning moment. That was a stunning moment for a couple of things that Mark Warner would be dull enough to try to obtuse enough to try to push that out, although he should have expected that Carl would have said, yeah, I guess that's not a problem because that's usually what we get from the corporate accomplice media. But that was a remarkable moment. I wish more people had seen that actually.
- [25:15]
B
Well, and it shows how easy not, you know, nothing is easy in the United States Senate, but this is low hanging fruit, right? These Democrats we have to defend the indefensible number one to oppose voter id, but two, they also just don't understand the law. They're going to have to make specious and often false claims about it. Make them do it, make them own it and do it in front of the voters and make everybody see it. You know, that's a very, very important part of this, this debate and it's just not happening.
- [25:45]
A
Are you at all worried that the modern Democratic Party that has been, it's not just been co opted by the radical Marxist left, I mean anybody who with, with any sanity left in the Democratic Party is bowed to the Marxist movement in it. Are you concerned that the same people who stood by Graham Platner for so long would actually stand up to their own party and say, hey, listen, I don't agree with these folks on most things, but I agree with them on, on voter id. They have something here?
- [26:24]
B
Well, I think on this issue, not, you know, not every issue I think is, is cut out for this, you know, talking filibuster or this type of debate. But voter ID is an 80% issue across party lines. You rarely find that kind of sweeping agreement between parties because again, I think a lot of people already think this is the law, it's so common sense. So I do think it is much, much harder for Democrats, particularly those who are in cycle in states like Georgia with John Ossoff, in states like Nevada with Maggie Hassan, it is much, much harder for those Democrats who are in cycle to go to their voters and say, yeah, I oppose voter ID well up for reelection. And so again, I like the politics of this issue very much and I, I just think it is unconscionable, borderline malpractice for Senate Republicans to not see at least the political benefit this debate would give them, let alone passage of legislation which I think would, would be transformative to their benefit.
- [27:21]
A
Democrats have and Democrats would see that they would use the politics of it all. I don't know if it's collegiality or laziness? I think it's a combination of all of these sorts of things in the Senate. I want to switch topics while we have a chance because there's an interesting new bill that is being pushed, and this is all part of the reconciliation process. But we're learning today that some funding for farm programs, which have been rightfully questioned for a long time when it comes to the subsidies and all of those things involved, but it includes a provision that would in essence, be a pathway or actual amnesty to illegal immigrants who are working on farms. They could at the very least have legal status. The conservative movement is not keen on that. So why are we seeing that from? I believe my, my colleague Bre and the tells me there's something like nearly 50 GOP co sponsors on this thing.
- [28:32]
B
Well, this is always where the rubber meets the road for, for immigration policy. And it's, it's remarkable because among Republican voters, there's almost no issue where the elected Republicans are more distant from their base. Because for 30 years, Republican voters have been telling elected Republicans, no amnesty. We do not want amnesty. And every Republican, ask Marco Rubio, who has touched this stove, the hot stove of amnesty has walked away burned. And every time it's like Republicans, the Republican base tells them, no amnesty. And Republicans are like, maybe we should try amnesty. And I do think this is a continual problem for Republicans, primarily because of the funding base. It's the big ag lobby and it's the sort of corporate lobby, all of which rely on cheap labor provided by, in many cases, illegal immigration or very expansive guest worker programs. And this was always the tension with the Trump agenda, which, if we are going to get illegal immigration under control, we have to, one, stop it. But two, we have to stop the exploitation of a lot of these visa programs, the ag workers in particular. So this is again, you know, bringing up this wedge issue in the Republican base, you know, and Trump himself has, has honestly been of two minds, depending on kind of who's meeting with him at the White House. But I, you know, I do think if this is where the, the conservative movement needs to speak into the process to say, you know, this is not something that we're going to support, especially if it's going through a reconciliation bill. Right. If we're going to expand these visa programs in any way that, you know, includes a pathway to citizenship, which is amnesty, that needs its own full debate on the House.
- [30:09]
A
Yes, I couldn't agree more. It has to stand alone. And what I think we're seeing, I know that we're seeing it's politics at play again. We have some Midwest states, some Southern states, big farm country, and they need votes. They're in, in some tight elections. And they're more than glad to sign on this to show that they're supporting their constituents when in fact, they may not really ultimately be supporting their constituents at. Well, as well, because even in these farm states, you have, you know, the, the vast majority of, of Republican voters that have, as you say, they, they, they don't want amnesty. They haven't wanted it for, for many, many years. There is that disconnect. Is it a gamble that is worth taking for these farm politicians, Midwest states with, we have, we're seeing close elections.
- [31:08]
B
You know, if you're asking me, I say no. Right. And again, I'm not a political advisor at the White House. They may have different calculations here, but I just, I don't think it's a gamble worth taking. This is something that Trump ran on.
- [31:21]
A
Right.
- [31:22]
B
Trump ran on closing the border and he won on this issue, on closing the border, on cleaning up illegal immigration in the cities and everywhere else. This is a moment where you have to stay disciplined on your vision and your message, because that speaks loud and clear to the voters who are loyal to you and who are going to be the ones who show up at the ballot box. It doesn't mean that you cannot try to come to some kind of negotiated solution on these issues that don't involve amnesty. But the way to do it is not to jam it through reconciliation, and it's not to do it, you know, last minute ride along on this issue. This is a debate the full American people deserve to see if you're going to have it. But I, again, when we're talking about the Republican base and people that turned out for Trump the first time, that are looking for reasons to turn out for him this time, I think granting amnesty to a bunch of farm workers is not the answer.
- [32:06]
A
Democrats are smacking their lips over this. They're saying, oh, yeah, okay, come along, come along, folks. We've got our next generation of voters here all set to go. That's where they would like to take all of this anyway.
- [32:21]
B
Yeah. Let me put it to you this way. If we grant a bunch of amnesty to illegal immigrants while also not passing the Save America Act, I think that combination of things is, is just sort of a gut punch for a lot of people who really support the Trump agenda.
- [32:35]
A
Disastrous. And take a look at all of the low propensity voters who came out in droves for Donald Trump in 2024. They came out in droves for Donald Trump. They came out in droves against Kamala Harris in, in large part as well. They're going to sit on, on the sidelines. They're not coming back. They may not come back anyway. But you know, you're going to have people who do vote on a more regular basis say, what's the use? And that is, that's very discouraging when you see those two forces at hand, when you see a Senate that is unwilling to fight the fight that so many Americans want, and when you see them do something that is completely antithetical to the base, it's just amazing. Let's talk about birthplace, citizenship. A lot of folks like to call it birthright citizenship. I still believe the 14th amendment is clear on this issue. And there is no right from what the folks who wrote the 14th Amendment, at least what they believed. But you wrote an interesting piece for the Federalist recently, and it was about kind of the broader issue of how we got here with an Amy Coney Barrett and a John Roberts and well, at least with Amy Coney Barrett, the selection process needs to be changed a bit, or at least how we view potential candidates. The vetting has to be better. Something, of course, again, the Democrats should have learned a valuable lesson from in Maine. But did we have the right candidate? Perhaps conservatives thought so at the time, but there are a lot of conservatives out there now who look at an Amy Coney Barrett and say, this isn't what I thought it was going to be.
- [34:22]
B
Yeah, there's an interesting dynamic at work, particularly with Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Amy Coney Barrett. A lot of people said, well, you know, it wasn't just Amy Coney Barrett, it was John Roberts, too. And I think the distinction is right. There is is is how they were confirmed. Because if people recall starting in 20 with Harry Reid in 2013, later finished by Mitch McConnell in 2017, the Judicial Filibuster has been completely nuked, which means that cloture on nominees is now invoked. A simple majority. You only need a simple majority to confirm these nominees. John Roberts was confirmed when this filibuster still existed. And there was a just a different dynamic in judicial judicial selection for both parties at the time, because even though nominees on the judicial side and cabinet side weren't really filibustered until the early 2000s, and this was just a normative standard, both parties, regardless of who the president was, sort of just said as a courtesy, the president gets to pick their own people. So you know, Clarence Thomas was, you know, confirmed with 52 or 53 votes. Like he didn't get 60. Neither did Sam Alito. People just didn't filibuster noms. But there was always the threat of the filibuster. And so judicial selection was made by both sides trying to get at least the tacit buy in or agreement from the other side. So you didn't pick nominees that were too ideological or too textualist or too whatever, you know, it is that the parties prioritize, which is how John Roberts, someone like John Roberts gets through with 78 votes in the Senate. Right, because you're, you're appealing to both sides. And I have argued that there was virtue in that approach for the bench. But we don't live in that environment anymore. We now live in an environment where judges themselves, because they're confirmed, simple majority, are now a policy battlefield. Okay, because two things happened after we nuked the filibuster. One, you got more ideological judges. But two, because it was so easy to do, quote, unquote, easy to do in the Senate. That's all the Senate does now. Right. If you look at the Senate on any given day, they aren't doing legislation, they're doing judicial and executive branch confirmations. These are the people that rule us now because the legislature has said, we prioritize these confirmations. So every hard question of self government is going to go to the courts. That means that we now, it's not enough to sort of just vet for, you know, judicial temperament and, you know, are you just an originalist and not ask any more questions than that because of the way these people are confirmed and what it is the role that they now play, which is sort of a super legislator, super legislative role we now have to be vetting for. How do you feel about the concept of a nation? Which is maybe the question that Amy Coney Barrett should have been asked.
- [36:58]
A
It's sad though, isn't it, that we have to ask that question at all.
- [37:02]
B
I know, but this is, this is what I call this judicial realism. You know, I think the conservative legal movement doesn't want to necessarily admit that we live in this place now. And I get it right. They want to say, well, we picked, you know, we just pick judges who will enforce the law as written. I agree with that. But as Justice Alito said recently, and I quote this in my piece, and I'm not quoting him exactly, I don't have it in front of me, but he said basically an originalist judge has no choice but to Follow the law as written, but we don't have an idiotic or asinine Constitution. So if you're coming to a ridiculous outcome, you're probably doing it wrong. Right. And so we need to sort of vet for that attitude, not for textualism, for textualism sake, which seems to be the ratchet has moved so far on the right that, that we, you know, we say if you can read the Constitution, armed with an 18th century dictionary and, you know, just parse the meaning of the words, then you're doing it correctly. Well, that's how we end up with an absurd reading of the 14th Amendment, which says, you know, babies of cartel members who cross the border, 38 weeks pregnant to give birth here have the same rights as regular American citizens, including the, the ability to run for president. It's just lunacy. It's lunacy.
- [38:07]
A
It is absolute lunacy. And it is what will ultimately if, if allowed to, to continue to stand. It has the possibility, the great possibility of destroying this republic because you can't have a republic that doesn't recognize borders. You can't exist in that world. And we see all of the dangers and we saw that and lived it for four years of what an invasion and an illegal immigration invasion truly means. And we're still dealing with those consequences. Now, that said, just a couple of final thoughts on the court before we wrap up today. But there were some very important decisions from this court as it related to illegal immigration. Some big victories for the Trump administration, and I ultimately believe big victories for America. Do you see that moving forward, maybe being able to deal with some of these other issues like birthplace, citizenship?
- [39:07]
B
You know, the court did have a very good term. I think it was marred, unspeakably marred by the Trump v. Barber decision. But the rest of the term was very good. You saw some real efforts made overturning things like the Chevron doctrine and administrative law, allowing the president to fire executive branch or independent agencies at the ftc. Like, all of those things are very good. And so I do think, you know, we have to also remember how good we have it in the sense that, you know, this Supreme Court, you know, thanks to Donald Trump's picks, is, is much, much better. Like, we are arguing about the conservatism of Amy Coney Bearer. We're not arguing over whether is she a conservative at all, which is where the conservative movement has been for many years with people like David Souter and Sandra Day o'. Connor. So, you know, I think we, we are objectively in a much better place than we have been. And I don't want to overlook something like that. So I do think on a lot of these questions, the court will or can do well. But again, the Congress exists to fix what the court has done. Now, the court in Barbara took the ability from Congress to act in a way that I thought was just unbelievable. But in most cases where the court fails, the Congress is supposed to step in. And I think that's where many of us again, would like to see Article 1 reassert itself.
- [40:20]
A
Do you think John Roberts was a coward in birthplace, citizenship, a judicial coward?
- [40:25]
B
I should say I do, frankly and candidly. But that is who we expected John Roberts to be. We have known that he is a very political creature, that he sees his role as what he thinks is protecting the political integrity of the court. And so it's led him to make sort of absurd level decisions on a number of issues. Chief among them, right, we saw in the Obamacare issue saying that the fee is to tax and therefore it's fine. You know, so he is who we expect him to be. Amy Coney Barrett, this is not what we expected from her. And I think that is why so many people are, are more outraged at her than him.
- [40:59]
A
Just get the sense that Amy Coney Barrett, in some regards, like John Roberts, has been influenced over the past several years by a number of things. And I think that she didn't start out this way. I think that there's been an evolution to Amy Coney Barrett. Some agree with that, some disagree. Final thought, do you see in evolution and influence in other spheres, other sources, that it shaped her jurisprudence?
- [41:30]
B
I mean, it's hard to know, you know, and it's hard to speculate on what motivates people in these situations. But I do know that it's very, very hard to be in public life, especially in the role that she's in. That is a burden you accept with the role. And it's unfortunate that this is where we live now that judges receive so many threats. And, you know, we have forced them into this role, the Congress in particular, by putting before them questions that are inherently ones of self government, not ones of judicial fiat. So the more we put high stakes questions that should be again, decided by the polity themselves in front of, you know, our robed masters, we are going to continue to ratchet up the pressure on them. And I think it's a very unfortunate place to be. The Congress could relieve some of this by actually doing their jobs. But until they do, you know, we're stuck in this position where judges are are making rulings over how we live and determining the shape of who can even join the polity itself.
- [42:27]
A
I was going to say the same. The the first branch has absolutely abdicated its role, its responsibility, its duty. And the executive branch has picked up a lot of that, sometimes gleefully. And the third branch has had to deal with the consequences of that. So, as you say, a lot of pressure on that front. Thanks to my guest today, Rachel Bovard, vice president of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute. We'll be back soon with more on the Federalist Radio Hour. Till then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the prey.
- [43:08]
B
The table working to God Ready, willing, enable. Check the man got no kids in the love. Check.