How Justice Barrett & the Supreme Court Just Changed Everything, with Benny Johnson & Tim Rice

Summary

---

Next Up with Mark Halperin

Episode: How Justice Barrett & the Supreme Court Just Changed Everything

Guests: Benny Johnson (The Benny Show), Tim Rice (Daily Wire)
Date: June 30, 2026

---

Overview

This episode dives into the political fallout from the latest Supreme Court rulings—especially the impact of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s votes—and explores a surging socialist influence within the Democratic Party. Host Mark Halperin is joined by pundit Benny Johnson and reporter Tim Rice for frank analysis and energetic debate on judicial politics, the internal Democratic divide, and even the bizarre Gen Z meme renaissance celebrating Richard Nixon.

---

Main Themes

• The Supreme Court’s pivotal rulings and their aftershocks across the political spectrum, with a focus on Amy Coney Barrett’s unpredictable role.
• The Democratic Party's internal conflict as socialist-aligned candidates notch unexpected victories, challenging party leaders like Hakeem Jeffries.
• How campaign finance, trans rights, and birthright citizenship decisions will play out practically and politically.
• Gen Z’s ironic fascination with President Nixon, meme politics, and the reinvention of historical narratives.
• Strategies, grievances, and anxieties on both the right and left about the future of party coalitions and court nominations.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Democratic Party’s Deepening Divide

(00:30–19:09)

• Halperin’s Reported Monologue:

  • Recent victories by socialist-aligned Democratic House candidates in New York and other states have exposed factional splits, especially over issues like Israel and policing.
  • Hakeem Jeffries, as House Democratic leader, is portrayed as haggard and under siege, torn between condoning popular progressive energy and fears about alienating moderates.
  • Establishment concerns:
    • Anti-establishment rhetoric and primary challenges
    • Polarizing positions on Israel and police
    • "Extreme liberal"/socialist policy agendas (abolish ICE, open borders, views on Israel/Hamas)
  • “Tens of millions” of Democrats support these policies, Halperin notes, but many more Americans don’t, threatening the party’s national viability.

• Quote (07:21, Mark Halperin):

  “You’ve got these far-left candidates knocking off left wing Democrats and engaging in a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party.”

• Party Response:

  • Leaders like Jeffries struggle to repudiate far-left candidates because they are popular with the party’s activist base.
  • High-profile Democrats offer evasive or “fuzzy” responses when pressed on controversial statements.
  • Example of Scott Wiener in San Francisco getting shouted down for not fully embracing anti-Israel rhetoric fast enough.

• Quote (12:20, Mark Halperin):

  “His crime was, he too on a two delayed basis said it was genocide [in Gaza]… They’re in the guy’s face, they’re screaming at him.”

• Halperin’s conclusion:
  Democratic leadership is afraid to confront the socialist wing, knowing its energy is real and intense, but also that its positions could endanger general-election victories.

---

2. The Supreme Court’s New Era—and Conservative Disillusion

(19:09–42:50, Mark Halperin & Benny Johnson)

Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Votes

• Benny Johnson’s Take:
  Conservatives are furious at Barrett, especially her position in a landmark birthright citizenship case.

  • Multiple “confirmation team” members feel “she lied to them” about constitutional commitments during her hearings.
  • Compared to Souter, O’Connor, Roberts—seen as prior “mistakes” by GOP.
  • Quote (21:14, Mark Halperin, relaying conservative sources):

    “She lied to them being a constitutional conservative in the frame of Justice Antonin Scalia… she effectively was an actress.”

• On Republican vs Democratic Court Picks:

  • Democratic presidents are viewed as never making “mistake picks”; Republicans often do.
  • Quote (24:00, Mark Halperin):

    “There’s no Democratic equivalent, Democratic Supreme Court justice, where the party says, ‘That was a mistake, we shouldn’t have picked that.’”

• Fixing the Process:

  • End the “trust us bro” era; only nominate candidates with extensive judicial records.
    • “Show your work” standard demanded (26:26).
    • Barrett’s lack of substantial judicial opinions cited as a red flag.

• Barrett’s Impact Rated:

  • Gorsuch: 9/10
  • Kavanaugh: 7/10
  • Barrett and Roberts: 2/10

Political Fallout of SCOTUS Rulings

• Birthright citizenship:
  Johnson and Halperin see the ruling as locking open-birthright citizenship into constitutional precedent, essentially irreversible—“generations” before it changes.

  • Quote (29:59, Halperin):

    “The idea that we live in magic dirt and that…her child is as American as any American child that ever lived…is wrong. And no other country does that.”

• Why the Left Fights for Birthright Citizenship:

  • Johnson and Halperin argue it’s mostly political: the children of immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
    • "This is a population that votes 90% for Democrats" (32:21).
  • Express skepticism anyone has articulated a positive argument for mass migration/naturalization.

• Why Justices Defect from Party Expectations:

  • Georgetown/New York “hive mind,” concern about public perception, and desire to avoid court-packing are all floated as psychological explanations.

• Court-Packing Anxiety:

  • Johnson suggests Roberts/Barrett may compromise to avoid pushes for court-packing:
    • Quote (35:08, Johnson):

      “This decision by Barrett and by John Roberts…is a decision in order to…placate them as a political decision…‘please don’t destroy the court forever.’”

---

3. The Supreme Court Rulings: Immediate Political Consequences

(45:15–54:07, Tim Rice & Benny Johnson)

• Campaign Finance Ruling:

  • No more limits on donations to political parties, huge for Republicans in 2026 given their fundraising structures and party operations.
  • Quote (46:01, Tim Rice):

    “There is no limit to how much money people can donate to the Republican or Democratic Party…This is hard to understate how big this is and how transformational this is going to be.”

• Short Term Effects:

  • Republicans can immediately leverage their deep donor pools, especially with operative James Blair at the helm.

• Other Major Decisions:

  • Trans athletes: Court upholds bans on trans women in women’s sports.
  • Birthright citizenship: President loses, court reaffirms citizenship rights for children born in the US, regardless of status.
  • Both are seen as energizing the party base on either side—losers in court may become “winners” at the ballot box because of the mobilizing effect.

---

4. Nixon’s Meme Comeback: Gen Z & Revisionism

(54:07–61:39, Tim Rice)

• Gen Z & Nixon:

  • Tim Rice investigates the rise of Nixon memes among young people—originating from a purposeful campaign by the Nixon Foundation.
  • More than half of the Nixon Foundation’s YouTube subscribers are now under 30, and meme engagement is surging.
  • Quote (58:06, Tim Rice):

    “They’re not posting memes. They’re just posting clips of Nixon speeches… So clearly there’s something else going on here…”

• Why the Interest?

  • "Thirst to question official narratives," Rice explains; contemporary generations feel betrayed by institutions, making Nixon’s anti-elite persona appealing.
  • Nixon is no longer living history but an “American Rasputin,” simultaneously villain and an object of ironic or complex admiration.
  • Learning “there’s a lot more to Nixon” than just Watergate.

---

5. Mailbag: Listener Feedback and Analysis

(64:13–end)

• Halperin reads audience emails on:
  • Handling of political scandals (Josh Shapiro and Pennsylvania politics)
  • Election odds, the Texas Senate race, and what a Democratic win would mean
  • Election integrity frustrations and possible bipartisan reforms
  • Health care, Citizens United, and the future of the Senate

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Benny Johnson on Barrett’s Confirmation (21:14):

  “She lied to them being a constitutional conservative… she effectively was an actress.”

• Mark Halperin on Democratic Fear (08:24):

  “Why is Jeffries so afraid of them?...they’re afraid the base will come for them.”

• Benny Johnson on Immigration Ruling (29:59):

  “…The idea that we live in magic dirt and that every, like a Haitian woman who practices voodoo can touch the border wall and suddenly her child is as American as any American child that ever lived...is wrong.”

• Tim Rice on Campaign Finance Ruling (46:01):

  “There is no limit to how much money people can donate to the Republican or Democratic Party…transformation over the next couple of years.”

• Tim Rice on Gen Z & Nixon (58:06):

  “More than half of their YouTube subscribers are under the age of 30…they’re just posting clips of Nixon speeches.”

• Mark Halperin on Party Divides (07:21):

  “You’ve got these far-left candidates knocking off left wing Democrats and engaging in a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party.”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Content | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:30–19:09| Democratic Party’s socialist surge, Hakeem Jeffries’ dilemma | | 19:09–42:50| Halperin & Johnson on Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court politics | | 45:15–54:07| Tim Rice on campaign finance, trans ruling, birthright citizenship | | 54:07–61:39| Gen Z Nixon revival, meme politics | | 64:13–end | Mark’s Mailbag: Listener questions and additional analysis |

---

Tone

• Candid, provocative, openly partisan at times, varying between analytical, exasperated, and humorous.
• The exchanges are fast-paced, combative, sometimes irreverent—especially with Benny Johnson's directness and Halperin’s dry asides.
• Tim Rice offers a more measured, reporterly tone, especially in the Nixon segment.

---

For Listeners Who Haven’t Tuned In

This episode serves as both a diagnosis of a fracturing Democratic Party, a case study in the perils of picking Supreme Court justices, and an exploration of youth culture’s weird nostalgia for disgraced authority figures. It's a must-listen for anyone interested in intraparty drama, judicial power, and the cultural aftershocks of American politicking.

---

Transcript

[Mark Halpern]

Hey, it's Dan Cummins. If you're into the weird, the wild, and the downright bizarre, check out my podcast, Time Suck. Each week I dive into shocking stories like the rise of the Nexium cult, the origins of conspiracies like QAnon, and the San Francisco witch killer murders. With deep dives and dark humor, Time Suck brings you the stories that'll fascinate you, make you laugh, and fill your head with lots of strange facts. New episodes drop every Monday. Join the cult of the curious. Follow Time Suck wherever you get your podcasts, avoiding your unfinished home projects because

[Benny Johnson]

you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download Today, everybody. Welcome to Next Stop with me Mark Halpern, editor in chief of the live interactive video platform Twoway, and your host to all Nexters from coast to coast and around the world of everything that's next up. I've been doing so much reporting on so many different stories on Iran and on the midterms and on the Supreme Court, but I'm going to talk to you about something that I think I'm a little bit ahead of the curve on, which is what's going on with the Democratic Party and the attempt of the socialists to take it over. Two great guests for you today. First, the host, executive producer of the Benny Show, Mr. Benny Johnson himself, will be here. Benny and I will talk about all manner of stuff in the news. And then the Daily Wire's Washington bureau chief, Tim Rice, is here. Tim just wrote a great article about why young people are obsessed with Richard Nixon. We'll talk about that. And we'll also break down the Supreme Court decisions that came out on the last day of the term and what the politics and meaning of those are. But before Benny and Tim are here, my reported monologue on Hakeem Jeffries and his dilemma over the upstart candidates in his midst, how the victories by three underdog candidates, anti establishment candidates in New York in House races and other races around the country, are exposing what is now a clearly very deep divide within the Democratic Party. I want to start with, you know, when you're a reporter for a long time, you pick up on patterns. So. And a pattern I've picked up over the years is about Hakeem Jeffries. He's not the only Democratic leader under a lot of pressure to understand what's going on with the party and protect the Democratic Party from having its image ruined by the socialists. But he's under a lot of pressure because the House this week and last has been the focus of the Socialists. And here's Hakeem Jeffries. I want to show you two pictures. I've learned over the years that when Hakeem Jeffries is under pressure, the man looks a little tired. More than a little tired. He looks puffy, he looks off. And that's because, according to my sources, he's on the phone a lot. He's talking to people, he's consulting, he's in meetings. He's trying to figure out how to handle a particular situation. So here's a one. On the left, and I'll describe this for those of you listening to the podcast, is a very handsome young man, Mr. Hakeem Jeffries, in line to be speaker of the House. Dressed nicely, face looks great. Just a handsome guy. And then on the right, and we did not AI this thing. We did not Photoshop it. You'll see a very puffy and a very sleepy Hakeem Jeffries. He does a lot of morning tv. And I don't know to his credit or not, but he's been out there trying to explain why Democrats are so fine, that what's a few socialists being elected? Here's what I found in my reporting this week about this problem. You got these House candidates winning in New York, and two of them are socialists. One of them, I say, Socialist aligned, endorsed by our socialist mayor, Mr. Mondame. And the danger of these candidates is threefold to the establishment. First of all, they're anti establishment. They're running against incumbents. They're saying maybe they won't vote for Schumer and for Jeffries for their leadership if they have the majority or not next Congress. And if you're in the establishment, you don't like anti establishment, that's number one. Number two, they've. They've got positions that are divisive in the party, sometimes expressed on social media, sometimes repudiated from the past, but still out there. And sometimes there are things they still say. And particularly on Israel. Okay, particularly on Israel. Some of these positions are divisive. Now, being against aid to military, aid to Israel rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But it's popular. It's popular in the parts of The Republican Party. So category one is anti establishment. Category two is divisive positions. But not all the divisive positions are unpopular. I think what's gotten too little attention is category three, which is socialist positions. It's one thing to embrace someone who's taken controversial things because they can say, Democrats can say, as they've said with Graham Platner, not in every case for Democrats, but in many. He's learned the things he said that were controversial. They're in the past. He's deleted them, he's repudiated them, he's grown as a person. Right. So that's one thing to say. Well, they said controversial things, but they regret them. But it's category three that I think has gotten not enough attention, which is the party being extreme, the socialists being extremely liberal, a being for no police, being for no borders, being for no ice, being for Hamas, in some cases being hostile to Israel. After October 7, really liberal positions are a problem and they're a problem within the party because Hakeem Jeffries is afraid of these people. He's not repudiating them. He's saying, I don't disagree, agree with them on everything. But he also, over the weekend I did a lot of reporting about why he did this. He endorsed the socialist candidates in New York. Why did he do it? Because they're the nominees of the party. And the energy and the action and the base of the party is for these folks. They like them. They excuse or like their controversial positions. They like how liberal they are. And this is where some people on the right make a mistake. These are positions that are popular with tens of millions of Americans. Tens of millions of Americans would like single payer health care. Tens of millions of Americans would like to abolish ice. The problem is many, many more Americans don't agree with these positions. And if you want to be a majority party and win general elections, you can't have these positions. Now, a few Democrats are speaking out about this. Not many, but a few. Here's, here's Mark Thiessen. He's a Republican, he's a conservative, he's a Trump supporter on Fox News and he did a better job this week than any Democrat I saw. Honestly crystallizing why these very progressive communist, in some cases socialist, in some cases candidates are a big problem politically for the Democratic Party and not something the Republican Party could get away with. Here's Mark Thiessen on Tuesday on Fox News Channel S12. Please.

[Mark Halpern]

They're anti Semites. This is, this is the equivalent. Imagine if If Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens and the, and the Griper Wright suddenly started running congressional candidates and winning and knocking off, you know, good solid

[Tim Rice]

conservatives, you've got these far left candidates

[Mark Halpern]

knocking off left wing Democrats and engaging in a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party.

[Benny Johnson]

It's a big problem for them. It's a big problem. Again, it's a problem because they're left wing, really far left wing, like socialists, like they're vowed socialists. But it's also a problem according to Democrats I talked to, including some liberals who say we're not going to win elections if these folks can be tied to our party. A lot of Democrats say get out of our party. You don't want to be Democrats, you're socialists, go be in the socialist party. But the socialists are smart. They know that in this country you got to be typically have to be part of the major parties. So now you have every Democrat being asked, what do you think of these folks? What do you think of their left wing positions? What do you think of their controversial statements? And they don't really know how to answer. Here's Chris Murphy. He's a very, very liberal Democratic senator on Meet the Press being asked about controversial statements. And the way he handled it is typical of how they've handled it. S5 please.

[Mark Halpern]

Senator, that was an attack ad from a fellow Democrat. You've talked about this bigger tent. If you're saying the Democratic Party needs a bigger tent, does that include someone who called a former Democratic President of the United States a rapist?

[Tim Rice]

Yeah, well, I mean, I'm not super

[Benny Johnson]

familiar with that race. All I'm saying is that this party

[Tim Rice]

has to have a real contest of ideas.

[Benny Johnson]

I'm not super familiar with that race. Well, maybe brush up before you go and Meet the Press. That's what they're going to try to say. They're going to try to fuzz it up, as Republicans have done for years, about controversial statements from people on the right, including sometimes the President of the United States. Why is Jeffrey so afraid of them? Why are these folks afraid to call out stuff, you know, when talking to folks privately, they don't, not only do they not agree with, not only do they not like, but they recognize as politically perilous because they're afraid the base will come for them. Hakeem Jeffries on election night had to watch this as a crowd at a New York victory celebration for the Socialists. Here's what they were chanting about Hakeem Jeffries when his image came on the screen. S6. As much as America hates socialism overall, as popular as socialism is within the Democratic Party. And poll after poll shows that the thing about the socialists is they hate the establishment more than they hate, more than they hate the Republicans. They hate the establishment of their party. I saw this in 2016 when I talked to Sanders supporters and they had more anger towards Hillary Clinton than they did towards Donald Trump or Jeb Bush. The anger within the left at anyone who isn't all in on socialism is one of the most powerful forces in America today, in American politics today. I don't know that it's as big as maga, but it's as powerful because it's in white hot intensity. They will brook no dissent from what they believe, including and especially on Israel. And we saw this week, in a case that Democrats can't stop talking to me about, this is a guy in California, longtime California politician who's running Scott Weiner, who's running for Nancy Pelosi's House seat in San Francisco. This guy is, this guy is a liberals liberal, super liberal. And his positions on, on everything that the liberals care about is super liberal. The one area where he deviated was he failed to immediately say that what Israel was doing in Gaza was genocide. But after he took some heat for that, he said what the liberals demand, what that socialist demand, you have to say it's genocide. So he did. And then he shows up a few days ago at a, a pride event in San Francisco that he'd gone to for years and he is hostilely mobbed. Some of you have probably seen this, but some of you haven't. This is a guy who is super liberal who's going to an event for LGBTQ and watch what happens to Scott Wiener. S10, please.

[Mark Halpern]

Scott, I think your legislation on trans, on trans issues and legislation specifically protecting queers on the sex offender registry is fantastic. Like I, I really applaud you for that and I think you deserve to be here for that. But I think you're led, I think your, your housing policy and specifically your

[Benny Johnson]

housing policy aligning with gimpies. And I think your, your policy, and

[Mark Halpern]

I think your policy on the genocide in Gaza and I think your policy

[Benny Johnson]

on the genocide in Gaza, it's terrible. They're in the guy's face, they're screaming at him, they're, they're using profanity, which we're not going to show you. And, and his crime was, he too on a two delayed basis said it was genocide. Here he is on CNN responding to these attacks against him. This is S11, please really over the top extremists started running towards me and shouting, swarmed all around me and were actually physically touched me, were completely lying about my, my views and record on, on Gaza. I've, I've called it a genocide and I believe that it is. And I don't support, support US funding for the Israeli military and, but they just lie. And they also kept talking about my quote, unquote, Israeli handlers, which is not only a lie, but completely anti Semitic. So he's, he's calling them out a little bit and he's had people come to his defense, have called it out, but they're not calling it out for what it is. What this is, is an extraordinary exercise of power by people in the socialist wing of the Democratic Party demanding that if you don't do exactly what they say, exactly what they ask for, you're going to be kicked out of the party, you're going to be harassed, you're going to be threatened. Democratic socialists did not merely sustain their corner of the party with fringe support. They expanded it and they expanded it right into Jeffrey's backyard. That's what I wrote in a piece for Fox News this week. Because the Democratic socialists are empowered now. They're psyched up. Now they got to have to win some general elections to really prove to the party that they're where it's at. But in the short term, as they fight to win more primaries that are coming up in the remaining primaries. And as these candidates who are now going to be made by the Republicans the face of the Democratic Party, including the ones who were nominated in New York, as they, as we start to learn more about their views, the Democratic Party is going to have a real problem. Chuck Schumer is going to have a problem with his Senate candidate, Graham Platner in Maine. He might have a big problem in Michigan if the, if the, if the Sanders backed, the Mandami backed candidate wins there in that Senate primary. And Hakeem Jeffries has a problem right now. Nancy Pelosi learned how to deal with these folks. She learned how to deal with, with the socialists in her midst, not by trying to defeat them ideologically because she knew that's where the energy in the party was, but by outmaneuvering them, by using her superior understanding of the media and of process within Congress to do it. If Hakeem Jeffries becomes Speaker of the House and has socialists in his midst and they represent the difference between winning and losing votes, he's going to have a big management challenge for him and the problem is most of the leaders, so called leaders of the Democratic Party, with few exceptions, are afraid of these folks. There are some James Carville, Josh Gottheimer, Congressman from New Jersey, John Fetterman. There's some who will call these folks out, but mostly they're doing what you heard Congressman, Senator Murphy doing. I don't know much about it. They do know about it. They're for liberal policies. They don't disagree with the socialists about everything, but they're afraid of them. And at the same time they know that these controversial statements they've made and these liberal, extreme liberal socialists, in some case communist positions they've taken are extremely unpopular and candidates who hold those positions, except in the bluest districts will have trouble winning and the party is going to have trouble explaining. Republicans have plenty of problems and they've overlooked plenty within their party. But as Mark Thiessen said, these are the Republicans are not nominating people like this and just letting them sit within the Republican Party is a real challenge. And every Democrat I talked to this week, including some super progressives, said they're going to have to hold their breath and hope that there's some distractions out on the campaign trail because they know full well what Republicans told me all this week, which is the president will continue to look to find his voice on painting the Democrats as a socialist and Communist party, which while popular in some states, small segments of blue America, is not going to turn the Democrats into a majority party and could threaten their ability to win the majorities in the House and Senate in these midterms. All right, there you have it. My reporting this week on what's going on within the Democratic Party as the socialists try to take them over. Let me know what you think. Send me your email on today's [e-mail] again, that's next up@devil care media.com let me know if you think I got this right or I'm missing something. Take a quick break and when we come back, the great Benny Johnson will be here, host and executive producer of his own eponymous program, the Benny Show. Benny Johnson is next up. You know, in today's world, finding solutions to deliver both environmental and economic benefits can seem rare. Sewer sentry is one of those solutions. Their innovative technologies help communities reduce energy consumption, lower maintenance costs and prevent costly sewer system failures before they occur. The result, improved performance, reduced operating expenses and long term savings for taxpayers. Environmental advocates value cleaner waterways, healthier beaches, stronger protection of natural resources and technologies that can reduce Vibrio Contamination in waterways. Fiscal conservatives value cost control, efficiency, and a solid return on investment. Sewer Sentry delivers on all of those goals. This is not a choice between protecting the environment on the one hand and protecting budgets on the other. It's proof that smart technology can accomplish both with systems that are faster to install, cheaper to operate, and better for overall infrastructure performance. Sewer Sentry helps communities become more resilient while reducing risk and improving quality of life. When innovation saves money, conserves energy, safeguards waterways, reduces contamination, and protects public health, everyone benefits. Sewer Sentry faster, cheaper, better. For more information about all this, go to www.sewercentry.com again www.sewercentry.Com all right, next up and joining me now, the great Benny Johnson, host, executive producer of the eponymous program the Benny Show. Each episode drops weekdays, 11 Eastern. Everywhere YouTube x major podcast platforms. Benny Johnson is here. Thank you for being here.

[Mark Halpern]

Thank you, Marcus.

[Benny Johnson]

You know, in advance of this morning's Supreme Court decisions, Eric Erickson published a long list of all the MAGA votes that Amy Coney Barrett has done. She's, she's voted, he had about 25 things she's done at Landmark. Why shouldn't conservatives forgive her for occasionally voting against the president?

[Mark Halpern]

Well, hold on, because this gets the timing wrong, Mark. The timing. The world that we're living in today, the issue of most important is the survival of Western civilization. What does it mean to be an American? Can we have a country? Can we have a culture? Can we protect ourselves from the ravages of uncontrolled, unlimited, illegal third world migration for the benefit of strip mining the American experience and welfare state in in absurdium? And that is the ultimate question. That is what 2024 was about more than anything. Democrats admit this, that opening the border was really something that cost them. And so the immigration question is ultimate. And frankly, I just don't care. And I mean this, I just don't care if you make the right ruling on men and women's sports or Bible in school or what. I mean, those kind of things are on the outside of the the ultimate question, which is does Western civilization survive? Does our culture? Does our nation survive? And that immigration question is the key question right now. Amy Coney Barrett betrays the the president and our movement and this timeline on that question every single time. And it is that is why so many people in the Trump administration are calling me or texting me, raging about this. Multiple members of the confirmation team that got Amy Coney Barrett through in 2020 say that she lied to them. That's what they're now openly telling, call

[Benny Johnson]

it on this specific case, that they.

[Mark Halpern]

She lied to them being a constitutional conservative in the frame of Justice Antonin Scalia, who she clerked for, that she effectively was an actress.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

In order to get through the confirmation hearing. We remember that confirmation hearing. No notes, Right. Like, I actually, I have notes. This is the drawing that my daughter gave me. But this is. She holds up the pad, right, and she says, no notes. And she's so smooth and she's so polished and she's so good and she's so intelligent. And they say she deceived us. She lied about where she really stood on certain issues. She's just like Sandra Day o' Connor or Souter. It's the same thing. Or John Roberts. Actually, some of them are old enough to have done the John Roberts confirmation and say that he was just so smooth and too polished. And you get the, The. You, You. You get your red flags up on that.

[Benny Johnson]

And so stipulate for the record for podcast listeners that Benny's daughter is. Let's get that out of the way. Very nice.

[Mark Halpern]

Better than Hunter Biden, I can tell you that.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah. So how. Although. Although, I don't know how you could sell that for several hundred thousand. But maybe for the right. Maybe for the right buyer. Good in the eye of the beholder.

[Mark Halpern]

Benny, he's gonna be president soon, you know, so you better be careful.

[Benny Johnson]

Presidents don't get to pick Supreme Court justices to nominate very often. Doesn't happen a lot. And in the recent history, we've got Sandra Day o', Connor, we've got Souter, we've got the Chief justice, we have Amy Coney Barrett. But we also, on occasion, have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. They don't vote party line either. That's right. Justices and judges aren't supposed to vote party line. But you're speaking for tens of millions when you express your disappointment about this woman and her role on the court. And Democratic presidents don't seem to have this problem as much, or at least Democrats don't seem as angry about it when it does happen. So. So if you were thinking about. We'll leave Amy Coney Barrett aside for a second. If you wanted to make sure that future Republican presidents didn't F this up, what do they need to do?

[Tim Rice]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

Such a great question, but please let me. If you wouldn't mind just button hooking here and to the point you just made, Mark, which is that this doesn't happen for Democrats. And you're. You're an incredibly astute observer of the political landscape. It doesn't happen for Democrats. This isn't something you're not going to see. Sonia Sotomayor, Brown, Jackson.

[Benny Johnson]

But Breyer voted sometimes to disappoint Democrats. He did.

[Mark Halpern]

Well, it's not the, it's not the case where you get a pick and it suddenly become, they suddenly become like the 5, 4.

[Benny Johnson]

Yes.

[Mark Halpern]

Democrats don't make that choice. When Democrats get a choice.

[Benny Johnson]

Yes.

[Mark Halpern]

When they go full Katanji, Brown Jackson, you and I both know what that means.

[Benny Johnson]

Here's the way I'd phrase it. There's no Democrat equivalent, Democratic Supreme Court justice. The equivalent where the party says, that was a mistake, we shouldn't have picked that. Correct. And yet that's what Republicans say about Souter. It's what they, it's what they certainly have said at times about Roberts. And now after today, people are going to say it in loud voice about Amy Coney Barrett. So again, before, before you answered the question I just asked you, I just want to double back. Well, any of the people who say she lied to them during the confirmation process, you think any of them will speak publicly?

[Mark Halpern]

Oh, Mark, they're calling on her to resign. They want her to resign from the court.

[Benny Johnson]

Who are these people?

[Mark Halpern]

Mike Davis is one. Mike Davis is one of them.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

Who was in charge of the Article 3 project and shepherded through all three. I mean, he was working for Grassley. It was his job to shepherd these people through. And he lists Mitch McConnell as somebody who immediately called the president and demanded that it would be Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 on the eve of Ginsburg's death. In fact, when President Trump boarded the plane after that sort of famous. Oh, you're just telling me right now. Oh, my goodness. You know, Elton John playing in the background, famous clip, he boards the plane with Mitch McConnell in his ear on the phone, calling and demanding it be Amy Coney Barrett.

[Benny Johnson]

Right.

[Mark Halpern]

And that should have been, of course, the first red flag. Your question about how doesn't this happen in the future?

[Benny Johnson]

Let's address that one. I got another one.

[Mark Halpern]

This has been the issue. The issue and that the left understands is that they show their work. Right. So these leftist justices have a long body of legal decision making that you can point to that shows where their mind is and what they are going to rule on and how. And we don't do that. For some reason, the right is blown away by the credentialism. Oh, they came from Notre Dame and they came from Harvard and Yale and we're so the. The mystique and the. The witchcraft almost of like these.

[Tim Rice]

The.

[Mark Halpern]

Oh, they're from Yale. How could they ever be bad? And they're one of us, the Federalists. They like them there. The Federalist Club. Like, we get duped by this without ever being able to show your work. And I'm telling you, this is something that's truly changed in modern politics, whether it's a Supreme Court justice or whether it is a Republican serving in office. The trust us, bro era of American politics. Trust us, bro. It's good. We're the CIA. We're the FBI. Trust us, bro. That doesn't work anymore. It's show your work, but with.

[Benny Johnson]

Just show your work, but, you know,

[Mark Halpern]

show us who you're going to.

[Benny Johnson]

With. But with justices and judges, does that mean only pick people who've got lots of lower court rulings?

[Mark Halpern]

Totally. I mean, listen, I. So I just talked with Brett Tolman, who is, you know, he's in charge of Right on crime, Executive director. He worked for the DOJ for nearly 40 years, and he says that he's a part of a selection committee that's looking at what could happen if there's a, you know, who knows when there's going to be the next opening vacancy on the Supreme Court. And he says that they are. They are ruthlessly eliminating from the pack anybody who doesn't have decades of jurisprudence.

[Benny Johnson]

Right.

[Mark Halpern]

That they can study.

[Benny Johnson]

Right.

[Mark Halpern]

And that's what Amy Coney Bear was. You know, Amy Coney Barrett. Everyone was like. Everyone was blown away by, like, oh, she's so smart. She's a law. You know, she teaches at Notre Dame, and she, you know, she. She says the right things about the Constitution, but we haven't. We didn't see any of her rulings. Right.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

Like, we didn't see it. We saw the empty notepad, and that's what we're getting now.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah. What's. What good for the things you care about. She's not going to resign, I don't think what good comes. Is it. Is it ratings, fundraising? I don't mean just mean you. I mean everyone like you today on the right who's just enraged and asking her to be hung in effigy or get out the whoopee, the pin cushion, the voodoo doll. What good does it do things you care about to rail against her. Why not just say, well, that's unfortunate. We learned some lessons. Let's move on and hope she votes with us going forward. What good comes from assailing her with such Vociferousness.

[Mark Halpern]

I'm a parent and you're a parent. And I want to call. I want a country for my children. I want a nation. I want their American citizenship to mean something. It's not magic dirt. This is a big one. This is a. This is a tough one. Yeah, because this.

[Benny Johnson]

But I get how strongly you feel about the issue to interrupt. But I want to focus on my question and what good does it do? Why not just say this is a horrible decision? This, this is not adequately read the Constitution, accurately read the Constitution. It doesn't adequately protect America. Let's look for ways to try to find the same result without having to go through the Supreme Court. Why isn't that better for our kids than. Than. Than talking about how horrible this woman is and how what a horrible mistake it was to put her on the court.

[Mark Halpern]

I would probably tone it down a bit if it was a statutory decision. But they decided to cut in the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, therefore making it impossible to overturn. We'd have to have a two thirds Constitutional Convention. Not in order to overturn this, of course. Never going to. We'd have civil war before we'd have that. Mark and I both know that. And so what they did was decide it for end into eternity. And until we get a. Maybe a new. You can bring the question up perhaps again and you can get a new Supreme Court. But you're going to talk. You're talking generations.

[Benny Johnson]

Generations. At least one generation.

[Mark Halpern]

Exactly. And so that. So on a question like this, On a question like this, you ha. I'm upset because of the way that they decided it. And Kavanaugh is a great example. He wanted to decide it from the statute level which says, hey, listen, Congress, if you don't like it, you can go amend it. Here's a good example. The 14th Amendment didn't cover Indians, American Indians. They had to go. An act of Congress in 1926 had to go give American citizenship to the children of Native Americans. And so what should have happened here in the Supreme Court is they could have said, well, if you want to give citizenship to Chinese nationals, for some reason, Congress can make that decision of. As the voice of the people.

[Benny Johnson]

Right.

[Mark Halpern]

But the idea that we live in magic dirt and that every, like a Haitian woman who practices voodoo can touch the border wall and suddenly her child is as American as any American child that ever lived. That or somebody who's been in this country for 200 years is wrong. And no other country does that. Other countries have had statutes like this. And they've done away with them.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

Because it's a national security issue more than anything.

[Benny Johnson]

Right. I normally don't like to ask people why other people think what they think, because I should ask them. But you're here, so I'm going to ask you. Why do you think people on the other side feel so strongly that we should have birthright citizenship? I know. I don't get. I get. I get the equities you care about.

[Tim Rice]

Yeah.

[Benny Johnson]

I want a bunch of Russian and Chinese Manchurian candidates coming back here and being as American as your kids because their parents slipped in here to birth the kids. I get that. But why do people, why do people feel strong about the other position except for fidelity to their reading of the, of the, of their sense of the intent? Why do they care so much?

[Mark Halpern]

And, you know, the Supreme Court decided. And, you know, unlike the left, Mark, I'm not going to sit here and be like, let's burn the Supreme Court down. Let's pack it. Let's change it forever. Let's snap all their gavels. Right. Like, I'm not going to drag a guillotine up to the Supreme Court. Like, I'm going to live by this ruling. It sucks. And I'm going to just. I'm a live by it. You're exactly right. You know, but, but yes, to your exact question here and to the Amy Coney Barrett. The Amy Coney Barrett question. The reason you go hard against Amy Coney Barrett is that that was a decision, a mistake that was made in recent days. Right. Not too long ago, just a couple of years ago, by the president's team. And so you want to make sure that doesn't happen again. It just seems to keep happening. As a parent, I want to break

[Benny Johnson]

bad behavior of my children again. I'm interrupting to just focus back. Why are they cheering? Why would someone cheer the left? Yeah, yeah. Why do they. Why do they. And it can't be, you know, the thing where they want these people to vote. That's just not the answer. It's just the numbers aren't that big. It's principle that many babies vote. That's why they're, that's why they're cheering, because they want Chinese and Russian babies to come here and vote.

[Mark Halpern]

Well, the children of first generation immigrants vote 90% for the Democrats. You're a numbers guy.

[Benny Johnson]

Right. I don't think that's why they're cheating.

[Mark Halpern]

But this is a population whole. I mean, listen, this is a population that votes 90% for Democrats. I think that is a perfect rationale as to why they would want as many criminal or legal immigrants as possible into this country. You want to know what they haven't done and what. What hasn't been done is nobody has elucidated for me from the left why we need third world aliens in our country. Yeah, nobody's ever made that argument. And I'd love to hear it. Actually, Like, I don't quite.

[Benny Johnson]

I don't get it.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah.

[Benny Johnson]

Okay, so we got four justices nominated by Republican presidents who sometimes vote different from the way you would like, including today, Gorsuch, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. Do you consider them all equally flawed, all equally problematic, and shouldn't have been selected, or do you. Do you have gradations between the four of them?

[Mark Halpern]

Gorsuch is an nine out of ten. Kavanaugh is a seven out of ten. Amy Coney Barrett's a two out of ten.

[Benny Johnson]

How about the chief justice of two?

[Mark Halpern]

Two out of ten.

[Benny Johnson]

Two out of ten. So you make those two worse than the others. But are you disappointed in Gorsuch and Kavanaugh overall? Because they're not 10 out of 10.

[Mark Halpern]

There are some decisions that obviously has been frustrating for both of them, and that's just. That's just the way that it goes. You're exactly right that they shouldn't be political, but that's not reality. We live in reality. And the reality is that Joe Biden quite illegally said, I'm going to put a black woman on the Supreme Court. By the way, that's against, like, federal discrimination laws. You can't do that. I would also think it's wrong for somebody to campaign on putting a white man on the Supreme Court who's 40 years old.

[Benny Johnson]

Like, I think when they vote, when they vote adverse to your wishes, what do you think causes that? Is it. They're trying to appeal to people in Georgetown and in the. In the New York Times? Do they. Do they. Do they decide it based on their view of the law that just happens to be different? What accounts for the votes that go against the way you think they should vote and why they don't always vote with Alito and John and Thomas? Is it trying to appease liberals or something else?

[Mark Halpern]

I think there's a left group, there's like a hive mind, an academia hive mind that is controlled entirely by the left that has birthed people like John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. And we need to break the spell of the illusion that somehow that creates a better justice. It doesn't. In fact, it Creates a worse justice. I would much rather have Saul Goodman on the Supreme Court than Amy Coney Barrett. Let me just be the first to, like, say, I want to nominate Saul Goodman.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

At least he'd have the Constitution behind him in his office.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

And I'd take that any day. And he probably got his law degree from a community college. Than somebody who is only concerned about what she reads about herself in the New York Times. And I think that is a major problem. I think there's one other critical issue here, Mark, that is existential to the court itself, which is court packing. The left has made it very clear that they intend on doing that, and it's very popular with their base. And I personally believe that this decision by Barrett and by John Roberts, who's grooming her, is a decision in order to placate them as a political decision in order to try and olive branch the left into saying, please don't destroy the court forever.

[Benny Johnson]

Is that based on reporting? Gut feeling? How would you characterize how you. Why you think that what you've seen John Roberts do.

[Mark Halpern]

How you've seen John Roberts behave as,

[Benny Johnson]

like, the mayor of Chevy Chase.

[Mark Halpern]

Exactly.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah. I. I think he. He feels some obligation as the chief to. To be the mayor of Chevy Chase.

[Mark Halpern]

And.

[Benny Johnson]

And Kavanaugh, you know, is from. Is from Washington. Like, he's. He's. He's. He's. He's been to Chevy Chase Country Club. I think that's where he. Where he's a member. I don't really get Amy Coney Barrett. I don't really. I don't really see anything in her background that would make her want to say, man, I hope. Man, I hope Ruth Marcus and Nina Totenberg like me. I just.

[Mark Halpern]

I don't.

[Benny Johnson]

I don't see that. But. But I understand your point of view about it. I just. I just wonder if she were joining us now and she heard that characterization that you're doing this because you want to be vice mayor of Chevy Chase. I wonder whether she. How she'd actually feel, because my gut tells me she really doesn't care about that. Nothing in her background suggests she would. So I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't feel as confident that that's the reason as you do.

[Mark Halpern]

Well, she's incredibly pedigreed through the Ivy Leagues.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

And she has. She's sort of steeped in that. But I think that you bring up a great point here, Mark, which is that we don't know a lot about Her. She didn't have a lot of jurisprudence. There wasn't a huge background. She was kind of like just a blank slate. And you should be. That should be a red flag for every conservative going forward. So it's nothing personal against me and. Oh, like, listen, she's had threats against her family. People have doxed her, come after her kids at her house. The same things happened to me. So worst thing you could possibly do to another human being or a parent is it. Being a parent's hard enough, man. And that is demonic. It's evil. It's awful. But it does change you. And I. I don't. I worry that there's sort of. That there might be like, give a monster a cookie kind of thing dynamic going on here. It's just human nature, and that's why they do it.

[Benny Johnson]

What a colossal failure of the process for conservatives to win all these presidential elections, to get the opportunity to nominate justices and then pick people who are disappointing, as we've said, don't have the same thing on the left. All right, let's do some rapid stuff. Who's the most overrated person in the Trump administration and why?

[Mark Halpern]

The most overrated person in the Trump administration, Do they have to be currently in the administration?

[Benny Johnson]

They do. They do indeed. It says right here in the fine print. All right, let's start.

[Mark Halpern]

I'm going to leave it at the people who would qualify for this answer demonstrably have been removed from the administration.

[Benny Johnson]

Who's the most underrated person in the administration?

[Mark Halpern]

This is going to get me in trouble, but I think that Mark Wayne Mullen.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

Has had a huge mess to clean up. And the two questions are actually connected, your first and the second. And he had a huge mess to clean up, and he has been going about it very quietly and very calmly and without making a ton of huge mistakes, and he has increased for the base. What we want to see out of dhs, which is enforcement of our laws in this country. And he's done, I think, an excellent job on that. Very silently, which is what you want, I think.

[Benny Johnson]

What's the last professional thing you cried over? Which is.

[Mark Halpern]

Cried. Not really a crier. The last professional thing that I cried over, maybe. Well, here we go.

[Benny Johnson]

Okay.

[Mark Halpern]

The inauguration of President Trump. And let me explain, because I watched it from the maternity ward, welcoming our fourth child. And so I cry at the birth of all of our children because it's like, you know, it's spiritual and you're welcoming an angel into this world, and it's a new soul. And it's a, it's a, it's a gift from God. Arrows in the quiver, as the Bible says. And so I cry at the birth of every one of my children. Trump happened to be being inaugurated in the hours of, like, my fourth child's birth, and so he watched all from the hospital.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah. What's the thing that liberals get most wrong about you?

[Mark Halpern]

That I'm actually better at this game than them. Like, I'm like, we're, we're actually so fundamentally better at social media and audience and gathering audiences, and we don't Astroturf anything.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

And we've been at it for a longer time.

[Benny Johnson]

And so they're wrong about how popular you are on the merits.

[Mark Halpern]

Banished. Well, I think they had this. This was a huge problem that they had. I mean, this was. If you were to ask any, any liberal activist, what scared them the most about Charlie Kirk. Yeah, it was how good he was at TikTok. It was like how, how effective he was at reaching people, because young people are by nature going to be going to gravitate towards the truth. They're going to desire the truth and what Charlie was able to do in these mediums. And I worked with Charlie for a very long time, and he was able to reach people on a level and resonate with them far beyond any of the corporate and access media. And so suddenly this trillion dollar investment in MSNBC and CNN and abc, NBC, cbs, like that matters. Not when there's a Charlie Kirk video in your TikTok feed that has been seen by 20 million people.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah. Last. Last one. Last one. Because we're up against a hard out for one of us. I can't say who. Be honest about this. Brace yourself. Don't know no fog spin. Just brace yourself. Name a Democrat who you would fear more could win the general election in 2028 than John Ossoff if they were the Democratic nominee.

[Mark Halpern]

Oh, no, he's. He's the dark horse. You're exactly right.

[Benny Johnson]

No, but who would you fear the most would win the general election? In other words, would anyone be a stronger general election candidate at this point in your mind than John Offsoft?

[Mark Halpern]

I mean, okay, so I don't care about, like, getting canceled because I've been canceled so many times and it never works. So I'm just going to straight up say, what's the reality of the Democrat Party? They're the two people that I was the most scared about is, was Josh Shapiro and Jon Ossoff. But they're both Jewish, Mark. And the Democrat party has made a swing towards jihadism. And you can see it right now. I watched the videos of Dan Goldman getting kicked out of Brooklyn coffee shops. I'm seeing what's happening with Scott Wiener, arguably the most progressive Democrat elected in the country, and how he's being screamed out and chased out of, like, places in San Francisco. Yeah, because he's Jewish.

[Benny Johnson]

But. But that's a question.

[Mark Halpern]

That's a question they're going to have to, like, struggle with because their base isn't going to like that.

[Benny Johnson]

If somehow Shapiro or Ossoff got nominated, those would be the two you'd fear the most.

[Mark Halpern]

Absolutely. Absolutely.

[Benny Johnson]

Okay. All right, Benny, thank you, as always. We ran out of time before I ran out of questions. I wanted to hear from you on, but hopefully you'll come back.

[Mark Halpern]

Oh, anytime, Mark.

[Benny Johnson]

All right. Don't forget, don't forget the Benny show, available to you every day wherever your finer podcasts are or on his vaunted YouTube channel. Thank you, Benny.

[Mark Halpern]

Thank you, Mark.

[Benny Johnson]

Next up, right here after a quick break, Tim Rice will be here, D.C. bureau Chief for the Daily Wire. We'll talk about more about the Supreme Court decisions and about America's youth and their love affair with Richard Milhouse Nixon. Tim Rice is next up. Everybody, if you're 64 years of age or older, here's something worth knowing. Medicare has thousands of plans. Thousands. But most people, they pick just one without ever seeing the full picture. Plenty of people will call telling you they've got something better. The question is whether you can trust them. That's why I tell my audience about Chapter. They're the only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide. Their advisors aren't paid to push one plan over another. They look at your doctors, your prescriptions, your priorities, and they show you what plan actually fits for you. There's no cost, no obligation. Chapter review your options in under 20 minutes. And if you're already on the right plan, they'll tell you that. But if not, they'll help you make the switch. Chapter has already saved members of my audience thousands of dollars by helping them find the right new plans. Call Chapter. That's the advice that I give to my friends. Talk with the Chapter Advisor today. Call them at 262-454-0503. Again, call Chapter Advisor today at 262-454-0503. A morning walk, some bird watching. It's another easy Sunday. UnitedHealth Group makes these ordinary days possible with partners like the University of Tennessee Health Sciences helping communities manage their health closer to home. 54% of participants have lowered their blood pressure, meaning fewer heart attacks and more Sundays at the park. This might feel like an ordinary day to UnitedHealth Group. It's the healthcare system working better for everyone. Learn [e-mail] commitment.

[Tinks]

Hi, besties, it's Tinks. If you need a little inspo, a little tough love, or just someone to tell you that everything is going to be okay, come hang out with me on my podcast. It's me, Tanks. We talk dating, confidence, friendships, healing, leveling up, and all the things we're working on together. I share my frameworks, your questions, and yes, plenty of chaotic stories. New episodes drop every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. So whether you're on your hot girl walk, commuting or hiding from your ex on Instagram, I've got you. Listen to It's Me Tanks wherever you get your podcasts.

[Benny Johnson]

All right, next up and joining me now, the great Tim Rice. He's the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the Daily Wire and a man who both covers breaking news and thinks about longer term stuff and wrote a great article about Richard Milhouse Nixon, which we'll talk about in a second. But I want to start, Tim, with the news of day and all these Supreme Court decisions. The president won two on campaign finance and trans athletes and lost the birthright citizenship case. I think that it's an inside baseball thing. But the campaign finance case is huge. Republicans have more money, more big money, and they've got James Blair, and there's no Democratic analog for that. So explain to people who care about the midterms, but maybe don't really understand why a Supreme Court decision could affect the midterms, why this is such a big deal.

[Tim Rice]

Yeah. So I mean, essentially the case says that campaign finance or contribution limits to party organizations violate the First Amendment. So after this ruling, you can donate. There is no limit to how much money people can donate to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, and there's no limit to how, how then the party can use that money. Right. So this has been the sort of, you know, when we think about campaign finance reform and, you know, limitations and regulations for the past 15 years. We've talked about Citizens United, we've talked about, you know, PACs and things of that nature. But this is now sort of bringing it back to the original, the original, you know, kind of political organs behind these things. So, I mean, in the short term, as you sort of alluded to there, the Republican Party, which has more cash on hand and has a better sort of fundraising and Distribution, apparatus. Apparatus than the Democrats could, you know, are going to go out right now, and James Blair is going to start raising as much money as humanly possible into the GOP coffers and try to deploy that as best they can through the midterms long term. I'm super interested to see what happens and whether or not this kind of heralds some return to a more centralized, stronger party system. Right. Instead of. I've actually, I've talked to a couple of academics who are experts in political parties, and they sort of think that it's not going to happen and there's too much other stuff. And it's not just about the money. You have to consider lobbyists and all sorts of other, you know, kind of supra Party organizations that would need to give up a lot of power in order to return the parties to prime place. But I really think it's hard to understate how big this is and how transformational this is going to be over the next couple of years.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah, I agree that it could be transformational long term, but it's unpredictable. But I'm just thinking in the short term for these midterms. James Blair proved last cycle, he's the president's top political advisor, was doing it at the White House, has left the White House and is now coordinating. He proved last cycle under previous rulings that loosened the limits on coordination, that he knows how to do it. He knows how to sit with the lawyers and say, what can I do? What can I do? And then organize and coordinate with maximum efficiency. He's now been unshackled to do it even more. And I think the Republicans have become the party of big contributions. James Blair can now, and Democrats have better at small dollars. But James Blair can now go to the biggest donors in the party and say this. We want to keep the majority. We can keep the majority in the Senate for sure, maybe in the House. But if you don't want the commies to be running Congress, write us big checks. And rest assured, the money will not be wasted. It'll be spent by me, James Blair, who you trust in a coordinated way for the biggest bang for the buck. That may or may not happen, but you can bet James Blair is going to try.

[Tim Rice]

Yeah, and I would also just say it couldn't come at a better time for President Trump, not just in the obvious way, which is that now he might have access to more resources as his party heads into the midterms, but something that I've really been struck by over the past few months is just how much the president has been acting like a traditional party leader. Right. In his first term. We saw a lot of what people would call loyalty tests or, you know, picking winners and losers, trying to elevate, you know, kind of fringe MAGA figures to oust, you know, pretty established politicians. There's a little bit of that this term. But if we look right at the primaries that we've already seen in the run up to the midterms, this isn't Trump kind of just settling petty grievances or things like that, though. There's obviously a grievance element. He's very clear, right? He went after Bill Cassidy because he was mad at Bill Cassidy. But, you know, Julia Letlow wasn't some random Trump loyalist from. From the sticks, Right? She was a representative, an elected member of Congress, albeit one with a, you know, with a sort of different record. But the president is getting involved in these campaigns in a way that we are used to pre Trump presidents getting involved. Right. More as a party leader and kingmaker in the traditional sense. Less is sort of, you know, kind of like the Mafia boss that we saw in the first term. So now to take this second term, more established president who is clearly interested in political maneuvering in a more traditional way and giving him even more resources to put behind that effort is, you know, again, I think if this had happened in Trump won again, the unpredictability would have been cranked up to 11. But I think now it's pretty clear what's going to happen, what Trump and what James Blair are going to do with this decision.

[Benny Johnson]

I agree with your macro premise. The only thing I take exception with is I don't think it's ever been common for a president to work to beat an incumbent of his own party. Sure, that makes that case a little exceptional. But otherwise, I think your point's spot on and kind of brilliant. The two other cases decided today, one, the president and his side, win on saying state. The court said state laws that allow states to say trans athletes can't participate in women and girls sports. That was upheld. And then the president lost on the birthright citizenship case. His executive order said no, inconsistent with the Constitution, which allows people born in the United States on American soil, regardless of the legal status, immigration status of their parents, to be American citizens. What I'm already hearing from people is these are cases where the losing side wins politically, that this is going to rev up the left who, although public opinion is not on their side. It's going to get the base of Democratic party revved up to say we need to fight for equal rights for everybody. And on the President's side, he's going to be able to say, those pointy headed liberals on the Supreme Court are keeping me from protecting our border in every way and I'm going to keep fighting for the border. How much do you credit that theory that the losers in the Supreme Court are the winners politically in the midterms?

[Tim Rice]

I think that's probably right. I think with all big cases like this, especially again coming on the heels of a midterm election cycle, that we can definitely expect that the birthright citizenship case. Absolutely. I take that point hands down. Although it's kind of funny that this is, it's funny to me that this has become this tent pole issue for the Republican Party because as the majority, as the Court's ruling says, and as I think even conservative defenders of birthright citizenship have pointed out, this has been the pretty standard ruling or our reading of, of that line in the Constitution since the amendment was ratified. And with due respect to my buddies at the Claremont Institute, who were the ones who really kind of pushed this novel reading of birthright citizenship, it's amazing how quickly the President and his team have picked that up and how far it's gotten so quickly. I remember seven years ago, this was something we were talking about in seminar rooms and cocktail parties. Now it's at the Supreme Court. And so to your point, yes, I think those pointy headed liberals and that traitor Neil Gorsuch, they want illegal immigrant anchor babies to live in the United States. That's a winning message for Republicans. And I think that the same is true with the trans athlete case. But the only thing that I'm looking at there is the liberal justices concurred with the majority in agreeing that Title 9 does not protect biological men who are, who are identify, who become trans women, identify as trans women. They dissented on whether or not the equal protection clause should be read in a way to kind of again, like a more expansive reading of the equal protection clause. We should kind of change the way we think of it to include them. Right. To kind of expand the, the rights regime. But they didn't dissent on the central question. They didn't say, which is a little bit surprising, especially from Sotomayor, who has become very political and very explicit in her recent dissents. Like she had an opportunity to say in the court, trans women or women, and she basically didn't. So that's probably a little too nuanced to make a difference on, you know, in midterms and certainly in upcoming midterms. But that I think is going to be a very interesting. I'm no legal scholar, but that seems to me like the seeds of something that people on the right, that conservatives will build on in the future.

[Benny Johnson]

Don't sell yourself short as legal scholar. I hear people all the time say you're a young Nina Totenberg. That's what people say. We're talking to Tim Rice. He's the Washington bureau chief of the Daily Wire and a big thinker. Tim. Tim runs a newsroom that's got a high metabolism, but also a big thinker. And you've been thinking big about Richard Nixon. My dad's, My dad's second boss in Washington was Nixon, worked the Nixon White House. And this is not the first renaissance for President Nixon, but there is a bit of a renaissance going on led by two great men. One is Tim Rice, but the other is the Vice President, United states. Here is J.D. vance on his trip out to the Reagan, the Nixon Library, where he was promoting his book, talking about, in positive terms, Richard Milhouse Nixon. S8, please. If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12 hour news story.

[Mark Halpern]

The idea that it would have taken

[Benny Johnson]

down a presidency is crazy. And by the way, if you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it's not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions tried to do to Donald Trump and the first Trump administration. There is a parallel. I also, just at a personal level, you know, okay, young senator, vice president, writes some best selling books, is hated by the media. It kind of sounds like JD VAN well, now downplaying Watergate and talking about it as a made up scandal by the deep state at the Nixon libraries, well, that's easy to do. That's pandering to the home crowd. But Tim Rice wrote this. How the kids learned to love Richard Nixon. This is C1, please. Tim. Who are the kids and why they love Richard Nixon?

[Tim Rice]

Yeah, so I started noticing probably a year ago at this point that whenever I would open, you know, Twitter or Instagram, I'd see these very. The best way I can describe it is very Gen Z coded memes and video edits of Nixon, you know, kind of black and white smash cuts, like rave music in the background. And at first I thought, you know, this is just some kind of irony pilled Internet meme, as you said, much like, you know, much like defending Nixon at the Nixon foundation or the Nixon Library. Right. You know, making kind of, you know, Glorifying controversial figures on the Internet.

[Benny Johnson]

This is not so bad. He's good, right?

[Tim Rice]

Yeah. This is not the first time this has happened. But then in the past few months, I noticed a couple Vanity Fair and a couple of other publications, maybe the Washington Post, were running stories sort of about, about these. Who's behind the Richard Nixon memes? Why are, why is Gen Z getting excited about Richard Nixon? The thesis, of course, for them being that, you know, it's bad if we have it, it's. This is some conspiracy because if we can rehabilitate Nixon, then we can rehabilitate Trump. Which just as a side note, I found as a funny sort of like, I obviously got where they're coming from. I'm not, I'm not trying to play dumb. I understand. Understand where they're coming from. But to be very pedantic, Trump's in the White House right now. He doesn't necessarily need that kind of rehabilitation. But I digress. So I started looking into it and it turns out that the memes are coming from the Nixon foundation. And the Nixon foundation is putting this out because a, that's the Nixon Foundation's job is to steward and promote the legacy of Richard Nixon. And they recently hired a bunch of young guys to run their social media team. And as all good social media people, you know, do they know what young people want? So I talked to them, I started looking into it. But the craziest thing for me is that yes, these funny memes and edits on Instagram and on X are getting millions and millions of views. But in the past couple of years, since they started this new strategy, something like more than half of their YouTube subscribers are under the age of 30 and I'm crazy.

[Benny Johnson]

They're not crazy.

[Tim Rice]

They're not posting memes. They're just posting clips of Nixon speeches. Just like Nixon talking about Russia, Nixon talking about China, Nixon opining on Kissinger style of foreign policy. So clearly there's something else going on here beyond that, that initial kind of. Haha. Yeah, we're Nixon maxing this summer. That's a funny meme that gets people hooked. But then that's not enough to get. To get.

[Benny Johnson]

So what's, what's the thing? What do they like? They like his sense of humor. They like his like post. Postmodern irony. What do they like?

[Tim Rice]

I think it's two things. I think one is that is what the Vice President touched on in that clip that you just played, which is that I disagree with Vance's characterization of a lot of things for instance, I think he's completely wrong that Watergate would be a 12 hour story. I think Watergate would be, it would be an even bigger story than it was at the time. Right. Because we'd be parsing every single thing, every, there'd be, you know, every minute of the White House tapes, every plumber, anyway. But I do think there is this sense among Gen Z especially this is a generation that probably not since the 1960s has a generation felt so betrayed by the powers that be. I mean, you think this is the generation that grew up in and had a lot of their milestones taken away by COVID lockdowns, only then to find that kind of regime sort of crumble. Right. And everyone kind of admit, oh, you know, yeah, we probably didn't need to do social distancing. And again, whether we're. Regardless of what side of the political aisle you're on, they saw sort of the rise and then fall of Trump and then the rise and fall of Joe Biden and peak woke and now we're back to Trump again. So, you know, I think that there's a lot of distrust in the government, in the media, in the people who are who we traditionally trust to tell us what is true and false, what is right and wrong. So I think on the one hand they are just very interested in a figure who they feel. Yes, yes. Maybe a figure they feel was subjugated or victimized by the deep state, but really just a figure who they didn't have access to. Right. I think there's a thirst among young Americans to question official narratives, to question official histories. And what better place to start than with Richard Nixon, a man who at this point, everyone learns in school, you know, Watergate, I'm not a crook, he opened China. End of Nixon. That's the Nixon unit in every AP US History class. But then it turns out not only is there more to Nixon, there's a lot more because he had this massive career and he spanned everything from, you know, he started as the commie catcher, he ended as the elder statesman who presidents were calling, you know, for. For advice and his dotage. And he did everything in between. And I think that's why. Right. That's why we see them staying on the YouTube page, watching, you know, the Kitchen. The Kitchen Cabinet debate or, you know, later in life interviews or speeches where Nixon talked about, you know, the threat that Vladimir Putin posed or, you know, the kind of dangers of the globalized economy or even, yeah, as you said, is sort of postmodern ironic waxing about, you know, what makes men happy. You know, there's, there's so much content there and I think it's just sort of for a lot of young people, it's like, okay, wow, who knew that there was this guy? I want to learn as much about him as I possibly can.

[Benny Johnson]

Yeah. Richard Nixon is a fascinating figure and Tim has done a great job both here and in the piece explaining why there is fascination with Richard Nixon. Now the piece available on the Daily Wire website, as is Tim's work and the work of his charges in the Washington bureau. And Tim, where are you on social Media?

[Tim Rice]

Tim Rice, D.C. on X. And that's about it. That's all I need.

[Benny Johnson]

Tim Rice, DC on X. Tim, I love having you on. Thank you. Congratulations on the piece and great to spend some time with you.

[Tim Rice]

Thanks, Mark. Always a pleasure.

[Benny Johnson]

All right, next up, I get to read some of your incredible feedback to recent episodes here. That's right. Mark the mailman is next up. So think about the last 30 bucks you spent maybe as on a streaming subscription of something you don't even watch or a lunch you've already forgotten about. That's $30 and it's gone forever. Acre Gold lets you turn that so called lost money into something better, physical. 24 karat Swiss gold. You pick a plan, your balance builds up and once you hit the price of a bar, they ship it straight to your front door. Think about this. Real gold in your hand at your house. And over time, you're sitting on something that's been valuable since the dawn of civilization. And for the collectors out there, they've just dropped something really cool. The limited edition Hot Wheels collection. These are officially licensed by Mattel. They're strictly capped and once they're gone, they're history. So while you're checking them out, claim your free entry to the speed club sweepstakes. They're giving away other stuff that's cool. A 1 gram Hot Wheels gold bar plus a massive grand Prize. It's the 10 gram 24 karat Gold Hot Wheels bar. Both come in official collector packaging. Tom. And they're both up for grabs right now. So start stacking for just 30 [e-mail] mark again. Go right now to getacregold.com mark and subscribe. Today, a morning walk, some bird watching. It's another easy Sunday. UnitedHealth Group makes these ordinary days possible with partners like the University of Tennessee Health Sciences helping communities manage their health closer to home. 54% of participants have lowered their blood pressure, meaning fewer heart attacks and more. Sundays at the park. This might feel like an ordinary day to UnitedHealth Group. It's the healthcare system working better for everyone. Learn [e-mail] commitment hey everyone, it's Stavrosalkis

[Tim Rice]

and I'm here to tell you about

[Mark Halpern]

my podcast, Stavi's World.

[Tim Rice]

Each week we're joined by great guests like Josh Safdie, Eric Andre, Caleb Herron, and more.

[Benny Johnson]

It's sort of an interview show, but really we're just messing around, making each

[Tim Rice]

other laugh and hopefully making you laugh while you're washing the dishes or grocery shopping or out on a long drive.

[Mark Halpern]

Plus, I take listener calls where we

[Benny Johnson]

have honest conversations about dating, life and everything in between.

[Tim Rice]

Imagine if your therapist was a vulgar degenerate whose office was in a Greek diner.

[Mark Halpern]

No scripts, no polish, and absolutely no holding back. Listen to Stavi's World wherever you get your podcasts.

[Benny Johnson]

Next up, letters. We get letters. We get lots and lots of letters. And this is why I love the segment so much, to hear the brilliant feedback from all Nexters out there. And so we'll go to the mailbag right now, Mark the mailman on duty to read to you from some of your fellow Nexters. Here's one from TJ in Philadelphia. TJ says hey Mark, for your 8 for 28 predictions, by the way. They're not predictions, TJ. They're rankings. You often mention how Josh Shapiro and his team does little to combat scandals and how it'll be a liability for him if he runs. But as a Pennsylvania resident, I see it differently. Most of these minor scandals go under the radar and most folks around here don't know about them. I think addressing these scandals and drawing attention to them would result in the Streisand effect, where they get more attention either by accident or intentionally. I think Shapiro is handling it the best by ignoring it and not giving it more unnecessary attention. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this angle, TJ in Philadelphia. Tj, you're absolutely right in terms of your sort of like short term analysis that if he dealt with them in a bigger way, we'd get more attention. What I'm pointing to as, as what I see as one of his big Achilles heels is they're not handling them. Whether they should be handling them in a quiet way or a loud way, they're not handling them. And if he performs and his team perform at that level when they're on the big stage, when they're not on the gubernatorial stage, but when they're on the big stage. I believe that it will be fatal and I've done my reporting to know inside his operation that it's there. This is not some genius plan. They'd like to handle them better. But you're right, they don't get attention in Pennsylvania. They're not really breaking through nationally. But if they don't get better at dealing with these things, there's nowhere to run and nowhere to hide when you run for president. Great question, though. All right, let's go to now to Brian W. Brian says this. Hey, I've heard you give Talarico, we're talking about the Democratic Senate candidate In Texas, a 20% shot and I heard 35% from Trump trusted Republican commentators. 20% is not a small number. That's a better chance than any NFL team has of winning next year's Super Bowl. Right now for odds makers, I don't know if that's true, but it might be true. If he does upset Paxton, what does that mean towards 2028? If his message can win in Texas, they can win in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. Right. With such a weak field, does Talarika ride this momentum into the nomination? He will be the darling of midterms and thought of as next up. Brian, so much smart stuff in here. First of all, you're right, 20% is high given the Democrats haven't won statewide in Texas in decades. And you're also right that if he does win, he will be touted as the next great big thing and people will wonder what does he have that others should emulate? However, Paxton is a really weak candidate. This is why Democrats not just oppose him because they're the establishment, but this is why they wanted Cornyn as the nominee. Even Paxton's supporters, even his own campaign team, will tell you he brings more baggage than a super sized Amtrak train. And that means that while there'll be a temptation to learn lessons from a a Talarico victory, it might be sent. The lesson simply might be don't run a guy who's been indicted a lot. Don't run a guy who's faced a lot of allegations, personal and professional. And I'll say this about Talarico and 20 chance, 20% today. Let's see if they can eliminate him through more of this opposition research and negative ads. If they eliminate him, we'll go down to close to zero. If he survives it, if he's still standing tall and still getting the kind of poll numbers he got in the New York Times poll this week, which shows the race a Toss up. I may make it more like 35% to 20%. It's still Texas. He's still an extremely liberal Democrat and we just have to keep watching it. But no doubt if he wins, he's on the national stage in a big way and will be more, even more the toast of the media than he's. Than he is now. All right, next, let's go to Mary W. Mary W. Writes this. He suggests people can work hard to change the electoral systems in their various states. Sounds great, but we seem to be in an impasse on proof of citizenship and voter id and it appears the leaders in the Democratic Party want to resist that at all costs. Anyway, courts are another issue. I do think Republicans have made efforts to get courts to address perceived flaws in certain states, Pennsylvania and 2020. And the court said the issue wasn't ripe until votes were counted after it was too late. Seems like a catch 22 to me. I know there is a vibrant election integrity movement bubbling along in certain states and actually, no. Cleta Mitchell, great election lawyer, leader in that effort. Frankly, given the state of affairs, I think this will be like grand dog day. Wish could be more optimistic. All the best, Mary W. You know, Mary, like most Nexters, you're extremely well informed. That raises a lot of really important points and accurate points about what a challenge this is. But what I will say is Republicans would be smart to do three things if they really want to have this as an area of progress rather than just have an issue. Number one, stop exaggerating about how widespread election fraud is. I know that'll produce a lot of letters from you all, but there is election fraud, but there's never documentation that it actually changes the outcome. And while 1 election fraud is 1 too many and 10 is 10 too many, I think better documentation of the actual fraud would be helpful. Number two, I think making cases for legislation to tighten things up that doesn't overreach would be good. Some cases I think there's overreach. And then lastly, work with Democrats when you can. There are a lot of Democrats who would find many of the things Republicans are pointing to to tighten up the system to be good public policy. And I think they'd go for it. Not all of them, but some of them. And I think whenever you're making changes to how people vote, it's good to do it in a bipartisan way if you can. Great letter, Mary. Thank you. Lastly, this is from Andrea. Andrea writes this. Hi Mark. I think you're right about Platner and his similarity to Trump. Take away Trump's wealth and he's no different than Platner when it comes to the way they talk. I don't entirely disagree with what Pat Platner built his platform on. This is the main Senate candidate, of course, Graham Platner. I'm not for changing the energy industry, but it's probably time to have universal healthcare. The industry is so affected by the government already. But we have to figure out how to make sure we only do this for Americans. I also want to see Citizens United overturn. That's the big campaign finance law case. And this is a priority for him. So I don't really care if he is elected. I'd like to see the GOP keep the Senate so that Trump can replace Thomas and Alito before he goes. But otherwise the change might be good for the country. Let the impeachments commence because this is all the House will do when they get power, but it's better than passing bad laws. Andrea in Napa, California, Andra, really interesting email because your cross or mail, rather piece of mail because you're kind of across the board here. Very, very much like a lot of Americans. And contrary to the impression that the media paints sometimes that people are hard, hard R or hard D, red or blue. You got some nuance here. Andrew and I appreciate that. And we'll see about all the issues you raise, health care and Citizens United and control the Senate. All up for grabs. But I like the way he laid it out. All right, thank you to all our writers, tj, Brian, Mary, and Andrea for their insightful messages. The rest of you nexters out there, keep the messages coming, opportunity to be featured on the program the next time we do Mark the Mailman. And even if we don't feature you, I do enjoy hearing your thoughts. Thank you for writing in. All right, that's it for today's program. We'll be back on Thursday, a special episode celebrating the 4th of July. The special 4th July on America's 250th birthday. Have a lot of great prize surprises in store for you, including my monologue reported over the span of my career on America. Won't want to miss it, so subscribe to NextUp on YouTube wherever you get your podcast. Make sure you never miss an episode so you always know what's coming. Next up.

[Tinks]

Hi besties, it's Tinks. If you need a little inspo, a little tough love, or just someone to tell you that everything is going to be okay, come hang out with me on my podcast. It's Me Tanks. We talk dating, confidence, friendships, healing, leveling up and all the things we're working on together. I share my frameworks, your questions, and yes, plenty of chaotic stories. New episodes drop every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. So whether you're on your hot girl walk, commuting or hiding from your ex on Instagram, I've got you. Listen to It's Me Tanks wherever you get your podcasts.

[Mark Halpern]

Traditional home security only alerts you after a break in and that's too late. Simply Safe is changing that.

[Tim Rice]

Stop. This is Simply Safe. Police are on the way.

[Tinks]

We don't just alert, we stop crime before it starts.

[Mark Halpern]

Simplisafe plans starting around a dollar a day, save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com sxm or with promo code sxm Outdoor deterrence requires

[Tim Rice]

a Simplisafe Active Guard Outdoor Protection plan

[Benny Johnson]

starting at $49.99 a month.

[Tim Rice]

Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information. Tennessee 2012.