C (3:15)

I think on that question, you know, I'm going to invoke Justice Kagan's description, which I think is perfectly put. When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. And I think in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated, as is true of Casey, it would be particularly. It would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge.

A (3:43)

Invoking Justice Kagan, who of course was nominated by President Barack Obama when Joe Biden was vice president as well, and of course just glided through the US Senate with almost no issues whatsoever. Invoking Justice Kagan is a stroke of political genius by Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Now, mind you, they are trying to trap Amy Coney Barrett on this issue of Roe vs Wade. Now, Roe vs Wade was a decision that nationalized abortion. Now, Prior to Roe vs Wade, there were several states across the country that had outlawed abortion. The problem with Roe versus Wade is not even the issue of abortion. Abortion does stop a beating heart and abortion does terminate a human Life. The Roe vs. Wade overturned the state mandates. People did not vote for this. It was one of the most undemocratic decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. It basically nationalized the slaughter of innocent life. There's a 7, 2 decision. It was done by the Burger Court, the Warren Court, prior to the Burger Court, really set the landscape and set the framing for Roe vs. Wade. And what's happened since Roe vs. Wade, 60 million plus abortions in our country. It was a 7 to 2 decision. And the decision actually involved the case of a woman named Norma McCorvey. She used the pseudonym, of course, Jane roe, who in 1969 became pregnant with her third child. She wanted an abortion. She lived in Texas where abortion was illegal, and eventually sued her local district attorney, Henry Wade. This all kind of came under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. And any sort of honest observer can look back to Roe vs. Wade and can first of all see how it was an overreach of the courts. It was making policy. If you don't like abortion, then go petition your government, run for office and implement it through the laws and the correct channels. Don't use the courts to make America in your image. Amy Coney Barrett handled that beautifully and perfectly. Amy Coney Barrett said this again in the second answer where she's about what she will do on the court. She says, I cannot pre commit. This is exactly the right answer she should give.

C (6:08)

Cut to Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question, but again, I can't pre commit or say, yes, I'm going in with some agenda, because I'm not. I don't have any agenda. I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.

A (6:33)

And when she's talking about Casey, by the way, she's talking about a specific decision of Planned Parenthood versus Casey. It was a 1992 Supreme Court decision that revised and modified its legal rulings in Roe v. Wade. In Casey, the court upheld that Roe's holding that the woman's right to choose to have an abortion is constitutionally protected, but it abandoned the trimester framework in favor of basically a fetal viability. So there is kind of some nuance there. But the activist abortionists, they are so focused on this issue of can we terminate innocent life? It's almost an obsession. It's a. If you want to know the religion of the left, if you want to know the core dogma, you hear that Dianne Feinstein dogma, because the dogma lives loudly within you. Dianne Feinstein, of course, attacked Amy Coney Barrett in her hearings to become a federal judge, saying the dogma lives loudly inside of you because Amy Coney Barrett is a practicing and devout Catholic. But the dogma lives strongly with Einstein, who believes firmly that abortion is not just a constitutionally protected right, but it should be the forefront of the questioning against a judge. Dianne Feinstein, who of course had a Chinese driver for 25 years, never misses an opportunity to say something nice about the Chinese Communist Party or peddle their sort of talking points to turn our country against each other. Dianne Feinstein is the ultimate kind of mob boss leader, similar to Nancy Pelosi. We unpacked that in our podcast last week. But Dianne Feinstein just basically peddles whatever narrative is provided in front of her. Cut number six. Then Dianne Feinstein realized she's losing on the Roe versus Wade abortion issue, and she immediately goes to racial discrimination in the workforce. Play tape. Please explain what factors must be present for a policy based on race to violate Brown v. The board's prohibition of separate but equal. Well, let me ask you As a person, do you have a general belief?

C (8:53)

As a person? I have a general relief that racism is abhorrent.

A (8:57)

That racism is what?

C (8:59)

Abhorrent.

A (9:01)

I know that's a very big word for Dianne Feinstein, but abhorrent means that she finds it evil, unacceptable, no tolerance for it at all whatsoever. And so Dianne Feinstein is trying her best to trip up Amy Coney Barrett. And you can almost see a sense of defeat in the way that the Democrats have been handling this. They recognize and realize that if they mishandle this hearing, it could be a massive political boost for them, that it could be a huge political boost for the Republicans. I should say it could be a massive political hurt or hit to them. And so Dianne Feinstein tries the racial discrimination aspect of it. And it's interesting. Segregation is finding its way back into our country. We have black only dormitories on many university campuses across the country. They're pushing for black only math classes. Dianne Feinstein doesn't mention that in the state of California they are again doing black only learning centers. But Amy Coney Barrett's answer here was terrific. Despite what they're throwing at her, no matter what kind of attempts they are making to try to destroy her, Amy Coney Barrett is holding the line beautifully. And the Democrats know this. The Democrats know that they're not going to be able to pack the court. And we unpacked that in our previous discussion yesterday where we are talking about how the Democrats do not have the votes to be able to pack the court. And they know that this court in this certain sequence of politics is going to be a solidly conservative court. I want to talk to you guys about good ranchers. You heard me talk about them before. Their meat is terrific. They get delivered to you for free if you order@goodranchers.com Good Ranchers began with the standard of bringing top quality, 100% American born, raised and harvested meat to families across America. This vision was instilled into them from their grandparents that owned community grocery stores and believed in trust, charity and family values. GoodRanchers.com partners directly with only American ranchers from across the United States to bring the highest quality meat straight to your door. Don't waste your money on cheap cuts or overseas beef. Buy american@goodranchers.com Skip the grocery line. It's 100% American beef, chicken and more. Support American farmers and support the American economy. GoodRanchers.com delivers your favorite meals right to your front door. Perfect for grilling out or dinners at home. Go to goodranchers.com to view all their American beef and chicken packages. Use the promo code Charlie to save $20 off your purchase. That's goodranchers.com that's goodranchers.com promo code Charlie and save $20 for a limited time only. Goodranchers.com, promo code Charlie goodranchers.com, promo Code Charlie Senator Leahy asks Amy Coney Barrett if she would recuse herself from any election dispute. Play tape.

B (12:08)

Would you, to protect confidence in both you and the court, would you commit to recuse yourself from any dispute that rises out of the 2020 presidential election?

C (12:21)

I have had no conversation with the president or any of his staff on how I might rule in that case. It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment.

A (12:34)

So Senator Leahy is insinuating that Amy Coney Barrett is not in a position to rule on a potentially contested election because she was nominated by President Trump. He would also make the argument for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. However, Senator Leahy, would you ask Justice Sotomayor or Justice Kagan to not rule on this election because it was Vice President Biden that actually was the one that was vice president when they were nominated and confirmed to the U.S. supreme Court and it was Vice President Biden who is the head of the Senate. As the vice president of the United States, would you say that Breyer, that Justice Breyer shouldn't rule in this election? Senator Leahy. Because it was Justice Breyer who Joe Biden voted for when he was up in the US Senate. Joe Biden voted for him as a member of the Senate, didn't just nominate him. He went through advise and consent. And in fact, we can get a fact check on this. I would venture a guess, just based on the committees that Joe Biden sat on, that Breyer very well might have been in the committee that Joe Biden was chairing, or Joe Biden was a voting member of that committee. So Senator Leahy is trying to make a false connection here, a false insinuation that Amy Coney Barrett cannot be a federal Supreme Court justice and rule if she dare be nominated by a president who's involved in the election, even though the other person, the former Vice President Joe Biden voted for, oversaw new and has relationships with all of the Democrats who also sit on the U.S. supreme Court court. Amy Coney Barrett was asked about Donald Trump's ability to delay the general election. This is cut 12. Let's hear what she has to say about this. Right here. Playtape.

C (14:36)

Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my lock that clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion writing process. So, you know, if I give off the cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit. And I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.

A (15:04)

And so this is the perfect answer. You can see Dianne Feinstein is shifting her notes around. She couldn't get her on Roe vs Wade. She couldn't get her on a return to the Jim Crow era. She couldn't get. So Trump delaying the election. This is another conspiracy theory by the left. It's actually the Democrats that are delaying the election. It's the Democrats that are the ones that want to extend the period that mail in voting can be processed in Pennsylvania. Ballots that are received up to 10 days after the election will be counted. Voter registration deadlines have been kicked. Now another week in the state of Arizona. We are going up right up against the election. We are less than a month away. In fact, we are 20 something days away from the most important elections in 1860. And yet they still think that Donald Trump's gonna try to delay the election as if he has some sort of supreme power to do it, as if he would even do that or want to do that. And Amy Coney Barrett is taking all of America back to a constitutional course. The greatest political document ever written in the history of the world, one that protects natural rights, one that understands that government does not administer our rights, but God does. And for Democrats, this can be a very difficult thing to have to sit through because she is basically shredding and obliterating their entire worldview calmly, directly and factually. Because everything she's talking about is having judges not act as if they're activists, that judges should not seek celebrity. The judges should not be legal pundits. See, Democrats look at all things as institutions to make the superstructure in their image. That's why they look at Congress that way. They want to pack the courts, judges that way. Hollywood media, you name it. That's why they are so bothered by justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh. And that's also why they're having a very difficult time tripping up Amy Coney Barrett, because she will not indulge in conjecture. She will not entertain the hypothetical. Here's the thing about home security companies most trap you with high prices, tricky contracts and lousy customer support. Crime is going up in major cities. What are you doing to protect your home from criminals? That's why we partner with SimpliSafe. SimpliSafe has everything you need to protect your home with none of the drawbacks of traditional home security. It has an arsenal of sensors and cameras to blanket every room, window and door tailored specifically for your home. Professional monitoring keeps watch day and night ready to send police, fire and medical professionals if there is an emergency. You can set it up in under an hour. All of this starts for $15 a month. And we're not the only ones that think SimpliSafe is great. U.S. news World Report named it the best overall home security system of 2019. Try SimpliSafe today@simplisafe.com Charlie. You get free shipping and a 60 day risk free trial. There's nothing to lose. That's SimpliSafe.com Charlie. Senator Dick Durbin from my former home state of Illinois never, never misses an opportunity to make a fool of himself and insult the once great state of Illinois. Dick Durbin has been in set, has been in the US Senate for as long as I can remember, probably most of my lifetime. And he has done a poor job of representing our state, always racially demagoguing, attacking people of faith, going after businesses, taxpayers. And Illinois is a complete and total disaster because of that. And so Dick Durbin, in a very bizarre way in the Amy Coney Barrett hearings, he blames Chicago's crime in Indiana. I'm going to debunk this, but let's just play cut 15 of Senator Dick Durbin who, who just decides to bring up the Chicago crime tragedy which Democrats don't like talking about. He's done nothing to fix. In fact, just some numbers. Just in 2020, there have been 573 people shot and killed in Chicago just this year, 2,797 shot and wounded, 3,370 total shot and 628 total homicides. A person in Chicago is shot every 2 hours and 3 minutes and a person is murdered every 10 hours and 57 minutes. Dick Durbin wants to bring up crime in Chicago, blames on Indiana. Let's play tape. I'll tell you why he's lying.

B (19:34)

We know how it works where you live. You know how it works. There's a traffic between Chicago, northern Indiana and Michigan going on constantly. Gun shows are held in Gary, Indiana and other places. And when they are Selling these firearms without background checks. Unfortunately, these gang bangers and thugs fill up the trunks of their cars with firearms and head into the city of Chicago and kill everyone from infants to older people.

A (19:59)

This has been debunked many different times. If this was true, why is it that violent crime in Gary, Indiana, which is poorer than many neighborhoods in Chicago, which is lower cap. Lower, lower income per capita than many neighborhoods in Chicago, have far less rates of violent crime despite having more gun ownership per capita than Chicago? So what Senator Dick Durbin is trying to make, the argument is that in Chicago, despite the strictest gun laws in the entire country, it is basically illegal to own a firearm in the city of Chicago. There are zero gun stores in Chicago proper. That's right, zero. They don't even have firearm repair shops. You have to go out into the suburbs of Cook county and anywhere in Cook county, the second largest county in the country, it is next to impossible to own a firearm. I know it. I grew up there. And hello to all of you listening on AM560. The answer. But in order for Senator Dick Durbin's argument to be correct, in order for that to actually have some sort of empirical backing, wouldn't the crime rates of Indiana also be out of control? If it's true that all of a sudden these gun shows were leading to widespread regional crime and violence, why is it that Indiana has stable crimes of. Stable rates of violent crime, of gang violence now? They still have plenty of problems in Indianapolis. It's nowhere nearly as bad as Chicago. And the answer is very simple. It's because in Indiana, you can legally own those firearms. A armed citizenry is a safe country. You take the tale of two cities, Chicago and Houston. Houston, on average will have about 180 gun deaths per year. We'll get the most recent numbers, but I just read off the Chicago crime statistics. Why is it that Chicago has 573 people shot and killed just here in 2020? Just in October, 23 people shot and killed. 138 people shot and wounded. 161 people total shot with 24 total total homicides. Reason number one, there has not been a Republican mayor of Chicago since 1931. It's one party rule. There is one cartel that runs the city of Chicago and that party has intentionally made sure that the population of Chicago is illiterate, that police are not welcome in certain neighborhoods, that black fathers are not in the home, and they took away anyone that wanted to defend themselves. Capacity to legally own a firearm. So if you take away the freedom to legally own a firearm. Who's still going to own a firearm? That's right, the bad guys. However, a bad guy is far less likely to engage in widespread public and blatant criminal activity if the citizenry is armed. You see this in states all across the country that are open carry. States such as Texas, Houston and Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada. Yes, they still have plenty of issues at times with gang violence. However, it is not as widespread in Chicago. It is killing fields in Chicago that Senator Dick Durbin oversees. He's acting as if this is just a stated fact. They come here with these gun show loopholes. And first of all, the gun show loophole has been completely debunked. It's been debunked multiple times. That according to federal law, it does take a processing background check of some sort that if you are a felon, if you have some form of a violent record, it should register in a national gun database. Should. And it's up to the firearm dealer to go through that. What Senator Durbin is really getting at though is that he wants the entire region of the Midwest to embrace the failed gun control policies of Chicago that result in hundreds of black people getting murdered every single year. I know this is a complex argument for the anti freedom, pro control Democrats, but actually when you allow people to protect themselves, violent crime goes down. When you allow police to go into neighborhoods and to do their job, then all of a sudden violent crime goes down. And here's a question I have for Senator Dick Durbin. Senator Dick Durbin is marching alongside BLM Incorporated. Senator Durbin alongside Lori Lightfoot and Senator Tammy Duckworth from Illinois were very quick to say that we should challenge police officers. I don't know if they went as far to say that they should defund the police, but I'm sure that they were, they were cozying up to those that wanted to defund the police and that they were allowing that to go unchallenged. In the city of Chicago, they allowed BLM Incorporated to riot, to loot, to steal from 600 black owned businesses. Here's my question for Senator Dick Durbin. And the Democrats cannot answer this question. So they want, they don't want law abiding citizens to be able to own firearms. He's making that very clear. And they also don't want the police to have firearms. Who on earth do you think should have firearms? Dick Durbin? Who's gonna go take all these guns away from the bad guys if they're there? If there's no police and at this moment you kind of see the Democrats all of a sudden contradict themselves. It's, we actually want to regulate the amount of firearms in society, but we also want to get rid of the police. I'll tell you who's gonna fill that void. When there is a power vacuum, hierarchies will still exist and really bad people will fill those vacuums. Mostly gang leaders, cartel leaders, and people that do not have society's best interests at heart. And so you also go down to the root causes of crime. In Chicago, it was the destruction of black owned businesses. In South Chicago, it was the deindustrialization movement, because Senator Dick Durbin and many other people alongside him were very happy to cozy up the Chinese Communist Party, where good, strong manufacturing jobs that employed millions of black people across the country were shipped overseas to Wuhan. And instead, black people, I mean anyone who worked in the manufacturing sector were given a little bit of severance and they were given government benefits in exchange. Senator Dick Durbin is acting as if Amy Coney Barrett should know this because she lives in Indiana. Indiana is abundantly more safe and peaceful. Infinitely. Not infinitely, but it is distinctly more safe than the city of Chicago. It's because they allow legal ownership of firearms. And also in Indiana, they've had much better governors and much better politics than Illinois. Illinois is $205 billion in structural debt. Illinois is now entertaining another tax hike. JB Pritzker, the spoiled brat that runs the state of Illinois. He was born on 30, thought he hit a triple. He's never done anything meaningful in his life. He inherited the Pritzker family fortune and now is destroying Illinois as his new hobby. Spent $111 million to become governor of Illinois so he could run it into the ground. His net worth has gone up. He's doing quite well because of the lockdowns. His crowning achievement now is legalizing marijuana in the state of Illinois and allowing Chicago to become a scene of black on black crime, the likes of which our country has never seen before. And so Senator Dick Durbin opens up a topic that I don't think Democrats actually are prepared to interface on, which is urban violence. Democrats run all the cities in our country, absent one or two that have a very rare Republican mayor. Democrats control these inner cities and the Democrats in power continue to get rich while their citizens, while the people they oversee struggle. There's a great quote by Sun Tzu. It says an evil enemy will burn his own nation to the ground just to rule over the ashes. That is Senator Dick Durbin. He doesn't care what happens in Chicago. He wants the country to be completely disintegrated as long as he's in control. Same with Nancy Pelosi. Same as Senator Kamala Harris. All they want is power. They don't care if everything that was created before them that had meaning, that had value, that gave people dignity. They couldn't care less if the country around them disintegrates or vanishes. In fact, Senator Dick Durbin has done absolutely nothing to address black on black crime in the city of Chicago. And he's acting as if Amy Coney Barrett should just know, as a matter of fact, that the gun shows are contributing to this. It's not true. It has been widely debunked, repeatedly. In fact, I've written multiple essays on this. And the issue of guns hasn't exactly been on the forefront of the American zeitgeist in the last seven months. But I will tell you that American, that there have been over 1,900,000 new gun sales just since the Chinese coronavirus lockdown in our country. That's actually a very good sign for Donald Trump, by the way. Very good sign. I can't imagine that a lot of those people are going to go out of their way to go vote for Senator Kamala Harris. The Democrats are very afraid that there will be a revolt on their hands of black Americans, Hispanics and middle class Americans that actually might start to challenge the Democrat power complex. If you want to keep a citizenry down, if you want to keep a population controlled, keep them illiterate. If you look at where the Democrats have the most amount of power, it is the most illiterate, unsafe and fatherless populations in the country. There has not been a Republican mayor of Atlanta since the 1800s. And so if you dive even deeper into what is driving these cities and why this is happening, it is because the Democrat powermasters are unafraid to demagogue based on race. But they do nothing to actually solve the structural problems in the inner cities of our country. Nothing. In fact, they actually make it worse. Lori Lightfoot panders to the worst aspects of society. You see clearly how Democrat policies have ruined once great American cities and Chicago's just one of them. You now look at New York, you look at San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles. These cities are crumbling underneath us. Democrats are trying their best to attack Amy Coney Barrett. She's doing it with no notes. In fact, they asked her to hold up what she's been referencing throughout the hearing and she holds up a blank piece of paper. Joe Biden needs a teleprompter to introduce his wife. By the way, I guess Joe Biden is running for the Senate. I don't know if you guys heard about this. Let's play tape cut number five. As our team pulls it up, Joe Biden announces that he is running for the United States Senate. Play tape.

B (31:44)

You know we have to come together.

A (31:45)

That's why I'm running. I'm running as a proud Democrat for the Senate. People are voting for him, millions of people. He's probably going to win the popular vote. So Joe Biden can't remember if he's running for the Senate or the presidency, doesn't know what day Super Tuesday is on, calls it Super Thursday, confuses his wife with his sister, forgets what president he served with. Yet Amy Coney Barrett just comes up with no notes. Why? There's a great expression that says it very clearly. Tell the truth. It's easier to remember. For Amy Coney Barrett, this is built into her. This is her DNA. Being a textual constitutionalist, she doesn't need notes, she doesn't need references, she doesn't need one liners. For her, this is what she's built for. She's a fighter for liberty. She's a admirer of the United States Constitution, understands the proper role of Article 3 in the Judiciary, and she's unafraid to stand for truth. And as I'm saying this, Sheldon Whitehouse is doing whatever Sheldon Whitehouse does, demagoguing and lying. I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to unpack that. And the Democrats here are in a very interesting political position. Senator Harris and Joe Biden have refused to really lay a glove on Amy Coney Barrett. It'll be very interesting when Senator Harris gets an opportunity to ask Amy Coney Barrett questions because Amy Coni Barrett is actually popular in the swing states. I call this the Republican trinity of Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Amy Coney Barrett. The more television time she can get, the more time that she can have in front of swing voters and voters of faith, the better politically. If I were to venture a guess, Senate Democrats are going to start very disciplined and eventually they are going to try shenanigans and antics and tactics because the only recourse they have is to baselessly, baselessly say they are going to pack the courts. They do not have the votes they do not have. They are not going to build their majority that decisively to be able to pack the courts. And we will not let that happen. There will be a grassroots revolt against Democrat senators across the country if they dare pack the courts. Just because we don't like that Donald Trump got elected when Hillary Clinton was supposed to win. That's why all this is happening, by the way. And for anyone out there that says, I don't really like Donald Trump, if you like Amy Coni, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and 200 circuit court judges, the only reason why Amy Coney Barrett is there right now and not some young Marxist revisionist activist, why is Amy Coney Barrett going through hearings right now? Why is Amy Coney Barrett the one that is answering questions and not Sotomayor? Why is ACB and not AOC being sworn in for the trying to get in the Supreme Court? It's because Donald Trump won. We take this for granted. And I'm visiting the country. We're in Florida. We were in Texas yesterday. We're all across the country. And I have Christian conservatives coming up to me and they say, I don't really know if I want the Trump thing. Doesn't really matter if he loses. That is the definition of not being thankful or understanding the incredible disruption in the gift we were given in the election of Donald Trump. Win or lose, Donald Trump will have reshaped the judiciary in a constitutional image more so than any one of those other corporate Republicans ever would. His defeat of Hillary Clinton and being able to fill the Supreme Court with constitutionalists is only because he was able to win. And yet some Republicans right now are going out of their way to distance themselves from Trump and trying to say we don't need Trump. It's the only reason this is happening, only reason that you're able to actually have a Supreme Court. That will be a check against tyranny if Trump were to lose. God forbid. This right here, Amy Coney, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas Roberts is a write off. Let him go be a Democrat. Who cares? Let him go be an activist. That is your firewall against tyranny. That is your guardian. That is your bulwark for liberty and freedom in the Constitution. And you love Trump. You hate Trump. You're indifferent to Trump. If you love the country, you should love the fact that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton and acb, not aoc, is being sworn in for the US Supreme Court. Not sworn in yet, but we'll be prayerful and be disciplined. But she's on the way to be confirmed to the US Supreme Court. Elections have consequences. When running a business, HR issues can absolutely kill you. Wrongful termination Suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations and more. Are you a small business owner looking to save money on hr? HR manager salaries are not cheap. I can tell you from personal experience they're an average of $70,000 a year. Bambi spelled B A M B E E was created specifically for small business. You can get a dedicated HR Manager, Craft HR Policy and maintain your compliance all for just $99 a month. With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength. Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email or real time chat month to month. There are no hidden fees. Cancel anytime you didn't start your business because you wanted to spend time on HR compliance. Let Bambi help. Get your free HR audit today. Go to bambi.comkirk right now to schedule your free HR audit. That's bambi.comkirk spelled bam to the be.comkirk I was watching Sheldon Whitehouse go all conspiracy. I think he should be hosting a radio program from 3am to 6am and his entire, his entire kind of mantra is trying to hit the alleged conservative dark money out there. Despite he never talks about the billions of dollars from labor unions, $370 million from Tom Steyer, the $18 billion open SOC billion dollars from bank of America, $400 million in PepsiCo, all going to left wing causes, not to mention the dark money going to the Sierra Club, the dark money going to the aclu, all that multiple billions of dollars. But he's just concerned that conservative business people are actually contributing to have constitutionalists in the legal system. But for him, he's got whiteboards all over the place. Let's play tape. And then I'm actually going to show you the kind of let's the level deeper of what he's actually doing. We have a tape here of Sheldon Whitehouse. He's got all these foam boards, he's fumbling all over himself. Let's play tape.

B (38:30)

Million dollars. Somebody deserves a thank you.

A (38:36)

So let's go on to Roe v. Wade.

B (38:41)

Same thing. Same thing. The President has said that reversing Roe

A (38:50)

v. Wade will I think he needs some more foam boards and whiteboards. Sheldon Whitehouse has always been the chief conspiracy theorist of the Democrat power structure. He has always been the one that has been the most vocal. He has always been the one that has been the most aggressive. And by the way, what George Soros has been doing with district attorney races across the country and pushing critical race theory in our schools through this New York Times, the 1619 Project is way more deserving of deep investigative journalism, allegedly, than trying to figure out whether or not that lawyers and business people and successful philanthropists have been worried that the courts have become instruments of judicial activism. And so Sheldon Whitehouse, I think, is still talking and bloviating. At least he's talking. And Amy Coney Barrett doesn't have to say anything in response to it. He's got 922 different foam boards and throws them all over himself. Sheldon Whitehouse actually is funded by dark money himself. He has incredible hypocrisy when it comes to dark money. He's trying to portray himself as a warrior against this stuff. But since 2015, the League of Conservation Voters has been Senator Whitehouse's largest donor, contributing $187,000 dark money. Since the 2006 election cycle, Sheldon Whitehouse has received at least $17,000 from Tom Steyer, and he attended a fundraiser from the Democrat Senatorial Committee. Senator Whitehouse credited dark money as the reason he was able to raise so much money during his 2018 campaign. Senator Whitehouse has actively sought donations from dark money groups, such like Demand justice that took the lead against Judge Kavanaugh. And Senator Whitehouse even spoke out against dark money groups at an event hosted by groups the center for American Progress and the American Constitutional Society, all funded by dark money. If you guys understand the left and you understand Democrats, they are always projecting. They are the ones that always harbor the issues and they project them upon you. It is an exercise in psychological projection, the likes of which it's very hard to ever see as clearly as the Democrat Party. Those ones that say that you're racist, they're the ones that want to divide you based on skin color. They're the ones that pander to BLM Incorporated. They are the ones that time and time again and repeatedly double and triple down when it comes to dividing people based on skin color. And so Sheldon Whitehouse is still going on and he's drawn circles and charts. I just love how Sheldon Whitehouse needed 50 plus foam boards to make an incomplete point. But Amy Coney Barrett comes up with no notes whatsoever. It's really Senator Ted Cruz just made a phenomenal point in the confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett. Do you notice that all these Democrat senators are doing the talking and Amy Coney Barrett is not? Because there's nothing to attack. She just believes in the Constitution. She answers the questions very gently and directly and basically says honestly, my role as a judge is not to conjecture, it's not to speculate, it's not to hypothesize. I'll have to look at the briefings, look at the rulings, talk to my colleagues and come to a decision. Now, mind you, if there was an activist sitting there like a liberal judge, the questions would be completely different. The questions would be, since you do believe in a living Constitution, what does that mean? Textualist and originalist confirmation hearings should be kind of easy and breezy, whereas Kagan and Sotomayor, Breyer and judges in that image should. It's very important if they believe in a living Constitution. Where exactly do you draw those lines? Where do rights come from? What is the significance of a government? A Constitution is a structure. It actually literally means structure. What do you find objectionable about the US Constitution? All these questions would be asked if there was a activist judge. Amy Coney Barrett's worldview as a judge, what she will do is very simple. What the text says. It's not that difficult to kind of read into it. Where Sotomayor and Kagan, they rule on what they want the world to look like, not what the text actually says. And some people with good intentions, they say, well, why wouldn't you want the judges to make the world a better place? First of all, it completely invalidates the legislative branch. That's number one. Number two, the proper role of a judge is not to insert their bias. It is to play referee over what the law that was passed and the law of the land and whether or not it should be allowed to stand. That's why a judge exists in the federal court system. Same when it comes to criminal charges, due process, briefs that are filed, the capacity to be able to hear witnesses. Judges are supposed to be able to mitigate differences. We get the idea of judges. There's an entire book dedicated in the Bible to judges. But the idea of fair hearing under the law is a biblical idea. Cut 14 where Amy Coney Barrett was asked about George Floyd. Not exactly sure what George Floyd has to do with a Supreme Court nomination hearing. None. Nevertheless, that's where Democrats are going. Let's play tape of cut 14 in

B (44:13)

the George Floyd video I have. What impact did it have on you,

C (44:21)

Senator, as you might imagine, given that I have two black children, that was very, very personal for my family. Jesse was with the boys on a camping trip out in South Dakota. So I was there and my 17 year old daughter Vivian, who's adopted from Haiti, all of this was erupting. It was very difficult for her. We wept together in my room. And then it was also difficult for my daughter Julia, who's 10. I had to try to explain some of this to them. I mean, my children to this point in their lives have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence. And for Vivian, you know, to understand that there would be a risk to her brother or the son she might have one day of that kind of brutality has been an ongoing conversation. It's a difficult one for us like it is for Americans all over the country.

A (45:23)

I don't think Senator Dick Durbin necessarily expected an answer like that. And so the Democrats are now continuing a barrage of different attacks to see what sticks. And they're being very careful because Amy Coney Barrett is very popular in the eyes of the American people. Amy Coney Barrett has high popularity. Amy Coney Barrett is a woman of faith, adopted two children and the mother of five. It's not a good look for Democrats to go out of the way here to attack her. Instead of they're going to attack the process, they're going to try to attack Trump, and they're going to focus all on health care together. And let me be very clear. I hope Amy Coney Barrett rules correctly and constitutionally to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Affordable Care act or Obamacare was unconstitutional from the beginning. And in fact, if you guys just stay tuned right here, go to charliekirk.com let's go back in the time machine. We are going to build out how and why Obamacare is unconstitutional. I got my political start fighting against Obamacare. I got my political start in 2011, even earlier 2010 campaigning against the Affordable Care Act. Here's just some quick facts on Obamacare for those of you that just forget. Number one, there's over 27 new taxes in Obamacare. Medical excise tax, the individual mandate was a tax got repealed thanks to the Trump tax cut, which is really at the heart of the entire discussion here. We'll get to that in just a second. But Obamacare was passed illegally. Obamacare should have required 60 votes from the US Senate, but it passed without that. You might remember that Senator Ted Kennedy passed unexpectedly, triggering a special election in Massachusetts. Scott Brown, Republican, ran in Massachusetts against the idea of nationalized and socialized health care. And Scott Brown won. He later lost to Senator Elizabeth Warren, but Scott Brown won that seat based on a referendum issue on health care. Democrats still passed it with 59 or 58 votes in the U.S. senate. How? Well, because they were able to say that Obamacare is deficit neutral, which according to Senate rules, you could post things Europe can pass bills that don't borrow with less than 60 votes in the US Senate. Of course it passed the House by Nancy Pelosi back then when she was speaker of the House. And she said we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. And we found out there was a lot of garbage in Obamacare. In fact, it just nearly destroyed our entire American health care system. It was quickly challenged in the courts after it was signed into law by President Barack Obama and then Vice President Joe Biden who then turned to Obama and said this is a big effin deal. You might remember that clip went totally viral. And then the court challenges began. The most famous court challenge was just referenced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was the National Federation of Independent Businesses versus Sebelius. Sebelius was of course Kathleen Sebelius. She was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. She's probably best known for screwing up the Obamacare website. That's what Kathleen Sebelius lifelong legacy will be. In fact, I think she's originally from Kansas if I'm not mistaken. And yes, that is true. She's originally from Kansas. She was the governor of Kansas before she became head of HHS under Obama. And so there are a lot of lawsuits against Obamacare to try to unravel it for good reason. It was a monstrosity. It would change 16 of the American economy. It would disrupt the way that people would get patient provided care. And when you look at health care, you have to divide into a couple different buckets. There's price, delivery of care and the actual quality of the care. And there's health insurance. Obamacare did not tackle health care. This is the biggest lie about Obamacare. Obamacare tackled health insurance. Big difference. It did not tackle prices, it didn't tackle quality, it didn't tackle any of that stuff. Instead it addressed directly health insurance, whether or not people would be able to have insurance or what insurance they could have to be able to pay for health care. What ended up as a somewhat, you know, nice sounding argument by President Barack Obama got all muddied up throughout Congress as big pieces of legislation typically do. I am of the opinion that Obamacare was never designed to work. It is my opinion that Obamacare was designed to destroy the American health care system to overwhelm the Medicaid rolls. Medicaid is health insurance for the poor. Medicare as health insurance for the elderly. It was, it is my belief that it was so unsustainably overwhelming that Obamacare was designed to break the American private and the private health care system so that eventually we can get single payer. Now you're starting to see demands and calls for that because Obamacare was so overwhelming. But it didn't go without a fight. Obamacare is an 800 plus page bill signed into law and it got challenged in every single direction by business people, small business people, little sisters of the poor, you name it. Every direction came after Obamacare and sued it to the highest courts. One in particular, as I mentioned, the National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius made it all the way up to the US Supreme Court. I remember being a senior in high school, watching this piece of legislation work its way up. And I also remember posting on Facebook, in fact, we could probably pull this up from my personal Facebook in a future episode of our program where I predicted that Obamacare would be upheld. Why did I say that? Because the day before the ruling, Barack Obama posted on his campaign website, we are proud of Obamacare. There was an 18 year old at the time said, why would Obama, the president, be posting a new website on his new post on his website about how proud he is of Obamacare if the Supreme Court was about to knock it down? And then. Which surprised everyone, but not me. John Roberts came out in a 5, 4 decision saying that the Affordable Care act or Obamacare was constitutional. Now his, his reasoning in this, his justification was clumsy at best. He said that the individual mandate which is the heart of Obamacare, the, the glue that kept Obamacare together was this idea that we are going to mandate people to buy health insurance whether you like it or not. There's also some provisions that ended up being pretty popular. The pre existing conditions clause, which could have been done with a couple sentences to fix the HIPAA portability issue in our health care system. And also allowing your children to stay on the health care plan until 26. I don't actually think that's been a good idea. I think it's actually prolonged the maturation process for young people in our country. However, that's a different topic for a different time. But the core of Obamacare was the individual mandate. It was everything. And so that's where the National Federation of Independent Businesses versus Sebelius went after. And John Roberts argued, using the Commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause powers that it should stand 5, 4 decision saying it was a tax. Now that goes directly opposite to how Barack Obama described Obamacare as a tax. Now, Mitt Romney came out to run against Barack Obama in 2012 and very clumsily and sloppily made a case against Obamacare. Why? Because Mitt Romney was the architect of Obamacare. Mitt Romney did Obamacare in Massachusetts, and it was Romneycare. So when Obama said that it was your health care system, he was right. We didn't say it back then. It was eight years ago. He was on our team. He was wearing our jersey. But Mitt Romney, he believed in it. I mean, he believed in the Jonathan Gruber, Ezekiel Emanuel, Cass Sunstein model of government, that you can kind of run government better because we're the corporate types, right? Like, we shipped a bunch of jobs overseas to China. We know how to run corporations. Why shouldn't we be able to run health care? And Mitt Romney was always not trusted by the conservative base on the issue of health care, which is one of the reasons why Mitt Romney lost and Barack Obama was decisively reelected in 2012. President Trump wins, surprisingly, in 2016, passes the Trump tax cut. One of the things that got snuck into the Trump tax cut in a good way was the repealing of the individual mandate. The repealing of the individual mandate, alongside a lot of other good things that were in that Trump tax cut, allowed people to say, if I do not want to take this certain level of insurance, I do not have to. Huge win for young people. Huge win for healthy young people. It is a win for liberty and freedom. So then, once the individual mandate got removed, once the individual mandate got extracted from Obamacare, all of these other legal challenges are now made possible. And that's where we get this very wonky and nuanced challenge of California versus Texas. Now, without overly building it out, here's as simply and as plainly as I can say it, California versus Texas is a decision that it's about severability. And also now that the individual mandate has been pulled out, it's about the constitutionality of the rest of the law. Because now, once the individual mandate got removed, the question will remain whether or not we should throw out the rest of the bill on other constitutional means. And so Amy Coney Barrett is being pressed by Democrat Senator, Democrat Senator on how she would rule on this. And so I think we have tape on this. Can we go to cut 18, please? On Amy Coney Barrett talking about Obamacare with that necessary background that we just went through, Play tape.

C (55:15)

When I wrote, and this was as a law professor, about those decisions, I did critique the statutory interpretation of the majority opinions. And as I mentioned before, my description of them was consistent with the way that Chief Justice Roberts described the statutory question. But I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning that I'm hostile to the ACA and that because I'm hostile to the ACA that I would decide a case a particular way. And I assure you that I am not.

A (55:54)

That's exactly the right answer. Is that as a judge, you should not be hostile to any piece of legislation. That's our job. We're activists, we're not judges. I don't know if hostile is the right term, but definitely opposed would be a good term. And so Democrats hear the only line of reasoning and questioning that they have in this whole hearing. He's trying to fear monger to people that they will lose their health care if Judge Amy Coney Barrett gets put on the United States Supreme Court. And now whether I can't comment on whether or not that will actually be true, I can tell you that we expanded our Medicaid roles way too dramatically under Obamacare. I actually think it would be a good thing to get people off of the Medicaid rolls and back into the private insurance markets. That's why we need health insurance across state lines. We need transparency and pricing. When you go to a hospital, we need more competition. We need to challenge the hospital and pharmaceutical lobby. We need to be able to have favored nation clause with pharmaceuticals in our country. And if you go back in time, Barack Obama said clearly that it was not a tax, but John Roberts said it was a tax. The quality of your health care will go up if the Affordable Care act or Obamacare gets repealed. More innovation, more breakthroughs. And also you will be in charge of your health care, not some government bureaucrat. Jonathan Gruber, who is the architect of Obamacare, said clearly that he thought you were too stupid to make decisions. He said it himself. The chief architect of Obamacare is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, who is the former chief of staff to Barack Obama and the former mayor of Chicago. And Ezekiel Emanuel said it very clearly that he believes the more people on government dependence, the more people on government health care, the better. Here's Barack Obama that was lying, bold faced. Lying to the American people about Obamacare being a tax playtape.

B (57:46)

Under this mandate, the government is forcing

A (57:48)

people to spend money fining you.

B (57:50)

If you don't, how is that not a tax? For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you.

A (58:07)

And yet Chief Justice Roberts said that it is a tax. It absolutely is a tax. Barack Obama said, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. That ended up being a lie. No new taxes. 27 medical excite, 27 different taxes. And we can go through all the different taxes. There is taxes on equipment, there's a taxes on purchasing, there's taxes on all sorts of different things when it comes to health care. Obamacare was the largest tax increase in American history. That's right. Obamacare was the largest tax increase in American history. We would never have been able to dream of a time to restore to individual liberty and freedom like we do right now. Thanks to Amy Coney Barrett. She's handling these hearings phenomenally well. The Democrats know that she's winning and they're losing as always. Email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com freedomarliekirk.com Amy Coney Barrett continues her phenomenal hearing and Democrats are just continuing to run endless circles trying to chart together dark money or Amy Klobuchar is not in the blizzard currently, so that's good for her trying to attack Amy Coney Barrett on some baseless point. Amy Coney Barrett is gliding through these hearings wonderfully. I don't expect anything else or less than that from her. She's been phenomenal, articulate, and I believe will be a phenomenal Supreme Court Justice. Antonin Scalia in 2011 said he was not optimistic about the direction of the court. Nine years later, all of a sudden we have a constitutional majority, soon to be permanent and decisive constitutional majority. How did that happen? It happened because Republicans started to care about winning elections, not just corporate Republican types. But if Mitch McConnell would not have won in 2014 and Donald Trump would not have won in 16 and McConnell did not advance the majorities in 18, none of this would be happening. The Democrats hyper politicized the courts well before the Republicans. They hyper politicized the courts back in the Warren Court, back in the Burger Court. And while the country was more conservative than it was today, you had very, very liberal activists on the court. They saw that as their immediate entry point to make America into their left wing image. We as constitutionalists or conservatives were kind of taken back by this. And it took us many decades to get smart about the type of judges that we need to appoint to the US Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito. And over time I think there's been some course correction, but none of it would have been possible if President Donald Trump did not win the election. So President Donald Trump's in a very tough reelection fight right now. I get asked this question all the time, is he going to win? Is he going to win? And everyone asks for a different reason. But some people ask for a very specific reason. They're asking because they want permission to give up. They ask because they want a green light to stop fighting. Let me be very clear. It is completely irrelevant to how hard you fight, whether he wins or loses. And better yet, what are you doing right now to make sure that he wins? What are you doing to knock on doors, make phone calls, chip in some money, bring friends to the polls, register voters to make sure that President Donald Trump wins reelection? There are certain demographics right now that the President is struggling with. 60 plus voters. He's actually doing very well with Hispanics. He's doing better with black voters. He's doing better with young mothers than anyone could have possibly imagined. Of course, he has a very strong rural base. He's going to do better with younger voters. The one demographic that President Donald Trump is struggling with is senior citizens is older voters. There's many reasons for this, the virus being one of them. I think it would help if the cnn, the conspiracy News network, would actually air the recent revelations from the World Health Organization about how lockdowns do not work and the mistakes that were made. President Donald Trump needs your help right now. He does. He's being outgunned, he's being outspent, he's being out flanked on every, every way you could imagine. Think back to 2016. You say, I didn't trust the polls in 16, I don't trust them now. Well, we have early voting results that are coming in that should concern you, that should motivate you to do something. And if you just think that you could just scoff it off and do nothing, and all of a sudden President Donald Trump's gonna win in November, you're wrong. It's gonna take a massive amount of human action right now because President Donald Trump has to close very strong and very hard. And he's a great finisher when it comes to campaigns. I wouldn't want to run up against him. He campaigns more, he's able to get on a message. But there's a lot of people motivated to remove Donald Trump, and especially the ruling class in this country, especially the elites and the elitists in our country, because Amy Coney Barrett never should have been filling this seat. That bothers them like you can't believe. And she's only there because of President Trump. The 200 federal judges are only there because of President Trump. The embassy in Jerusalem is only there because of President Trump. The Golan Heights are recognized only because of President Trump. All of their globalist schemes eroding our borders, destroying our sovereignty, all of that is disrupted by President Trump. We need every single person on deck engaged right here to help reelect President Donald Trump. Thank you guys so much for listening. Check out charliekirk.com we'll be back tomorrow with more. Check out our podcast for some exclusive interviews. Thank you guys so much for listening. See you tomorrow. Thanks so much for listening everybody. What a fun episode that was. Amy Coney Barrett, please consider supporting us at CharlieKirk. That gives us the ammunition and the resources to reach millions of young people to spread the message@charliekirk.com support. Email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com freedomarliekirk.com if you want to get involved with Turning Point USA where we play offense with a sense of urgency to win America's culture war, go to tpusa.com tpusa.com thanks so much for listening, everybody. Talk to you soon. God bless.